Locomotive Prototypical Realism


G

GNMT76

Active Member
I model the Great Northern freight line in Montana from the late steam to the early diesel era. My primary locomotives are an Alco FA-1 and an EMD F-7. I'm considering adding a 2-8-0 Consolidation, a 2-6-0 Mogul or a 4-4-2 to the mix.

I know that - per standard operation - a rolling stock consist is typically comprised of cars from a variety of lines from around the country. How prototypically realistic would it be to do the same with a locomotive for main line and branch line hauling? That is, to incorporate, for example, a Northern Pacific, Union Pacific or another line's locomotive? Or, would that be an anomaly in the real world?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not too sure regarding your era, but railroads borrow power all the time. Then they lend power back to "even up". Note though that BN did not exist until 1970. I have seen NS locomotives on KCS quite frequently, but again this is modern era.
Willie
 
Like Willie said, the Burlington Northern came about in March, 1970 as the result of the merger of the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy and the Spokane, Portland & Seattle. On some GN lines, you may have seen locomotives from the NP and CB&Q and possibly the SP&S. I have no idea how commonplace it was to operate the other RR's locos on the others tracks and, if they did, what time period it would have encompassed. Montanan would be a good one to get info from regarding this.
 
I've see CSX and Norfolk Southern locomotives pulling BNSF freights through Lincoln, Ne.
Remember rule #1: It's your railroad. If you like it, run it.;)
 
Thanks, Bob & Willie. I had forgotten that the BN is too new for my era!

Montanan....your thoughts?

flyboy2610 said:
I've see CSX and Norfolk Southern locomotives pulling BNSF freights through Lincoln, Ne.
Remember rule #1: It's your railroad. If you like it, run it.;)
Click to expand...
 
It depended on how 'friendly' the railroads in discussion were. You would never see a NYC locomotive on a Pennsylvania line or Vis versa. Railroads were aligned based on ownership/stock control or some where an end on extension of the first and therefore financially connected. Poorer and smaller railroads loosened the rules to gain all the traffic they could get. Long distances out west caused a few shared rail lines as construction expenses increased dramatically around the turn of the century. It was a generally big deal to operate your locomotives over another railroad. Nowadays the class 1s are so large that they operate differently. The only close source of 50 locomotives needed in a hurry is railroad x, normally our competitor, so they make agreements. Railroad x makes money per agreement and railroad y gets more freight. Both make money and keep the railroad industry looking competitive with trucking. Same concept with track.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
I appreciate the interesting insight into how the RRs could and did operate. I know from Tony Koester's book, "Realistic Model Railroad Operation" that the GN, CP, Milwaukee Road, the NP and others operate(d) in Montana. Did any two or more of these lines - as far as you know - share locomotives during my era, the mid-1940s to the late 1950s?

RBMNfan said:
It depended on how 'friendly' the railroads in discussion were. You would never see a NYC locomotive on a Pennsylvania line or Vis versa. Railroads were aligned based on ownership/stock control or some where an end on extension of the first and therefore financially connected. Poorer and smaller railroads loosened the rules to gain all the traffic they could get. Long distances out west caused a few shared rail lines as construction expenses increased dramatically around the turn of the century. It was a generally big deal to operate your locomotives over another railroad. Nowadays the class 1s are so large that they operate differently. The only close source of 50 locomotives needed in a hurry is railroad x, normally our competitor, so they make agreements. Railroad x makes money per agreement and railroad y gets more freight. Both make money and keep the railroad industry looking competitive with trucking. Same concept with track.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
The GN, NP, CB&Q and the SP&S were a fairly tight knit group............Google James J. Hill and Hill Lines. Cooperation was a given between the four roads as far as laws and rules allowed. The Union Pacific on the other hand, was a rival, especially regarding the NP and the CB&Q, so I highly doubt that you would have seen anything more than freight cars in interchange service on the GN from the UP.
 
Bob,

Thanks - that helps clarify things. I'll look into those lines, though the UP's servicing interchanges with the GN would fit right in to my freight operatons.


Burlington Bob said:
The GN, NP, CB&Q and the SP&S were a fairly tight knit group............Google James J. Hill and Hill Lines. Cooperation was a given between the four roads as far as laws and rules allowed. The Union Pacific on the other hand, was a rival, especially regarding the NP and the CB&Q, so I highly doubt that you would have seen anything more than freight cars in interchange service on the GN from the UP.
Click to expand...
 
First thing to remember is that it is your layout and anything can really happen. Modelers license. I model the area where I live in southwestern Montana. I do have a freelance railroad that connects to both the Milwaukee Road and the Northern Pacific. Originally I wanted to model either of the two railroads but with my limited space, I couldn't have done justice to even part of a subdivision of either railroad, therefore the freelance railroad.

Growing up I did have the opportunity to have spent a lot of time riding with relatives who worked for both the MILW and NP and can't really remember seeing power from any other railroads on the main lines of either railroad but occasionally this could occur if the main line of one railroad was shut down by an accident or natural disaster in order to keep freight and passenger traffic moving. They may also have been seen at some interchanges where railroads my meet. I am talking about the time period from the late 50's into the early 60's.

I model 1957 to be exact as that was a time that I really started enjoying riding on the railroads. I was lucky enough to have ridden in the cabs of diesel, steam and electric locomotives. In my freelance railroad, I do have power from both the MILW and NP show up on my layout as borrowed or leased equipment. I also have a Northern Pacific tourist train show up on my layout to take tourists south to Yellowstone National Park. The NP actually did have a line running south from Livingston, MT to Gardiner, MT but this service was abandoned in the early 50's.

Like bob mentioned the railroads that made up the BN were closely knit. There's an example. I can't count how many times we rode the North Coast Limited into Chicago when I was growing up.

NP558.JPG Note the CB&Q marking in the upper right of the car.

Again, remember that's is is your layout and you make the rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the steam to diesel era it would have been relatively rare for railroads to pool power. Especially on a transcontinental run. The run through power agreements didn't become really popular until the 1970's. Diesels were brand new and relatively expensive so railroads were reluctant to run them off line. Steam was powered by either coal or oil and most locations only fueled one or the other. The GN used coal so an ATSF oil burner wouldn't have a source of fuel. Most pooled power would be run through connections. So it would have been extraordinary for the GN to have UP power because it really didn't connect with the UP on either end.

A consolidation 2-8-0 would probably be an engine used on a branch, but a 2-6-0 would be a bit unusual and a 4-4-2 would be more of a commuter engine by the end of steam, and not really suited to Montana.
 
Chet

Thank you for your input! I'd like to be as realistic as possible, yet failing that, modeler's license it is.
 
Dave,

One of the fun things about model railroading is the history one learns in the process. Thanks for your insight.

For the sake of realism, it sounds like I should stick to a GN steam locomotive for my purposes and era. Finding a new GN locomotive of the type suited to my operations may prove to be problematical or, at best, a long-term hunting expedition!

If not a 2-8-0, a 2-6-0 or a 4-4-2 then, what type of loco would suit my 1945-1957 freight operations in Montana? My layout is quite small, with only an 18" mainline radius.
 
Being realistic is what I was aiming for. I did custom paint the locomotives for my Logan Valley RR and tried to create a family looking paint scheme which I hope I accomplished. For the locomotives for the Milwaukee Road and the Northern Pacific I tried to be as accurate as possible for these locomotives. I even custom painted a few of them from photographs taken during the transition era. I do use Northern Pacific passenger cars and an RDC for passenger service which I "lease" from the NP and some switchers and other locomotives from the NP and MILW show up on my layout for transferring trains to and from one of the two years on the layout.

The problem with modeling in Montana is that we only had three major railroads in the state at that time. In the mid west it's a different story.

Post some photos showing your modelers license. We love pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chet,

The three major railways in Montana, c. 1945-1957, being the GN, NP and Milwaukee Road?

I choose not to own "devices," thus no digital camera or cell phone. Life is much simpler that way! The only photographs I take are with film while traveling abroad.
 
I can understand that. I do enjoy my digital cameras, but still have excellent SLR film cameras that I like to use. Even have an old Speed Graphic that has film plates. Unfortunately I do have a smart phone which I need for work, but would much rather have an old flip phone. We haven't had land line phones for about fifteen years. I do try to avoid depending on technology as much as possible. I have been removed from the new car market because I hate the touch screen "infotainment" systems that are in just about all new cars now. An AM/FM radio with a CD player is all I need.

I still operate DC instead of DCC. My layout is build mainly for switching an I rarely run more than one locomotive at a time so DCC really isn't necessary.

I have no ipod, MP3 player, X-box, sat radio or any other "devices". I can really get along quite nicely without them.

More power to you.
 
Probably the two most common branchline engines were 2-8-0's and 4-6-0's. A 2-8-2 was a common arangement for local and branch service. On most roads switchers were one of the first areas to be dieselized (starting in the 1930's), then passenger trains, and finally freight engines after about 1945.
 
Just to throw in a nickels worth... What about purchasing an engine from another line and never quite getting around to repainting it?

GNMT76: I like your phrase of 'choosing not to own "devices"'. I too am cell phone and computer free (at home).
 
Chet -

Amen. Need we say more...or any more eloquently than you did?!


montanan said:
I can understand that. I do enjoy my digital cameras, but still have excellent SLR film cameras that I like to use. Even have an old Speed Graphic that has film plates. Unfortunately I do have a smart phone which I need for work, but would much rather have an old flip phone. We haven't had land line phones for about fifteen years. I do try to avoid depending on technology as much as possible. I have been removed from the new car market because I hate the touch screen "infotainment" systems that are in just about all new cars now. An AM/FM radio with a CD player is all I need.

I still operate DC instead of DCC. My layout is build mainly for switching an I rarely run more than one locomotive at a time so DCC really isn't necessary.

I have no ipod, MP3 player, X-box, sat radio or any other "devices". I can really get along quite nicely without them.

More power to you.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top