Left for Titfield!

[stephennicholson]

If this is not a wind up, then will we be waiting until 2023 (the 70 anniversary of the film release) for their release?

[The Black Hat]

11 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Nah, they were a Suffern thingy them Queen Marys.

Note quotation marks - its another film reference. As it happens (and kinda on subject) I thought about doing a Southern rebuilt West Country and naming it, "Wellchester." 

[Tim V]

What do you expect me to do, hedge hop?

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, Legend said:

 

 

It could still be an elaborate hoax from Rapido , as the picture does make reference to April First , but really I think that would be very bad form . April Fools are supposed to be .......well on April 1st and really before 12. 

 

But as I alluded to early on, 12 noon on April the first is the time the hoax is revealed........we will see.......

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Regarding the remastering of the film on DVD, when was this done? I want to purchase a copy, but there are issues available from different years, I'd like the better one!

 

Stewart

Like this, there is a BluRay available also

https://www.zoom.co.uk/product/the_titfield_thunderbolt_digitally_restored_dvd

[Helmdon]

3 hours ago, RichardT said:

 

All possibly very true, but this and all related speculation are irrelevant to “Lion” as National Museums Liverpool are NOT part of the Science Museum Group.  NML is a NDPB sponsored by the DCMS, like the SMG, but they are completely separate charities.  (NML is the only national museum based completely outside London, because Liverpool’s museums were nationalised to stop the-then Militant-controlled Liverpool Council selling off the collections.)

Richard T 

To add another to the list - the National Museum of the Royal Navy - Portsmouth, Yeovilton, Belfast, Gosport and Hartlepool...

[Flittersnoop]

Stanley Holloway, Sid James et al in 4mm scale? - I'd make room for them on my layout, especially Hugh Griffith!

[Captain Kernow]

5 hours ago, Phatbob said:

However, if it is genuine and includes a GWR 0-4-2 tank loco, would Rapido please engineer it like their Stirling single, i.e. with the trailing axle driven and geared to synchronise with the larger driving wheels.  This would produce a loco that would be a de facto 0-6-0, obviating the notoriously poor running of previous attempts to engineer an 0-4-2.

It's probably already too late to influence the choice of drive configuration, but just in case it isn't, noooooooooooooooooooo!

 

Please can we allow the coupling rods to do their job, like on all decent, law-abiding locomotives!

 

[Phatbob]

2 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

It's probably already too late to influence the choice of drive configuration, but just in case it isn't, noooooooooooooooooooo!

 

Please can we allow the coupling rods to do their job, like on all decent, law-abiding locomotives!

 

Powering the rear wheels through a reduction gear and driving the "real" driving wheels with coupling rods are not mutually exclusive. 

 

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Please can we allow the coupling rods to do their job, like on all decent, law-abiding locomotives!

 

Personally I don't care how any manufacturer decides to power the loco as long as it runs well and reliably - better a good running loco than a bad loco with coupling rods doing their job.

 

 

[frobisher]

13 hours ago, SteamingWales said:

This might be a stupid question but how does a company acquire the rights to a film to produce related items? Is it done through a tendering process i.e. manufactures bid for the rights by saying what they will offer to the customer? (I work in renewable energy development and this is how our work is won) 

 

It would probably depend on the circumstances.  I'd say it would be very unlikely that this license would have been put out to tender (we'd have heard much more about this on the grape vine than we have if it were), but rather direct approach(es) to the license holder with proposals.  I'd done that myself (ultimately unsuccessfully) within the computer games industry, but you just don't know unless you try.

 

I suspect that Hornby might have got a surprise that another company had not only been sniffing around the rights, but had already secured them with some level of exclusivity.

 

 

 

[RichardT]

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I don't think anybody said they were.

 

Also don't believe all you read on Wikipedia. That Militant "fact" is extremely dubious as the Museums were Merseyside Museums rather than Liverpool at the time. They became nationalised when Merseyside County Council was abolished in 1986.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseyside_County_Council

 

Here's the legislation. Note Merseyside not Liverpool and worth remembering that not all councils in Merseyside were Labour at the time.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/226/pdfs/uksi_19860226_en.pdf

 

 

Jason

Errr... Jason, *you* were the one who said that Liverpool was part of the Science Museum in your earlier post (which sparked off the series of posts about licensing from the NRM):

12 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Lion is part of Liverpool Museums which is part of the National Museums Group*. The same group as the NRM and Science Museum.

 

If you make a model of something in the NRM you have to license it and the boxes have to have the branding. I would expect this to be the same.

 

As for the Militant issue: yes, the museums were previously Merseyside and nationalised as such. However, in all the other abolished metropolitan counties cultural bodies were either devolved to the borough in which they were sited, or local joint service bodies were set up across the boroughs. Only in Liverpool (Merseyside) did national government take the unique and unprecedented step of removing the museums from local council control by nationalising them. There was a political reason for this...
 

9 hours ago, Roddy Angus said:

 

It may be slightly different to what you were meaning, but the National Museums of Scotland are all based completely outside London as well.

 

Best wishes

 

Roddy

My apologies Roddy - national museums and culture are a devolved responsibility and so, of course, I should have made it clear that I meant the *English* national museums.

 

6 hours ago, Helmdon said:

To add another to the list - the National Museum of the Royal Navy - Portsmouth, Yeovilton, Belfast, Gosport and Hartlepool...

And this is where is all gets complicated - just because a museum has “national” in its name doesn’t mean it’s a National Museum!  National Museums (in England) are those directly sponsored by the DCMS.  The MoD retains responsibility for military museums (confusingly, not the IWM, which is a National Museum) but decided to create a marketing umbrella for lots of the smaller naval museums called “National Museum of the Royal Navy”.

 

And now back on topic...

 

Richard T

(ex-National Museum curator)

[DCB]

If its not a hoax a OO 14XX with 6 wheel drive is something I would definitely be interested in, I had Airfix, Dapol, Hornby none of which ran well, K's which won't stay on the rails, and Hattons which won't pull the skin off a cold coffee.

A Lion would be brilliant, something pre 1850 which isn't a 1850 condition "Rock it" (presumably so named because it was so unsteady on the primitive track.

The Cleveland and Tollesbury coach would also be useful.

Far more so than yet another LNER A2 which isn't even the Raven version.

[Steamport Southport]

20 minutes ago, RichardT said:

Errr... Jason, *you* were the one who said that Liverpool was part of the Science Museum in your earlier post (which sparked off the series of posts about licensing from the NRM):

 

As for the Militant issue: yes, the museums were previously Merseyside and nationalised as such. However, in all the other abolished metropolitan counties cultural bodies were either devolved to the borough in which they were sited, or local joint service bodies were set up across the boroughs. Only in Liverpool (Merseyside) did national government take the unique and unprecedented step of removing the museums from local council control by nationalising them. There was a political reason for this...
 

My apologies Roddy - national museums and culture are a devolved responsibility and so, of course, I should have made it clear that I meant the *English* national museums.

 

And this is where is all gets complicated - just because a museum has “national” in its name doesn’t mean it’s a National Museum!  National Museums (in England) are those directly sponsored by the DCMS.  The MoD retains responsibility for military museums (confusingly, not the IWM, which is a National Museum) but decided to create a marketing umbrella for lots of the smaller naval museums called “National Museum of the Royal Navy”.

 

And now back on topic...

 

Richard T

(ex-National Museum curator)

 

Please post the exact quote where I said that.  

 

I said the same group as. Not part of.

 

You even edited the part which has the asterisk I used to clarify my point as I couldn't remember the current name.

Highlighted for clarification. How can anyone dispute that fact. They are part of the same group.

 

Quote

 

Lion is part of Liverpool Museums which is part of the National Museums Group*. The same group as the NRM and Science Museum.

 

If you make a model of something in the NRM you have to license it and the boxes have to have the branding. I would expect this to be the same.

 

As I pointed out in the other thread Oxford Diecast had to have permission for the preserved Ford Anglia. Got one somewhere and it's definitely got something like "made under license" on the box.

 

https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/ford-anglia-car-lime-green-105e-saloon-liverpool-museum-sp046?_pos=17&_sid=e405a63fb&_ss=r

 

 

 

*Whatever they are called now

 

 

 

But your post was lifted straight from Wikipedia. Which has quite a few inaccuracies in it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museums_Liverpool

 

The part about Militant is pure fabrication. Liverpool was one council out of five. Two of which were Tory. No way could they sell things off that didn't belong to them.

 

Even the linked source is dubious at best. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170415200345/http://theartnewspaper.com/comment/local-collections-should-be-nationalised-to-halt-sell-offs-/

 

 

Sorry to bring politics into this, but some of us were actually there and know about our own local history. Which is what it is now. it's 35 years ago....

 

 

 

Jason

[RichardT]

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Please post the exact quote where I said that.  

 

I said the same group as. Not part of.

 

You even edited the part which has the asterisk I used to clarify my point as I couldn't remember the current name.

Highlighted for clarification. How can anyone dispute that fact. They are part of the same group.

 

 

But your post was lifted straight from Wikipedia. Which has quite a few inaccuracies in it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museums_Liverpool

 

The part about Militant is pure fabrication. Liverpool was one council out of five. Two of which were Tory. No way could they sell things off that didn't belong to them.

 

Even the linked source is dubious at best. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170415200345/http://theartnewspaper.com/comment/local-collections-should-be-nationalised-to-halt-sell-offs-/

 

 

Sorry to bring politics into this, but some of us were actually there and know about our own local history. Which is what it is now. it's 35 years ago....

 

 

 

Jason

Jason

I read your post as stating that there was a “National Museum’s Group” to which NML and the Science Museum Group belong and which therefore has a single policy on licensing. And there isn’t. Yes, NML and SMG are both the same *type* of organisation (English national museums) but that doesn’t mean....oh, never mind. This is a thread about the pointless duplication of a model, not museum politics. I shouldn’t get drawn in to work-related topics. I’ve managed to stop myself commenting on the endless myths, misinformation and half-truths about copyright that keep coming up on RMWeb and I should do the same for museums.  Let’s drop it shall we, and get back to speculating about April 1st? :-) 

 

RT

Edited March 11, 2021 by RichardT
Punctuation

[Steamport Southport]

On 09/03/2021 at 17:27, rapidoandy said:

“I know where I can get an(other) engine, any time I want” – from Rapido Trains!

 

 

 

Rapido Trains are excited to announce we have signed the world-wide exclusive rights to manufacture a range of models to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the iconic film ‘The Titfield Thunderbolt’ in 2023.

 

The range will feature a host of highly detailed new models of some of the favourite vehicles from the film alongside the historic liveries they wore outside the film.

Full details of the range will be announced on Thursday 1st April at 12:00. 

 

Getting back to models rather than irrelevant pedantry.

 

Range of models could be anything. Vehicles from the film and ignoring brief glimpses of Bulleids and GWR 4-6-0s.

 

Bus - Quite likely. It does say "vehicles".

 

Steam Roller - remote possibility. But I'm pretty sure Oxford do an Aveling and Porter. 5590 Maid Marion was the one in the film.

 

14XX - Yes please. Autotrailer to follow at some point.

 

Wisbech Coach - Likely and will go with the J70

 

Toad - Plenty of diagrams unmade and will go with the 0-6-0PTs and GPVs.

 

Last three at least had historic liveries worn outside the film. 14XX, coach and toad is the classic train and could form part of a proper range.

 

Other option, this is an elaborate hoax that we've all fallen into and it's just the bus.

 

 

Jason

[Edwardian]

6 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

If its not a hoax a OO 14XX with 6 wheel drive is something I would definitely be interested in, I had Airfix, Dapol, Hornby none of which ran well, K's which won't stay on the rails, and Hattons which won't pull the skin off a cold coffee.

 

That's an interesting comment. Given what Rapido did in relation to the Stirling Single, that's quite an intriguing possibility.

 

6 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

A Lion would be brilliant, something pre 1850 which isn't a 1850 condition "Rock it" (presumably so named because it was so unsteady on the primitive track.

The Cleveland and Tollesbury coach would also be useful.

Far more so than yet another LNER A2 which isn't even the Raven version.

 

Plenty of imaginative options lie unregarded. 

 

 

[Coach bogie]

Makes you want to give up kit building. Only a year, that could have been spent building something else.

 

Why did I assume no one would ever produce this stuff?

 

Ah. I remember. "Maybe there are not men of sufficient faith in Canterbury".

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

 

[PaulRhB]

[Phil Parker]

[6990WitherslackHall]

20 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

That's one great diorama. 

[John Harris]

22 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Lion is part of Liverpool Museums which is part of the National Museums Group*. The same group as the NRM and Science Museum.

 

If you make a model of something in the NRM you have to license it and the boxes have to have the branding. I would expect this to be the same.

 

As I pointed out in the other thread Oxford Diecast had to have permission for the preserved Ford Anglia. Got one somewhere and it's definitely got something like "made under license" on the box.

 

https://www.oxforddiecast.co.uk/products/ford-anglia-car-lime-green-105e-saloon-liverpool-museum-sp046?_pos=17&_sid=e405a63fb&_ss=r

 

 

 

*Whatever they are called now

 

 

Jason

 

Thanks Jason, I was not sure.  Museums and collections seem to be more aware of such merchandising possibilities these days.

 

jch

[John Harris]

I presume you could have a 14XX using a Faller lorry chassis to reproduce the scene where they drive it through the town?

 

jch

[Invicta]

21 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

The thing with licensing is it’s very difficult to license a model of the vehicle but easy to license the branding. So you can make a sports car that looks remarkably like a F40 or GT40 but as soon as you use a Ferrari or Ford logo on the model it needs a license for the branding.

 

From vague memory back in the 90's or thereabouts, one of the European diecast manufacturers released what was advertised as a generic 'Modern F1 car',- the model in the box was very obviously an actual car from a recent season, either McLaren or Ferrari IIRC, right down to the livery . They'd had to describe it as a 'generic' model because for wahtever reason they'd not been able to get a licence for the branding and name. 

[Invicta]

23 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

If you make a model of something in the NRM you have to license it and the boxes have to have the branding. I would expect this to be the same.

 

 

23 hours ago, MattA said:

Hornby's many re-runs of Mallard and Flying Scotsman, not to mention their streamlined Duchess of Hamilton and - a few years ago now - Bachmann's 13000 and 49395 would beg to differ?

 

I don't know about the Hornby releases as I've never owned them, but Bachmann's 49395 (and presumably the Crab?) was certainly described as a 'National Collection' model and had a small 'NRM Heritage Range' logo on the box end- I'm trying to recall the timescale of the release, did it pre-date the NRM prototype Deltic and subsequent NRM exclusives?