I been looking at videos from July and august of 1971 of PC flexible van mail trains through Cleveland. My question is why did they carry both rider coaches and a cabboose at the end of the train?
Were these trains only for Flexivan mail sevice? Possibly, with the entrance of Amtrak, PC wished to accomodate deadhead company business riders on its own trains instead of Amtrak's. Possibly the coach was for deadhead riders on company business, and the caboose for the conductor and brakemen. Also, there is the possibility that a Post Office man had to accompany the train and required a coach seat.
Maybe,doubt that a postal service employee would have to accompany containerized mail. But who knows with the post office. One would doubt if PC would provide a coach on a high priority mail trains for dead heading employees.
Did the train perhaps split down the line -- as at Cleveland, with sections for Chicago and St. Louis? (Still doesn't explain the coach instead of a second caboose.)
Also, were both cars bringing up the rear, for sure, or was one cut in up ahead somewhere? On a freight out of Omaha, the U.P. used to have a second caboose ahead of the boxcar of mail (and caboose) they dropped at Cheyenne. (Got the train on its way again faster.)
pc certainly had plenty of coaches surplus, so why would not they provide one for deadheading employees on company business?
daveklepper pc certainly had plenty of coaches surplus, so why would not they provide one for deadheading employees on company business?
Because the typical PC caboose would be too crowded with deadheads and a Post Office man riding along with the crew. And one or more of the deadheads might have been a woman.
Lots of ifs. Why would a postal employee be required to ride any way? containerized mail is supposed to reduce expenses and be more secure.I don't think they required postal workers to ride along with mail in mail storage cars. Did the post office require workers to ride shot gun on trucks that hauled mail? Or on air planes?
And certainly the PC could not afford to provide coaches on trains to haul dead heading employees.
daveklepper Because the typical PC caboose would be too crowded with deadheads and a Post Office man riding along with the crew. And one or more of the deadheads might have been a woman.
Too many to fit in the caboose still stands. You may have a point on the facilities for operating employees who are women, engineers, conductors, trainment. But a freight representative, billling clerk, or any the female version of the whte collar mail crowd, may want facilities separate enoiugh to attend to appearance.
So where did all these people ride when cabboses were eliminated? Did they have his and her locomotives ( lol )
The cabooses with which I was familiar, on U.P., had room for plenty of deadheads. They were set up "double": with desks and wall seats at either end, and seats upstairs on both sides of the cupola. (That way the cabooses didn't need to be turned.)
My memory is a bit vague on this, but I do remember a PRR mail train that operated over the Bernice Cutoff (Chicago-Louisville?) that carried both a rider coach and a caboose on the rear end.
PRR may have been the only railroad that listed cabooses in the Passenger Equipment Register.
daveklepper Too many to fit in the caboose still stands. You may have a point on the facilities for operating employees who are women, engineers, conductors, trainment. But a freight representative, billling clerk, or any the female version of the whte collar mail crowd, may want facilities separate enoiugh to attend to appearance.
Sounds like you are pushing for a revival of yet another piece of rail nostalgia: the archaic mixed train.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCHMy memory is a bit vague on this, but I do remember a PRR mail train that operated over the Bernice Cutoff (Chicago-Louisville?) that carried both a rider coach and a caboose on the rear end.
I have to wonder if this has something to do with full-crew law implementation. Might be that a union agreement mandates certain accommodations be attached to the train for some of its run, accommodations not found in a rider coach (for example, clear visibility of the train), but not for other parts of the run. Even researching this is above my knowledge, but I suspect looking at the relevant labor agreements will be a useful starting place.
Wiz you might be on to something, a labor agreement might be it.
.
ROBERT WILLISON Wiz you might be on to something, a labor agreement might be it.
Might also be state laws. I'm not familiar with the specific operation we're discussing but I worked for PC at that time ('67 - '74) and I know some states, particularly Indiana, had some very interesting laws regarding train consists.
ChuckAllen, TX
Good point
Cabooses were "Cabin Cars" in PRR parlance....
In the years before Amtrak I remember being at the station in Effingham, IL and seeing a "mail train" on many occasions going south/west to St Louis with one or two coachs and a caboose at that end of a long line of head end cars.
PC inherited a bunch of odd labor agreements, and the coach may have been part of that. PRR had a mail train that operated out of Chicago Union Station in the 1960s that carried a caboose as part of its labor agreement, though it often operated with E-units and passenger-type mail cars.
The cabin car (caboose) was for company employees, the rider coach (or coaches) were used for non-railroad personnel, employees of the shippers using that train, who were forbidden contractually and by railroad rules from riding in the caboose. These people were involved in providing security for valuable cargo being transported by mail train. Some RPOs and baggage cars had areas for "riders" to ride along with their shipment, negating the need for a separate car. Hope that helps.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.