Nostalgia & History > Caboose, Hack, Ape Cage...

Crummy, Cabin Car, Whatever you want to call them, I miss cabooses. To me a train still doesn't look right without a caboose bringing up the rear. So we fired up the Wayback Machine and came up with six examples of this vanishing breed.

1. The conductor is in proper position in extended vision caboose 199335 as his southbound train gets up to speed having just left Woodcrest and is passing through Matteson, IL. October, 1975

2. Here we have kind of a two for one at Blue Island, IL. The EL caboose is on the IHB and the CNW waycar is on the B&OCT having just delivered a train to Barr Yard. June 22, 1975

3. We got a friendly wave from the Santa Fe conductor as his train slips by UD Tower in Joliet, IL. May 1, 1975

---

---

---

4. We got a request for an IHB cupola caboose. This isn't my best shot, but unfortunately it's my ONLY shot of one. Hammond, IN December 1, 1974.

5. A D&H extended vision caboose does the honors on a northbound freight leaving Oneonta Yard in New York state when Oneonta was still a busy place. July, 1978.

6. Finally, the conductor gets ready to snag his set of orders at Porter Jct, IN as his train gets on the Porter Branch. April 17, 1979

---

---

---

That Conrail caboose looks more like a boat than a caboose! Cool shots!

oilcan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Conrail caboose looks more like a boat than a
> caboose! Cool shots!

A classic ex-PRR N5C. Gotta love the porthole windows, and the angled cupola is stylish, too. Agreed - cool shots.

I love cabooses and appreciate all the photos, but that first one is the best photograph of the bunch. Well done.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love cabooses and appreciate all the photos, but
> that first one is the best photograph of the
> bunch. Well done.



The most dangerous piece of equipment ever fastened to a train.
Not my assessment the FRA's.

Here is another caboose. This one is a T&P std. steel caboose with a computer necessitated reporting mark of TP, a change from their regular lettering.

---

Interesting looking tank car coupled ahead of that ATSF caboose in the third one.

One I rode in two weeks ago, of Lehigh Valley heritage.

---

JLY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most dangerous piece of equipment ever fastened to a train.
> Not my assessment the FRA's.

Seriously? You need a government bureaucracy to tell you that the most likely place to receive an injury is where the greatest number of crewmen spend the majority of their time? Wow, that's a shocker. If all the rear-end crew members rode on a bulkhead flat car, then bulkhead flatcars would be "the most dangerous piece of equipment ever fastened to a train." It's not the vehicle that is the problem, it's the almost constant presence of people there that creates the greatest likelihood for injuries to happen there.

This reminds me of that stupid and utterly useless statement insurance companies always like to throw out there that goes something like this, "The majority of accidents happen when you are near your own home." Well, no $hi+. No matter where we go, the trip almost always starts and ends at or near our home. So statistically, we drive there more often than anywhere else. It doesn't mean we are worse drivers near our homes, or there are more hazards near our homes. It just means we are in that area more often, therefore the likelihood of having an incident there is higher.

BFD.

Today, what few crew members are left, ride the head end. So now the locomotive is statistically "the most dangerous piece of equipment fastened to a train" simply because that is where the crew members spend the majority of their time.

The reduction of crew members in today's railroad environment alone would statistically reduce reportable injuries on cabooses, all other things being equal. The problem wasn't the caboose itself, it was the presence and number of humans in it that made it "dangerous". The car just ahead of the caboose, whether a flat, box car, whatever, got virtually the same treatment as the caboose behind it yet it's lack of being occupied by people made it statistically "less dangerous".

The disdain for cabooses by the carriers wasn't about injuries. That was just the excuse to get rid of them. It was about cost. Cabooses were, undeniably, costly to purchase and maintain. I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. But hey, the Feds and the carriers won. Cabooses are gone. They are relegated to the history bin. No need to continually crucify them in this day and age with meaningless statements from idiotic bureaucrats from days long gone.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JLY Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The most dangerous piece of equipment ever
> fastened to a train.
> > Not my assessment the FRA's.
>
> Seriously? You need a government bureaucracy to
> tell you that the most likely place to receive an
> injury is where the greatest number of crewmen
> spend the majority of their time? Wow, that's a
> shocker. If all the rear-end crew members rode on
> a bulkhead flat car, then bulkhead flatcars would
> be "the most dangerous piece of equipment ever
> fastened to a train." It's not the vehicle that is
> the problem, it's the almost constant presence of
> people there that creates the greatest likelihood
> for injuries to happen there.
>
> This reminds me of that stupid and utterly useless
> statement insurance companies always like to throw
> out there that goes something like this, "The
> majority of accidents happen when you are near
> your own home." Well, no $hi+. No matter where we
> go, the trip almost always starts and ends at or
> near our home. So statistically, we drive there
> more often than anywhere else. It doesn't mean we
> are worse drivers near our homes, or there are
> more hazards near our homes. It just means we are
> in that area more often, therefore the likelihood
> of having an incident there is higher.
>
> BFD.
>
> Today, what few crew members are left, ride the
> head end. So now the locomotive is statistically
> "the most dangerous piece of equipment fastened to
> a train" simply because that is where the crew
> members spend the majority of their time.
>
> The reduction of crew members in today's railroad
> environment alone would statistically reduce
> reportable injuries on cabooses, all other things
> being equal. The problem wasn't the caboose
> itself, it was the presence and number of humans
> in it that made it "dangerous". The car just ahead
> of the caboose, whether a flat, box car, whatever,
> got virtually the same treatment as the caboose
> behind it yet it's lack of being occupied by
> people made it statistically "less dangerous".
>
> The disdain for cabooses by the carriers wasn't
> about injuries. That was just the excuse to get
> rid of them. It was about cost. Cabooses were,
> undeniably, costly to purchase and maintain. I'm
> surprised they lasted as long as they did. But
> hey, the Feds and the carriers won. Cabooses are
> gone. They are relegated to the history bin. No
> need to continually crucify them in this day and
> age with meaningless statements from idiotic
> bureaucrats from days long gone.

Yes eliminate the Caboose, thus eliminate the employees in it, thus eliminte the personal injuries, thus eliminate the PI law suits. EOT and FRED are away less expensive.

What is the heritage of ICG 199335? Ex-GM&O or ICG bought new?

Judging by the size of the tank car I would guess it may have been a hazardous (residue?) next to the ATSF caboose. Also note the shiftable load next to the IHB caboose. Both are not allowed under today's rules......

lynnpowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the heritage of ICG 199335? Ex-GM&O or
> ICG bought new?

Bought new----similar to later-day ATSF cabooses

I cannot comment on the observation that the caboose was the most dangerous piece of equipment on the end of the train, but I can opine that it was the most costly with the lowest cost/benefit ratio on the train.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/12 20:05 by CCDeWeese.

CCDeWeese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can opine that it
> was the most costly with the lowest cost/benefit
> ratio on the train.

In recent menory of railroad operations, probably so. When trains ran in unsignalled territory on 5 minute headway, and when the front and rear flagmen had to be a mile from their train to protect at an unscheduled stop, or when there were 40 boxcars and every one had to be switched to a different industry (and you had to leave the switch set for the mainline) then the caboose and its occupants were doubtless of considerable value to the train and the company.

Times change.

CSX_ENG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lynnpowell Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What is the heritage of ICG 199335? Ex-GM&O or
> > ICG bought new?
>
> Bought new----similar to later-day ATSF cabooses


Bought new by GM&O.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

That Pennsy caboose with the portholes reminds me that the conductor was sometimes called, the "Captain" or the "Skipper", and according to some stories, the word "caboose" was derived from a Dutch term for a structure on the deck of a ship. Shiver me timbers!

> Bought new by GM&O.
>
> Nick Tharalson,
> Marion, IA

According to this site the ICG caboose (ICG 199300-199349) was built by International Car Co. in 1976.....

http://www.icrr.net/ICcaboose.htm

CSX_ENG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Bought new by GM&O.
> >
> > Nick Tharalson,
> > Marion, IA
>
> According to this site the ICG caboose (ICG
> 199300-199349) was built by International Car Co.
> in 1976.....
>
> http://www.icrr.net/ICcaboose.htm

Didn't know that. Thanks for the correction.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA