Hi Rupert, Good information, as usual. Best regards, Ken From: CBQ@groups.io <CBQ@groups.io> On Behalf Of Rupert Gamlen
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:02 PM
To: CBQ@groups.io
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Caboose restrictions 1907-1913 I’ve found some of the individual states legislation on the construction of cabooses in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Report for 1914 at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=caboose;id=hvd.hj2ajm;view=1up;seq=7 (part 1) and https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.a0004011052&view=1up&seq=9 (part 2) The Acts that affected the CB&Q are attached.
Although the phraseology of the Acts is basically similar, there are wide variations in what was prescribed and permitted under the various Acts. Of the eighteen states covered in the report, only one – New York – required steel center sills, while three or four related the construction strength of the caboose to MCB standards. There were also wide variations in the question of platforms, steps, rails and interior requirements, although all specified two four-wheel trucks. However, some Acts allowed existing equipment to be used until general repairs were required, others permitted their use in yard and local work, while the 1909 Illinois legislation provided -
The provisions of this act shall not apply to the use of caboose cars in yard and in transfer service, nor to the use of caboose cars now owned
by any railroad or railway company operating in this State.
At that time, there were 152 railroads (including subsidiaries and leased roads) operating in Illinois.
The report includes the legislation from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Washington.
Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ From: CBQ@groups.io On Behalf Of Patrick Egan
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2020 8:04 a.m.
To: CBQ@groups.io Group Moderators <CBQ@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [CBQ] [RealSTMFC] Caboose restrictions Perhaps the similarity of the NP bobbers to the GN ones might have to do with the NP running through the same states as the GN, so the NP cars would conform to the same state regulations, further, be able to withstand the same weather conditions. Perhaps the hand of Jim Hill, who had control of the NP from 1896, might be a factor, too. _._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#58724) |
Reply To Group
| Reply To Sender
|
Mute This Topic
| New Topic
Your Subscription |
Contact Group Owner |
Unsubscribe
[archives@nauer.org]
_._,_._,_
|