Re: Military loads.

Jim Betz
 

Hi,
  I'm going to take a different tack on this entire thread.  Guys - I am probably
-JUST- as pro-military as most of the people on this list ("above average").  But ...

  As Richard H. would have said and Tony T. has pointed out many times ....
"be careful about what you do/don't put on your layout".  Just because it can
be justified as possible doesn't mean you should be running it regularly.
  I think this 'rule/guideline' applies just as much to military equipment on a
transition era layout as it does to those oddball/"I just love this car" freight
equipment.
  I'm asking "if you have to go to great lengths to justify it"? ... then it probably
doesn't "fit" on your layout for even a third of the sessions on your layout.

  ===> Can you run them every once in a while?  Of course you can.
  ===> Can you apply the "it's my RR" rule?  Of course you can!
  ===> Were they seen on very many trains in the late 40's and later?  No.

  So - IF - you care about prototypical accuracy/believability then you need to
pretty carefully "curb your enthusiasm" ... or acknowledge that "it isn't exactly
prototypical but I'm gonna do it any way".

  Have -I- seen pictures of military loads/equipment from the transition?
Yes, if it is during the war, not many if it is immediately post war (except
for trains directly related to the wind down), and very few if it was 1950 or
later.

  Some obvious exceptions - if your layout has an on layout "industry" that is
military related (base, military dock, etc.).  Or if you are actually modelling
WWII era.

  But you know what - if your layout is based in the "middlee 40's" .... you
can still get away without having -ayny- military loads/cars and it can still
be "prototypically believable".
                                                             - just saying ... Jim B.  

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.