Should we run prototypical trains?

[Chris Morris]

At all exhibitions many layouts will be running trains that aren't right. Either a totally wrong formation of loco and stock or running a set of trains that just that just don't fit together. Just wondering if NGF members prefer to see correct trains or don't care.
There will be differing views and everyone is entitled to have an opinion. Treat other people's views with respect. Nobody is right or wrong, it's just opinions I am interested in. What people do at home is entirely up to them but at exhibitions should we try to put on a realistic display?

My view is that keeping things moving is the most important thing for an exhibition layout but I do like to see trains that are reasonably correct at exhibitions. There will always be a level of "modellers licence" but I don't like to see say a blue & grey dmu on scene at the same time as a steam hauled train or a blue diesel pulling crimson & cream coaches. I also don't like to see straight "out of the box" stock being run. Out of the box stock looks so plasticky and needs a little darkening of the roofs if nothing else. Just wondering if I am being too picky on this?

I try to run reasonably accurate stock and train formations on my N gauge exhibition layouts. Having said that my other love is G scale trains and we are currently building a new G scale layout. There will almost certainly be trains from different continents on show at the same time on this layout. Some people will hate that. When I am running trains out in the garden fidelity to prototype doesn't seem to matter very much. As this G layout is meant to represent a garden railway rather than be a model railway I say it is merely representing the way most garden railways are run. Just wondering what others will think of that - will it be seen as just silly playing trains or will people think garden railways look like fun?

I am genuinely interested in hearing different views to get a cross section of opinion but please don't put down anyone who has a different view to your own. Nobody is right or wrong.

[port perran]

When at exhibitions I try to run reasonably prototypical train formations and definitely have things running pretty much all of the time.
It's only my pet hate(others will disagree) but I don't like shunting layouts where nothing really happens for ages. That's just my opinion.
It's ok for me anyway because 95% of my locos and stock fit in my time period anyway.

[NeMo]

G-scale is a bit odd because it's really more about running trains in the garden than modelling a specific place and time. That said, a friend of mine has an LGB-based garden railway that is largely modelled on the Rhaetische Bahn, and while some stuff is "just for fun" there's a lot he's built and runs that is more accurate for a certain part of Switzerland.

The thing about N is that it allows prototypical trains. If realistic shunting operations are your thing, I'd argue OO/H0 or even O are better bets. Individual wagons and locos look better, slow-speed running is easier, and there's more detail you can add to cameo scenes to make them more rewarding to explore even when trains aren't moving.  Personally, I feel N-scale end-to-end layouts are more about compromises forced onto the modeller by lack of space, rather than N being a particularly good size for such layouts.

The smaller size of N works in its favour on round-and-around layouts where you can model through trains of various sorts, whether little branchline trains or long expresses. That being the case, some effort to model "realistic" trains is worthwhile if you want to play to N's strengths.

Cheers, NeMo

[Byegad]

I was at Locomotion, Shildon yesterday for the Shildon MRC 'Big Exhibition' and saw some strange formations running. Two Deltics double heading a five coach train was the most way out one I saw.

At home Rule 1 applies and I run some properly strange trains on occasion. However I do try to run nearly correct formations most of the time.

[njee20]

I agree with Port Perran. I like stuff moving, and I like vaguely prototypical trains. I can forgive using a wrong TOC's loco, or an unprototypical flow for the geographical location or something, but I'll lose interest if I see an HST power car on a coal train (hypothetical example).

Totally up to the operator though, I'd never say anything to an exhibitor, I'm certainly not exhibiting (nor good enough to do so), so if a layout doesn't interest me, for any reason, then I'll go elsewhere.

I did see someone at TINGS with a Eurostar, decent length, 12 or 16 coaches, but assembled totally wrong. The centre coaches were at one end, the buffets together elsewhere in the train. That strikes me as a shame. But again, each to their own!

[d-a-n]

I was looking at German layouts at TINGS and I wouldn't have been able to tell you if what I was seeing was correct or not - it just looked 'right'. I think as long as it looks 'right' it's ok. For example I saw an OO layout a few years ago with some grey pre-tops 16t wagons in a rake with some brown MCV 16t wagons hauled by a blue class 37 with orange cantrail stripe - it  might not be factually correct but it looks 'right' and the exhibitor's layout is all the more better for it with a longer, more realistic rake.

[Sprintex]

Another vote for having stuff moving being the number one priority.

Other than that it depends on the layout. If it's meant to be a realistic model of an actual era and location then prototypical trains are preferred, although on most steam layouts I wouldn't have a clue what ran where and when anyway! If it's more a "loosely based on" layout then run what you like within reason, maybe not double-headed Deltics or HST PCs on freight trains but   mixing it a bit is fine. If it's purely a freelance layout then run what the hell you like

I think there's a place for every type of layout at exhibitions, if you don't like it then move on and look at something else. Sometimes though the "fun" layouts provide some good entertainment


Paul

[kiwi1941]

We could if only the manufacturers would sell us the correct stock Brian

[MacRat]

... Two Deltics double heading ...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98237420@N03/9511376008/in/photolist-fuuhHw-eaAp4q-4FmMTb-5BxzXj-aZmTPc-a2MBXB-4FmMWh-M8Ca3r-evyFg6

[Stevie DC]

Personally I'd like to see prototypical trains for the layout. However this is, and should be, up to the operator regarding just how prototypical they wish to be.

The second problem is stock. Using my own modelling preference of 1930's LNER as an example (simply because this is the area I know the most about):

- Due to impoverish nature of the company, a high proportion of pre-grouping stock was kept in front line service for much longer than many of the other railways (its estimated that over 60% of passenger stock running in the 1930's was build prior to 1923).
- RTR and kits only cover a tiny fraction of the stock required to represent typical trains of that period.
- Wagons fall into a similar category as passenger stock - Mike J's efforts on NOEL with the Scotch goods is a marvel in scratchbuilding and hacking.
- Again with locomotives; across all steam eras and regions, only a small percentage of locomotives built are represented either rtr or in kit form.

I've found researching what would have been seen during a typical day in north London fascinating and I've over just scratched the surface.

Referring to the length of a train; there seems to be a generally accepted rule of thumb that the length of a train should not exceed one third of the total viewing area of the layout to look proportional. If a 12 coach train and locomotive is approximately 6' that would require a layout of 18' (assuming you agree with the above statement). I do think that longer trains look more at home on the larger exhibition layouts but I've also seen some lovely compact layouts that have pulled off mainline running as well.

Going back to my own modelling, I can accommodate a maximum of nine Gresley coaches and a loco (and my layout is much smaller than 13.5'!). For most trains of the period, this is more than acceptable but for a 'prototypical' Flying Scotsman rake I will need to decided which coaches can be omitted while retaining the flavour of the train. Similarly I have no hope of representing an 80 wagon coal train! How prototypical are my long term intentions?

I think that the layout builder/owner should set the criteria and find the balance between prototypical and what they can actually achieve. Even if they are exhibiting, only they can decide how successful they have been in achieving their aims; unless they are trying to recreate an accurate portrayal of an actually location on a specific date and that would require an exhibition goer with a very good knowledge of the subject.

[Newportnobby]

As someone who attends maybe 20+ exhibitions per year my first priority is N gauge layouts. If nothing moves in the first 2-3 minutes I move on, especially if it's one of those 20ft long monsters with 4 main running lines and minimal scenery I do like to see what I believe to be prototypical trains although my lack of knowledge of accurate train formations means I can be easily misled. Being a transition era modeller I think I can at least pick out incorrect liveries, though.
At home, I do not subscribe to Rule 1 and try to run what I would like to see at exhibitions within the limits of my budget. As such, I will generally purchase weathered versions of locos rather than have a go myself and instantly diminish the 2nd hand value of a loco. At the end of the day, I may have to sell said loco to enable purchase of of another release so try to keep them as they came in the box. I confess to running a Blue Pullman as it was such a good buy/excellent runner/iconic DMU and have also ordered a Poppylino as (a) I wanted RevolutioN Trains to succeed and (b) it may be a good investment should I decide not to keep it.
In my opinion N gauge locos do not have the room for decent size speakers so sound in N to me is a no-no, especially as so much of what I see at shows is either out of sync with the speed of the loco or so tinny as to be useless. However, I would also hate to be stuck next door to a bigger gauge layout with sound all day as I'd probably end up on a murder charge!

[jrb]

I agree that things should look right, but if it's not exactly 100% correct it wouldn't bother me - perhaps that's because I really don't know any better!

Bear in mind though that not everyone enjoys building kits of rolling stock (or even scratchbuilding it) so rely purely on what's available RTR. Given that restriction, it's virtually impossible to model most locations/timescales with 100% accurate stock AND have a reasonable variety of trains (you could easily model a small rural 1980's station & run nothing but DMUs all day; it'd be accurate, but pretty boring to watch!).

This topic is quite timely for me, as my layout is going out for the first time next Sunday, and I need to decide on what stock I'm going to run. Or more specifically, what trains I'm going to make up, since I don't have enough stock & will therefore run pretty much everything I've got!!! Loco-wise that's LMS steam, late-crest BR steam, a couple of green diesels, and DoH in preserved maroon livery; coaching stock LMS stanniers & suburbans, BR surburbans, crimson & cream Mk1s, and maroon Mk1s. Goods stock covers everything from pre-war PO coal wagons to 1960s BR bauxite. To the general public I'm sure it will all seem perfectly fine running together, though anyone who knows anything about railways would disagree.

[Chris Morris]

Hope it all goes well next weekend.
One  way of running a model railway is to say these are the trains that would have been seen over the years. This allows an LMS train to go through and then a BR train next etc etc. That works for me so long as different eras don't cross. I don't like to see obvious howlers such as a diesel pulling open wagons with private owner names on them, usually in pristine condition.

Going back to the G scale layout I expect we will be running 1:29 standard gauge stock and 1:22 narrow gauge stock at the same time as well. All USA stock except for a few items. Does that sound bad? These items look ok together as they are pretty much all the same size, and being American stock, they don't look obviously wrong to me. In fact the 1:22 coaches go rather well with the 1:29 diesel. And from time to time I will also run my 16mm scale British outline live steamer as well! For garden railway types this is completely normal but others may think it a bit strange.

[Zogbert Splod]

Just think about the famous painters and artists. Some are almost photographic in their work while others are more 'suggestive' in what they present to the world. Others are so way out that it could be difficult to tell which was the painting and which the pallet! I'm sure the same kind of thing applies in our hobby. That's the reasoning behind my own work in progress back story. If I can look at a layout and get the feeling (impression) of looking at a railway and a landscape, I'm a happy chappie. In point of fact, a superbly detailed, perfectly reproduced, heaving with realism, model gives me a completely different feeling. Just as good, but different for sure.
I think we encompass 'realism' and 'impressionism' and all in between, just as the art world does. Long may it be so.

[port perran]

Just think about the famous painters and artists. Some are almost photographic in their work while others are more 'suggestive' in what they present to the world. Others are so way out that it could be difficult to tell which was the painting and which the pallet! I'm sure the same kind of thing applies in our hobby. That's the reasoning behind my own work in progress back story. If I can look at a layout and get the feeling (impression) of looking at a railway and a landscape, I'm a happy chappie. In point of fact, a superbly detailed, perfectly reproduced, heaving with realism, model gives me a completely different feeling. Just as good, but different for sure.
I think we encompass 'realism' and 'impressionism' and all in between, just as the art world does. Long may it be so.

Very well said that man.