Duplication of Models: A Discussion

[letterspider]

 

The law regarding collusion AFAIK only referes to price fixing and not to product development, so there is nothing to stop manufacturers ringing each other up to find out what they are developing and save duplicating a model. Although whether we can call the likes of Dapol, Hornby, Rails, Hattons, etc manufacturers - when they outsource to injection moulding companies - really they are more like project managers.

I guess they are not completely in control of the whole process - both the manufacturing side and the intellectual property. There is the risk of industrial espionage, price rises and production delays outwith of their control. Is this what we are seeing in the marketplace when there is duplication?

 

And if so can these companies really do anything about it? Unlikely unless they could prove - for example - the CAD of a competitor was a copy of their own AND make the cost of damages worthwhile for a legal firm to bother taking the case to court.

For example this was the case with the satellite imagery for the EURO note which was apparently taken without permission from M-Sat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1779978.stm

I never found out what was the result of this case because you can't find any other mention about it on the internet and EURO notes weren't withdrawn - so I'm assuming out of court settlement.

 

What we do know about legal disputes - the winner is always the lawyer - and how. It may actually be cheaper to fight in the marketplace - make a tooling or produce new liveries, rather than to fight in court. At least that way you are keeping your business going forwards.

 

Going forwards I hope we can increase the diversity of suppliers and that they can increase their profit margins from reduced production costs but also pass on some of those savings to the consumer.

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by letterspider

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Sorry Phil but no because I think that giving 'hints' could potentially be seen as collusion.  Giving an answer to an outright question could perhaps be seen in a different light (but does one then have to answer honestly)?  

 

The question of measuring or scanning a subject is also a difficult one so again how does the owner of the object respond?  I think Andy Hayter got the right answer to that as well.   Incidentally there has to my certain knowledge been an instance of duplication where both of the 'manufacturers' involved took details of the subject (be it by measurement or scanning) but the two parties involved got permission to do so from different sources.  Equally there have also been instances of duplication where one of the parties involved has never been anywhere near the prototype engine involved to take or check measurements and have presumably worked only from drawings and photos while the other party actually looked at the loco and took details etc with the permission of the owners.

 

Hints can be very subtle though - if they wern't there would be a lot more international disagreements in the world!

 

While the diplomatic service may not be regulated by the competition authorities there are many other bodies persons that are only too eager to expose collusion.

 

Agatha Christie wasn't wrong when she used the 'its not what you say that matters its what is omitted' school of thought in her books. Body language and voice tine can also be quite revealing.

 

For example if at an exhibition if Simon Kollar found himself talking to a person with bad breath then he might position himself slightly further away than when conversing with others who have better oral hygiene. On the face of it most people probably wouldn't notice it, but to someone like a dental technician visiting the show may recognise he signs from their own experience.

 

As such I'm sure someone as skilled as yourself could (and probably has has in your long management career on the big railway)  steer conversations certain ways if required - its the sign of a good manager after all to be able to defuse awkward situations.

 

 

On your second point - with the number of preserved locos which survive in some classes (e.g. Std 4MT, Black 5, Castle, etc then obviously when it comes to scanning / measuring then two different heritage railways could easily let two different manufacturers do an engine and no-one would be any wiser.

 

Equally if one manufacturer does it solely from drawings held by the NRM and another dies it from a laser scan / measuring then the two projects will generally not be dealing with the same people.

 

It gets a bit more tricky when either there is only one surviving loco (e.g. the SECR class) or where no survivors remain and NRM drawings are the only source. In such situations manufacturers might well observe some curious incidents / behaviour which will tip them off.

 

The final thing to consider is liveries - we have seen a few manufacturers struggle to get the necessary licences from TOCs - only for it to be revealed months down the line that this is because another manufacturer got there first and have done an 'exclusive' deal with the TOC. Now call me stupid if you like but it strikes me that if someone is constantly stalling / fobbing you off, shouldn't that ring a few alarm bells?

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by phil-b259

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Model railway history is littered with examples of manufactures who pulled the plug on designs because a rival got there first. Bachmann for example dropped doing a 00 S15 after Hornby announced theirs 

 

 

 

That's a strange one. They could have released a different variant of the S15 or even a H15 if they were really bothered about releasing one.

 

Or even put the effort into something such as a N15X with it's iconic names. They were certainly caught napping with the Lord Nelson.

 

 

Jason

[Dunsignalling]

40 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

That's a strange one. They could have released a different variant of the S15 or even a H15 if they were really bothered about releasing one.

 

Or even put the effort into something such as a N15X with it's iconic names. They were certainly caught napping with the Lord Nelson.

 

 

Jason

I don't think Bachmann were remotely bothered by losing the Lord Nelson (and probably not the GW mogul either). Both have been thoroughly obsolete for long enough to convince any competitor they had no intention of improving them. The ease with which they were put off the S15 suggests their historical lack of interest in producing models of Southern prototypes persists. Indeed, I have always suspected that most of their older SR models, the LN, the Bulleid coaches, and the Queen Mary brake were more likely to have been "inherited" (probably from Airfix) at a fairly advanced stage of development than originated in-house

 

Bachmann also (IIRC) quite openly stated that they wouldn't be producing a DCC-compatible chassis for the LN (nor, by implication, any other enhancement). In the light of that, Hornby quite reasonably went ahead with theirs. 

 

By accident or design, Bachmann announced their new Bulleid coaches in forms that will not duplicate Hornby's models. That may be down to luck, Chinese whispers or just an educated guess that, if Hornby were to make any Bulleid coaches, they would pick the types that could employ the existing underframe tooling from the Maunsells. Direct collusion can be ruled out but even if it had taken place, the resulting choice enhances rather than detracting from the interests of the consumer.

 

John

Edited March 16, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[Legend]

12 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Very !

 

Which is one reason why they don't really talk to each other about future product.

 

Might that change when (if) we leave the EU . Without getting into the politics isn’t anti competition law really EU derived ? 

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, letterspider said:

 

The law regarding collusion AFAIK only referes to price fixing and not to product development, so there is nothing to stop manufacturers ringing each other up to find out what they are developing and save duplicating a model. 

 

Sorry it goes much deeper than just fixing prices and there is everything to stop manufacturers ringing each other up about future projects.  

 

http://www.romeconomics.com/anti-competitive-practices-explained/

 

Very simplified - so agreeing that A will make X and B will make Y falls under Market sharing. * 

 

As to the EU and I assume a punt at what happens when the UK leaves:  The EU has strong anti-competitive rules, but nothing like s strong as the US and these affect all companies trading with and in the US.  Note what happened to certain VW executives in the US due to actions taken by the company in Europe.  I don't think the UK leaving the EU will have any impact at all on competition rules.  Our rules will be dictated by the Big Brothers we deal with - EU and USA.

 

* I have worked for a US led company and have been made very aware of competition rules and their impact (on me and my bosses in the US!) - or put another way, if I screwed up they could go to jail and their defence would be that they had educated me (and they made sure they had proof) in what was and was not acceptable.  AKA hung out to dry.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

 

 Without getting into the politics isn’t anti competition law really EU derived ? 

 

Yes and no.

 

Yes because over the decades competition law has been harmonised so all EU states have the same rules.

 

No because the UKs history as a nation dependent on trade, means the need to promote competition in the market by law long predates any EU action.

 

As has been noted above, the rules which will apply to the UK after Brexit will largely depend on what trade deals we strike...

[The Johnster]

The body responsible for policing this in the UK is the Monopolies Commission, and that predates the EU or any of it's predecessors.  

[jjb1970]

There are very good reasons for laws against anti-competitive practices. Funnily enough, although in the short term companies may get a boost the longer term effects on their competitiveness can be baleful as cartels and protected market conditions have a habit of unravelling eventually. 

 

In the case of model trains I think there are certain models which will always be attractive to multiple companies and the market can support multiple options of some prototypes. There are other prototypes which if duplicated probably just saturate the market. Either way, what to make is a commercial decision for the manufacturers. There is nothing illegal about model duplication (unlike collusion and carving up a market which is illegal) and I am not even minded to see it as ethically wrong. Some win, some lose,that's just the business is. Whatever problems that might cause modellers if some companies end up in difficulty (and if a company does end up in difficulty because a model is duplicated then that in itself tells a story) the likely consequences of a cartel would be worse. 

[Tricky-CRS]

11 hours ago, letterspider said:

Although whether we can call the likes of Dapol, Hornby, Rails, Hattons, etc manufacturers - when they outsource to injection moulding companies - really they are more like project managers.

 

 

Wrong Dapol manufacture at Chirk, they own injection moulding machines and spray booths and have done for many years. Yes a lot of they range is made in China so is everyone else's. Other than Peco I think they are the only company making there own stuff in the UK. Bachmann sort of make it as they sort of own the factory but not the land but have little control.

[Jeff Smith]

I worked in aerospace, originally for a UK company but subsequently bought by various US companies.  Every year we had to do a number of ethics on-line courses many of which related to competitive rules, collusions, price fixing, cartels, etc etc.  One of the most dangerous situations regarding possibilities of inadvertent sharing of information is at trade shows.  We supplied parts to airlines who all talk to each other, and rightly so share technical information when operating the same type of aircraft.  In many cases these were safety issues but occasionally pricing became an issue particularly when competing for supply of a part of service.

 

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that keeping one's future products confidential is a good idea and otherwise can fall under the oft quoted description of 'the appearance of impropriety ' even if not actually breaking any laws.

 

[Butler Henderson]

4 minutes ago, Tricky-CRS said:

Wrong Dapol manufacture at Chirk, they own injection moulding machines and spray booths and have done for many years. Yes a lot of they range is made in China so is everyone else's.

Has anything new been produced at Chirk or it just using the old  Airfix kit and Hornby Dublo etc toolings.

11 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I don't think Bachmann were remotely bothered by losing the Lord Nelson (and probably not the GW mogul either). Both have been thoroughly obsolete for long enough to convince any competitor they had no intention of improving them.

Presumably the same could be said of Hornby with the ex Dapol Terrier (some irony there) and the ex Airfix Prairie.

As has been said duplication is nothing new although in the past it was usually not the " lesser" classes that got duplicated; Rebuilt Scots from Airfix and Mainline, Westerns from Hornby and Lima and Warships from Lima and Mainline for example and which somehow cause magazine captions so many errors in described the model as being one when it is plainly the other as each had sufficient visual characteristics to be readily identifiable. The same largely applies today with for example gap or not under the boiler signifying whose Adams Radial and the amount of air space or not above the cylinder signifying whose Std 4 4-6-0 it is

[GreenGiraffe22]

At least with the Terriers there are so many in different liveries and variants that between Hornby and Rails we might get way more variants than if just one company was making them... For example, I'm pleased Hornby went with SR 2662, they could have done 2644 just to spite Rails. Hopefully neither company is *that* petty. 

 

The Hornby - Oxford Adams Radials was unfortunate as there are somewhat less variants to choose from to manufacture...

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Hints can be very subtle though - if they wern't there would be a lot more international disagreements in the world!

 

While the diplomatic service may not be regulated by the competition authorities there are many other bodies persons that are only too eager to expose collusion.

 

Agatha Christie wasn't wrong when she used the 'its not what you say that matters its what is omitted' school of thought in her books. Body language and voice tine can also be quite revealing.

 

For example if at an exhibition if Simon Kollar found himself talking to a person with bad breath then he might position himself slightly further away than when conversing with others who have better oral hygiene. On the face of it most people probably wouldn't notice it, but to someone like a dental technician visiting the show may recognise he signs from their own experience.

 

As such I'm sure someone as skilled as yourself could (and probably has has in your long management career on the big railway)  steer conversations certain ways if required - its the sign of a good manager after all to be able to defuse awkward situations.

 

 

On your second point - with the number of preserved locos which survive in some classes (e.g. Std 4MT, Black 5, Castle, etc then obviously when it comes to scanning / measuring then two different heritage railways could easily let two different manufacturers do an engine and no-one would be any wiser.

 

Equally if one manufacturer does it solely from drawings held by the NRM and another dies it from a laser scan / measuring then the two projects will generally not be dealing with the same people.

 

It gets a bit more tricky when either there is only one surviving loco (e.g. the SECR class) or where no survivors remain and NRM drawings are the only source. In such situations manufacturers might well observe some curious incidents / behaviour which will tip them off.

 

The final thing to consider is liveries - we have seen a few manufacturers struggle to get the necessary licences from TOCs - only for it to be revealed months down the line that this is because another manufacturer got there first and have done an 'exclusive' deal with the TOC. Now call me stupid if you like but it strikes me that if someone is constantly stalling / fobbing you off, shouldn't that ring a few alarm bells?

 

 

 

Just for the record Phil the instance where two different concerns recorded, by whatever means, details of a particular loco involved the only example of that type still in existence.  There are incidentally plenty of drawings around outside the NRM and in seom cases I don't doubt that more than one copy exists so it could readily be the case that two manufacturers would obtain details in parallel.

[Tricky-CRS]

On 17/03/2019 at 10:26, Butler Henderson said:

Has anything new been produced at Chirk or it just using the old  Airfix kit and Hornby Dublo etc toolings.

 

Wagons in a 3 gauges including new tooled O gauge, they invested in a new machine a year or two ago for new style tools. Some coaches in N were and may well still be. 

 

Not sure how much of the O gauge is done over here but I would guess a lot from the size of the runs.

[60027Merlin]

For those of us modelling the Scottish/North Eastern areas duplication of r-t-r models is academic!

 

 

[JinglingGeordie]

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 14:46, 60027Merlin said:

For those of us modelling the Scottish/North Eastern areas duplication of r-t-r models is academic!

 

 

Yes, if only!!!

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

There are dozens of Scottish and North Eastern models available.

 

Most models available currently have worked in Scotland and the North East with the exception of SR and GWR prototypes.

 

Aberdeen Ferryhill

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=6

 

Polmadie

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=428

 

Virtually everything there is available. Even more so when it comes to D&E, How many Scottish Class 37s and 47s have we had recently?

 

Same goes for the NE.

 

Gateshead

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=221

 

 

 

Jason

Edited March 21, 2019 by Steamport Southport

[D9020 Nimbus]

Haven't seen any H1 4-4-4Ts modelled recently—nor the A8 4-6-2Ts that they became. Bachmann have abandoned the J39 re-tool (possible opportunity for Hornby or Oxford in the future), and there isn't a modern standard D49.

 

Gateshead isn't typical of the NE region anyway, most of the freight locos in the Tyneside area were based at Blaydon or Borough Gardens (also in Gateshead, later the site of the Tyneside Central Freight Depot—curiously, it was a sub-shed of Sunderland).

[60027Merlin]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

There are dozens of Scottish and North Eastern models available.

 

Most models available currently have worked in Scotland and the North East with the exception of SR and GWR prototypes.

 

Aberdeen Ferryhill

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=6

 

Polmadie

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=428

 

Virtually everything there is available. Even more so when it comes to D&E, How many Scottish Class 37s and 47s have we had recently?

 

Same goes for the NE.

 

Gateshead

 

http://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=221

 

 

 

Jason

 

I shall be more exact and state "Steam".

 

With the exception of the recently released J36 from Hornby I have not yet seen anything from the 5 pre-grouping Scottish companies released in the last few decades of super detail r-t-r.

 

 

[JeremyC]

While it's not yet available there is also the planned Caley 812 class from Rails.

Edited March 21, 2019 by JeremyC

[Sun Street]

On 21/03/2019 at 22:44, JeremyC said:

While it's not yet available there is also the planned Caley 812 class from Rails.

Yes,

And they have hiked the price.

When asked at Warley about the issue, we received the response, well, just send the price through in stages, you won't notice it then.

Another version of crowd-funding? Enough people do, and the model goes ahead, otherwise stock purchase vouchers will be issued.

DJM have gone yesterday...............................................