Cliches on layouts

[PGN]

How about a railway with a big retaining wall behind with a road and shops/houses on top of the wall, oh and a bridge at a strange angle that gives access to a fiddle yard behind!

 

David

 

 

You've just described Flitwick to a T ... and if you follow the line North a little ("down the line" to the modern railwayman; but "up" to the Midland Railway ...) you'll come to the Ampthill cutting and tunnel ...

 

 

Speaking personally, though, I think that maybe the meticulously researched prototypically-correct layout which is an exact replica of how the real thing appears / appeared may have had its day and be becoming a bit of a cliche. I mean, seriously guys - let the builder build what he pleases! Is a Turner seascape a "cliche" because ALL his paintings (give or take) were seascapes? No? Then why does something on a model railway become a cliche just because lots of model railways have it?

 

Sure ... discuss the question of whether a particular scene is REALISTIC or not if you wish (and I'll happily point out the flaws in the "countryside" scenes built by townie modellers if you ask me to); and many of these so-called cliches jar because they are NOT realistic and are just shoved on as a substitute for proper research of the subject. BUT if your conclusion is that it's not realistic, then make that your conclusion and keep it to yourself UNLESS the builder asks you whether you think it realistic or not. Because not every builder WANTS to make realistic landscape the focus of his modelling. There are some who want to focus on operation, and are quite happy to run their trains through a cliched landscape of unrealistic cameos, so long as their trains are realistic. And what's wrong with that? Nothing at all I say. There is no such thing as a right or a wrong approach to railway modelling. Sure, there may be approaches that are right or wrong for you; but that's no excuse for projecting your own personal prejudices onto the next guy and saying that they make his modelling "wrong" when it happens to be right for him.

 

My pet hates ... which you see often enough that they may fairly be said to be cliches ...

 

1. Modern image which doesn't actually look like what I see around me

 

2. Graffitti everywhere on modern image layouts (yes, I KNOW it's everywhere on the real thing ... but it spoils the look of the real thing and it spoils the look of a model to, in my opinion. Let your imagination run riot, I say, and model it as it ought to appear if all those louts stopped spraying everything like incontinent Tom cats ...)

 

2 1/2. Pedants who suggest that there is an inconsistency between my point 1 and point 2

 

3. "Big 4" secondary passenger services made up of identical rakes of matched stock

 

4. Transitional period layouts (and there are very few periods where there wasn't some sort of transition going on) where it appears that we all woke up one morning to find that the livery fairies had been round and repainted every item of rolling stock in the same livery overnight

 

5. Layouts on which all the stock is uniformly weathered, and nothing ever appears as if it has been outshopped or cleaned more recently than anything else

 

 

But perhaps the two biggest cliches which jar with me are operational, and they are:

 

6. L........a........y........o........u........t........s....................w........h.........e........r..........e.....................e........v.......e........r.......y.........t........h.........i.......n.......g

h....a....s..........t.....o................m........o........v.........e..................t..........e........r........r.........i........b.........l........y..................s.........l..........o.........w...........l..........y

 

 

7. Layouts where a train stops over the uncoupler and the locomotive immediately reverses away having uncoupled then stops the moment it is clear of the point blade and the point is thrown the instant the locomotive has stopped and the locomotive then instantly starts up again and couples up with something else and immediately backs away pulling it with it and .... you get the idea. I mean, what IS the point of going to all that effort to make sure that it doesn't LOOK like a toy train set, if you then make the trains behave in a way that only trains on a toy train set ever behave??

[298]

How about tramways that have unfeasibly convoluted track layouts normally running round a block of houses, going nowhere from nowhere? Also that generally operate at mach 3 and stop with an abruptness that would have any passanger taken to casualty with broken bones, never mind a touch of whiplash. (I speak as a tramway modeller and I'm afraid those are amongst my favourite bete noires)

 

That'd be the same tramway layouts where the pubs and churches outnumber the houses. Obviously quite a thirsty sanctimonious population...

[Re6/6]

6. L........a........y........o........u........t........s....................w........h.........e........r..........e.....................e........v.......e........r.......y.........t........h.........i.......n.......g

h....a....s..........t.....o................m........o........v.........e..................t..........e........r........r.........i........b.........l........y..................s.........l..........o.........w...........l..........y

 

Oh I do so agree! Once I had the temerity to 'criticize' a beautifully made 'scale' layout for having trains moving so boringly at a snail's pace. The layout was just exquisite in every way, a joy to behold. I was truly put in my place by being told that XXX railway company's trains were restricted to X MPH within station limits! Mind you they appeared to be operated at an even lesser speed than that! One would expect that on these sort of quality layouts that the locos would be able to move ultra smoothly and slowly anyway. Do it at home chaps, not in front of paying punters who like to see trains moving in a visually realistic way. It would seem to be a case of ' my trains can go slower than yours!' Any steam hauled train that I ever travelled on in those days started slowly but always seem to accelerate briskly away. I always think that slavishly 'scaling' everything down just doesn't always look right...colour, mass, speed etc..

[coachmann]

Not sure if its a cliche or just a fact that so many modellers who profess to dislike what they call "Kettles" plonk their blue diesels and Mk.I's on essentially pre-1964 steam-age layouts. I suppose the minimalist railway that actually existed in the 1970s and 1980s bus-shelter revival era is too constricting and boring for people.

 

But it is the cliches that go the other way that get my goat........A simple single line branchline terminus "developed" into a station with loco hauled trains to London plus fuelling point and sidings for umpteen locomotives. Aaaggghhhh.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Larry

 

Ref your last point. I don't think that is a cliche it's just bad! Poor observation (if any) of the real world. I think it's important to distinguish between cliche which to my mind is deliberate (perhaps an attempt at humour) and something that's accidentally bad.

 

Ultimately people will (and should) model what makes them happy but a layout with no basis in the real world will leave me cold. I fully accept though that my layout won't have enough gimmicks for some and will give them the same reaction. That a just how it is

 

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Chrislock]

The thing about cliches is they are usually true or the best way of doing something!!

 

For example, the bridge as a scenic break is a cliche, but is none the worse for that and to my mind infinitely better than a train disappearing through a none-cliche hole in the sky.

 

Another cliche which springs to mind is the idea of coal staithes/bins at a small pre war branch station. In real life, the coal would be more likely to be directly unloaded onto vehicles in the coal yard.

 

I can see the argument in the GWR branchline terminus being a bit of a cliche in modelling terms. Dare I suggest this is probably as much about availability of suitable stock and motive power as it is modellers' choice?

This certaily appears true in the RTR N gauge steam market, as is the post war steam/transition period.

 

At the end of day though ( if I can borrow another cliche ) railway modelling should be about individual choice, and people should follow their own inclinations regardless.

If there's no motivation where is the enjoyment?

 

Cheers,

Chris

[Pennine MC]

Not sure if its a cliche or just a fact that so many modellers who profess to dislike what they call "Kettles" plonk their blue diesels and Mk.I's on essentially pre-1964 steam-age layouts. I suppose the minimalist railway that actually existed in the 1970s and 1980s bus-shelter revival era is too constricting and boring for people.

 

 

But then the idea that every railway that ran in the 1970s and '80s was single-track and serviced entirely by bus shelters is also a cliche. It seems like a lifetime ago, but I seem to remember a whole book pretty much devoted to dispelling such myths...

[newbryford]

"Modern Image" is now a cliche. The term was coined in the 1960's by the late, great Cyril Freezer.

 

As a present and recent past modeller, I prefer the term "contemporary".

 

Anyway, back to my cliche. Steam specials on (any) diesel-era layout. Let's grab the nearest kettle steam loco and stick it on a rake of maroon or choc/cream Mk1's.

 

However, the situation is getting better on the loco front with the likes of Tornado.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[coachmann]

But then the idea that every railway that ran in the 1970s and '80s was single-track and serviced entirely by bus shelters is also a cliche. It seems like a lifetime ago, but I seem to remember a whole book pretty much devoted to dispelling such myths...

These are your words not mine. The minimalist railway was a fact of life in many many areas.

[Pennine MC]

These are your words not mine. The minimalist railway was a fact of life in many many areas.

 

 

In which case, I'm not at all sure what your point was. I would actually like to understand it, if you'd care to explain a bit more clearly?

[Wherry Lines]

Anyway, back to my cliche. Steam specials on (any) diesel-era layout. Let's grab the nearest kettle steam loco and stick it on a rake of maroon or choc/cream Mk1's.

 

I must admit this is one of the cliche's which appears occasionally on my layout. However, as my layout is set in December - many rail tours head to Lincoln for the christmas market. I think this provides a better justification than simply 'it's a rail tour'.

 

I have found this thread very interesting so far, and the good nature that has been maintained. Thanks all.

[coachmann]

In which case, I'm not at all sure what your point was.

Quite simply it is my point of view, freely expressed just like all the others on this thread, so there is no requirement to understand it, question it or argue with it.

[60B]

There is one feature that gets my goat even though they are important but the justification/ presentation is a bit iff. Ladles and jellyspoons I give you, the engine shed. Most of the time they are on BLTs where sometimes there was a shed, sometimes there wasn't and the branch would be worked by loco based at the junction or would work to the junction then work the branch (Lambourn comes to mind here). There always seems to be a cat clambouring about on a pile of sleepers or the roof of the mess room. There was a layout in one of the monthlys that had a single road shed when it was a through station with a couple of sidings serving a quarry loader. To me (correct me if i'm wrong) but surely the loco would be needed as it needs to move the individual wagons under the loader and marshall its train. I can see why people add in sheds, they are easily justifiable but its been a little overdone.

[31A]

DMUs with different destinations on either end.....

[Anglian]

And to go with that the tunnel going into a hill so low that no self respecting engineer would have dreamt of using one.

 

Or for continental models the bridge that goes over a deep ravine then plunges the line straight into a tunnel.

 

 

Kris I tend to agree but there's a prototype for everything. Just north of Audley End station on the Liverpool St to Cambridge line there are two tunnels in very low rises in the ground. In engineering terms neither are needed but the owners of the land (Audley End house/estate) insisted on tunnels when the line was built so they couldn't see the trains. I suspect a similar arrangement was made between Rowsley and Bakewell when the Midland line passed within earshot of Haddon Hall.

 

I tend to notice the ones involving road vehicles eg the station forecourt full of sports cars.

['CHARD]

DMUs with different destinations on either end.....

Did I miss something?

 

Didn't the majority of DMUs that worked diagrams where they shuttled between Station A and Station B all day have Station A on one end and Station B on the other, all that day?

 

Examples: Lichfield : Longbridge, Edinburgh : Hawick, Derby : Matlock, Exeter : Ilfracombe and so on...

[31A]

Didn't the majority of DMUs that worked diagrams where they shuttled between Station A and Station B all day have Station A on one end and Station B on the other, all that day?

 

No, I don't think so - the blinds should read the same either end, i.e. the destination of the train the unit's working. After all, imagine going through the barrier at Hull and looking for the York train, and being confronted with a row of cabs all saying 'Hull'.

 

I say this as an ex dmu guard myself, but checked through a couple of albums of first generation dmus and in the majority of cases where a tail lamp is visible and the direction of travel is evident, the blind on the rear shows the train's destination (of course there may be cases where the crew forgot / didn't have time / couldn't be bothered / blind broken), yet every ready to run dmu model gets this wrong.

 

I realise working blinds aren't really possible on models (yet!), but if your layout portrays a terminus it would be fine to put the 'other' destination on both ends of the unit, the crew having swung the blind before arrival, ready to go back.

[Pennine MC]

I say this as an ex dmu guard myself, but checked through a couple of albums of first generation dmus and in the majority of cases where a tail lamp is visible and the direction of travel is evident, the blind on the rear shows the train's destination (of course there may be cases where the crew forgot / didn't have time / couldn't be bothered / blind broken), yet every ready to run dmu model gets this wrong.

 

 

 

Interesting, TBH it's not something I've studied and I would have gone with Chard's thinking here, assuming it would be the same as loco headcodes (which *did* used to be unprototypically the same each end on models). But the logic is sound - Mr and Mrs Passenger can understand a destination blind, if not a 4 character display

 

Of course, I shall now be looking particularly hard at any DMU picture I see

[Oldddudders]

Kris I tend to agree but there's a prototype for everything. Just north of Audley End station on the Liverpool St to Cambridge line there are two tunnels in very low rises in the ground. In engineering terms neither are needed but the owners of the land (Audley End house/estate) insisted on tunnels when the line was built so they couldn't see the trains. I suspect a similar arrangement was made between Rowsley and Bakewell when the Midland line passed within earshot of Haddon Hall.

 

I tend to notice the ones involving road vehicles eg the station forecourt full of sports cars.

When the LBSCR built the Quarry Line from Stoats Nest to Earlswood avoiding Redhill a century ago, they cut through the grounds of Cane Hill Mental Asylum. They were required to put an artificial top on the cutting, to minimise the disturbance to the already-disturbed patients inmates, and the section became known as the Covered Way. Long since the top was removed, and the asylum is derelict, but it is still called the Covered Way.

[Pete the Elaner]

I don't think anyone has mentioned these yet:

 

Bright green grass, clean buildings & a spotless station.

Railways didn't ever look like that for very long.

 

A station or yard without a purpose.

Yards need road access & stations serve a town or village.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi chard

 

The cross city line certainly tended to have litchfield one end and reddich (or longbridge) the other. Whether they were supposed to or not I don't know but perhaps it was because litchfield trains only went one way and visa versa?

 

This shot shows a dmu waiting to leave moor street (note red tail light and drivers door open at the far end) with Birmingham still on the destination board. ISTR the 'bugs' at moor st always had brume on this end, probably the reason for the board

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[31A]

The reason this occurred to me was that I've recently ordered a set of destination blind transfers for a Limby Metro Cammell I've been tarting up (attempts to make my own blinds having failed miserably), and whilst I could easily think of a real station name as a suitable destination for the outer end, the terminus on my layout is fictitious so this obviously wasn't covered by the transfer sheet.

 

Then the penny dropped, all the dmus I've worked on whilst a Guard had (should have had... ) the same destination on either end!

 

In case this was a recent instruction, custom or practice however, I looked through the British Railway Pictorial volumes 'First Generation DMUs' and 'First Generation DMUs in East Anglia' to check, with the results described above.

 

When you think about it, a passenger boarding the train at most termini (and often trains in bay platforms) would only see the rear blind, never the front one. Not so long ago, having carefully put the destination up on the rear blind of my train, I was approached by a punter passenger customer who looked up at the blind and asked 'Is this train for York?' I bit my tongue and replied diplomatically in the affirmative, to which he replied 'Oh, I thought the display on this end showed where it had come from'.

 

OK it may well not have applied in all cases, but at least it got me off the hook for my model!

 

 

(which *did* used to be unprototypically the same each end on models).

 

Prototype for everything though Ian - when the GN suburban workings used the headcode to identify the route rather than individual train, it would have been in order for a 'Cambridge Buffet Express' loco to correctly carry 1B66 on both cabs!

[rob D2]

I think the GWR BLT has gone full circle - it's not nearly as common as once was.

 

I have to agree the modern TMD is becoming a bit of a cliche. In real life EWS/DBS has binned most of their large TMDs such as canton etc, if you want to model a large TMD used by that company you have either toton or, er, bescot and thats about it and if you do decide to do it please don't use the peco HST shed and knightwing fuelling points !

This is somewhat tongue in cheek as I have used both in past layouts, but I would feel a bit , lazy, to use them again unless I was doing Finsbury Park circa 1980.

[Oldddudders]

I think the GWR BLT has gone full circle - it's not nearly as common as once was.

 

I have to agree the modern TMD is becoming a bit of a cliche. In real life EWS/DBS has binned most of their large TMDs such as canton etc, if you want to model a large TMD used by that company you have either toton or, er, bescot and thats about it and if you do decide to do it please don't use the peco HST shed and knightwing fuelling points !

This is somewhat tongue in cheek as I have used both in past layouts, but I would feel a bit , lazy, to use them again unless I was doing Finsbury Park circa 1980.

GWR BLTs were a product of their time to some extent. The few decent RTR locos of that less-affluent era (late 50s/early 60s) favoured GWR, space was ever a consideration, and Railway Modeller was full of 'em. Imitation is indeed a sincere form of flattery.

 

Today's modeller often has a few more coins in his/her pocket, is often very fond of the modern prototype power and can find lots of different variations on a class, all RTR, all looking good. But space is still an issue, so a shorter, squarer layout, which TMDs permit, may be easier than a long thin branch or main line. Thus also a product of its time, perhaps?

[Mikkel]

GWR BLTs were a product of their time to some extent. The few decent RTR locos of that less-affluent era (late 50s/early 60s) favoured GWR, space was ever a consideration, and Railway Modeller was full of 'em. Imitation is indeed a sincere form of flattery.

 

Today's modeller often has a few more coins in his/her pocket, is often very fond of the modern prototype power and can find lots of different variations on a class, all RTR, all looking good. But space is still an issue, so a shorter, squarer layout, which TMDs permit, may be easier than a long thin branch or main line. Thus also a product of its time, perhaps?

That theory certainly makes a lot of sense.

 

Apart from that I seem to remember reading somewhere that the (past) popularity of the GWR BLT also owes its origins to a particularly influential article/layout in one of the early modelling magazines. I can't remember where I read that though. Does anyone happen to know?