Do you fudge the truth?

[mmagliaro]

"those two pieces of equipment shouldn't exist in the same world"

But just like mine, there's no reason they COULDN'T have existed at the same time, if history had been a little different.  All you need to do is come up with a plausible alternate history.  In my case, besides the freelanced routes themselves, I looked at the transportation politics of the 1950s.  The big thing was Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system.  Since they were built largely for defense purposes, to make military movements easier, suppose that the railroads had shared in the Pentagon's planning.  Strategic lines, especially those with bottlenecks that turned up during WW II and Korea, would have been improved. 

One of the reasons railroads dieselized so quickly was labor unrest in the coal industry, but even in the 50s, the military was concerned about increasing reliance on foreign oil.  The only railroad to the west coast that didn't need either oil or coal was the Milwaukee Road, but the electrification had never been completed, and was showing its age.  In my history, the Interstate-like rail program completed the job by filling the gap between Avery and Othello, extended the wires to the NP interchange at Miles City(?), and electrified the branch from Harlowton to Great Falls to serve the air and missile base there, as well as the Hanford branch, to serve the nuclear project there.  The MILW also electrified a few other branches, largely eliminating steam and diesel road power west of the Dakotas.  The idea was that Midwest coal and oil could power the railroads there, and the MILW would be sufficient for critical transportation to the Northwest.  It had the economic disadvantage, and military advantage, of avoiding many of the population centers, making it more likely to survive a Soviet attack, as well as using locally produced electricity.

This also required more motors, meaning that by the 1970s the surviving boxcabs were relegated to branchline duty, with newer units on the mainline, and the entire system was good for another half century at least.

A minor political difference, the MILW remained a viable railroad, the BN had both competition and interchange opportunities, and the trains still looked much the same as in our world.

Outstanding observation and I was delighted to read such a good rationale.  Unfortunately, at least for the SP&S engines I model, they were all oil-fired, so there was no incentive to get rid of coal.  And keeping steam on the line didn't avoid the use of oil.
All that's left is the simplicity and economic gains to be had by switching to diesels.

I still agree with you that engines that were scrapped in 1948 could have hung on into the early 1950s if history had been a little different.  I sleep perfectly well at night running SP&S steam alongside the North Coast Limited F7's.

[nkalanaga]

Bob:  I'm from Pasco, and my father worked in the yard until he retired in 1973, so we grew up not too far apart.  That's the main reason I chose the early BN.  In N scale in the early 70s there wasn't much variety in roadnames, the BN was current, and I could use anything from the predecessor roads.  It made purchasing a lot easier!  I actually favored the GN, based on its paint schemes, liking both the Empire Builder and Big Sky Blue colors, and the BN allowed me to run those whenever they were available.

Walthers made N scale decals for both BSB and BN, as well as road name sets for older GN and CB&Q cars, heralds could be scavenged from HO scale for all of the roads, and most of the paint schemes were fairly easy.  Ideal for a beginner.

I still have a shoebox full of those Walthers decals, and use them occasionally, even with the variety of RTR equipment today.

[Nato]

           I cannot "Fudge" or even pick an era because no one makes a model or ever will of that "Extra Wide Broad Gauge" train from that awful Si Fi TV action Adventure show "Super Train" I mean er-aw "Pooper Train." Seriously though I model the transition era on my railroad, and 98% of the cars and locomotives are transition era, but that ranges from mid fourties era steam through 1970's diesels and hey I have passenger trains from all eras so let me say do I "Fudge?" "Whoo-whoo kachoo." you bet I do. Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah.

[VonRyan]

I suspect that I will begin to fudge more and more as I start to narrow down my primary era of modeling. Right now I can do anywhere between the 1920s to 1956.

Personally, at least in respects to the PRR, I would like to stick to the 1940s, and mostly the war years so I can focus on wartime traffic.

[nkalanaga]

mmagliaro:  No, the SP&S really had no reason to stick with steam, nor did the GN, at least on the Lines West.  The GN in particular was eager to dieselize, for the very reasons you mentioned, as well as their experience with their own electrics.  You'll have to come up with another rationale for your railroad.  Maybe the parent roads, GN and NP, didn't want to spend money on the new power?  Certainly they were cheap with freight cars, as many of the SP&S cars were second hand from the parents.  That would also give you an excuse to use retired NP and GN steam as well, if you wished.

I heard it said once that the GN, which built very good steam locos, considered a diesel-electric to be a self-propelled electric, and wanted all of them they could get.  The NP, on the other hand, bought most if not all of their steam, but considered a diesel-electric an oversized (highway) truck, and wanted as little to do with them as possible.  The GN's dieselization was delayed by production shortages in WW II, and the NP was basically forced to dieselize by economics.

Much of the reason the MILW didn't upgrade their electrification was corporate politics.  The mechanical department in the 50s and 60s, based in Milwaukee, was in love with diesels, and wanted the "old fashioned" electrics gone.  They couldn't really afford all of the new power they wanted, so the motors kept running, but they weren't about to spend any money on them.

Even in my scenario the GN and NP dieselized, just as in our world, because the economics made it inevitable.  The GN could have extended their electrification, but the cost would have been astronomical, and the returns minimal.  The MILW already had much of the work done, and the military only needed one reliable route.  As long as they could keep it going, the civilian traffic could run as best as it could on the other lines.  In case of fuel shortages, it might have been rationed, as it was to a certain extent in WW II, but there would have been enough fuel to get the critical stuff through.

Of course, once it became clear that the next war wouldn't involve massive armies and thousands of planes, the need for dedicated railroads OR highways ended.  ICBMs and midair refueling changed major power warfare forever.  But, in my world, the work was already done, and as the real MILW proved, DC electrics last a long time. 

[jpwisc]

I admit it, I fudge!

Not with era, or timeframe, or rolling stock.

I fudge mileage. The prototype SCXY is 36 miles long and I only have a little over one mile modeled.

I feel better getting that off my chest.

[DKS]

I fudge absolutely everything. I also like fudge, especially penuche.

But seriously, everyone has to fudge something. Unless one has a layout room the size of an airplane hangar and a wallet to match, it's quite impossible to remain completely faithful to the real world.

[spookshow]

Fudge? No! Bend, spindle and mutilate? Yes! 

I don't even know where to start, but here's as good a place as any -



Cheers.
-Mark

[jpec]

This hobby is an exercise in fudge, unless one has the assets DKS described.

Jeff

[Packer]

Yeah

I still have Alcos, F-units, and Bicentennial units despite trying to depict BN in the 1981-1985 range. But my patched equipment has gone bye-bye*.

My Amtrak train is a bit of a fudge too. I used Kato Superliners (Superliner IIs?) instead of Walther's (Superliner Is?) and Kato F40PHs for my time frame. I forgot where I read it, but the kato models are based on models made after 1985. This was a cost/performance issue, I've owned walthers and kato superliners, the Katos work better and were cheaper.

* IIRC, one of the BN annuals I have says that BN had everything locomotive painted to Green and Black by 1976 or 1977. Quite impressive IMO considering UP and BNSF still have locos in the previous road's paint; almost 18 years later...

[eric220]

No. Not me. Never.

http://www.modernprr.com

Nope.

[C855B]

... * IIRC, one of the BN annuals I have says that BN had everything locomotive painted to Green and Black by 1976 or 1977. Quite impressive IMO considering UP and BNSF still have locos in the previous road's paint; almost 18 years later...

That is entirely the era difference. Back in the '70s, solvent RRs still gave a damn about corporate image. Even as late as 1982 when they ate the MP, WP and MKT, UP could not move fast enough to completely erase the old roads' images - [poof!], just gone. Fast forward to the post-1990 era of balance-sheet railroading run by MBA's, and paint becomes not much more than protection for the metal. The only major road I'm noticing that has any consistency about image these days is CN, and I may have that impression only by virtue of their paint shop being in the town I live in.

[SP-Wolf]

I also model the transition era. I don't model a specific year, month or day- rather the era itself. For the SP- I have set my modeling years from 1950 to 1958ish. I suppose you can consider that fudging. I have set this timeline so I can run most of the locomotives I like. From my AC-2 (that was retired in 1950) to the newest power (H12-44's and GP9's). When I get to scenery, layout details and buildings- I will try and keep the flavor of the 1950's and of course older.

Enjoy,
Wolf

[JMaurer1]

There are not very many hobbies where you get to play God and do whatever you want. Since you are God of your own little railroad world, is anything you choose to do fudging. It's your WORLD and you are God. Anyone who doesn't like what you are doing can easily be banished from your world. So once again, I'm not fudging anything on my layout, I'm just modelling it the way it should have been...

[C855B]

... It's your WORLD...

/>