The Three Barney & Smith CarsOr was it six? Or four? Or maybe five?FACTSThe South Park bought three cars from Barney & Smith of Dayton Ohio. Chappell {9} says they were all received 29 June 1878. One would expect these cars to be alike, but they were not. The following table compares what we know about them.
First, let’s look at the information from 1885, as it should be most nearly representative of the original cars. While the number of seats was the same, coach #4 was 4" to 6" shorter than either #3 or #5, which were probably the same length. (An inch difference over 40' is not surprising - slightly more than .2% error.) But coach #4 also had a very different pattern to its windows that makes it easy to spot in photographs: rather than 14 evenly spaced windows, as on the other two, coach #4 had a solid panel at the center of the car, making the windows fall into a 7 + 7 pattern. This space was not wide enough to have contained another window, so nothing had been left out: it was a matter of design.
The other thing that is different among the three coaches is that coach #5 had 26" wheels while the other two had 24" wheels. Is this a real difference? We shall probably never know, as Ehernberger admits doctoring the 1885 list to eliminate “obvious errors,” and the diagram page says the car (in 1916) had 26" wheels. Was this an “obvious error” that was “corrected?” The C&S passenger car diagram information, though late, and perhaps reflecting changes introduced during previous rebuildings, confirms the differences between the cars, particularly as to the lengths. While length over endsills may have been carried over from the 1885 information, length over buffers is a new figure that shows a 7" difference, thus confirming the roughly 6" difference in the 1885 over endsills information. And note that coach #4 was then 2" wider. (But take that with a grain of salt, as (1) the measurement may have been imprecise, (2) the measurement may have been taken at a different point on the car, and (3) width may have been added in the several rebuildings between 1878 and 1916, when the diagram page was last updated.) (Isn’t it interesting that car #4, the shorter of the three, is the one that has the “extra” panel in the center? And that though shorter, it was “fatter?”) Some argue that J.G. Brill was the builder of coach #5, but the only evidence we know of for this is the notation on the car diagram page for coach #5, the basis for which we do not know. (But we do know some builder information was inaccurate. See the Alternate Dates page.) And notice that coach #5 was more like coach #3 than was coach #4. If any one was “different” it was #4. (See Coach #5 History for fuller discussion of Brill as its builder.) Why were these cars different? Cars were usually made to order. The Ohio Falls Car Company is the only builder we know to have had an inventory of ready-mades. SUPPOSITIONThe answer to why coach #4 differed from #3 and #5 might lie buried in the order books of Barney & Smith. Unfortunately, the order books for this period are nowhere to be found. In The Barney & Smith Car Company, author Scott Trostel has tried to construct a hypothetical builder’s record, using trade journals of the times. He is to be commended for his efforts, but is the first to recognize the inexact nature of such an undertaking. Here’s his hypothetical listing for the Denver, South Park & Pacific (All are wooden cars with 8 wheels) —
We end up with a hypothetical list of four cars. Using the DSP&P numbers this is #3, #4, #5 and #9, with the latter having an improbable construction/delivery date. #3—Geneva—appears to
have been built as a chair car. The only thing to be gained from this hypothetical list seems to be the suggestion that #4—Halls Valley—may have been a coach rather than a chair car, as were #3 and #5. FACT?Perhaps the answer lies in the following quote from the Denver Daily Times (9) describing the new cars —
Halls Valley—Coach #4—may have been a combination coach-baggage car, converted to a coach by 1885. At least one authority has come to this conclusion, but we don’t know whether this was his basis or whether he had other evidence.
Back to coach #3 page |