How accurate should our stock be if the station is a "Could have been"

[Flying Pig]

 

39 minutes ago, john new said:

I think there is a tendency these days towards this, so yes. Many extremely accurate layouts exist these days that are proto-boring to watch and even to view in a magazine. They may well satisfy their builder(s) during construction, and that is obviously a prime aim, but not third parties. For operations, too so many on the exhibition circuit are just roundy-roundy trains sets doing nothing else.

 

There have been soulless boring layouts at all levels of modelling sophistication as long as I can remember, as well as delightful engaging ones.  I don't think the overrall proportion of dull layouts is changing much, though the average sophistication of exhibition and magazine layouts has certainly increased over the years.

 

 

[Long John Silver]

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you run so long as you enjoy your hobby. Most of us though I’m sure would aspire to Peter Kazmierczak’s criteria for a believable scenario.

 

My own train set, is a “might have been” based on Brecon. It assumes that the LNWR reached the town from Llandovery, using running powers on the Neath and Brecon line into the town and the GWR arrived from Abergavenny using running powers on the Brecon and Merthyr and Cambrian for the final leg into Brecon. The Abergavenny route is assumed to be double track throughout and the Llandovery line doubled to Sennybridge.

I wanted to recreate something of the atmosphere of the Central Wales line and the West to North line through the Welsh Marches and I’ve long been fascinated by the Railways around Brecon. I chose 1947 as time period because there were a few older locos still running that had been going because of WW2. The line is operated to a strict timetable.

 

I try to keep the locos and stock to the ordinary, and those loco types that were operating in the area. I do have a few oddballs though, an Ivatt 2MT mogul – common in the 1950s around Brecon but not in 1947. It is numbered for one of a pair based at Swansea Paxton St so I assume it’s being trialled against the ex-Midland and LYR 0-6-0s on the Hereford line.

 

I also have Dukedog which appears off the Mid Wales Line on an unlikely through train from Aberystwyth, I assume the line was upgraded during WW2.

 

I have a Midland 1P 0-4-4T I built a few years ago as a nod to those locos that used to work from Swansea St Thomas to Hereford, it’s the wrong class of tank and there were none anywhere near Brecon by 1947.

The one complete rule 1 loco I have is an ex LNWR   Prince of Wales 4-6-0 which again I built a few years ago. Totally wrong for the area, but the loco is one that was still in service that year.

 

I probably get more work out of some of the old stagers like my Bulldog and Aberdare than would really have happened, and I suspect even the weathered locos are too clean.

 

I’ve tried not to make the coach rakes too tidy and have the right type of accommodation on the trains.

Most of the time though the station is populated with Panniers, Small Prairies, Dean Goods, $3xx Moguls, Halls, Black 5s, Fowler Tanks, Super Ds and Coal tanks. As in real life though an occasional surprise turns up.

One advantage of an imaginary station is that you make up the back story and can fit it to your requirements. It can also change over time and I suspect a lot of modelers add services to their layout to justify stock they’ve bought - I know I have.

[Guy Rixon]

I have an aversion to freelance and hypothetical rolling stock, so aim to stock my layout with real trains of the correct period. In general, I like to be strict about the dates, so coaches built in 1911 won't appear on my 1909 layout. 

 

This is all well and good if the hypothetical railway is an insignificant addition to the historical network. If the hypothetical bit is important enough then it starts to warp the engineering histories of the associated companies. "Strand" just reaches this threshold, being an important cross-London link and an early electrified railway.

 

Example 1 of dissonance: the line from Euston to Strand (and possibly on to Cannon Street) was electrified c.1907. Clearly, the LNWR, who are the senior partner, want some electric trains to run on it, but their historical EMUs didn't arrive until some years later. I shall bring forward the introduction of the LNWR "DC lines" stock to 1908, but shall (try to) model them in accurate condition as historically introduced. I shall probably also have some MDR EMUs contra-historically "on hire" to the LNWR.

 

Example 2 of dissonance: given the line through Strand, one might expect freight and through coaches to appear off the GCR, either via the Met at Baker Street, or via the connection to the inner circle at Marylebone (for which the GCR had powers that they never used). But the GCR historically had no condensing engines to work the service, and their modern, main-line coaches are too tall for the Met loading-gauge. Probably they would have fitted a few goods engines for condensing and built a few low-roofed coaches for through services...but I don't want to build hypotheticals. So far, I'm letting the Met handle the transfer freight-trips and ignoring the through coaches.

 

Example 3 of dissonance: Strand is rich in LNWR through-workings to the SECR, but the latest and best coaches available in 1909 are too wide, as are most of the older brakes. Probably the LNWR would have built  a dedicated pool of narrow coaches for this work ... but hypotheticals again. As it is, I'm using older stock and picking from the few brake diagrams without awkward duckets. Through services to Hastings are a particular problem regarding brakes. I plan a weird shuffle where a LNWR guard rides in a PBV from Willesden to Strand and that van is then put away in a siding at Strand because it's too wide to go on to Hastings when the through passenger coach (a luggage tricomposite without brake) is attached to an SECR train.

 

It's fun, sort of,  to work these things, but more complicated (and possibly less "accurate") than building some un-historical trains.

[CKPR]

I'm minded to think about not just 'out of place' stock but also 'out of time' stock on imaginary models of real locations. I am thinking firstly about the aged relics that were kept for working specific lines long after the rest of their class had been scrapped,  such as the Adams radial 4-4-2T on the Lyme Regis branch , the Beattie well tank 2-4-0Ts at Wadebridge, the LNWR and NLR tanks on the Cromford & High Peak. One could make a plausible case for some other late survivors in model form, maybe even steam after 1968 - there was a really interesting "what if" thread a few years back on 9Fs as running in the early- to mid-1970s.  Similarly, why stop at steam locomotives as some of the earlier diesels might have survived longer if there had been the traffic available on our 'imaginary but real' lines. The other possibility is to add to existing classes of engines on the grounds that if our 'imaginary but real' line had been built, then the stock requirements might have been different.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think we all agree that if you can specify the location of the layout (as Clive has with Sheffield), it is not too difficult to work out what locomotive/multiple unit types would be used. It's a combined function of what traffic the trains are carrying and where to. Apart from locally shedded locos, you will see ones that have come in from where your trains run to/from.

 

But, as per one post above, the curve ball is extra locomotives. Once you get beyond a small fictional branch line, the railway would have needed more locomotives so that does give some scope for adding extra names/numbers to each loco class. At least that gives you a get-out-of-jail card for the rivet-counter who tells you that loco x had a short firebox rather than long, and ran with a different type of tender.

 

Put a stiff gradient on your plausible but never-built line and one could have 58101.

[The Johnster]

Or the Worsborough Beyer-Garratt.  I use the following mathematical dodge with locos and Rule 1, as follows; my BLT is located in an area that would, had it ever existed, been supplied with locos and passenger stock by Tondu depot.  This depot supplied stock for local passenger, mineral, and general merchandise goods trains on 5 branches, Abergwynfi, Blaengarw, Ogmore Vale, Gilfach Goch and Porthcawl.  It had an allocation that varied but in BR days was in the 50 locomotive ball park.  So, one can think of this as 10 locos per branch.  That means that another branch would need another 10 locos.

 

Now, that does not mean that my layout needs 10 extra locos (or does it???), or even that any of these 10 extra locos can appear there, but there is a 20+% chance that one will on any given diagram.  So, I can happily justify locos that were never shedded at Tondu, or even ones that were shedded there outside my period provided they were still in service.  I haven't done this yet, as all my locos are Tondu residents (though not all at the same time) except the daily Barry Rule 1 interloper, which the timetable insists b*ggers off back to Barry asap.  I can, and have, therefore also justify coaches that were never allox Tondu or even Newport Division like the Collett 57' London/Birmingham suburbans and a K's E116 B set from the Bristol Division.  My auto trailers are all Newport Divn. and the A28/30s are known Tondu performers.   

 

This is where a balance acceptable to me, because Rule 1 infers that nobody else's view need be taken into account, and it does the same for you as well, has to be struck.  Can I include locos that were never seen at Tondu but might have been if it needed another 10 locos allox to it?  Should I keep to types seen at Tondu, but with different numbers, to the exclusion of others?  The basic principle should be that it is better to model the usual, common, everyday scene, but if we postulate (errgh, wipe that up at once you filthy swine) that one of the extra 10 is a TVR A xfer from East Dock?  Or a 2251?  Tondu has a turntable but never AFAIK had any tender loco allox; visiting tender locos were probably turned there though.

 

This can be a sloppery slip, or something like that, and I've already gone outside the box with the 3MT.  I disposed of a 64xx because, although a proper Tondu type, it was outside my timeframe; am I justified in having another one by my 20% interpretation of R1.  Can we stop talking about R numbers in case we tempt the plague, I mean Rule 1.

 

Isn't it lucky I'm an impoverished pensioner who can't afford all the locos he wants...

[Firecracker]

Playing devils advocate here, I’m modelling a ‘could have been’ preserved line (real location, but never reopened.  Should you wish to, you can stand in that field gateway, look at where the bridge isn’t any more and if you wait long enough when the local mart is on, chances are one of Billy Armstrong’s cattle floats will drive past as well).  So I decided that the pool of engines would include one or two of those that got away.  So 76080 didn’t get scrapped at Barry in 1972 and instead entered preservation. 

Owain

 

 

[St Enodoc]

On 18/05/2020 at 01:54, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Clive just think of some of the most effective (in my view anyway) model railways of fictitious stations set in real locations - Buckingham, Charford and Borchester to name but three. What did they have in common?

1 A sense of place

2 A sense of time (ie period being depicted)

3 Locos and rolling stock of a consistent standard for the region being modelled

4 A sense of the "everyday" - not specials being run every 2 mins

5 Operated in a railway-like manner, with a purpose for each movement

6 Not a model of a model, but an eye for the prototype

I cannot improve on Peter's list.

 

Clive, you know enough about my layout already but for the benefit of others here is how I address Peter's points:

 

1. Western Region in Cornwall

2. 1950s - so anything that was around between 1/1/50 and 31/12/59 inclusive.

3. Where possible actual stock or if not stock that existed and "could have" appeared.

4. A sequence derived from the actual service timetables for the period.

5. See 4, also full signalling, interlocked lever frames and so on.

6. Station layouts based on, but not copies of, real ones with the names camouflaged as a result.

[gordon s]

As kids we had tremendous fun and happiness running trains on simple layouts with a motley selection of stock and we knew nothing of the ‘rules’ that would come into play as our enjoyment grew in this wonderful hobby. As we grew up, other interests took over and we moved onto more exciting things. In my case it was cars, sport, travel and music for relaxation, but I quickly realised that no matter what you want to do, they all require money . Once marriage and housing come into play, then the job takes over and most hours are spent working to finance the lifestyle you have wandered into.
 

Eventually it all settles down and you find yourself with a little time and spare cash and your deep rooted love of railways returns and you decide to build a layout. Invariably the choices of what to build and where to build often reflect your memories, be they childhood or experiences in your life. The human mind is a powerful tool and mentally we can create masterpieces in our heads that are perfect replicas in time and space of where were often at our happiest.

 

Sadly few of us have the wide range and depth of skills to create that masterpiece and so frustration kicks in and you are never really achieve the level of pleasure and happiness you expected at the outset. The question for me is who are we actually building for. If it’s a layout that is going to be exhibited, then it should represent the pinnacle of our hobby and as such should replicate every detail of a specific time period and region. I can only stand in awe of some of the layouts I have seen at exhibitions or within these pages, but then we forget they are often created by either those blessed with exceptional talent or a team of like minded and talented individuals.
 

On the other side there are the layouts that never leave home and the potential ‘audience’ are family and close friends who often have little or no knowledge of railways and so it doesn’t matter what is running and with what. Of course we all set ourselves some basic rules of what is acceptable and those can be very narrow in nature with a specific location and time period or wide ranging and anything goes. Ultimately it doesn’t matter and no one has the right to dictate to others what is right and what is wrong, 

 

If it brings you happiness and enjoyment from the hobby then just do it. Personally, now I have something running, I can ‘waste’ so much time just sitting watching trains trundle round and reliving some of those joyous memories of the past. Of course it only a ‘waste’ of time as it stops me progressing the build, but if it provides a break from the real world, particularly in the situation we are in now, then it is far from wasted. 
 

The joy is of this world is that we are all different. Perhaps we should stop worrying about what others may think and just focus on the enjoyment and happiness our own model brings to our lives. After all that’s what we did as kids and think what pleasure you got from your train set then........

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by gordon s

[TheQ]

On 17/05/2020 at 19:13, Kris said:

The stock you use should be sensible. It would look daft having an HST next to a Jinty. In much the same way a GWR castle would look very lost on a Scottish based layout.  

Not if you model the year 1926, the LMS trialed castle number 5000 Launceston Castle on the west coast main line London  to Carlisle, it takes very little imagination for the trial to continue to Glasgow.. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by TheQ

[TheQ]

I think getting time and place for a fictional  model layout,  is more important than actual exact rolling stock. 

 

My inherited Railway is called Tiree,  which is where it was built,  the real island only had two short lengths of track associated with harbours. 

 

So the layout is being  rebuilt  in Highland railway style 1963!!! Grouping and nationalisation never happened. The supposition is HMG went straight to direct line subsidies after WW1, not a hard assumption when you consider the Kyle extension opened 1897, was subsidised by HMG .

 

Rolling stock will be HR steam locomotives, diesel locos that were used in 63 by BR in HR colours. With other rolling stock around in 63 in HR colours. IE MK1 carriages in HR green..

Buildings are being modified to HR style and colours. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by TheQ

[Kylestrome]

On my 'might have been' layout I tend run what might have been typical for the area and time period. I try to avoid unusual or rare locos and wagons, but that doesn't stop me from using some items that might have been but weren't! 

 

David

[Oldddudders]

Some very insightful thoughts in this thread - although no surprise given the authors in question. 

 

And it does strike to the very core of our hobby - why do we do it? There is a different answer for each of us, amply demonstrated in the forum as a whole. We have serial layout-builders, who thrive on getting from an idea to completion, then flog it and start again. Then Gordon has spent ages getting to the point of running trains, and is now loving the moment - long may it last! Others yearn to exhibit, with all the hard work of a busy weekend being rewarded by the oohs and ahs from punters. And what of the Larry Goddards of our hobby? Hugely talented but never finished a layout due to impossibly high standards even he never quite reached.

 

Some of us lack talent, but can muster enough skill to make things run. Others make marvellous scenery, but the trains don't do much. King operators use WTTs and try to follow every move. Others have workbenches but not much of a layout at all. A broad spectrum indeed.

 

And, finally, the watchword for Clive is plausibility. How likely is this or that to have happened? Somewhere between established fact and Rule 1 is where we need to be - and each of us will identify a different point on that scale.  

[HonestTom]

For me, it's more about getting the flavour of the place than sweating too much over precise accuracy. My view is that if your line or location is fictional, who knows what might have happened? Railway history is full of examples of "rule-breaking" - Thompson suburbans and Barry Railway coaches at Hemyock, Victorian passenger engines working goods trains to Bodmin, etc etc.

 

My planned project is a small layout based on the railways of the Port of London circa the late 50s-early 60s. It will represent fictional sidings serving a fictional dock, with a number of offstage industrial sidings that also supply traffic. With my locomotives, I've aimed to incorporate engines that say to the reasonably knowledgeable viewer "we are in East London." A J15, a J50, an N7, a Class 15, a J69, plus a PLA Peckett, Janus and Austerity tank. These would not all have been seen together, certainly not at the same time. But I'm not building a museum piece, I'm building something that captures my impression of a place and time, inspired by my exploration of the area. It's a fictional location, so who's to say the additional need for locomotives wouldn't have brought the Janus upriver sooner, or given the Peckett a stay of execution?

 

Where is the limit of my tolerance of inaccuracy? I honestly couldn't say. A historian could no doubt point out a hundred inaccuracies that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'm more likely to twist history to justify an item I like than to shun a locomotive because it never worked the docks. To be honest, I quite enjoy finding those twists - it occurs to me that you could very easily have a J70 (dock shunter, maintained at Stratford, withdrawn in the 50s) getting sold out of service to the Port of London.

[Kylestrome]

1 hour ago, HonestTom said:

I'm more likely to twist history to justify an item I like than to shun a locomotive because it never worked the docks. To be honest, I quite enjoy finding those twists

 

The fact that BR once used 16xx pannier tanks on a Scottish branch line is justification enough, in my opinion, for a little 'history twisting'.

 

David

 

 

[HonestTom]

I mean, if we're going to talk about hypothetical extra locomotives built for branch lines that didn't exist in reality, let's not forget that both the Bluebell Railway's Terriers, Stepney and Fenchurch, are named for a connection between the LBSC and London and Blackwall Railway that was planned but never built.

[The Black Hat]

On ‎17‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 16:54, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Clive just think of some of the most effective (in my view anyway) model railways of fictitious stations set in real locations - Buckingham, Charford and Borchester to name but three. What did they have in common?

1 A sense of place

2 A sense of time (ie period being depicted)

3 Locos and rolling stock of a consistent standard for the region being modelled

4 A sense of the "everyday" - not specials being run every 2 mins

5 Operated in a railway-like manner, with a purpose for each movement

6 Not a model of a model, but an eye for the prototype

 

Most of us are going to model a fictitious station or location. It can be based on somewhere, but the compromises needed on what space we have to model often sees us choose to make somewhere up that allows us to model with the space that we have. That I think is the main reason why more real places are not done. For example, my next layout of Briganton, which is construction is heavily influenced by a large NER style station, akin to Darlington or Stockton - but the space needed to model either would be massive or that the locations would not include some of the activity that I would like to include.

 

That's why Peters list above makes a lot of sense. What we all try to do is to achieve a lot of the objectives above on all of these layouts. We all choose somewhere with a place - put it in an area that matches our interests - and a time, that again is giving us the chance to run the trains we like. The place and time sees rolling stock need to match these objectives although there are some twists when you skew history using a similar example or quote a rare example that happened elsewhere that few others knew about. The twist that I enjoy is fictitious engines done up to match and blend in with the historically accurate stock and for those that notice them this again can be fun.

What Peter then moves onto are things to do with operation and running the layout, where the track-plan and design need to have provided to allow the sense of everyday and good operation to proceed. You need to have stock mirroring what a similar real location would be like, even if you then add some interesting trains to add variety. Yes there might be charters, but test trains and inspection saloons also make that list. Fact is that even with everyday movements you need to add more interest, especially when exhibiting and these can give the viewer something more to wait for or watch. Part of the fun of watching the front when operating is to see some people taking interest in the fiddle yard and then wait expectantly for an engine to arrive - before providing it for their enjoyment. It also adds something to fit these into a railway like manner, so that there is a purpose for each movement and not just a tail-chaser style operation where the same train goes round over and over and over again. That just destroys the atmosphere and creativity that a good well built layout can provide.

 

Which brings us nicely to that eye for the prototype - the extra small details on the layout, such as display screens, shop fronts, the cameos of people standing at locations. Its also now the extra dimension that sound can provide. Engines starting and revving to be ready for service, then moving off. Lights being used for shunting, running and standing. The extra sense of realism that a eye for the prototype can bring to model form and allow the ultimate goal of your fictitious layout being seen as a possible real place that you believe is out there somewhere...

[Steven B]

I've found that as prices have increased, the contents of my stock-box have become more centred on my preferred modelling era and location. Whilst I may have bought Terriers, Deltic and Voyagers in the past, I can't justify spending on models just because they look nice.

 

A better understanding of the prototype has also had an influence, together with a wider range of coach types. BCKs on my trains are now noticeable by their absence rather than running on the end of every train as pre-Bachmann Graham Farish wanted us to run.

 

Steven B.

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I cannot improve on Peter's list.

 

Clive, you know enough about my layout already but for the benefit of others here is how I address Peter's points:

 

1. Western Region in Cornwall

2. 1950s - so anything that was around between 1/1/50 and 31/12/59 inclusive.

3. Where possible actual stock or if not stock that existed and "could have" appeared.

4. A sequence derived from the actual service timetables for the period.

5. See 4, also full signalling, interlocked lever frames and so on.

6. Station layouts based on, but not copies of, real ones with the names camouflaged as a result.

Cf Cwmdimbath; 1) South Wales not Cornwall, 2-4 ditto, 5) point operation is hand of god, but sequence of action is as if full interlocking is present. 6) I'd use the term 'inspired by' rather than 'based on' in my case.

 

7 hours ago, TheQ said:

I think getting time and place for a fictional  model layout,  is more important than actual exact rolling stock. 

 

My inherited Railway is called Tiree,  which is where it was built,  the real island only had two short lengths of track associated with harbours. 

 

So the layout is being  rebuilt  in Highland railway style 1963!!! Grouping and nationalisation never happened. The supposition is HMG went straight to direct line subsidies after WW1, not a hard assumption when you consider the Kyle extension opened 1897, was subsidised by HMG .

 

Rolling stock will be HR steam locomotives, diesel locos that were used in 63 by BR in HR colours. With other rolling stock around in 63 in HR colours. IE MK1 carriages in HR green..

Buildings are being modified to HR style and colours. 

This will work, because it is consistent within it's framework; once you accept the premise it all falls into place.  An independent Highland might well have bought North British diesels in the early 1960s, and quite possibly BRCW type 2s, but I would draw the line at 25s.  Mk1s, commissioned from BR, perhaps, but just as likely to source coaches from someone like Metro-Cammell, similar to 101 stock but riding on Commonwealth pattern bogies like the Pullmans, or perhaps secondhand Gresley bogies.  I'd also be assuming that McBrayne's ran a train ferry to the island, so mainland goods and possibly NPCCS might appear and stock could visit Inverness for overhaul.

[TheQ]

30 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Cf Cwmdimbath; 1) South Wales not Cornwall, 2-4 ditto, 5) point operation is hand of god, but sequence of action is as if full interlocking is present. 6) I'd use the term 'inspired by' rather than 'based on' in my case.

 

This will work, because it is consistent within it's framework; once you accept the premise it all falls into place.  An independent Highland might well have bought North British diesels in the early 1960s, and quite possibly BRCW type 2s, but I would draw the line at 25s.  Mk1s, commissioned from BR, perhaps, but just as likely to source coaches from someone like Metro-Cammell, similar to 101 stock but riding on Commonwealth pattern bogies like the Pullmans, or perhaps secondhand Gresley bogies.  I'd also be assuming that McBrayne's ran a train ferry to the island, so mainland goods and possibly NPCCS might appear and stock could visit Inverness for overhaul.

BR wouldn't have been existed, but MK1s were designed at Derby,  so I would assume Midland would have designed them. HR bought them in,  like the MSWJR bought carriages off of Midland many years before.. 

In this fictional time there would have been mergers,  and line closures but done much more selectively and gradually than Mr Beechings efforts. 

[Guy Rixon]

Mk 1 coaches evolved from Bulleid coaches, so one could also assume that one of the southern companies produced the Bullieds.

[PhilH]

I've often thought that 'there is a prototype for everything' and, within reason, that is often the case. Search long enough and hard enough, or even by accident, you will find a photo or article which gives credence to your operating protocol.

 

A couple of examples...Jubilees, Patriots and Royal Scots on oil trains at Eastleigh (I saw these myself), Scottish Region based Britannias at Eastleigh shed (wish I'd seen them) and so on.

 

It's easy to get hung up on the smallest detail, most of us do, but at the end of the day it's just not worth it. After all for most of us the compromises start with the track gauge....

[Philou]

Aaaah yes .......... the infamous track gauge at 4ft 1 1/2in .................

[Philou]

FWIW, when designing my to-be layout, based on real stations and following their layout faithfully, I WAS going to apply Rule 1 - as Clive (the OP) has said 'RULE 1 APPLIES' - insofar as my stock is concerned as I have amassed a shed-load since 2004 of things that I like - the slightly more outlandish, the better.

 

HOWEVER, having now decided on a real location and under the lockdown I've been busy building signals to match, I suppose I should make the effort and have at least SOME stock which is correct for the location. I don't have a timescale in mind as I can go from pre-war to present - but even then perhaps I should try and narrow it down a bit - shouldn't I?

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[Rivercider]

There is no correct answer to the question, and every modeller will have their own preferences.

 

I could fill my fiddle yard with trains headed by a green 47, and a green 50. Also a chocolate and cream DMU, a Busby DMU, and a Hastings unit, also add in a HST hauled by a class 47. All these passed though Exeter St Davids in 1985, and there is photographic evidence for of all of them.

But to me that does not even slightly remotely capture the spirit of the place.

For me I would just go with a boring blue 31, and 47, a refurbed 50, a blue/grey DMU and a standard HST set,

 

Each to his own.

cheers