A statement on The Titfield Thunderbolt.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, MoY said:

Class 25 - Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan

Class 47 - Hornby , Bachmann, Heljan

class08 - Hornby, Bachmann

Mk1 coaches - Hornby, Bachmann

101 DMU - Hornby, Bachmann

Class 66 - Hornby, Bachmann, Hattons

Class 37 - Hornby, Bachmann

Class 73 - Hornby, Dapol

Deltic - Hornby, Bachmann, Accurascale

Seems a lot of duplication to me?

 

And are they all of the same standard?

If you are going to compare things properly then it helps if you start comparing like with like.

 

For example lets consider the class 55 Deltic shall we?

 

First you have the Hornby offering which is unchanged from its days as a Lima product from the 1980s. It lacks virtually all of the modern separately fitted details, has a relatively poor mechanism and lacks the lighting options we now expect as standard on diesels - PLUS its dimensionally inaccurate! Its fine for a beginner (hence why it appears in the Railroad range) but not suitable for anyone who cares about accuracy and retails at a cheap price to reflect that.

 

Next up is Bachmann, this is a fundamentally different beast having been designed within the past decade or so and as such it features way more detail and a far superior mechanism and is far more accurate dimensionally speaking. As would be expected from this significant step up in in all areas from Hornby's offering, Bachmanns price is significantly more than Hornbys model and caters for the mid (previous high) end of the market.

 

Finally we come to Accurascale, this is what you get when a model has been on the market for a while and someone believes that standards / expectations at the top end of RTR have moved on. The Accurascale therefore addresses several aspects of the Bachmann model perceived as poor detail and mechanism wise and makes them better. The prospective customers for this model want the best - and wouldn't remotely consider the Hornby offering as worthy of even considering.

 

That's three very different 'takes' on what you naively call 'duplication' of a class 55, catering for 3 distinct sections of the RTR market, a strategy that minimises overlap. Once you start to properly asses the market most of what you might want to call 'direct duplication' falls away. Now thats not to say it doesn't happen of course, I'm not a diesel modeller but if we take the BR standard class 4 4-6-0 tender loco, Bachmann and Hornby both bought out one within 6 months of each other a few years ago and more recently Rails and Hornby both released a Terrier.

 

However even with these examples there were subtitle differences between them - with the standard 4s, the Hornby model was generally thought to be the slightly more detailed one but that detailing also meant it was a bit less robust so some buyers will have preferred the Bachmann one. With the terriers the Rails one had more different tooling options (important for a class that was mucked around with by their owners over their long service life) but the Hornby one was cheaper and some aspects of the design worked better when assembled.

 

The key problem with these duplications was they were intended to serve the same section of the market! As I have highlighted with the class 55 duplication, where it ends up that each model can cater for different needs, different price points and thus different sections of the RTR model railway market is good for the consumer. Where manufactures are fighting over the same model built to fundamentally the same standards is where the problems start.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by phil-b259

[GWR-fan]

58 minutes ago, MoY said:

....................................

Mk1 coaches - Hornby, Bachmann

.....................

 

Do not forget Hornby-Dublo,  Trix,  Lima,  Mainline,  Replica and  Hachette versions

Edited January 11, 2022 by GWR-fan
Edit to add Lima

[Darius43]

2 hours ago, MoY said:

Well First of all - its not a 'rant' so dont get too upset.

duplication is everywhere in this hobby.

Its my point of view and my opinion - nothing more or less.

You have expressed yours and i have expressed mine.

What is ill advised about that?

I’m always sceptical of the motives of first-posters that turn up in the middle of threads like this with aggressive and confrontational posts.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[GWR-fan]

40 minutes ago, Darius43 said:

I’m always sceptical of the motives of first-posters that turn up in the middle of threads like this with aggressive and confrontational posts.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

He admits earlier that he is disappointed that the limited edition NRM APT-E by Rapido turned out to not be that limited (thus less investment potential) as Rapido are rereleasing the model (albeit without all the limited trimmings that came with the limited edition release).  His post seems more a criticism of Rapido for this action rather than supporting Hornby's actions.

[Chris M]

One can't help but wonder whether this topic has run its course and should now be laid to rest.

[ruggedpeak]

Yes, the Rapido fan club are getting testy. Lets wait and see if Studio Canal actually do anything about it.

[Darius43]

I like Hornby’s products. I like Rapido’s products.  I also have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.  Others may hold a different position.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

Edited January 11, 2022 by Darius43

[Din]

5 hours ago, MoY said:

Boo Hoo Rapido.

Hornby have been here longer than you have. Accept it and move on.

Cant help thinking Rapido think they are the bees knees because everybody loves them.

They have their own issues that have cheesed off modellers - like releasing the APT-E again as it was specifically a model for the National Railway Museum - thus devaluing the original models.

 

Ah yes, this is how I keep acquiring cars, I just get there "first" doesn't matter that the others put down a deposit or have a signed contract saying that the car is theirs. I just rock up before they can get there and drive off.

[AY Mod]

38 minutes ago, Chris M said:

One can't help but wonder whether this topic has run its course and should now be laid to rest.

 

I doubt it, MoY caused an unnecessary sideshow. He's now complained about hostile treatment after barging in. 

[Harlequin]

There is a certain irony in MoY newly entering the debate about Rapido and Hornby, getting what he considers to be “hostile treatment” from the established participants and complaining to the authorities about it, don’t you think?

 

Someone could say, “Boohoo MoY, We’ve been here longer than you have. Accept it and move on.”

 

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

Edited January 11, 2022 by Harlequin

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, MoY said:

Class 25 - Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan

Class 47 - Hornby , Bachmann, Heljan

class08 - Hornby, Bachmann

Mk1 coaches - Hornby, Bachmann

101 DMU - Hornby, Bachmann

Class 66 - Hornby, Bachmann, Hattons

Class 37 - Hornby, Bachmann

Class 73 - Hornby, Dapol

Deltic - Hornby, Bachmann, Accurascale

Seems a lot of duplication to me?

And Class 68, just Dapol, because they negotiated an exclusive licence, which may or may not have an end-date.

 

Rapido have negotiated an exclusive deal with the rights holder of the Titfield Thunderbolt film for the use of the name and images in connection with their products. Hornby has not but is gambling (no doubt on legal advice) that adding two or three words to the label will save them from any consequences arising from driving their tanks onto somebody else's lawn. 

 

Rapido are not the only aggrieved party here, and the other one is part of an industry that tends to go in very hard indeed over accidental IP infringements, let alone deliberate kite-flying. It also has sufficient financial clout to back that up.

 

Some years ago, Hornby did a "Titfield Thunderbolt" set, using existing material rather than anything purpose-built, and omitting the Thunderbolt itself, (which might prove crucial had they not included it in any licence). Unless there is a get-out contained any agreement from back then that's strong enough to keep this dispute out of court, Hornby may find they have traded one unequal contest for another in which the roles will be markedly reversed.

 

On the surface of it, were this to end up in court, Hornby don't look like winning, certainly not definitively enough to be awarded costs, so it would damage them even if they avoided complete disaster. I'd think them extremely foolhardy to let it go that far. 

 

John

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Ian Hargrave]

32 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Yes, the Rapido fan club are getting testy. Lets wait and see if Studio Canal actually do anything about it.

At the end of the day,litigation is expensive and it is well said that only lawyers win.Hopefully an out of court settlement can be negotiated if possible.Having said that,it doesn’t condone what Hornby are attempting.Presumably they have corporate lawyers to advise,though one does wonder,considering the somewhat bullish nature of their current business practice.Rapido knew what was coming because their polished professionally produced video was released concurrently by Rails ( none other)at the time as Hornby’s new programme 

 

 

 

Sadly,the tenor of this thread appears to be descending into one of partisanship .Is this really necessary ?

[JonathonAG]

One could be led to think that Hornby, being the bigger company, expected Rapido to back down and cancel their range upon hearing the 2022 releases and save themselves some perceived loss of money through a split market.  With that decision, the rights may have been potentially up for grabs again and Hornby would swoop in to negotiate on the 11th hour of their own releases and carry on as they plan now.  Instead, the gamble has backfired and sees Rapido doubling down with support from Studio Canal. 

So is it a game of bluff?  Both sides continuing with their perceived threats until the 11th hour, when either Hornby has to significantly change their offerings to avoid copyright or Studio Canal deems themselves not to have a great defence.  If the former, then I feel for those pre-ordering the Hornby products based on current graphics to then find the product different on release.  If the latter, then I feel sorry for Rapido being dragged through this mess.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by JonathonAG

[JSpencer]

IF Hornby are doing the Titfield Thunderbolt without StudioCanals approval (They are a big firm and for all we know, the left hand side of the license department might not know what the right hand was doing... unlikely though it probably is), AND they get away with it, THEN it opens up the possibility of any manufacturers taking any livery out their and applying it to their models. It may not be quite the same thing, but it is still use of someones IP.

[DY444]

Probably the wrong place to write this but I just wish Hornby would stop all this tit-for-tat, it's "ours" stuff and concentrate on producing decent, reliable models.  I have a lot of locomotives and have had more trouble with my Hornby class 31s, 50s, 56s and HST power cars than all my others put together.  Seized bogie tower worm bearings, the hopeless guaranteed to derail the train on every curve coupling mechanism, mazak rot (on the 31) and the temperamental lighting spring contacts to name the worst. 

 

Whatever sales they might generate from this obsession with other people "stealing their models" must be offset to some extent by people like me who have had enough of having to send Hornby diesels into "the works" for attention/modification far more than everything else, sometimes straight out of the box.  I had to strip a brand new 08 right down because it had that ruddy squeak most of them seem to have.  

 

There was a brief period around the time the rebuilt MN and the 50 and 60 came out when Hornby had the world at its feet.  That was a long time ago now and on the D&E front in particular they need to get their act together and concentrate on the day job.  They've just lost their monopoly on the 56 and I imagine it will only be a matter of time before others look at a 31, 50 and HST PC.  I don't know if it's complacency, arrogance, naivety or what but their star is sinking and these spats with other companies do nothing to inspire confidence that the focus is on the quality of the products. 

[NHY 581]

 

Mornin all, 

 

Setting aside the legality involved in all of this, we've been given a choice. 

 

I grew up watching this film. It was a real treat whenever it came on and if I want a cosy hour or so with a class of port, one option is to plug in the flux capacitor and settle down to once again travel to Titfield. 

 

I've travelled to the area and visited some of the locations. 

 

So, for me it comes down to one thing. Which manufacturer is likely to satisfy the place this film holds with me. 

 

Rapido are going to significant lengths to provide multiple models to replicate each element of the film, creating new models to allow this to happen. One of these models is that of the ex Wisbech and Upwell (another interest of mine)  coach.  Another is the Bedford OB. ( You only need to look at Rapidos other bus models to gauge their approach), the Toady is again a new model of the correct diagram. The exception is of course 1401. Not insummountable though. 

 

Hornby's offering with albeit certain new models feels to me to be a bit more cobbled together. Add to this a few frustrations over the running of some new Hornby models acquired over the last 12/18 months and the picture builds. 

 

This is not saying all Rapido products are without fault. I had a few attempts to get a non-waggling J70. The bunker on the the 1600 was a bit of a disaster as were certain aspects of the electrickery of that model. (Rectified by Rapido) 

 

However, in the case of Tifield I have been given a choice of products. My choice wil be  based on the approach taken,  the commitment shown to producing a model which best reflects my interest and knowledge of the film, obviously the product itself and the way its presented to me the consumer. 

 

Taking this and only this into consideration, it has to be Rapido. 

Even the response to Hornby's announcement yesterday from Rapido showed their approach to this product. Contrast the presentation of Rapidos response to Hornby's clunky at times grand announcement and the occasional muffed lines of the presenters. Rapidos offering was quite a bit slicker. More evidence of the care taken. 

 

The legitimacy of each companies production of these models can  be debated ad nauseum on here but the only people with actual knowledge of what is involved, are those people actually involved and is best left to them. 

 

Pay your money, take your choice. Whichever way up your cash ( Other methods of payment are available ) lands, ultimately rests with yourself. 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob. 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by NHY 581

[ruggedpeak]

The irony here is that Rapido with Rails are engaging in exactly the same tit for tat behaviour that Hornby have been. The video comes across as a spoiler, and seems to be feeding a sense of grievance amongst the Rapido fanbase. If Rapido want to sink to Hornby's or Trump's level then that is their choice, but lets not pretend it is anything other than playing Hornby at their own game. Would be better not to rile up their supporters into some form of hatefest every time someone has the temerity to voice an opinion they don't agree with.

 

I assumed Rapido were above the Hornby type behaviour but it appears not. That's business, still more of a storm in a teacup compared to modellers losing money from various other outfits going bust/liquidating companies etc.

 

The ball is in Studio Canal's court. Given the sums of money involved for them will be trivial in the grand scheme of things they may simply decide the toddler like behaviour of the model train industry is simply not worth the bother. They will be as sensitive to adverse publicity affecting their IP as they are to marginal IP infringements.

[NHY 581]

Alternatively, do we now see Hornby in the guise of Pearce and Crump whilst Rapido are the Squire and his co-operators at Titfield ?

 

We know who won that one........

 

Rob. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by NHY 581

[phil-b259]

42 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

The ball is in Studio Canal's court. Given the sums of money involved for them will be trivial in the grand scheme of things they may simply decide the toddler like behaviour of the model train industry is simply not worth the bother. They will be as sensitive to adverse publicity affecting their IP as they are to marginal IP infringements.

 

You rather miss the point.

 

As has been explained before - if Studio Canal let this pass and someone else does a 'inspired by xxxx' stunt with one of their more popular (or future) films then Studio Canal will LOSE in court should they wish to intervene as the Tiffield case can be cited as a legal proof that the film company doesn't mind such things!

 

Therefore while on the face of it, a spat over Titfield Train models may not be in itself be unduly troubling to Studio Canal or sections of the railway model community - what happens next could have huge ramifications for the toy and film industries at large when it comes to merchandising rights.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by phil-b259

[TheSignalEngineer]

2 hours ago, GWR-fan said:

 

He admits earlier that he is disappointed that the limited edition NRM APT-E by Rapido turned out to not be that limited (thus less investment potential) as Rapido are rereleasing the model (albeit without all the limited trimmings that came with the limited edition release). 

Many years ago I used to do a bit of buying and selling records, mainly ti get rid of surplus in my own playing collection. The business got silly. As I worked a few yards from a 'chain' record store I was in the habit of going in and picking up new stuff on release dates. Sometimes there were a few copies of a disc in special packaging at a slightly higher price. One particular release I bought two which had a different B side track and picture sold exclusively by that retailer. I think they were about £1.99 each as opposed to the standard £1.49 at the time. The following year I sold one to a collector for £50, while the standard issue could be found for 50p at car boot sales.

Similarly with Hornby Dublo I had an item from new which originally came with a small sheet about 6" x 4" of operating instructions. Mine somehow got two copies. I auctioned one and got twice as much for that bit of paper as a good condition model was going for because two collectors got into a bidding war.

[Harlequin]

54 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

The irony here is that Rapido with Rails are engaging in exactly the same tit for tat behaviour that Hornby have been. The video comes across as a spoiler, and seems to be feeding a sense of grievance amongst the Rapido fanbase. If Rapido want to sink to Hornby's or Trump's level then that is their choice, but lets not pretend it is anything other than playing Hornby at their own game. Would be better not to rile up their supporters into some form of hatefest every time someone has the temerity to voice an opinion they don't agree with.

 

I assumed Rapido were above the Hornby type behaviour but it appears not. That's business, still more of a storm in a teacup compared to modellers losing money from various other outfits going bust/liquidating companies etc.

 

The ball is in Studio Canal's court. Given the sums of money involved for them will be trivial in the grand scheme of things they may simply decide the toddler like behaviour of the model train industry is simply not worth the bother. They will be as sensitive to adverse publicity affecting their IP as they are to marginal IP infringements.

 

I think you need to look at the chronology. Rapido have played a straight bat every time and Hornby have repeatedly tried to undermine them - as they have done with other companies and other product releases.

 

Rapido have a legitimate grievance and their video simply said so - that's in no way equivalent to what Hornby are doing. (And they had to make some kind of public response to Hornby's latest attack.)

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Harlequin

[Legend]

With all the furore I was expecting to get up and see it discussed on Breakfast Telly, but it appears Boris has had another party!

 

As I've said before I dont like Hornbys tactics and I think they've made themselves look rather foolish over this . However I cant believe they've gone down this route without some legal advice , and yes I know it can differ and be a matter of interpretation . But they've also been talking to Studiocanal on other matters ie The Revenge of the Railway Children or whatever its called . They obviously have some contacts at Studiocanal . Is it not conceivable they have discussed this and come up with "inspired by" as a way round it . Possibly getting Studiocanal off the hook with Rapido .    I just find it inconceivable that a large company would deliberately tread in a minefield without first knowing the route out. 

[Dunsignalling]

33 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

The ball is in Studio Canal's court. Given the sums of money involved for them will be trivial in the grand scheme of things they may simply decide the toddler like behaviour of the model train industry is simply not worth the bother. They will be as sensitive to adverse publicity affecting their IP as they are to marginal IP infringements.

 

Film companies generally seem to take a very "black and white" view over IP issues and failing to act robustly over it is seen as storing up further problems for the future, so we will see.

 

I suspect that one strongly worded letter from StudioCanal's legal eagles might be enough to change Hornby's attitude quite markedly if they want to minimise any fallout from this.

 

Were they to put up too much resistance, the next step might be an injunction preventing them selling anything with the word "Thunderbolt" on the box or in any publicity..... 

 

My guess is that Hornby will blink first and some sort of compromise may emerge that satisfies StudioCanal but will not be wholly to the liking of either Rapido or Hornby, e.g. not making Hornby scrap their tooling but making them give Rapido a "head start" on release dates.

 

John

Edited January 11, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, JonathonAG said:

 

So is it a game of bluff?  Both sides continuing with their perceived threats until the 11th hour, when either Hornby has to significantly change their offerings to avoid copyright or Studio Canal deems themselves not to have a great defence.  If the former, then I feel for those pre-ordering the Hornby products based on current graphics to then find the product different on release.  If the latter, then I feel sorry for Rapido being dragged through this mess.

 

 

But the whole point is Hornby mostly don't need to 'make significant changes' as you put it. They can still release a 'generic' Titfield Thunderbolt set if they are smart about it.

 

As I see it the main requirements would be:-

 

(1) Tweak the box artwork to remove any specific reference to 'the Titfield Thunderbolt'

 

(2) Tweak the livery details of the models (and the bus destination blind) so they are ever so slightly different from the film.

 

(3) Tweak the design of 'Dan's house' so it is slightly different from the one in the film.

 

Everything else (including making models of Lion etc) is perfectly acceptable by law and does not flout any IP rules so Hornby are free to make money from them if they won't. Morally speaking though it does leave a lot to be desired....

 

 

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

My guess is that Hornby will blink first and some sort of compromise may emerge that satisfies StudioCanal but will not be wholly to the liking of either Rapido or Hornby, e.g. not making Hornby scrap their tooling but making them give Rapido a "head start" on release dates.

 

 

 

I expect StudioCanal will demand the box art and Hornby PR be tweaked to remove specific references to 'Titfield Thunderbolt'

 

If a compromise is reached then I suspect it will be with the actual models themselves in the sense that they might 'overlook' move specific things like 'Dan's House' appearing on the well wagon provided its not described as such (i.e call it the generic sounding 'house wagon') for instance.