To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trainsOpen lugnet.trains in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / 25619
25618  |  25620
Subject: 
Re: US MOC loco numbering
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:32:10 GMT
Viewed: 
2119 times
  
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
   In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
  
   Was looking at that earlier, I though it was a GP50 tho’

This brings me to a question that was bothering me when i was looking throught the NMRA photos. I don’t know my US loco classes by sight so I was looking up the numbers to find what the MOCs represented. None of them seemed to have correct numbers. For example BN 3003 is a GP40, not GP50. The BN GP50s are 3100-3162. Is there a reason for this? Just curious :)

Someone didn’t check the published rosters? Every railroad has their own scheme, which they violate with impunity when they want to, or if they run out of numbers (UP just started a second reporting mark for locos because they had run out of 4 digit numbers or something)

LEGO is freelance so what the heck, it’s all good. I’m still going to razz J2 about it now that you’ve caught him out, though.

I just liked the number-- it’s palindromic fun! :-)

For the most part, actually, I choose that number for the ease of it. On the decal itself, there were 2 numbers “8003”, along with the usual 0,1,2,3,4.... Now, obviously, one can create any number one wants by cutting up the numbers and pasting them on. But by choosing “3003”, I only had to paste a “3” and a “003” together (less hassle and easier to line up:-)

I don’t really pay much attention to numbers, unless I am modelling a specific prototype, as I did with my Hustle Muscle. It was obviously important to number that MOC “400”.

Now, take my Huskey Stack for instance. The number is close to reality, but the real reason I chose that number it evident if you turn your monitor upside down;-)

Short answer is that I’d rather have fun with numbers (using birthdates, Pi, etc) rather than be “prototypical”.

YMMV

JOHN



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: US MOC loco numbering
 
(...) Someone didn't check the published rosters? Every railroad has their own scheme, which they violate with impunity when they want to, or if they run out of numbers (UP just started a second reporting mark for locos because they had run out of 4 (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)

11 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR