Excellent information Ron - and glad to see you step up. Another demonstration on how contemporary information can "clarify" the validity of present day theories of vagueness. This kind of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping for.
Based on your contribution it seems unlikely that DSP&P waycars were a part of the U&N Roster - not to say they were not, only less unlikely. Questions;
The Blackhawk Registry - located where? (You prefaced the listing with "U&N cabooses" and I want to put the information in context to that).
Does this or any information you have dispel that U&N 1601 was perhaps the only U&N car that came to Colorado (in theory perhaps first UPD&G 1727 and then DL&G 15xx)?
Have you seen anything that causes you to reject that D&NO 2106 became UPD&G 1782?
Are your Modeling Guides still available? I'm sure there are readers here who would like to get copies and perhaps a few of us would like to upgrade our copies now over 15 years old. Feel free to advertise!
Blackhawk, Idaho, the same place that the Eagle Rock shops are located
As to some of your questions, about 10 years back, I shifted my interest from trains to raising a rare kind of tropical fish, called killie fish. As I have gotten older feeding 30 tanks of fish turned into a major chore, so have come back to trains. But alas, some of my notes are missing.
In the pre-Trumbull days, the UP shifted many of their excess NG cars, both KC and U&N, after they were standard gauged to Colorado. In that way they were able to charge the DL&G and the UPD&G for rental. That is how several U&N and OSL&UN end up being counted in inventories.
U&N #1601 I think ends up becoming part of the Oregon Short Line, but not positive
D&NO #2016 to UPD&G #1782, I don't think so. Why, I don't recall, I think it had something to do with info in Hal Wagnor's "Colorado Route"?, now missing.
As for U&N caboose cars coming to DSP&P, have you talked with the guys restoring C&S #1008? Summer of 2014, I had a long conversation with them and he was thinking that it might have come from the U&N.
As for how it got on the DSP&P roster is an unknown. There is no paper work.
But on the other hand, there is a photo of a string of U&N box cars on the Sumpter Valley, and in amongst them is a DSP&P box car.
Yes, the Guides are still available, now up to $17.50 each.
As for updates, I have found a lot of new material, new cars, for the D&RG and was just about two-thirds finished when my puter took a dive April 30 and it has been a total fight to get a new one up and running in mid January. My backup lost the D&RG file, so have to start all over.
I have long wanted to start a blog similar to this one, but I am still having some problems
As for the car set off in Leadville, it looks to be a little too long to have been a narrow gauge car.
O. R. E. G. 6/1885: Caboose #66 - 85 19 cars
#66 - 69 Probably Ohio Falls Cars, 2-trucks no cupola
#70 - 71 Journal entry 12/80, 2-trucks, cupola? Suspect that they are similar to the car with U&N #100, and the pile driver
#72 - 73 No journal entry, built Eagle Rock shops, 2 trucks and cupola
#74 - 85 Journal entry 6/83 for 12 cars, triple the cost of DSP&P cars 2-trucks and cupola
Relettering and Renumbering 1885: General rule of thumb, the smaller cars got the smaller numbers
#1600 - 1603 Journal entry 5/85 @ $650, cost nearer to a DSP&P or CC car, so similar to them,
4-wheels, no cupola
#1604 - 1615 Twelve car entry 6/83, 2 trucks and a cupola (And when standard gauged, the 2 trucks are removed and replaced with much cheaper 4-wheeled trucks)
#1616 - 1622 Larger 8-wheeled cars, Ohio Falls, Eagle Rock
Also, the small baggage cars with over hanging roof U&N #11 are "dinky" baggage cars
UP Journal entry 3/83 $5,405 or @ $1,700
What about the car paired with the Congdon stacked U&N Brooks-the car lettered for the Utah Eastern?Could at least one of the "dinky" baggage cars have wound up on the DSP&P as a MOW car?Looking on some Utah Rails material about the U&N I found mention of a Dodderidge refrigerator car-do you know anything about them?
Yes there is a chance that the "dinky" baggage cars were moved to Colorado. Amongst my numerous start ups, I have the frame and flooring for one in On3, awaiting the finishing of the body. As is a frame of the U&N two - truck caboose.
Sorry, but this is the first I have heard of a Dodderidge refrigerator car and know nothing abut them
In Googling Utah & Northern I found a page done by UTAH RAILS that is a compilation of materials found in local papers about the U&N from roughly 1878 until it was standard gauged.Mention of the Doddridge car is somewhere in the 1878 or 1879 period.It was supposed to be the invention of a local U&N employee who I believe lived in Franklin,Idaho.It mentioned that they were being used to haul grain.
I'm attempting to discuss the D&NO theory with Hol Wagner. I also have his Electronic Book and the chapter on C&S Cabooses. Apparently the UPD&G was in desperate need of cabooses in the early '90s as the Gulf Division opened up. Many were built new by Omaha and several appear to have been built from converted boxcars. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 22 of the book;
"The differences between the narrow and broad gauge cars, initially at least, were as pronounced as the difference between night and day. The narrow gauge cars, from the time they were built by the Union Pacific in the early 1880s, had no cupolas but featured platforms on both ends. Conversely, nearly all the standard gauge cars – whether converted from boxcars or built new as cabooses – had cupolas but lacked end platforms and employed dangerous side doors for entry and exit. Early photographic evidence does indicate that some of the broad gauge cars inherited by the C&S did not initially have cupolas, or lookouts, as early records call them. Most of the broad gauge cars had been built to UP designs, and this remained the case into the UPD&G era." - "The C&S the First Ten Years" by Hol Wagner Jr. (Digital book not yet available).
Hol goes on to reflect that 1782 apparently came from the U&N. Yet I submit that no one yet has been able to establish that as a fact. The car at Como could have been a dinky baggage car from Utah, but again, that is NOT an established fact and such a car has not been established to have become caboose 302. I would rejoice in that just as much as any knowledge as to KNOW where it came from - the information would define the car for what it really was.
The Question of D&NO 2106 is admittedly very flimsy. The Gulf cabooses (The D&NO became the Denver Texas & Gulf in 1885 iirc) were listed in the early to mid '90s. They slowly disappear as the UPD&G 1735 series increases. The last Gulf car to go was 2106 and its disappearance coincides with 1782's advent. Briefly 1782 was listed as a sg car in an 1895 ORER - at the SAME TIME as 1727 is listed as a NG caboose. I think these things very nearly establish that 2 different cars were involved. I think it also establishes that 1782 was an 8 wheeled car and that it was either a new car built by Omaha, a converted sg Boxcar built at the UP 40th Street Facilities or that it was an old D&NO caboose pressed into service out of a need to fill a shortage.
I see more evidence of this than an import from Utah.
All we have about 1727 and the extra D&LG car in 1898 is a document - as mere suggestion that this car was an ex U&N car - that listed the car's inventory of tools and material in Jan 1895. No one has established that this car went back to Utah nor has anyone established that it didn't. If the car went back to Utah then where would the DL&G get such a car in the late 1890's? An ex U&N car we don't know about? A KC car on line since the early '90s? A new DL&G or UPD&G build? Or from Omaha? (Of all the C&Sng cabooses - besides 302 - 303 was the most odd, the largest and could very well have been a new 1890's build. Isn't this hobby "fun"?)
As far as the 1008 and 1005 coming from the U&N, yes, I've talked with the folks rebuilding the car; at a point where I had not reviewed my caboose files for decades I agreed it was possible those cars came from Utah. The restoration group seemed to base the idea on the striking similarity of the cars, in particular the rounded corners, and that they were not contiguous in the numeral series. Not to disregard their observations - of course it is possible - but I don't see any supporting evidence in the files and known documents for this. The cabooses were built over a period of several years apparently by different builders and anything could have happened prior to 1885 that could have placed two very similar cars substantially apart from one another in the roster.
Consider this - cars of a similar build and hold a significant spread of numeral places in the roster could have been rebuilt in the '90s to the extent that they either wound up with dis-similar corners from their sisters or their sisters vise versa from them. I am of the opinion that the 4 cars seen in a late '90s view of Como (by Dr. Scott) with cupolas were rebuilt cars to include the cupolas. And furthermore the two known DL&G Annual reports indicate the cars already had Westinghouse air brakes by the time they became C&S property. Finally, beginning in 1908, the C&S rebuilt the cars and they could have rebuilt 306 and 310 with little bitty windows, end flush cupolas, and rounded corners. The great people who are rebuilding 1008 - I am truly grateful for this - may find physical evidence that refutes what I propose here but I have not heard anything yet that does so.
If 1601 wound up on the OSL I would surely be grateful to know this. Thanks Ron, for meaningful discussion of this. I still have most of our old letters. If I can help you with notes I'll do my best but I do have limited time.
I totally agree that 1782 was a former box car.
Does anyone have the measurements of the car set off at Como?
The UP roster of 1885 puts their length at 28', which looks to be a little short.
Also note in the photo that the dinky baggage car if much taller than a normal box car.
Inventory and tools, Jan, 1895? Is this for U&N caboose 1601?
As for 1601 returning to Utah
Nov, 1897 The equipment is being renumbered
Caboose #1601-1644 and #1807 -1858 to #600-673
(Note that 1600 is missing, while 1601 is listed, which means if it is not on the property it is still claimed by the OSL, long after Trumbull has taken over the UPD&G. And as yet there has been no paper work found showing it being bought by the UPD&G by Trumbull. From what I have read in the UPD&G receivership papers, Trumbull appeared to cross all T's and dot all I's
UPD&G sg Cabooses existing as of Feb. 1891 - 1735 to 1745 (11)
Built new at Omaha March 1891 - 1746 to 1751 (Correspondence - Record)
ORER as of Nov. 1891(UPD&G):
CC - 1735 to 1745 (11); New Numbers - 1735 to 1745
DT&FW - 38 (1); New Number - 1746*
DT&FW - 39 (1); New Number - 1753
DT&FW - 28 to 30 & 32 to 37 (9); New Numbers - 1765 to 1774
DT&G - 2101 to 2111 (11); New Numbers - 1754 to 1764
UPD&G - 1747 to 1752 (11); New Numbers - 1747 to 1752
1735 to 1745; the original CC cars
1746 ; formerly DT&FW 39*
1747 to 1752; the balance of (7 total) cars built new by Omaha in 3-'91
retained by UPD&G
1753; formerly DT&FW 39
1754 to 1764; Formerly DT&G cars that were originally D&NO cars**
1765 to 1774; formerly DT&FW 28 to 37 (less 31)***
* Contradiction to letter Correspondence between W.H. Holcomb, UP assistant general manager in Omaha, Colorado Division superintendent P. Touhy & F.E. Bissell, New Mexico Division superintendent where 1746 was the 1st car built at Omaha in 3-'91 and apparently conveyed to DT&FW.
**So it would seem the D&NO Cabooses were indeed reno'd to the UPD&G as previously suggested. This group included 2106. However my theory that this car became 1782 is false and none of the cars could have been a former D&NO car.
*** No accounting for 31 in the ORER and the listing indicates 9 cars even tho there are 10 numeral place holders! Was there no car 1768? In the C&S Reno'g Guide the sg cabooses are renumbered 200 - 242 (43cars). Since the UPD&G was in the process of renumbering the 1735 series to 2 digit figures (2 to 60 ?) and 15 cars had been renumbered it is not possible to tell if 1768 was filled.
Clearly only 6 or 7 new cars came from Omaha as new builds. Beyond this group cars may have been rebuilt boxcars. Hol Wagner notes; "It was common, even before formation of the C&S, to convert boxcars into cabooses, either permanently or for short term use. A pre-C&S example: UPD&G boxcar 26789 was rebuilt into caboose 26789 at Trinidad on December 11, 1897. Unless it was subsequently assigned a UPD&G caboose number, it did not come to the C&S as a caboose."
Well. Be that as it may, 1786 was on the roster well before the end of 1897. Rebuilt boxcar 26789 could have only been a filler car for a missing number in order to turn into a C&S caboose. There were 52 numeral place holders but only 42 cars by 1898 (and 43 by C&S reno'g.).
The question then is; where did the UPD&G get no.s 1775 - 1786 if they did not either build the cars new or convert boxcars? Maybe one of them was the OSL dinky baggie? But not all 12 of them. Car 1781 was the highest number listed in Nov. 1894 ORER. Between that point and some time in 1895, 1782 was added. If the UPD&G purchased 1601 after Jan. 1895 it could have also purchased the baggage car putting the bobber on its ng roster as 1727 and the baggie on the sg roster as 1782. (I could not tell you how long the Como car is as I've never even seen it - only the photos shown here. Since I'm 1000 miles away in MT it seems unlikely I'll get to that soon - maybe someone local can run up there with a chain?)
If they returned the 1601 where would they get the car for DL&G 15xx? Yes. The letter dated 25 Jan. 1895 listed 1601 along with DL&G 1507, 1508, 1514 & 1518.
Now. You will notice right away that the idea that 1005 (1507 / 306) and 1008 (1514 / 310) came from anywhere but the DSP&P is all but shot to hell since both cars are among this inventory listing - UNLESS they became DL&G property prior to 1895 and were already shoe-horned into the roster as fillers. And where would they have come from? The U&N? The KC? (Were the KC cars 4 wheelers?)
You've shared that the ORER indicated the OSLng bobbers were on line or at least still owned by the OSL. You bring up another possibility - even if the car was off line the Railroad would have kept track of it and, on paper at least, renumbered it (presumably to 200 - was 599 formerly the missing 1600?). Perhaps this simply suggests that 1727 was counted on the UPD&G roster as their intended car but then correctly removed and replaced with 1782. The DL&G could have eventually purchased 1601 (200) prior to 6-'98 directly from the OSL. Crazy stuff but worthy of consideration. How many U&N 4 wheeled cars were there?
Let us review the rules here (again); the ORERs were notoriously behind the ongoing changes to every roster - you've pointed out sometimes by more than a year - and they were not always accurate. So we are both building our huts on sand. Still there is enough good information there to see what generally turned out to be the case. I say this to remind the casual reader.
And - Yes. Trumble was very much on top of things he knew about. But there were many instances where he did not know "about". He was, after all, the President - not the Auditor (who was perpetually adjusting the books to correct errant entries!) or Superintendent who often didn't know "about" either. We are dealing with humans, after all... and there is a LOT of paper missing.
BTW in response to your citation of the costs of cabooses recorded by the UP; in Chapter 22 of Wagner's electronic book letters from the CRRM's C&S files indicate the 7 new broad gauge cars the C&S built in 1902 cost just $548.51 each (as opposed to, say, ng stock cars that cost over $700.00 each 5 years later). Is this perhaps an indictment of how much the UP overcharged its subsidiaries in the 1880s? Keep in mind that inflation while up and down was more or less negligible in the nation's economy in comparison to after 1913 when the Federal Reserve was established. We can't seriously apply inflation as a major factor in this equation. Yet some cars appear to be more than double in price, relative to their size and configuration! Also I'm certain the bean-counters included cost of shipping but.... really?
UP Journal 11/84: 2 new caboose #35 & #36 $842.96 @421.50
O.R.E.G. 6/85: #30-31 3 cars (but only 2 slots)
O.R.E.G. 12/85: #1575 - 1576 2 cars
#1579 - 1580 2 cars
*Box Car #025055 and #025057 (24' cars probably built Ohio Falls)
O.R.E.G. 2/94: #1575 - 1576 2 cars
#1579 - 1580 2 cars
*27' box cars being re-lettered DL&G and UPD&G
O.R.E.G. 8/94: Numbers of caboose remain unchanged
*reports they are all being used on Standard Gauge
1/96: Cars sold in Aug & Oct, 1895 per court order: 55 box, 45 coal, 10 flat, 28 stock, 1 water car and 1 caboose
1893 DL&G Auditors Journal pg. 74 - Dr. to New Equipment (account #12?)
"For this company's proportion of the amount standing at Credit of Vacated Equipment Account on the books of the Operating Dept. of the UP RY. Co. as of 12 Cot. 1893 now transferred to Credit of New Equipment."
1894 DL&G Auditors Journal pg. 82 - 17 Cabooses @ 450.00 each ($7650.00).
Pg. 84 - "Estimated cost of unserviceable cars ... dropped from the Equipment on 13 Oct. 1893... (incorrectly carried as active) ...now charged to Profit and Loss (account) and credited to the Equipment that said account may be corrected..." (to reflect equipment actually in service);
June 1898 DL&G Annual Report - 12 Cabooses with Westinghouse brakes and Selden couplers
Jan. 1899 DL&G Annual Report - 12 Cabooses
Questions - were all four of the KC cars bobbers? How many U&N cars were bobbers?
Apparently the two KC boxcars you've listed, converted to sg cabooses, were not being reported in the UP ARs as cabooses. This lends credence to Hol's observations that converted box cars were typically temporary.
I'm sure you don't intend the "* note" to apply to the 27' cars to the Colorado roads as they were not used on SG so far as we have records to show. One thing about the 27' boxcars that is my understanding; they were already on the UPD&G and DL&G and had been since perhaps 1890 or '91. But no evidence of a caboose. Not an inhibitor to the possibility that a KC caboose came to the DL&G in late 1895. Still there isn't any evidence of the other cars coming to the Colorado ngs at that time, that I am aware of.
But I need to know 1601 went back to Utah prior to 1896 since I have documentation it was on line in Colorado in 1895. Under a lease or otherwise. Them's the brightest dots I see...
Well the photo of 306 doesn't reveal a brake cylinder so I don't think it proves all of them had auto brakes but that is what the Annual Report indicates. I am of the opinion a lot of things happened in the late '90s including rebuilding of some of the cars with cupolas.
Utah & Northern:
Journal entry 6/83: 12 Way Car and Caboose @ $1,488.
We now know that at least one of them was a bobber, with a cupola. But with that high of a cost, is it possible that some of them were larger 8-wheeled cars?
Which gives us a total of possibly 16
At least 2, the 2 from the journal entry
I suspect that the other 2 were box car conversions.
So in summary, so far as the 4 wheeled car is concerned, we really haven't gone anywhere. The possibility of where the car came from could be - anywhere. The probability was either the KC or the U&N. A car documented on line in Colorado seems the more likely - to me, at least. The actual replacement number is also open. It could have been any of the numbers that came to the C&S. The lowest number vacant seems the most likely. Would that have been 1500? If we believe the ORER, original number 60 became that car in 1885. Was it still that car in 1898?
It is interesting to note that in a 1903 roster all of the former South Park cars were nearly identical in size - inside dimensions - (average 12'-5" length) except 303. (Three cars were listed without dimensions). 303 was at least 2 feet longer than any of the other cars. The dimensions are Pre - C&S rebuild (standard) of 1908. Explanations for this difference can include; either this car, which by simple appearances, was the oldest car on the roster (taking the ORER at its word), was either extensively rebuilt prior to 1899 or that it was built for a different road; Heads one, Tails the other.
As to the 8 wheeled car; I believe we can consider this to have been an 8 wheeled two-truck car - with the customary uncertainty that this is still not a fact. In this regard I think the discussion has been fruitful. Where the car came from, as a question, also seems to have been advanced; as a question it is no longer so vague. But we still cannot be certain if the car came from the U&N or from the UPD&G's own eclectic collection of assorted RR equipment from a dozen (some merely being paper roads) different companies of its consolidation. UR from the KC for that matter. Was it a former boxcar or that unique U&N dinki baggie? Is the car at Como the former C&S 302 / 0302 / 087?...
Will new evidence turn up? Will Erica finally give in to J.R.'s inappropriate advances?