MRH-RE

-10-p_12.jpg 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buy this issue!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:
       

Please post any comments or questions you have here.

Reply 0
Douglas Meyer

Did they maybe add the cupolas later?

Is it possible that the Caboose in Photo 1 and Photo 4 and Photo 10 (the later two being labeled Second 16) are of the same class of caboose (the first class)?  the only real difference being in appearance is the cupola and that could have been added at some later date.  That would explain the oddly far offset and why the roof of the cupola is curved and the caboose roof is flat.  If they were built years apart.

I can go into the differences and similarities between them but if you look they are virtually identical.  Sans the cupola.  

The photo 4 is of a completely different caboose obviously.  

-Doug M

Reply 0
Benny

....

In regards to Caboose 15 being used between engine and coach, ahem, Business coach, my first thought is that they are not using it as a caboose per say but rather for its baggage capacity.  The other option is that the train has turned the locomotive but not the rest of the train, so that where the caboose was on the end at the beginning of the trip, it is now next to the engine as the train has staged itself for the return trip while all the big wigs enjoy their little party at this destination stop.  Why take a caboose with a passenger train, only the Yosemite Valley would know...

As for Caboose #15-1 and Caboose #15-2 and Caboose #16, I immediately thought the same thing Doug did.

Quote:

The original three cabooses, 15, 16, and 17, were identical. The railroad replaced 15 and 16 sometime between 1912 and 1919 with cabooses also numbered 15 and 16. YV had the practice of reassigning numbers of retired equipment to replacements.

I chose to build the first No. 15 and the second No. 15 and No.16. Information and photos for these cars are limited, but I learned that YV made four of its cabooses from second-hand boxcars and it built the second No. 16 in-house.

The railroad built #15, #16, and #17 out of second hand boxcars.  Then the railroad bought a new (or new to them second hand) caboose between 1912-1919 and numbered it #15.  The original #15 is presumed to have gone out to pasture for the reasons you gave, the YV did not treat their equipment well in the early days, or it was lost to a wreck.  After the acquisition of #15-2, #16 was rebuilt with a cupola - or #15-1 replaced #16-1 after being rebuilt with a cupola, the original #16-1 being the one that was lost or put out to pasture.  Finally, #17-1 could have been rebuilt into #16-2 (Why does #16-2 HAVE to be #15-1 or #16-1, right?)  But most logically...#15-1 got replaced by #15-2, #15-1 was in better shaped than #16-1, the shop rebuilt it with a cupola and numbered it #16-2, it replaced #16-1.

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
yvrr

Same caboose?

Doug...

I have records showing the cabooses that the YVRR acquired over the years. The first 15, first 16, and first 17 in where acquired in 1906. That first 15 was gone by 1908, the first 16 was disposed of around 1912 and the first 17 was disposed of around 1919.

The 2nd 15 was acquired in 1914 and lasted until 1922. The second 16 was acquired around 1913 was gone by 1923.

nu%20Bar.jpg 

Reply 0
yvrr

The caboose next to the locomotive...

Benny...

I had not given that much thought to why the caboose is next to the locomotive but your comments made me think about it some more.

The caboose is next to a YV coach (not a business coach...99% of the passengers on the YV were going to or coming from Yosemite National Park). I now think that the caboose is only to provide a buffer between the locomotive and the passenger car since this was a day trip and no combine was needed.

nu%20Bar.jpg 

 

 

Reply 0
Benny

...

Quote:

I have records showing the cabooses that the YVRR acquired over the years. The first 15, first 16, and first 17 in where acquired in 1906. That first 15 was gone by 1908, the first 16 was disposed of around 1912 and the first 17 was disposed of around 1919.

The 2nd 15 was acquired in 1914 and lasted until 1922. The second 16 was acquired around 1913 was gone by 1923.

This pretty well eliminates any thought that 16/2 was originally 17/1.  This being said, the timeline is consistent with 16/2 being a rebuilt 15/1 or 16/1.  Your notes suggest 15/1 is "gone by 1908" and 16/1 is "disposed around 1912," but we don't know where this meant the cars went.  "Gone" could have meant "converted to a back shop shed" and "disposed" could mean it was damaged or too far gone from disrepair to continue service.  The timespan between 1912 and 1913 is enough time for the railroad to lose 16/1 and then resurrect 15/1 and rebuild it with a cupola because it was perhaps in better shape than the remains of 16/1 and the railroad needed a second caboose back on the roster.

I tried to see if there were more pictures of the caboose with the coach online (you never know) and all what I could find was a baggage or other such car was often between the engine and the coach if there were two cars.  If you look where the man is standing, there's a pile of something that has been placed on the stand next to him.  

I also check in on #(2)9 for you, after seeing your note on your web page on surviving YV pieces.  It's still at Veracruz station...for now.  You can see it in Google Street view from the bridge towards the right side of the station - as of July 2019.

José María Morelos Y Pavón - Google Maps

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
Douglas Meyer

The C&O used to sometimes put

The C&O used to sometimes put two caboose on a local.  On at the front behind the engine and one at the rear where you would expect.  The from caboose was use as an office car for the front end crew such as the break man.

-Doug M

Reply 0
Douglas Meyer

Are you saying the caboose

Are you saying the caboose  in photo 10 and 4 could not have been rebuilt from the caboose in photo 1?  Because the sure as heck look like they were.  And the odd way the cupola is located it looks like a retrofit.  So what did the di build a new caboose (as seen in photo 4/10) from the same class of freight cars that the caboose in photo 1 was built from? 
Because the basic car is the same and the door/window locations are the same as is the style/shape of the windows.

-Doug M

Reply 0
yvrr

YV cabooses...

Doug...

The YV purchased three box cars and converted them to cabooses in 1906 when the railroad was under construction. The first caboose 15 was sold two years later which suggests that it was old and not worth upgrading. So the first 15 in Photo 1 is not the same caboose 16 in Photo 10.

The second 16 shown in Photo 10 was built by the YVRR from a box car around 1913.

nu%20Bar.jpg 

Reply 0
Benny

...

I recall a note from a publication I have containing the equipment of the D&RGW about how the D&RGW liked rebuilding cars and then renumbering them because by doing so they could manipulate their accounting for financial purposes.  I'll have to dig up that reference tonight.

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
yvrr

Reply to comment...

Benny...

I can understand other railroads might have done what the D&RGW did but I know as a fact that the YV never did that. The YV did the same thing with locomotives as they did with the cabooses...the first No. 26 was a used 2-8-0 and the second No. 26 was a new Alco 2-6-0. I have photos of both of them and they are different. 

nu%20Bar.jpg 

Reply 0
Benny

...

I didn't know you were alive and able in 1913.

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
jeffshultz

Benny....

... are you not aware that Jack is probably the foremost living authority on the Yosemite Valley RR? 

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.

Reply 0
Benny

....

Yes.

Without a definitive source for 16/2, both 15/1 and 16/1 are valid sources.

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
yvrr

Benny...

Benny...

See pages 290-295 of my 364-page book on the Yosemite Valley Railroad entitled Trains to Yosemite which was published in 2005 by Signature Press. You can find a used copy of the book on Amazon for $99.00 which is a very good price. It was the work of researching the YV for the past 50 years...

You can believe what you want...

Jack Burgess

Reply 0
Chris VanderHeide cv_acr

.

Quote:

I didn't know you were alive and able in 1913.

You could be less of a jackass there towards someone who's spent a hobby lifetime researching one specific railway; one that I assume you have not.

Reply 0
jeffshultz

Okay, time to chill out a bit

Benny - please keep the conversation positive.

Chris - please relax, Jack is entirely capable of handling this, as has been shown. 

I don't want to have to lock down this thread. 

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.

Reply 0
Benny

...

I apologize for the coarseness.

I find it simply less logical that YV would take a boxcar in 1912 and make a fourth caboose in the exact same manner (window placement) as their three previous cabooses and this time add a cupola to this new caboose, when they have two of these cars already built but Somewhere Other Than On The Railroad by the end of 1912 and adding a cupola to one of those two cars would have been a logical part of the rebuild process in the winter of 1912 and spring of 1913 before the 1913 spring holiday season..

I have found the note that I referred to earlier, "For tax reasons, rebuilding a fully depreciated car was more advantageous than building or purchasing a new one."  There's nothing more fully depreciated than an old car that has been turned into a line shed.

I doubt we will ever fully know where the two/three cabooses went.

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
Chris VanderHeide cv_acr

.

If the old caboose(s) were worn out and unserviceable, it's very logical that they would (re)build a new one to replace it. It's probably pretty easy to assume the old ones were scrapped/destroyed.

And also quite logical to rebuild another car following an existing design they already used. Most railways built their own wooden cabooses, to their own design(s), and generally to a rather consistent design. Every car different is more the exception, but an exception more likely to be found on small shortlines operating on a shoestring.

And rebuilding a (depreciated) boxcar into a caboose makes tons of sense. Of course in the days of wood car construction, the car shop could build something in-house from scratch relatively easily as well.

I also can't think of anything more useless for rebuilding than something that's already been retired into a shed on the ground, vs. an active car.

Reply 0
yvrr

One more point...

Chris...

Your well-thought out comments made me think of one more factor. If a railroad has a caboose which is used every day, they can't take it out of service to rebuild it...

Jack Burgess

Reply 0
Benny

...

That's just the thing. 

If the caboose is in everyday service, it can't be taken out of service until something happens to it that forces it out of service or it can be taken out of service during the seasonal lull in railroad activity.  I was on a geology field camp to Owens Valley in 2006, and even though we were there in June, the passes to Yosemite from the Owens Valley side were still closed.   I can only assume then that winter traffic into Yosemite was light, even a century ago, which means winters were for maintenance and rebuilding the equipment.  Whatever happened in the winter of 1912, we can assume that either 16/1 was involved in a mishap that required it to become disposed, or 16/1 was found to be in such bad disrepair (during maintenance) that it could not be rebuilt during the off season.

I mentioned Shed as a possible place where 15/1 went after it was sold only because that's what typically happened to railroad equipment after it was sold, particularly with private parties (but we don't know the nature of the party that bought 15/1).  The (box)car was used when YVRR bought it and then only used as a caboose for two years before YVRR sold it; based upon 16/1 and 17/1, it may indeed have been in good condition at that time and sold because someone offered a good price or YVRR needed the capital in 1908 but only had use for one less caboose than what they had.  It's even possible that YVRR sold off what they considered "excess" in 1908 if they were done with initial construction, to balance the books if anything else.  If a locomotive was sold in 1908, it may be easier to track that locomotive than the caboose.

This being said, we don't know who bought it or what they used it for or even why YVRR sold it in the first place.  I understand the leaning towards "which suggests that it was old and not worth upgrading," but I don't necessarily agree with that conclusion myself; "old and not worth upgrading" to me means "it has no resale value and is thus turned into firewood (disposed)."  To me, sold just means they sold it and we can't surmise condition from that description alone. 

In all events, Sold means 15/1 car itself did not cease to exist in 1908 and YVRR could very well have bought it back in 1912 to rebuild after 16/1 met its demise - "Disposed" is a pretty bleak definitive deposition, as too is "scrapped" or "wrecked" or "fire."  There is this other possibility that someone bought 15/1 in 1908 and then left it sitting on or near YVRR territory as they set about getting their own affairs in order and then YVRR took it back in 1912 to satisfy a debt on the sale or because it could be considered abandoned on their property and they suddenly needed it to replace 16/1.

We agree that in that era the shops could essentially build an entire caboose from the ground up if they needed to do it - but it's often more productive to start from something half way done than it is to start from scratch.  I work in aircraft maintenance, and I know too many stories about maintenance personnel taking panels and parts off those stuffed and mounted aircraft on sticks to rebuild broken parts on a flying aircraft to as recent as this last summer.  If the shop needed to build a caboose, and they had a guy in the shop who knew where a caboose might be setting, and it could be had cheap, things change hands quick when need be.  What we do know is that the shop did a decent job building 16/2 seeing how it lasted until 1923.

It makes the origins of 16/2 a worthy mystery to say the least.  Unless we find more data, you would be correct with your conclusion that we may never know the true origin.

Jack, I have added your book to the Christmas list.

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
Benny

Jack,

I made good on my Christmas list and came away with a copy of your Trains to Yosemite.

20211230_235755.jpg 

It was not the $85.00 copy, whereas perhaps our discussion led to that copy and no less than the next two to four copies above that threshold being sold by the time I was able to go Christmas Shopping.  My hardback copy did come with these nice little momentos, though - a card and an autograph.

20211230_210449.jpg 

It is indeed a very excellent resource and well worth even what I paid for it; you no doubt already know and have heard this a thousand times over, but it is worth saying it again.  Thank you.

I have found a pocket within history where Caboose 15/1 would have been able to hide away from the Yosemite Valley Railroad for a span of about 4 years, return and then re-emerge as Caboose 16/2.  To refresh, 15/1 disappeared (disposed) in 1908, while 16/1 was disposed in the fall of 1912 and 16/2 emerged in the spring of 1913.

Around 1910, Locomotive 1(20) was leased to the Stockton, Terminal and Eastern Railroad and then rebuilt in 1913, likely by YVRR after receiving the equipment back from the ST&E, but equally plausible that ST&E did the work before returning the locomotive to YVRR.  It would not be crazy to suggest that the ST&E may have leased some other equipment with the locomotive; the book mentions the locomotive being leased for ballast work and freight service, and a lease term of two years (or one year and then renewed for one year but not renewed for a third) would not be unreasonable.  I do understand 15/1 is noted as disposed of in 1910, but the word "disposed" is too ambiguous in this historical context without definitive final resting places to automatically assume it means much anything conclusive, particularly with the number of allowances on the MOW table to suppose the equipment came from boxcars previously mentioned as disposed.  

You have previously mentioned that in the early years YVRR was notorious for not maintaining their equipment very well, so this would explain why one caboose could be in better shape in 1912 than the other.  There's a second wrinkle to this hypothesis, the chance then that because ST&E had 15/1 with No.20, and had the equipment in freight service, The ST&E shops added the cupola to 15/1 between 1910 and 1912 to make the caboose more suitable for the work.  The caboose then goes back to the YVRR in the winter of 1912 with the cupola already in place.  This provides a secondary reason why 16/1 was retired in 1912 for reasons beyond simple wear and tear and why 15/1 was renumbered 16/2 to be used in its place.  One weak argument I could make for this work being done by ST&E is the simple reasoning that if YVRR had added a cupola to 16/1, they would have added an identical cupola of similar design to 17/1 at the same time.

As such, here follow's Benny's hypothesis on how 15/1 became 16/2.  The ST&E project started in 1908 and was wrapping up completion in 1910.  Perhaps Caboose 15/1 departed with No.20 in 1910 sometime after September to the ST&E on lease.  Once the ballast work was complete, 15/1 was then rebuilt with a cupola by ST&E to make it more suitable for freight service.  At the end of 1912, due to their haphazardous mismanagement, ST&E returned the borrowed equipment to YVRR rather than spend another year leasing the equipment.  In 1914, ST&E purchased their own No.1 and it has survived to this day. 

The only way to come close to verifying this hypothesis would be to dig up pictures of No.20 working on the ST&E with caboose 15/1 in tow between 1910 and 1912.  From the book, we at least know for absolute certain that 20 was indeed painted as 20 in the spring/summer of 1910 and pulling passenger service.

Thus far I have found these references that I will go hunting for.  I note them here as a matter of reference: 
There's a mention in The Electric Interurban Railways of America (Hinton 1970/2000 reprint) about the early steam power on the ST&E. Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad - Wikipedia
ST&E Service began September, 5th 1910 (Using YVRR No.1/20).   http://www.laparks.org/grifmet/tt/htmgallery/gallery_loco/stockton1.htm March 3 2016 Wayback machine
ST&E bought their first locomotive (No.1) in 1914.  Stockton Terminal and Eastern No. 1 - Wikipedia
There's further references to early ST&E operations being financially hap-hazardous.

All for now.  

 

--------------------------------------------------------

Benny's Index or Somewhere Chasing Rabbits

Reply 0
Reply