This post was updated on .
. . . unfortunately, if the St. Charles cars got their knuckle couplers in 1903 they would have had them before the 27 footers were rebuilt. I am sure the 27 foot cars were refitted later as well, but I am not going to tear the draft gear apart on mine.
According to research by Derrell Poole (published in Volume 2, Number 3 of the Colorado Narrow Gauge Quarterly, 2008), based on written C&S records of AFEEs (Authorizations for Extraordinary Expenditures), the 26 and 27 foot Tiffanys didn't have the funds for rebuilding until 1902-1903. That explains how some Tiffany reefers were seen in wreck photos as late as 1902 still wearing their old UP lettering, when most other freight cars had been re-lettered for "The Colorado Road."
According to Derrell, the first Tiffanys were rebuilt in May of 1902 (numbers 576, 577, 579, 580, 581 and 597), most being the 26 foot cars. The last Tiffany rebuilt was in May, 1903, 27 footer number 590. The whole rebuilding process for the inherited reefers took a year, the cars being rebuilt by the shops in batches of 2-6 cars at a time. (Derrell's article has been out of print for a while, I can email a copy to anyone interested).
The federal ICC mandate for automatic air brakes and knuckle couplers went into effect in 1903, but most of these federal acts had a grace period to allow the railroad to comply. For example, the July 1, 1911 USSA Act which mandated standardized grab iron placement, had a grace period lasting until 1916. In other writings, Derrell has stated that the C&S dragged its feet up until the last minute, and scrapped many of the older cars in 1916, as they were not worth the monies to rebuild them to comply. Most of the inherited cars of the 1880's disappeared about this time.
The only photo of one of the rebuilt Tiffany that I know of is this one:
Blackhawk, c1903, in Poole and Martin, Grandt's Narrow Gauge Pictorial VIII
According to Derrell, the 597 was a 27 foot car rebuilt in May, 1902. It obviously still has link and pin couplers after rebuilding, as does the Peninsular 30 foot coal car 4915.
Since this 27 foot car (by number) has hinges like those on a 26 foot car, have you ever wondered whether this is really a 26 foot car given a new number, once the rebuilding was complete. If up to six cars were torn apart in the shops at the same time, things could have gotten confused when re-painting / re-lettering time came, don't you think?
And this July, 1902 photo of C&S number 13's rollover above Blackhawk, shows a big St Charles reefer in its train, towering over the 27 foot boxcars ahead of it:
Klais photo, Ronzio collection in Kindig, et al, The Pictorial Supplement . . .
Link and pin couplers are obviously still in use, judging by the pilot of number 13. The girl in the bonnet at the right frame is gonna catch a fly if she doesn't close her mouth soon . . .
Or consider this DPL photo:
A big St Charles reefer is at the left frame, behind derailed C&S 30, the Alma branch engine. It has a reweigh date of February, 1905. This may be another example of yellow appearing dark on orthochromatic film. I think I can make out a faint "Refrigerator" in black from the builder's paint scheme. Anyways, passenger engine C&S 4 still has a link and pin arrangement on its plow as late as 1905. Search "outlaw engine" on the Discussion Forum and main blog site to read Derrell's take on these anachronisms.
Anyways, I think there is some evidence that both classes of reefers coexisted with link and pin couplers, on both, for a few years, say 1902 until possibly 1905. IMHO, I'd build your St Charles reefer model with link and pin couplers, to be consistent.
This raises an interesting question about the mixed fleet issue. Pictures after 1903 show Sams link and pin couplers, so did the C&S segregate cars on their divisions based on coupler fit, make up trains based on coupler type or fit slotted knuckles on the early knuckle conversion cars so they would be interoperable with the older equipment, or a little of all that? Maybe the St. Charles cars had slotted knuckles installed on '03?
I'm not sure if anyone knows. The 1903 act applied to freight cars of railroads involved in interstate commerce where the freight cars were interchanged with other roads.
This caused a big problem for the D&RG, as its narrow gauge mainline meandered through northern New Mexico between Alamosa and Durango and of course to Santa Fe. Rather than refit its hundreds of B&S 24-foot cars, the D&RG purchased hundreds of new freight cars from AC&F in 1903-1904, including the 350 boxcars of the 3000 series and the later orders of 32 foot gons (1500-1899).
But did this mandate apply to the C&S? The C&S as a corporate entity was an interstate carrier, with standard gauge mainlines north to Wyoming and south to New Mexico and Texline, Texas, where it connected to its southern twin, the Fort Worth and Denver. But the C&S narrow gauge operations were all in Colorado, and interchange (with the D&RG) occurred only at Leadville, Buena Vista and Gunnison.
Is it possible that many of the older, inherited cars (scheduled for scrapping when the planned modernization of the freight car fleet was completed in 1907-1910) were segregated and used on the Clear Creek lines, where interchange wasn't an issue? Did these cars retain their old link and pin couplers well into the later part of the first decade? That would explain all the slotted Janney couplers, allowing both types of couplers to operate.
Consider this familiar photo:
Idaho Springs, in Poole and Martin, Grandt's Narrow Gauge Pictorial VIII
I had always assumed that flat car C&S 1049 was a rebuilt Litchfield 26 foot flat car (a Litchfield car based on the number of stake pockets, their location and the Litchfield style bolsters with the two bolt heads). I'd believed that the car was rebuilt c1899-1901, with straight side sills and beefed up underframe with 4 truss rods on new heavy queen posts. In this photo, usually dated 1901-1903, the car still has link and pin couplers.
But when enlarging the photo to study the brake details, I noticed this on the right end of the side sill:
To me, the reweigh date reads "Denver 10-11-07 Wt 13500". If so, given the light jackets and shirt-sleeves on the humans, this could even be spring or summer of 1908. Does this mean freight cars on the Clear Creek lines were still operating with link and pin couplers this late? Chris Walker is our Clear Creek scholar, perhaps he will opine.
A contrarian argument would be that the bolt head from the grab iron is really obscuring the upper loop part of the numeral "9", and the reweigh date is really 10-11-97. But that would means that the car was actually rebuilt in the late 1890s, during the DL&G receivership.
What do others think??
in as far as the reweigh stencil having the Grabiron applied over top, then that would change things from what appears as 1907 as to really 1897, since the Bertha Prospectus I'd come across was from 1901, see http://c-sng-discussion-forum.41377.n7.nabble.com/Thoughts-on-Roper-s-Snapshot-Saturday-No-30-td2459.html
Good observance, a jigsaw puzzle piece with a torn corner ?
in New Zealand
I'd forgotten about your Bertha Prospectus post. Hard to argue with a written document that dates a photo by including a photo of the photo! So, 1901 it is . . . which means the Litchfield flat was actually rebuilt in the fall of 1897.
What I find fascinating is how much earlier things happened on the C&S, than previously thought. I'd always imagined that when the new C&S finally dawned, that's when President Trumbull rolled up his sleeves and began capital improvements to the property.
In truth, it appears Receiver Trumbull had been rebuilding things and buying new stuff during the receivership, in the late 1890s.
Car #1049 was re-lettered C&S 4/3/00 at which time it weighed 13600 pounds.
Therefore 1907 is the reweighing date
can you scan the other view of this unloading in the NGPict viii pg49? The coalcar #4637 stenciling is visible, to the West adjacent the #1049, to me it has D 7 97 with weight underneath.
Both photos of this Flat show a Pinchbar in the same position by the Eastern loaded Hoistengine, the same Pinchbar is also visible in the Bertha Prospectus photo but now on the ground leaning against the sidesill, probably because it was used to move the flat slightly further West than the two NGPict photo location.
Also the de-mounted drum and bullgear show the same design as that of the fully assembled hoistgear on the #1047, the powerpole is also visible in all three pictures so unless anything else comes to light, I now think that this is the same shipment.
Why the grabiron is bolted over top of the stenciled date to me shows a later addition, never known a railway painter to remove hardware for stenciling, ours never even cleaned off the dirt, just painted a patch straight over it.
in New Zealand
This post was updated on .
Here you go, Chris:
My best scan of the flat 1049 in Grandt's Narrow Gauge Pictorial:
Enlarged and contrast adjusted:
Best that I can make out for a weigh date is "7-x-97".
So we have weigh dates from what appears to be 1897 vs 1907. Ron has documentation that the flat car was repainted and relettered in April of 1900, suggesting 1907 is the correct year for the reweigh. You have printed documentation that the date of the photo is 1901, six years earlier than the reweigh, if it occurred in 1907. How to reconcile all this? Usually there is little or no documentation to date a photo, here we have too much!
Might I suggest that both you and Ron are correct. We are assuming that the car was completely repainted and relettered in 1900, which would have covered any dimensional data and weigh dates prior to that year. But what if the car was relettered in 1900, but not completely repainted?
The new C&S management wanted to purge the railroad property of any reminder of the prior UP ownership, and initiated "The Colorado Road" lettering scheme in 1899-1900. This had to be quite a chore for the car shops, as the order included all of the standard gauge freight cars as well. Some of the narrow gauge cars may have just been shopped or even rebuilt in the last couple of years of the receivership.
Isn't it possible that the car shops merely painted "patches" of fresh freight car red over the areas needed to locate the new lettering? The photo in my prior post is the clearest of the several images taken that day. Studying the flat car side sills under enlargement on my monitor, the dimensional data at the left end of the sill and the weigh date at the right end of the sill don't seem to match the new "Colorado & Southern" lettering: The fonts vary as do the size of the letters and numbers. And, Ron, isn't that an old "Westinghouse Air Brake" emblem on the left end of the sill?
I'm suggesting that the car men put a fresh coat of the same freight-car red paint on the center part of the sill for the new lettering, but left the ends of the sills alone, so the 1897 reweigh date survived the 1900 relettering.
Other examples of patch-painting and relettering:
Same two cars, same day, same pinch bar. Coal car 4637 has a dark area of new paint on the body between the two center stakes, covering the old UP/DL&G reporting marks, the new C&S reporting marks applied on top. The side sill also looks darker in the center of the car under the new "Colorado & Southern" and road number. The rest of the car appears to have weathered paint, including under the new box herald on the left end of the body.
Bob Stears attached, but did not up load this photo of C&S outfit car 023 at Leadville. Another 27 foot coal car at the left upper corner appears to have an irregular new paint patch between the center stakes, and the center of the side sill also looks darker.
An enlargement of Doug Heitkamps "Poles on Flats" photo shows two Peninsular flat cars in Idaho Springs about the same time as the photos of 1049 with its machinery lading. Flat car 1071 has a pretty uniform paint job under the new lettering, and appears to have been rebuilt with new straight, notched side sills. Sister flat car 1064 (with original tapered side sills) seems to have darker paint under the new lettering on the center of the side sill, with the ends of the side sill (including the dimensional data / weigh date) weathered, almost illegible.
I really hadn't noticed this before. Since I have a string of three Cimarron Works 27-foot coal cars under construction, I think I'll try to reproduce this effect, with one car completely freshly painted / lettered, the other two with varying paint patches over faded freight car red sides and ends. I was impressed how Bob Stears painted his outfit car 023 to reflect this paint patch effect.
Anyhow, I think 1901 is the best date for the photo of 1049.
Coal #4637 has the stencil 5-7-97 on it, the best rendition of this Lachlan McLean picture is in Secure the Shadow by Duane A. Smith and Hank Wieler, it just took a contact from Arizona and reader of this forum to jog my memory.
Stan Schwedler sent his copy of 4637 and 1049:
My question in response to this is..... would all those cars gathered on that particular day in Idaho Springs still have the Link&Pin couplers in 1907? I'm not really that up on freightcars, my admiration of the two pictures in question stems from the Mining Industry load.
in New Zealand
This post was updated on .
Thanks for posting this wonderfully clear image of this photograph. The "Paint Patch" on the sill of coal car 4637 is much more apparent here.
My question in response to this is..... would all those cars gathered on that particular day in Idaho Springs still have the Link&Pin couplers in 1907?
I'd guess not. My point about the couplers on the Tiffany cars was that 1903 shouldn't be taken as a "drop dead" deadline for changing out cars to automatic couplers. The program started in earnest in 1903, but may not have been complete until 1905. Otherwise, why were all those slotted knuckle couplers installed? It implies that both type of couplers were used together, at least for a while.
The Trumbull management probably figured this federal requirement into their plans for new car building. Many of the inherited car classes were likely used only until enough new cars could be built in the C&S 1902-1910 car building program.
It is unlikely that coal car 4637 (or any of the 27 foot 14-ton coal cars) ever received automatic couplers. The 161 new 30-foot, 25-ton coal cars out-shopped by the C&S in early 1902 made them redundant and they were likely scrapped at that time.
Many of the 26 foot Litchfield and 27 foot UP built boxcars received automatic couplers, but as new boxcars were constructed, beginning in 1907, their numbers dwindled. By summer of 1909 (with none of the SUF boxcars yet constructed) only one of the 26-foot and only 13 of the 27-foot boxcars remained listed in revenue service.
It is not clear if the flat car 1049 in the photo received automatic couplers. After the delivery of the twenty new 25-ton flat cars in 1902, it may have also disappeared. By the 1909 C&S inventory, only 3 of the Litchfield flat cars remained in service, perhaps spared by all the short haul pipe traffic to the Denver Waterworks construction going on in lower Platte Canon. Perhaps little 1049 was one of them, since it had been rebuilt. John Maxwell's roster lists them as "out by 1912".
To bring these thoughts back to the rebuilt Tiffany reefers (the actual subject of this thread) it seems that management felt it necessary to rebuild most of them in 1902-1903 (21 to 22 of the surviving Tiffanys were rebuilt by Derrell's estimate), as there just weren't enough of the new big St Charles reefers. The big cars were evidently poorly suited to the South Park division, and tended to stay on Clear Creek. The rebuilt Tiffanys were likely the mainstay reefer on the South Park Division for 5 or 6 years, until the 20 SUF reefers were delivered by the C&S shops in early 1909.
Question is, were the Tiffanys used much after 1909? Did they ever receive the C&S block monogram lettering? Did they ever receive US Safety Appliance hardware?
The C&S 1909 inventory shows the number of Tiffanys in service to be down to 12 cars, 6 of each length. John Maxwell's roster published in The Pictorial Supplement . . . showed only 5 Tiffanys still on the roster about 1912, with notes that they were "out by 1923". Were they actually in use that late, or merely sitting on some siding in Denver or Como, slowly deteriorating?
Perhaps Ron Rudnick has more information as to when automatic coupler installation had been completed and the fate of the Tiffany reefers after 1910.
Well, after a long hiatus I have been back at the St. Charles build. Unfortunately, in the interim Yea Old Huff and Puff has suspended business, so the base kit I used is not available except on the used market. Those wanting to build a St. Charles car of their own will need to make the carbody from scratch, but given the extent of the conversion that will be not that much more work.
The underbody has been detailed with Westinghouse airbrakes using Grandt parts, as that is the description of the brake equipment on the folio sheet.
The good news is that I was able to solve the biggest problem holding up the St. Charles build - the door hinges. Fortunately a friend in my modeling club has a laser cutter, and was kind enough to volunteer to prepare a CAD file and laser cut them for me. They are made of a composite fiberboard material, and include the fastener detail. I need to add the hinges from styrene rod. If anyone is interested in a set, I am sure he would be willing to sell them.
Fortunately, San Juan Car Company makes appropriate trucks.
Ended up going with Jim's thought on using link-and-pin couplers; they are the Coronado castings, and represent Sams couplers. The rest of the end detail is all scratched from brass.
With any luck my decals will show up from Ozark Miniatures soon.
In reply to this post by Jim Courtney
You are confusing Narrow Gauge with System. The C&S unsuccessfully argued that since all of their 3' gauge lines were intrastate that they should not be forced to comply with the Safety Appliance Act.
The ICC held that they HAD to comply because the Safety Appliance Act made no differentiation between gauges.
The C&S ran in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. So it definitely came under the Act.
I remember as a kid (around 12-14) that the C&S was still operating Truss Rod Boxes with Arch Bar trucks in their Maintenance of Way trains. That was in the 1960's. As long as these cars were never interchanged, they were good to go. That was a different act, but it just shows how long that stuff could be around.
This is good to know information.
But it sounds like your describing the USSA, with a deadline for compliance of 1916. I was referring to the federal act requiring automatic couplers. The deadline of 1903 has been discussed by Derrell and others, but I was never sure if the federal act was enacted in 1903, with a grace period for compliance, or if 1903 was the compliance deadline.
I was never clear to me whether the C&S narrow gauge system (intrastate) was exempted from the coupler ruling, or whether the standard gauge (interstate) lines forced compliance. Sounds like the latter from your info. I wonder though, did the C&S stall the installation of couplers for awhile, while appealing the federal requirement?
As to arch bar trucked, truss rod MOW cars on the C&S, it's southern twin the Fort Worth and Denver did the same thing as late as the early 1960s.
I disagree, the ICC made it quite clear that the C&S had to convert all of its link and pin couplers to Knuckle couplers on both the 3' gauge and the broad gauge. As I said, the ICC made no differentiation in gauges. The C&S was interstate, thus ALL of its equipment had to be converted to knuckle couplers both 3' and 4' 8 1/2". The only reason that they held out so long was because of the protest against having to convert was their quixotic protest against doing it. The D&RGW made the same protest that the C&S did, with the same amount of success. The RGS was part of it as well. When the ruling from the ICC came down, it was do or die time for the C&S and they converted. 1903 was actually five years after the 1898 deadline for conversion to automatic couplers.
The D&RG tried to get around the conversion using the Sams coupler which had a lift bar accessible from the side and end of the car. The act did not specify any standard coupler, to wit:
Need automatic couplers that can be uncoupled without man going between. On January 1, 1898, it will be unlawful for a common carrier used for interstate commerce to haul or permit to be hauled any car that is not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact and which can be uncoupled without a man going between the ends of the cars.
The ICC didn't buy the D&RGW's Argument and made them convert to knuckle couplers.
There were many types produced, the Selden, Janney, Tower, and a myriad of others, all having a different knuckle configuration.
Under the Amendments to the original act, the following was found:
The original law was amended by a subsequent act in 1903, whose first section provides that the requirements of the original act respecting train brakes, automatic couplers, and grab irons shall be held to apply to all trains and cars used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, unless a minor exception were satisfied.
By its second section this act requires that not less than 50 percent of the cars in a train shall have their train brakes used and operated by the engineer on the locomotive, and confers upon the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the authority to increase this minimum percentage to the end that the objects intended may be more fully accomplished. By an order promulgated June 6, 1910, the Commission increased the minimum number of cars whose train brakes must be under the engineer's control to 85 percent.
A 1910 legislative amendment required additional equipment, including ladders, sill steps, and hand brakes.
So there were two subsequent amendments to the original act of 1893. The final drop dead date being extended from 1900 to 1916.
You're correct on all points, Rick!
I was able to find, on line, the actual published statutes for the 1893 safety act and the 1903 and 1910 amendments; they confirm all of your statements.
In additional reading, it seems the railroad industry was not keen on complying with the acts, and there was a lot of litigation in state and federal courts over whether the ICC had powers to enforce the act and even the definition of what "interstate commerce" in fact was. (Many railroads operated solely within the confines of a single state, like the FW&D in Texas and the D&SL in Colorado).
The ICC view that prevailed was that any American railroad that participated in the interchange of cars that crossed state lines (or territorial lines in the case of New Mexico) was engaging in interstate commerce.
I guess legal fees were cheaper than installing new appliances to freight car fleets, if they had won. But they didn't.
So what I've learned here is that, yes, 1903 was the drop-dead deadline for conversion to automatic couplers. Those railroads that had chosen to stall and avoid compliance had to fully comply that year. Explains why many of the inherited cars on the C&S were pulled from service that year. Likewise, on the D&RG all those 24 foot B&S built cars seemed to be removed from their roster that year also.
Not so fast on the D&RG 24 footers. A number were rebuilt in 1902 and at least 4 showed up in the 1923 - 1924 Marshall Pass data I mentioned in earlier posts. Numbers 2611, 2823, 3767 and 3874.
How many of the 24 footers were rebuilt? A significant number? Were automatic air brakes also added, or did they remain as part of the <50% of the cars in a train with straight air?
Also, the AC&F 30 foot boxcars, the 3000 series, had been ordered prior to 1903 and delivered that year. Were they delivered with SAMS couplers and changed to MCB knuckle types on delivery, or were they delivered with automatic knuckle couplers?
In reply to this post by Jim Courtney
Yes, Rick was indeed spot-on with his explanation of ICC jurisdiction (NO surprise there).
And Jim rightly sensed the presence of the 800-pound gorilla in the room – litigation. All the legal wrangling over ICC jurisdiction eventually wound up in the United States Supreme Court.
The seminal case on ICC appliance jurisdiction is Southern Railway Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911).
The facts giving rise to the lawsuit were these = In February 1907 the ICC caught the Southern Railway hauling five cars equipped with couplers that did not comply the ICC Act of 1893 as amended by the Act of 1903. The Southern Ry used two of the cars in moving interstate traffic but the other three never moved anywhere but inside the state in question. The Southern Ry objected to the imposition of any penalty imposed against the three cars that never ever crossed state lines.
By way of background, the original Act of March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196, imposed on every common carrier "engaged in interstate commerce by railroad" the duty of equipping all trains, locomotives, and cars used on its line of railroad in moving interstate traffic with certain designated appliances.
The Act of March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976, amended the 1893 Act and enlarged its scope by applying it "to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce … and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used in connection therewith."
Writing the opinion for the court, Justice Van Devanter framed the first issue facing it as “the true significance of the words ‘on any railroad engaged’” in the 1903 Act. 222 U. S. at 24, 25. Justice Van Devanter concluded the Act of 1903 “embraces every train on a railroad which is a highway of interstate commerce, without regard to the class of traffic which the cars are moving” (222 U. S. at 25) since “the manifest purpose, shown throughout the amendatory  act, [was] to enlarge the scope of the earlier” 1893 Act (222 U. S. at 25). Justice Van Devanter concluded, “the original act, as enlarged by the amendatory one, is intended to embrace all locomotives, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad which is a highway of interstate commerce.”
The second issue Justice Van Devanter addressed was “whether these acts [of 1893 and 1903] are within the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution, considering that they are not confined to vehicles used in moving interstate traffic, but embrace vehicles used in moving intrastate traffic.” 222 U. S. at 26.
10th Amendment provides “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, … are reserved to the States ...”
The so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution provides Congress with the Power “To regulate Commerce … among the several States …”
In concluding the acts of 1893 and 1903 were not unconstitutional incursions into powers reserved to the states Justice Van Devanter said “the true test of the application of [the 1903 Act] to a locomotive, car, or similar vehicle would be … the use of the vehicle in moving interstate traffic …” 222 U.S. at 25. Thus, “speaking only of railroads which are highways of both interstate and intrastate commerce, … both classes of traffic [interstate and intrastate] are at times carried in the same car…” 222 U.S. at 27.
And so, the box of Cuban Cohibas that crossed any number of state lines before it ended up in the C&S combine carrying it up to me in Central City was interstate commerce that the Clear Creek Lines thus became involved in and thus subjected itself to ICC rules and regulations, despite the fact the car itself never ever wandered from the friendly confines of Colorado.
This post was updated on .
Yes, John, I suspect lawyers for the railroads were responsible for the attempt to delay or merely shrug off compliance.
The lawyers may have been given a loophole by poor wording of the initial 1893 statue, as it applies to automatic couplers:
SEC. 2 . That on and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars .
It seems, due to the poor wording, that the DL&G and the successor C&S could argue that the cars of its three foot lines never crossed a state line, were not engaged in interstate traffic and were therefore exempt from the ruling. It was not an issue of the gauge, but the geographical use of the "car", only within the state.
The 1903 amendment to the act seems to be a rewording of the original act and a smack down of those railroads seeking to avoid compliance:
. . . the provisions and requirements hereof and of said Acts relating to train brakes, automatic couplers, grab irons, and the height of drawbars shall be held to apply to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and in the Territories and the District of Columbia, and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used in connection therewith . . .
The 1903 amendment to the original act was approved March 2, 1903; the amendment did allow a brief grace period:
SEC. 3. That the provisions of this Act shall not take effect until September first, nineteen hundred and three. Nothing in this Act shall be held or construed to relieve any common carrier, the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any United States district attorney from any of the provisions, powers, duties, liabilities, or requirements of said act . . .
So, the Colorado narrow gauge lines had just six months to fully comply with the 1893 act and its 1903 amendment.
In a way, I'm sorry I opened this can of worms on Konrad's thread, but now we have a firm timeline for link-n-pin vs automatic couplers on the C&S.
Anyways, back to early C&S reefers!
This post was updated on .
Testing law with a lawyer -- you are brave, Jim.
I recall the D&RGW modernization program (K-27s, 3000, 5000 series cars) were purchased starting in 1903. Coincidence? I think not!
Leadville in Sn3
Since my last post I have managed to add roof details and finished most of the detailing work on one side (just hinges on the other).
Roof detail and ice hatch hardware is all scratch, save some Grandt hinges. I was able to notch the hatch timbers using a UMM micro saw and a tiny gang-miter box I made from styrene sheet.
The unique St. Charles style door hinges are laser cut parts by Eric Jensen (these parts are now available for like minded builders, let me know if you are interested and I will supply his contact info), with some .020" styrene rod for the hinge pins. They have .010" holes to represent the fasteners - though I thought about it (the holes go through) I did not add individual bolt detail - felt that could be the straw on this camel
The door latch hardware is a Grandt D&RGW part, heavily modified.
So now for the next intriguing detail for your consideration - painted roof walk or bare wood?
I just finished decal artwork for this car. The decals are being printed at Rail Graphics and should be here by the end of the month. Send me your snail mail address and I will send you a set - the set contains the as delivered lettering as well as later black block lettering.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Konrad Schreier [via C&Sng Discussion Forum] <[hidden email]> wrote:
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|