Cliches of Layouts or Model Railways that you dislike.

[InFullSteam]

Are there any that anyone wants to name?

[BluePullman21]

There are too many to name!

For a start, the road works scene. Dozens of cones, flashing lights, but no movement. And not to forget the traffic jams!

The road overpass at the end of every scenic board, complete with a bus.

I also think some buildings have become cliches too. Metcalfe's range of station buildings is one that comes to mind.


William

[Alexander Court]

Layouts that are so detailed that the person exhibiting it wants you to see the scenery more than the trains (which are currently off scene awaiting their turn) as there is only so long i want to look at the detail without movement. at exhibitions they should speed up timetable to work the same movements but with less waits between each, its not unrealistic really, keep the 24 hour long real time timetable for home please.

Metcalfe's brewery buildings are very cliche these days but i like them, i have some and the warehouse to build in future maybe for a diorama, but at exhibits some people do redeem themselves very well with rearranging them and adding modifications that really do boost the appearence.

[Essex2Visuvesi]

Layouts that are so detailed that the person exhibiting it wants you to see the scenery more than the trains (which are currently off scene awaiting their turn) as there is only so long i want to look at the detail without movement. at exhibitions they should speed up timetable to work the same movements but with less waits between each, its not unrealistic really, keep the 24 hour long real time timetable for home please.

Metcalfe's brewery buildings are very cliche these days but i like them, i have some and the warehouse to build in future maybe for a diorama, but at exhibits some people do redeem themselves very well with rearranging them and adding modifications that really do boost the appearence.

Like this one
http://www.satanicmill.cd2.com/gallery/3.htm

This has to be my all time favourite layout

[trainsandco]

Like this one
http://www.satanicmill.cd2.com/gallery/3.htm

Wow....

A nice well detailed loco (for this example - a GWR King), in a nice well detailed layout, pulling some nicely detailed Mk2's...

Engines running with unprototypical coaching annoys the crap out of me (I can take it when it's on a real railway like the SVR, but not on a model railway, especially when the builder has made such an effort to make the layout as a whole look so good!)

Ben

[kennyGWSR]

Hey! I run locos with the wrong stock! Only cos mine is a preserved line though. I do try to keep them the correctly matched however.

[Stanier]

My pet hate is the layout where the locos are all quite interesting but the coaches they are hauling are all straight out of the box without even changing the numbers. This completely destroys any realism the layout might have and shouts 'toy trains' to me. Likewise unlikely combinations of wagons on freight trains. Goodness knows with the number of books full of good photos of RL trains surely people can look at what is behind the tender!

Any layout using setrack or Peco will get passed by at an exhibition. A proper model should have proper track with realistic rail height (no Code100) and formations that do not consist of only two radii of pointwork. British railway track was amongst the most varied anywhere and we should celebrate this diversity on our layouts. This where EM and P4 score - you have to build your own track so you might as well build it correctly. This is to my mind the one thing that 00 still lags behind on.

As far as the coaching stock goes, things are improving these days with both Hornby and Bachmann offering a greater variety than the Brake thirds and Composites we used to see. However there are huge gaps in the coach types available for most companies. Where are the Dining and Sleeping cars? Hardly any genuine pre grouping stock, even though they lasted well into BR on many lines.The ubiquitous BR Mk1 stock was still only a tiny fraction of what was running even into the late 60's.

[blooregard]

Are there any that anyone wants to name?

Interesting post, I can't help but think you either want someone to say something bad about a certain layout or you want an excuse to have a pop yourself. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As others have mentioned, Metcalfe buildings on exhibition layouts (I'm not being a snob here, they have their place but a serious exhibition layout is maybe not it). It's not limited to Metcalfe, it gets a bit tedious seeing the same building on 5 different layouts (Though it can be interesting to see different modellers approaches).

I like most layouts I see and even if the modelling may not be the best anyone who can get a layout finished is worthy of attending an exhibition. As long as there is something interesting to look at its all fine, I can only think of one or two layouts that are so devoid of anything interesting they stick out by half a mile.

[champion]

All model railways are a work of art in one way or another and most make mine look like i hav,nt done as good as i should have.
Lets not forget a lot of time and effort as well as finance goes into the making and always good to see someone elses work of art and is not a clitch but can show you work up.
richard.

[Bigmet]

I like freight traffic in particular. Two freight related dislikes that truly bug me on steam era layouts.

Layouts at locations where there would have been a lot of freight movement, having practically none or shoddily done. Every passenger movement is modelled down to the right locos and types of vehicles; from the local branch service with a Clunker tank to the through prestige train 'The Golden Scot', with well known driver Bernard De Bolt on his usual engine 'Crossbow'. But the freight is represented by only two or three short trains of RTR wagons with standard freight classes pulling them, instead of something more likely; one of the Dartchef 'Cornichon' class 0-6-0s or 'Disappoinment' class 0-8-0s, of which large numbers were locally allocated. Happily, this is less common than it used to be.

And then GWR layouts where every single wagon is a GW vehicle. Basically a failure to grasp that freight wagons always travelled freely across company borders - they had to, the loads cannot get out and walk themselves into another wagon - it looks silly beyond belief and ruins the believability.

[whynot]

"Wrong" coaches etc are surely failings, not cliches?

[InFullSteam]

My pet hate is the layout where the locos are all quite interesting but the coaches they are hauling are all straight out of the box without even changing the numbers. This completely destroys any realism the layout might have and shouts 'toy trains' to me. Likewise unlikely combinations of wagons on freight trains. Goodness knows with the number of books full of good photos of RL trains surely people can look at what is behind the tender!

Any layout using setrack or Peco will get passed by at an exhibition. A proper model should have proper track with realistic rail height (no Code100) and formations that do not consist of only two radii of pointwork. British railway track was amongst the most varied anywhere and we should celebrate this diversity on our layouts. This where EM and P4 score - you have to build your own track so you might as well build it correctly. This is to my mind the one thing that 00 still lags behind on.

As far as the coaching stock goes, things are improving these days with both Hornby and Bachmann offering a greater variety than the Brake thirds and Composites we used to see. However there are huge gaps in the coach types available for most companies. Where are the Dining and Sleeping cars? Hardly any genuine pre grouping stock, even though they lasted well into BR on many lines.The ubiquitous BR Mk1 stock was still only a tiny fraction of what was running even into the late 60's.

Surely someone at an exhibition won't jump back and scream "The Horror, The Horror" when they discover that it is Code 100 instead of Code 75?

[raistlin295]

Personally, I'd prefer to enjoy the efforts of the modeller rather than (in my view), wasting my time looking for faults. A necessarily subjective and singularly unproductive use of my time Each to his own though.

Based upon some of the comments here, my own layout should be re-named "Cliché Central" but, you know what? I like it.

Perhaps it might be worth starting a thread upon the subject of "Attitudes we dislike"

Absit invidia verbo.

[jus]

This seems to be a hot topic with many points of view, but I have to say we should try and separate the exhibition layouts, and the home layouts that many forum users have.

Metcalfe offer a cheap, well designed and featured buildings, so it's no wonder we home layout bods use them. Same with superquick and the like. Exhibition layouts may use them, but usually with the intention of a scratch build talking it's place at some point. It's the same with scaledale stuff, and bachmanns scenecraft.

The use of OO rather than P4 or EM, is one of choice. You either use the slightly under scale OO or build your own track, and then rebuild every rtr loco and stock you own. Many of us can't afford to do this, nor have the time to do it either.

With OO, Code 75 vs code 100 rail for many, is one of access locally. To get code 75 rail, I'd have to travel over 20 miles and even then i can only get flexi or basic points, or order and pay for delivery etc. I can get code 100 both set track and flexi, within 3 miles. Many people use this for simplicities sake, and to allow older stock to run without hitting the sleepers and chairs.

I'm not having a go at anyone, but we need to recognise different peoples tastes, budgets and soil levels too.

[ChrisWV10]

Never seen a layout or feature I disliked. I may find it boring - no movement, bland scenery but dislike? No. In fact I rather like to see how other people have used items I have whether loco, rolling stock, buildings, vehicles to get ideas for improvements or cameos I could have a go at.

TBH I don't see the point of threads putting down other people's efforts because of some world weary 'seen that' attitude.

C.