caboose restoriation question

[jettrainfan]

Was talking with a couple of friends from the local model railroad club (CV&WS in Olmsted Falls, Ohio)on Sunday and the subject was restoring stuff. I said i personally would like to restore C&O 2707, a 2-8-4 that used to be in Cleveland ohio... but that's probably a dream that will doubtfully come true (never said i gave up hope  ), but anyway, the chat reminded me of these 3 IC cabooses I've filmed last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_0J-okUoE&feature=plcp

I was wondering, how much would it probably cost to restore them (interior and outside) to running condition. I have some experience with grinding and know its not something that happens over night. i forgot if they were rolling or friction bearing trucks, but just for the sake of the subject, lets say they're friction bearing. Would try to make some money by renting them to scenic railroads and what not.

Any ideas would be great!

[Desertdweller]

In order to be handled in interchange (between railroads) the FRA would require them to have steel underframes, be less than 50 years old, have roller bearing trucks, and brake gear that would meet current requirements.

They would also have to be current in their inspections and air tests, and not have excess brake piston travel.

Also, they would need a retention tank for their toilet and sink, and meet current safety specs.

Not a cheap project.

Les

[Desertdweller]

You would also need FRA type 223 glass in the windows, and maybe even seat belts!

The point I'm trying to make here is due to Federal rules, if you want to move your caboose over another railroad than the one it is on, you have to make a modern caboose out of it (unless you can get a waiver from the FRA and the railroads involved).

This sort of defeats the goal of restoring one.  It would be like the Government telling you, yes, you can drive your classic car on the highway, if it passes current emission standards, runs on unleaded gas, has seat belts, airbags, and antilock brakes.

Your restored caboose could be used as a static display, or used in service without being interchanged, but again meeting FRA safety rules.

Les

[phillyreading]

With all that was mentioned in the last few posts, to restore a caboose would cost over $40,000. That is if you can meet all the new safety codes.

Another item to be looked at is the couplers and unlatching devices, are they current for the National Safety Board to approve? If you want to travel on more than just one railroad or travel coast to coast.
That is why some tourist railroads stop operating, because of the National Safety Board requirements, very expensive to update even a minor fleet of four passenger cars.

Lee F.

[ebtnut]

Those are pretty modern cabooses.  It wouldn't be too hard to cosmetically restore one of them with appropriate body work and fresh paint.  It's hard to tell from the video, but it looks like the trucks don't have journal lids, which may indicate that they were re-fitted with roller bearing conversion kits.  They might not be all that hard to make road-worthy, but you would need to bring in an expert to do a real evaluation. 

[phillyreading]

I just looked at the video of the cabooses, and you need major cosmetic work, sandblasting to remove the heavy duty rust, windows are missing. To make those cabooses re-useable would take major money, you could almost buy new ones for close to the same price.

Lee F.

[Doneldon]

To make those cabooses re-useable would take major money, you could almost buy new ones for close to the same price.

Lee-

I think you are almost right. That is, I think it is probable that a new caboose would cost no more than a restoration. That's not unusual with restorations of anything, course. By the time one does demolition (the inside could be a mess given the external condition), restores the remains and then does one-off fitting of modern equipment to older stock, the costs get very high. And even though this is a recent caboose as cabeese go, they've been obsolete so long compared to operational and safety developments that I would expect the need for major refitting.

                                                                                                                                                     --D

[Skarloey Railway]

In the UK most equipment moving between steam/preserved railways goes by road vehicle as the costs are a damn site less and there's more flexibilty. Not all UK preserved railways connect to the network and any delay if travelling by the railway means missing your timetabled path.

I imagine the need to get the caboose to modern standards is based on it needing to traverse the mainline, whereas, if it never travels by the mainline different rules might apply.

It would be like the movement of NG equipment as I seriously doubt a 3' gauge K27 meets modern standards, what with them wheels being so close together.

[jettrainfan]

Thanks everyone for the help, like i said earlier, this is mainly plain out curiosity, so nothing could probably drive me away from the idea.

Skarloey: as for the narrow gauge equipment, it does need to meet Modern day standards, but it can't be interchanged because of it not being the same gauge as most railroads. I remember my grandpa playing train simulator and when he got off he'd let me run. When he came back, he would say "you know, i don't even know how that's possible, the wheels are inside the gauge." and indeed they were! in real life, i think more harm would be done then just a couple of laughs, probably be equivalent to dragging a derailed car, not a good thing.

[Desertdweller]

It is not unusual for equipment not able to be handled on its own wheels in interchange to be moved aboard flatcars, or even road trailers.  Pretty much the only way to get narrow gauge equipment moved around these days.

Cars of any gauge can have their trucks removed, and be carried aboard flat cars.

In this country, no distinction is made concerning interchange rules as to if the intended use is for main line or branch lines.  Equipment used on branches must meet the same requirements as equipment running on main lines.

Certain equipment that does not meet interchange rules is allowed use on its owning railroad, as long as that equipment never leaves that railroad.  Examples are company-service equipment, like snow plows, ballast cars, etc.

Les

[Skarloey Railway]

Hmm. Maybe the way the regulations are applied is fundamentally different in the states. In the UK engines and rolling stock from preserved lines can be swapped around but anything that goes on the mainline has to meet higher standards. My point was, if the aim is simply to take the caboose to different heritage railroad sites then avoiding interchange by rail might mean you don't have to meet such stringent requirements and so lessen the restoration costs and reduce excessive alteration to the thing you're trying to preserve.

[Desertdweller]

Yes, that is the way it works here.  The only equipment rules specific to main lines would involve equipment compatibility with signal systems used on main lines.  For instance, if you are running a locomotive on a cab signal-controlled line, the locomotive would have to be equipped with cab signals.

Cab signal equipment aboard locomotives must be tested prior to each time a locomotive enters a cab-signaled line from a non-cab-signaled line.  This might occur several times a day.

Les

[Doneldon]

I would guess that removing the trucks and moving a caboose on a flatbed truck is much cheaper than updating the mechanicals so it could be moved as a piece of rolling stock actually on the rails. I would bet that such a plan would even be cheaper than putting it on a flatcar because rail transportation would still require trucks at each end to get the caboose between its end points and the rail terminals.
                                                                                                                                                                           -- D