>
> By permission of Hol Wagner:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *from:* Wagner, Hol
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:22 AM
> *Subject:* C&S Coach
>
> Mike:
>
> I don’t usually interject myself into online conversations such as the
> ongoing one over the coach body you have acquired, but there is so
> much misinformation floating around out there that I feel obligated to
> set things as straight as possible. “Why me?,” you’re probably asking.
> I’m not trying to set myself up as the ultimate authority on things
> C&S, but I’m probably in a better position than most in that regard. I
> researched and authored “The Colorado Road” back in 1971 – a detailed
> history of the motive power and equipment of the C&S and its
> subsidiary companies. In doing so, I researched all railroad records
> still held by the company and accessible at the time dealing with
> equipment and compiled rosters based on that information. There was no
> information in those records, however, on renumbering from predecessor
> road numbers. Since that time, however, vast quantities of records
> stored in the Denver shops have been saved by the Colorado Railroad
> Museum and are now accessible for research. And, since 2004, I have
> been researching another volume, “Colorado & Southern: The First 10
> Years, 1899-1908,” dealing with the organization and early operations
> of the road. In doing so, I have gone through nearly all the material
> in the CRRM’s Robert W. Richardson Library. What follows, then, is my
> best effort to reconstruct the history of your coach based on railroad
> records.
>
> First off, C&S records are quite often in error as to carbuilders, as
> the information was simply not in the records acquired by the C&S upon
> its formation near the end of 1898. On occasion, builder names were
> assigned to cars when there is no evidence that the assigned builder
> actually constructed the car. I’m not saying that’s the case with your
> car, but the only way to verify that it was in fact built by Pullman
> is to search for the Pullman lot number stamped in numerous locations
> on cars by that builder. I believe Bob Webber and Ted Anderson have
> told you where to look for such stampings. One thing, however, seems
> virtually certain: Nathaniel Thayer had nothing whatsoever to do with
> this car. It was, in all likelihood, ordered by Gen. Grenville M.
> Dodge or one of his associates for the Denver, Texas & Fort Worth
> Railroad, built by Dodge in 1887-88 to fill the gap between Pueblo,
> Colo., and the New Mexico-Texas line. When completed in 1888, the
> Denver-to-Fort Worth system of three railroads (Denver, Texas & Gulf
> from Denver to Pueblo; Denver, Texas & Fort Worth from Pueblo to the
> Texas line; and Fort Worth & Denver City from Texline, Texas, to Fort
> Worth) was controlled by Dodge and his associates and was operated as
> the Pan-Handle Route. It was in all likelihood for this system that
> the car was ordered, but not by Thayer, who had absolutely no
> connection with Dodge’s western ventures. What railroad name and
> number the car carried at this time is simply not a matter for which
> we have yet uncovered documentation.
>
> Now, for what IS known about your car. In April 1890 the Union
> Pacific, Denver & Gulf Railway was formed, consolidating the Union
> Pacific’s Colorado subsidiaries with Dodge’s Denver-Fort Worth system.
> The Fort Worth & Denver City, under Texas law, was not included in the
> consolidation but was operated as part of the UPD&G system. At this
> time, your coach was given a UPD&G number: 371. UPD&G equipment was
> initially assigned numbers within the Union Pacific numbering system,
> though after the 1893 receivership of both the UP and UPD&G, the
> Colorado company in 1896 devised a numbering system of its own and
> began renumbering cars into it. But that task was not completed by the
> time the Colorado & Southern was organized in 1898 to take control of
> the UPD&G properties (and also those of the narrow gauge Denver,
> Leadville & Gunnison). So, at the time the C&S was formed, the coach
> was still numbered UPD&G 371. Under a renumbering scheme produced by
> the motive power department of the new railroad and published on Jan.
> 1, 1899, UPD&G 371 was to become C&S 57, and this renumbering was in
> fact accomplished at Denver on May 27, 1899. Shopping records indicate
> the 57 was first overhauled by the C&S in its new Seventh Street shops
> in Denver during 1902, entering the shops on June 3 and emerging on
> July 1, a total of $155.30 having been spent on the work, $81.65 for
> materials and $73.65 for labor. The car retained the number 57 until
> the C&S realized its original passenger car numbering system was
> faulty, since it assigned the numbers 1-100 to standard gauge cars and
> the numbers 101 and above to narrow gauge cars. There was little need
> for more than 100 numbers for narrow gauge passenger cars, but a
> pressing need for more number slots for standard gauge cars. So in
> June 1906 a renumbering scheme was devised that assigned numbers from
> 1 to 200 to narrow gauge equipment and the numbers from 201 on up to
> standard gauge cars, with standard gauge coaches beginning at 501.
> Under this scheme, renumbering actually got underway around the start
> of 1907, and coach 57 was renumbered 513 at Denver on January 8, 1907.
> It would keep this number the remainder of its revenue service career,
> until it was retired from passenger service in late 1927 and converted
> to company service as a bunk car and renumbered C&S 99924 in December
> 1927. It remained in use as a bunk car until March 1943, when it was
> retired and officially listed as scrapped at Denver. But as we know,
> the carbody was actually placed on the ground near the roundhouse in
> Cheyenne for use by railroad crews. And the rest is well documented.
>
> The number C&S 5669 on the door plate is most certainly a casting
> pattern number, as virtually every casting employed anywhere on the
> car would have had – most of the original builder’s castings having
> been replaced over time by ones produced in the railroad’s own foundry
> at the Denver shops. Larger castings were produced for the railroad by
> an independent foundry in Denver, but no such large castings would
> have been employed on a wooden passenger car such as yours.
>
> I hope this material is helpful, and I would certainly be interested
> in learning if you are able to locate a Pullman lot number on the car
> and thus verify its Pullman heritage.
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|