I'm not getting into the "it's your railway, do what you want with it" argument. The question was simply whether the trains would be realistic, not whether the OP would be entitled to run them..
That's a pity Roger. You would be able to present an interesting position in such a debate. Have you thought about writing a book for those interested in historical modelling in modern era NSW railways?
While that is a great idea, & it is something that has been asked of me to do a similar thing based on the various years I was on the job & apply it to the operating side of things. Trouble ended up with every one of those who wanted me to do it, each had a seperate agenda behind it, & that was in every case to actually justify their thoughts on how the 1:1 operated & how they were applying it on their layouts.
When the answer they got did not fit in with their beliefs, I just got abused. I am not saying that is what would be the case in every scenario but it would be typical. OTOH there is a lot of scope available to the modeller with the realistic realm of railway operations to model.
It's getting into the rivet counting area but you would not have seen 44100 in tuscan and 4903 in candy together. 44100 was painted candy before the 49. 44100 was painted candy before the NOFFs were introduced.
I know little of the trailer rail trains but I have my doubts about the other train simply because it was most uncommon to see more than two or three RQIW on the same train. There weren't very many of them. But until someone does a more numerous class of container skel (ie a 60 footer) then there's not a lot of choice when modelling a fairly shortlived train. It's not a horribly outlandish consist, just probably not right in detail.
I'd use the distinction between "historically accurate" and "historically plausable". An example of historical accuracy would be modelling 15 minutes on one particular afternoon, etc. Possibly even down to the correct wagon numbers for the historical consist. This is very limited though and generally people move on from this. I guess it is a stage most of us go through at some point.
Plausability is what most of us operate on. Our operations are a model in themselves and it is most unlikely that chance would result in an exactly accurate historical reproduction. What we create is e a plausable situation. Give this, is the OP unnessacarily losing sleep over nothing?
Finally, there is nothing wrong with running an ecceletic collection. Those who put emphasis on socialising with people sharing a similar interest often like this approach. To each their own.
What you have mentioned is something that I have suggested on several occassions that could well be adopted with exhibition layouts in order to present a historical story of the railways. Currently most people have a negative opinion of the railways for many & varied reasons, & mostly because of their commuting experiences, or similar.
By presenting a story line based on the history over a 5 year period, with a story line drop in sign with a short history & illustration of what is actually running on the layout presents a visual historical setting for the viewer. It allows for each exhibition layout to concentrate on their own particular preference, without a lot of overlapping, the exhibitors can also answer any questions in regard to what they are doing, & even their reasons behind it.
In doing this its easy to show a transition period, that is historically accurate.
Prior to moving house, a modelling friend of mine suggested that once our then layouts were operational, we could have two types of operating sessions, one that is era specific of each of us, & then a hash up session every so often, where its anything goes. Both of us had different 2nd choice models & we could run different trains of whatever we wanted at that time. US, Australian, European, British & even China Rail totally wrong but totally fun.