Should we run prototypical trains?

[daffy]

What a superb analogy. Good point well made.

I love to see models made to the ultimate degree of accuracy, and viewing layouts where all is as it should be/as it was 'back in the day', is always a pleasure and fills me with awe.
But there's always more than one way to enjoy a hobby, so whatever is exhibited is fine by me. I might not always like all I see, but if it gives the creator(s) pleasure, who am I to argue?

[TylerB]

Prototypical train formations are good when the layout is big enough, but sometimes having a full length train can highlight how small or compromised a layout is... to me it always looks ridiculous if a train is so long that it's dissappearing off one side of the layout before it has finished emerging from the other 

[Western Exile]

Fully agree with the "if it looks ok" school of thought. I haven't seen any real howlers at serious exhibitions but, sadly, many otherwise excellent layouts are let down by trains running at ridiculously high and un-prototypical speeds, and with acceleration and deceleration rates that would make your ears bleed.

[Chris Morris]

I haven't seen any real howlers at serious exhibitions but, sadly, many otherwise excellent layouts are let down by trains running at ridiculously high and un-prototypical speeds, and with acceleration and deceleration rates that would make your ears bleed.

I would say that about half the N gauge layouts I have seen this year have not been running reasonably prototypical trains. The most common fault being mixing locos and stock from different eras in the same train.
I agree about speeds and acceleration but I'm not sure I would want to see an unfitted freight travelling along a big layout at a true scale 15mph.

[PLD]

For me it depends to an extent on how you "sell" the layout.

If you claim it to be a 'faithful scale replica of the Prototype' there is no excuse for that not including running the correct rolling stock.
Some shortening of train lengths is probably acceptable (e.g. 7-8 coaches representing a 10-12 coach prototype formation or 20-30 coal wagons in place of 50+ prototype) provided it is of an appropriate type for the layout - if it is supposed to be a 1930 GWR branch line I would expect a Prairie or Pannier with a B-Set; I do not expect to see a Deltic hauling BR mk1s...

On a more 'generic' layout, yes, as several have already said, keeping something moving is of course priority 1, but there is no reason that and running prototypical formations should be mutually exclusive... Some of the mis-mash mixed-up trains you do unfortunately see are simply down to either naivety or lack or research or plain laziness... It is no harder to hook-up a dozen EWS hopper wagons behind your Class 66 than a dozen 10ft private owner wagons, so why do we so often see the latter?!?

[Kaian]

Personally when viewing I like to see the personal touch of their railway universe (multi-verse in some cases), I see it like the distinction between the big 4 or earlier even when applied to BR modern or TOC modern.

If trying to run trains in prototypical fashion is their theme then I would hope they have it right but even the occasional train wouldn't be setup in the textbook configuration.

[acko22]

I follow like others the school of thought "if it looks right" approach, and the truth is over the years what is a prototypical train???
10 years ago if I ran a Deltic on a GBRF service on a modern layout I would have been moaned at and its happened.

The only time I think you have to try and be a prototypical as possible is when you have modelled and actual real location in a set era, but even then you have some room for a bit of something different.

I have been witness to some extreme rivet counting, which almost left me in tears a layout at the Manchester model exhibition the layout a steam era and based on a Lancashire depot and had a stable of LMS engines when one bloke started kicking off  that a particular engine and I mean that exact engine was never used up north although the class was widely used by LMS and everyone just stared at him one of the guys just looked at him after a moment of shock at his reaction just replied "  off you sad man"

[JasonBz]

I think there should be a reasonable degree of accuracy on exhibtion layouts, or just be frank and say its a train set and I run whatever I fancy...either approach is OK with me

The "problem" with accuracy is that the more you do know, the more "wrongs" you see..... Ignorance is sometimes bliss

[railsquid]

I follow like others the school of thought "if it looks right" approach, and the truth is over the years what is a prototypical train???
10 years ago if I ran a Deltic on a GBRF service on a modern layout I would have been moaned at and its happened.

The modern network seems good for all kinds of implausible Rule 1 stuff

I think for exhibition layouts "plausibility" is key, after all no matter how big the layout there will be compromises and it's impossible to get every single detail absolutely correct.

[silly moo]

I would like to run prototypical trains but have a lot to learn about their formation. In the beginning I bought stock that appealed to me visually, buying private owner wagons based on their design and colour. I'm a bit like that with locos too.

Over the years I've read a lot in books, magazines and on the internet and my trains are beginning to look a lot more prototypical.

My layout is a rule one preservation line so I can run what I like but I do like to try and get individual trains right, the research done is adding to my railway knowledge.

[Bealman]

When I fronted up at Wigan as a bonus during an unexpected trip two years ago (documented elsewhere on the forum), I was delighted to find Fence Houses in attendance.

However, trains weren't running more than they were running, and despite the accuracy and excellence of the modelling (I grew up a mile away from that station, in the same period that the layout depicts), it very quickly palled and I moved on.

I found the operators quite rude and aloof, which didn't help. They were probably stressed because things weren't working, but their rudeness surprised me.

But sticking to the OP, I'm all for running prototypical rakes. 

[Karhedron]

I like to get the details right on the trains I run, for me this is part of the whole setting and flavour. Having said that, my own layout is set in a specific location (albeit with a fictional station) so I know what sort of stock would have run there.

Other people build layouts with a different purpose. If someone builds a layout in Anytown, Somewhereshire to allow them to run all their Rule1 stock, that is fine too. As long as the layout and stock is true to itself then it creates a coherent scene. An Auto-train with 'GWR' lettering on the side will stick out like a sore thumb on layout otherwise set firmly in the 1930s but would be fine on a Rule1 layout or one set in the 1940s.

I do agree that I like to see something moving. I am all in favour of a realistic sequence of operations but not with leaving prototype-sized gaps between those operations. There will be times on many layouts when the operator(s) seen to sort out fresh stock or grab some refreshment but planned inactivity for its own sake is just boring IMHO.

[kirky]

I like and agree with almost everything that has been said on this thread.
But I really like was Zogberts art analogy. I have long thought that railway modelling ought to be regarded as an art, whatever that means. I like the ideas of Impressionism and realism being discussed. I would go slightly further and suggest that for some of us, we attempt to tell a story. Or even live within that story, we imagine ourselves as drivers or signalmen or passengers or whatever. I love the way some layouts are presented in theatre type displays with sets and stages to tell their stories.
How real and accurate those stories are is not of concern to me. But they do need to be believable. I can't recognise the difference between air brakes and vacuum brakes, so if the rake is set up wrong, it wouldn't bother me. But when I'm watching 'proper' drama, professional drama, it really annoys me if the setting is supposedly Victorian and the trains running in the background are from the 1950s.
On the other hand, some sort of futuristic sci fi train running in the background can still be believable, even though it's fiction.
So for me, all the layout as whole, has to be believable, not accurate. And I think like beauty, believability is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers
Kirky

[Bealman]

You should maybe visit MONA in Hobart. Google it? It is an out there art museum which is about 3 stotries underground. I found it scary and will not visit again, even though it is Tasmania's premier tourist attraction.

[daffy]

You should maybe visit MONA in Hobart. Google it? It is an out there art museum which is about 3 stotries underground. I found it scary and will not visit again, even though it is Tasmania's premier tourist attraction.

One man's art is another man's railway?

'Scary' is one word for some of the exhibits on the MONA website. 'Out there' is another. And then there's 'weird'.

But in all cases I found myself repeating one particular term in my head as I clicked my way through the odd, the strange, and the sometimes downright rude exhibits, and I believe it is a term that should apply to any exhibited model layout: 'interesting'. You can be as prototypical as you like, but if it ain't interesting..........