Just a bit of background for the novice readers

Ah, early railroading!   Sitting on the pressure-relief valve, the drop pin couplers, the crushed brakemen, the snakehead rails... telescoping cars in collisions... the EXCITEMENT!  And the practice of pushing a caboose.

When adding power to the tail end of a train, the car(s) in contact needed to be sufficiently strong to prevent getting crushed.  Old style (pre 1900's) wood-frame cars were not up to the task, and as engines got  stronger, these cars needed continual revisions and upgrades.

The PRR (for one)  converted surplus tenders to cabeese by repurposing the stout tender frames.  

Sadly, I have no reference or rule to offer, but I'd start research with (practically any) mountain road.

Not an authority on this, but

Not an authority on this, but my understanding is there were several rules/safe guards if you would. 

1 No shoving on the rear of passenger trains. Helpers added to the front only.

2 Wood cabooses were to be removed and then reattached at back of the helper.

3 Steel cabooses could be left as is and shoved against. 

Not really sure if crews were permitted to remain in the caboose, but in those days with the lack of safety concerns I would guess there was not rule not allowing it. 

JD, what sort of injuries have you heard about? This was also the era that riding footboards was permitted and crews got on and off trains that were moving well above a walking speed!!. I've tried the later and it is no fun.

Choose your flavor.

In my mind, my answer to this was "for older, wood framed cabooses, the pusher would be cut in front of the caboose.  With the advent of steel frame cabooses, this was no longer necessary."  But . . . I'm no authority so I did a quick check of the C&O Historical Society photo archives.  It seems this might be a general practice, but check out this variety.  I'd say check your prototype practices, but as in most things, there's a prototype example for just about anything!

We start with what we believe to be true, a pusher cut in front of an older wood-framed caboose.  Good so far . .  

And another . . pusher leaving the yard with the wooden caboose behind the locomotive.

But wait . . . Here the pusher is BEHIND the caboose of a loaded coal train.  It appears to be a repainted wooden caboose; did they reinforce the frame when it was shopped?  Hmmmm.

Here's a pusher cut in, BUT it appears that this is one of C&O's newer, wide vision, steel framed cabooses.  Maybe the conductor didn't like being pushed around.  

And finally, there's this.  I sure hope that's a steel framed caboose.  I wouldn't want to be riding in it!  

So, I'm glad we cleared THAT up!

I like the last picture

I like the last picture Michael, there is a prototype for anything.

Local Laws may apply

I can't find the source now but I swear I recently read that in Ohio there was a law that the caboose must behind the pusher. I haven't confirmed that yet but it seems possible that there may be local laws that dictate caboose location.

Best source of information ETT

When it comes to what the railroads did, the best source of information on helpers and positions of the caboose comes from the appropriate Employee Timetable (ETT). EL even posted the appropriate excerpt from PA Utility Commision (PUC) rule that limited the amount of HP allowed behind a steel-framed caboose (most often it reads 3500 HP). After that the caboose goes behind the helpers.

thank you

Thank you for the replies.  Very good information and pictures.

@Cadmaster -  Injuries in general.  Nothing specific. Whatever may be associated with the caboose being crushed.

@Chris Ellis - I just read that in 1913, Ohio enacted a law about cabeese in pusher service had to have a steel under-frame, but I didn't see anything about location.

@peter-f - Speaking of stout frames, my quick search this afternoon turned up a link to the B&O Railroad Museum. They have caboose No.C-2222 converted in 1940 (type I-5D) for pusher service.  With a concrete floor!

@Kurt Thompson - Not sure if the (PUC) is the same as the PA State Code, but in the code it says if the pusher has more than 3,500hp, the crew in the cabin car must exit it and occupy the pusher or another cabin car behind the locomotive. It also says the crew cannot "cut-off on the fly" if the helper has more than 3,500hp.

The (PUC) or Code is the closest I've come to any rule book so far.

Thanks again.  Going to keep looking when I have more time.

@Michael --

My first impression of  photo  cohs-26229   

It MAY be a photo of a helper following (not pushing) Down a slope... taking advantage of signals returning to home.

They are a truly interesting set of photos. 

(I don't care about rules.. were I in those circumstances, I'd ride the pusher's cab, if need be.. just not the hack!)

From what I read regarding

From what I read regarding the Allegheny type engines that were used as pushers they were always cut in ahead of the caboose. Now just because it was a rule does not mean someone did not violate it.

Conductor Choice

It may also have been the conductors choice, if he had the seniority, he might have insisted that the helper be cut in ahead of the caboose. Certainly would be dangerous to push against a wood framed caboose, but probably not desirable for even a steel caboose.

What the ERIE practice was.

Just to clarify:   2 images on this website shows the ERIE practice...   using an 0-8-8-0, a hazard unto itself!

http://trainweb.org/milepost51/eriel1.html

Image 2 :  No... cut caboose out and push

Image 5:   Yes... PUSH that caboose

(now THAT's clear as mud!)

COHS-26229

@Peter - could be, but going by the description with the photo, he's pushing away on those coal loads.  He's an H7, 2-8-8-2, so pretty much the biggest power they had outside the H-8 Allegheny, 2-6-6-6.

Here's a nice shot of H-8 1624  at Alleghany VA A Cabin, cutting off the caboose after finishing pusher service.  So it was cut in ahead of the caboose, as Dave indicated.  The engine would clear through the crossover, and the caboose would roll downhill back onto the train.  That would be a fun operation to model.

Shoving against cabooses, a B&O perspective from the early '50s

The B&O had a wide variety of cabooses at this time, ranging from wooden 4 wheel bobbers to all steel "Bay window". The 4 wheel bobbers were from a time where the trains were short and motive power was light, by '50s standards. These cars had little steel in them at all. The earliest 8 wheel caboose, the I-1 had a steel centersill, as did it's successor the I-5's. The I-5's were an improvement with steel ends in addition to the steel centerframe. Both of these class of caboose had a 15ft. center to center truck bolster. This, along with their relatively lightweight and the fact that trains were getting longer and the helper locomotives were getting larger and often their would be two and sometimes three helpers. The I-1 and I-5's were not up to the task. Not just because of their light weight but also because of their wheelbase, sharp Applachian curves and high tractive effort of the modern power. It was found that even a moderate helper set could actually lift the cab off the bolsters on a curve and then as the train came to tangent trackage and the train dynamics allowed the car to return to its normal position the pin and bolster were not in alignment and a derailment was emminent. The initial attempt was to streach the wheeel base from 15ft. to 19ft. This was a vast improvement to the I-5 class, and the cabs were now classed as I-5c. While this was a distinct improvement, it was soon realized that weight would have to be added to the car. To this end concrete and steel scrap was added under the floor. This was a substantial weight increase, thus solving the problem of two mallets shoving on the rear. This new class was an I-5d. As the B&O started building steel cabs of the class I-5a, and I-5b, they too were of the short 15ft. wheelbase and though they were of steel construction and weighed more than the I-1's and I-5's they too had the same short comings. Changing the wheelbase to 19ft. cured their problem. The well known I-12 "wagontop" cabs were built for heavy hellper service on the steep grades in W. Va, and Pa. with both adequate weight and the longer wheelbase of 19ft. The B&O had three groups of caboose by their ability to be used in helper service.

Class I-1, I-2, I-3, I-5, I-6, I-13, I-14, I-16 were to be cut in behind the helper

Class I-5a, I-5b, I-5c, I-7, I-10 could be ahead of a moderate helper  (2-8-2 or 2-10-2)

Class I-5d, I-5ba, I-12, I-17 could be ahead of a heavy helper  (2-8-8-0 or 2-8-8-4) 

These were guide lines that Baltimore expected the railroad to follow but from time to time photo documentation has proven that these rules were streatched. In truth this is a very condensed explination, but you get the idea of the challenges that the B&O faced.

An early '50s perspective of B&O caboose's and helpers !

The B&O had a wide variety of cabooses at this time, ranging from wooden 4 wheel bobbers to all steel "Bay window". The 4 wheel bobbers were from a time where the trains were short and motive power was light, by '50s standards. These cars had little steel in them at all. The earliest 8 wheel caboose, the I-1 had a steel centersill, as did it's successor the I-5's. The I-5's were an improvement with steel ends in addition to the steel centerframe. Both of these class of caboose had a 15ft. center to center truck bolster. This, along with their relatively lightweight and the fact that trains were getting longer and the helper locomotives were getting larger and often their would be two and sometimes three helpers. The I-1 and I-5's were not up to the task. Not just because of their light weight but also because of their wheelbase, sharp Applachian curves and high tractive effort of the modern power. It was found that even a moderate helper set could actually lift the cab off the bolsters on a curve and then as the train came to tangent trackage and the train dynamics allowed the car to return to its normal position the pin and bolster were not in alignment and a derailment was emminent. The initial attempt was to streach the wheeel base from 15ft. to 19ft. This was a vast improvement to the I-5 class, and the cabs were now classed as I-5c. While this was a distinct improvement, it was soon realized that weight would have to be added to the car. To this end concrete and steel scrap was added under the floor. This was a substantial weight increase, thus solving the problem of two mallets shoving on the rear. This new class was an I-5d. As the B&O started building steel cabs of the class I-5a, and I-5b, they too were of the short 15ft. wheelbase and though they were of steel construction and weighed more than the I-1's and I-5's they too had the same short comings. Changing the wheelbase to 19ft. cured their problem. The well known I-12 "wagontop" cabs were built for heavy hellper service on the steep grades in W. Va, and Pa. with both adequate weight and the longer wheelbase of 19ft. The B&O had three groups of caboose by their ability to be used in helper service.

Class I-1, I-2, I-3, I-5, I-6, I-13, I-14, I-16 were to be cut in behind the helper

Class I-5a, I-5b, I-5c, I-7, I-10 could be ahead of a moderate helper  (2-8-2 or 2-10-2)

Class I-5d, I-5ba, I-12, I-17 could be ahead of a heavy helper  (2-8-8-0 or 2-8-8-4) 

These were guide lines that Baltimore expected the railroad to follow but from time to time photo documentation has proven that these rules were streatched. In truth this is a very condensed explination, but you get the idea of the challenges that the B&O faced.

Mr. Elliott

Thank you very much for that B&O background.  When I discovered B&O had over length caboose/cabeese floor loaded with concrete, I was amazed.  My thought was the concrete was to make the floor/over all frame harder to crush by the tractive power.  I never even considered the tractive effort of the locos would lift the caboose off the bolsters.  Thus resulting in trucks free...derailment....

Gentlemen;

I've been giving my Erie L1 website some much needed attention; and with it; research on the parameters of pushing operations and caboose placement.

I have encountered only one mention of caboose placement, in Special Instructions & Condensed Bulletins; Delaware & Jefferson Divisions - Form 3775; in effect July 1, 1914 of which is apropos for Gulf Summit pusher operations including the Erie L1 Class 0-8-8-0 Articulated Camelbacks and the soon to arrive Triplex "Matt H. Shay" 2603/5014.

It clearly states "Trains taking pushers from Susequehanna (sic) and Deposit will stop before pushers get behind caboose."