I am modeling a fictional regional that crosses the state of Oregon. My modeled roster includes a C30-7 and two SD40T-2s. I’m modeling 1995. Is there any way I could have picked this equipment (at least the tunnel motors) up second hand, or had SP not retired any yet. I could say the C30s were first hand purchases, but not the tunnel motors.
As far as I can tell, SP was getting rid of SD45T-2s by that time, but not SD40T-2s.
Do you think it would be plausible for me to say that I picked up two that they had retired during financial trouble? The real reason I have them is because I wanted to see how they look in my colors, but I wwant an explanation. I could move my time period foreward to when they were, but i don’t want to…
Back in the early 70’s, the D&H had 3 SD45’s that they traded with the EL for 3 U33c’s. both roads painted the engines into their colors while they had them. Eventually, they each wound up getting their engines back. I adon’t remember all of the details as to why they traded but, if memory serves me, the D&H was not fond of the EMD units and knew the EL was familiar with them.
You could come up with a scenario like that. Say the engines are on a long term loan. It is not uncommon for them to be repainted into the new RR’s colors for these tests.
Dan
sounds good! DId they also give them the leasing roads #s as well, because mine have ORM #s, NOT SP #s.
During the period I model (which is the mid-twentieth century of the SP and is all I care/study about), leased locomotives retained their owners’ road names and numbers. Anyway, what fool will spend all that money to twice reletter a locomotive which may only be retained for a few months or so?
Mark
3 reasons: 1: I envision this as a long term lease 2: I have one model in my colors already, and I like it that way 3: this is my model railroad, modeling my version of history, in which I leased SP three of my C-30-7s in exchange for 3 SD40T-2s. If this is Horribly implausible let me know. , I think it sounds pretty good to me.
You can give any reason you want for the SD40T-2s being owned, or leased, by your railroad. However, I would not say that the above is plausible. The dictionary defines plausible as something at appears credible. Since, we know this did not happen, it is not plausible.
Also, I am guessing your SD40T-2s are the RTR with the full SP light package. If so, then SP would have had to get rid of them even earlier than 1995. I think it might be more plausible to say that your railroad ordered a couple of SD40T-2s and were built to SP standards for whatever reason. A similar thing did happen that caused DRGW’s SD50s to be built to CSXT standards (I don’t remember why).
I doubt that if your railroad did exist in real life, that it would have had any impact on whether SP sold any of its SD40T-2s in the 1990s, unless they made SP a really good offer. However, if your railroad existed in the early 1980s, they probably could have had EMD build a couple of SD40T-2s for them. To me this seems more believable.
My fictional history states that the Oregon Midland was formed through the merger of several short-lines in 1968. It then merged with the KBC (my first freelanced railroad) the Keizer Bend and Corvallis, to have a clear path across Oregon. SO, I could have bought them new in the 80s
Plausibility is not reality. Plausibility implies reasonableness at first first sight or hearing, with some hint of a possibility of being deceived. The key word is appears. Overall, plausibility means outwardly acceptable as true or genuine. Leastwise that’s what my Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary says. This is consistent with ericsp’s cited dictionary.
Mark
If you know something did not happen, how can it be plausible?
Eric, o p e n your mind. At least, pretend to be deceived.
Itsn’t free-lanced just that, a fictional state that is plausable? Or in easier terms, something made up that just as well could have been real, like there was only one shooter in the Kennedy assisination. It’s not true, but still very well could have been. The OP said about being based in 1995 and from the sounds is wondering about leasing the T2’s in that era. As a side note my field guide states production as 6/74-7/80 with 310 produced.
I think this is your answer:
Therefore how much “implausible” bothers you is up to you and only you.
I think that unless you are building this layout for someone else, participating in a club with defined goals, or trying to win a contest, as long as you play by the rules you set for yourself, you’re fine. Don’t sweat it.
If something is violating your rules, then either make your peace with not doing it, or simply change your rules so you can do it [:)]
Who is the judge of your layout? Only you.
Hm, the man asked a question and the answer has eroded into a “discussion” over the word plausible and it‘s meaning.
Personally I don‘t think, by direct definition as described and interpreted by some, that any Model Railroad is plausible. No how, now way, could a railroad fit in a persons basement, spare room or on a 4X8 sheet of plywood or less. Therefore, since it can‘t happen, it‘s not plausible and without at least being plausible, it can‘t be accurate. But I don’t like that so I will dismiss it.
Luckily however, I looked beyond the absolute to the letter literal definition of the OP’s choice of the word plausible. I’ve utilized my keen sense of reality, and therefore decided to use the common interpretation of the word. I assumed that is what he meant by reading the question and putting all the pieces together. I now truly believe I’ve deciphered what he was asking.
Based on your scenario and list of reasons KBC, the answer to your question, in my opinion mind you, is…yes.
Have a Great Day!!!
Since you recognize that the ORM doesn’t exist in the ‘real world’ (AKA Universe three, ‘Neil Armstrong’) it’s purely your call as to which of the alternate universes you are actually modeling. Obviously not Universe two - railroads had been replaced by 'rolling roads (monster multi-speed conveyor belts) by the date you’ve chosen. That only leaves six to the sixth to the sixth (minus two) possibilities.
If some nitpicker objects, hand him a copy of Heinlein’s Number of the Beast and get back to running trains.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in Universe thirteen, ‘Alfred E. Neumann’)
So if you were always going to ignore what knowledgable people said in order to do whatever you want anyway, why ask and waste people’s time? [banghead]
And to the “it’s my railroad, I’ll do whatever I want” posters: There’s a difference between “Can I do anything I want?” (the answer is yes) and “Is it plausible?” (the answer is no)
The second question is what he was asking at first, but now he wants to fall back on the first.
holy batcrap. its your rr-run whatever the heck you want. IT COULD HAVE BEEN-WHATEVER!! ITS FICTION!!! Have fun-its a HOBBY
FLIP
I didn’t gather that from his responses. What I got was he has a certain level of accuracy he wishes to maintain that, granted, may be different than some others, but was his acceptable level. He asked a simple question to justify his desires hoping someone could help him do so. If there were cases great, that makes things easy. If in the end there was no such case he would make his decision based on his true wants, but would prefer to at least be plausible if possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn’t call that a waste of time. In my opinion of course.
Easy, easy…!!! Plausibility is dependent on creative and fanciful thinking, a willingness to suspend disbelief. It hinges on believability, which all fanciful and freelanced layouts require to work, but unless a person is actually “modelling” a railroad, whatever is admittedly ‘made up’ should be fine if it uses the same/typical items in the same/typical context.
As to your last statement, the answer is only no if your ability to suspend disbelief is exceeded, and that would be a personal limitation. That is, specific to individuals, and not applicable to all persons involved in the discussion.
-Crandell