EFE Rail Class 143/144 Pacer

[charliepetty]

9 hours ago, MRDBLUE17 said:

Hi adb968008,

 

The 142 is an entirely separate project coming from Realtrack so need to be concerned in any way about pre-orders. They were regular fixtures on the Furness line (I remember being quite annoyed at the age of 7 or 8 that a proper 31 and coaches had been replaced by the equivalent of our corporation buses) so I will be having 2 or 3 to recreate the local services. The 142 is a brand new model completely - Cad shots have been shared by Realtrack on the 142 topic and you can see it’s shaping up to be a very nice unit. 
 

Hope that helps

 

Cheers

Mark
 

 

The Realtrack Class 142 is not being made in the same factory as the above EFE Class 144/143, this factory sadly had been stung with the DJ Models collapse, thus you see the DJ models range re-introduction under new branding, as they needed to get some re-compense for monies owed, the Cornish link is with the same factory too.

 

Realtrack made a consiouse decision 5 years ago to 'jump ship' with them due to similar issues with North American models being touted about in the United States, some were for valid financial reasons but others sadly not.

 

The Realtrack plan is to offer an advanced model of the 142, 143, 144 meeting todays high standards in quality and with digital inovations to a high specification with the assistance of one of the new inovators in the UK market today.  We have been so impressed with there profesionalism, attitude and sheer determination to 'Get it right' that this was a no brainer decision on our part. Looking back at the New ranges introduced from them in the last 18 months we know our decision is 100% justified, sadly the covid situation and Chinese government restrictions added two + years to our plans.

 

Arran & Charlie

 

Its sad in away that old designs are basically re-introduced with new 'tweeks' and higher prices, but we are where we are, looking to the future we hope all new models in the UK will well researched  and of high quality, as we all should encourage this.  As without 'New Blood' the hobby will decline.

 

Charlie

[lyneux]

43 minutes ago, Bob83a said:

You would have to assume that Bachmann/EFE have done due diligence on these models with respect to intellectual property rights or there could be the possibility of the models being stopped at Customs.

 

I think you misunderstand the role of customs officers if you think they check IP rights as well as collect import duties!

[E100]

So if I get this right Realtrack own the tooling IP but not the physical tools as these are owned by the factory? This factory have a mixed reputation in terms of business dealings from Realtrack's perspective hence the shift a few years back with the tooling remaining at the factory? Whilst I don't doubt that Bachmann (EFE) are acting above board as far as they know, something appears to have been lost in translation enabling them to seemingly use these tools or something closely related to them (e.g. a first attempt at tooling that was rejected) without Realtrack's agreement.

 

As the tooling IP is related to the physical tooling is there any legal recourse in this (hypothetical or otherwise) scenario? Obviously, actually pursuing that recourse in China's legal system is a completely different can of worms. Note that obviously the entire post above is somewhat speculative but I am interested in the legal position if this happened hypothetically.

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, E100 said:

Note that obviously the entire post above is somewhat speculative

 

It is speculative and I'd discourage speculation without information. It appears to be complex but my understanding so far is that neither Realtrack or Bachmann/EFE have done anything questionable; that's clear and, although we may never know all of the information, the complexity sits within relationships or entities that sit in between those beginning and end points.

 

I'd like us to park that area until, if and when, any facts are known please.

[LaGrange]

End of the day when dealing with the Chinese you have to be absolutely watertight contractually or your screwed given their lax approach/care relating to IP ownership

[Roy Langridge]

6 minutes ago, LaGrange said:

End of the day when dealing with the Chinese you have to be absolutely watertight contractually or your screwed given their lax approach/care relating to IP ownership

That is actually an old position now, with Chinese government clamping down on infringements as it was costing them business. As for watertight contracts, they are needed the world over. 
 

Roy

[pheaton]

I dont understand where this IP business is coming from.....you cant IP something you physically dont own.... E100 mentions having IP over a tooling that you dont own...that doesn't work....you cant claim IP of the idea of a plastic moulding injection tooling...and you also cant claim IP of a plastic injection moulding tool that makes for example a class 143...

 

why cant you IP this....well for a start you don't own the original prototype, in the case of the 143 its actually questionable who does own it, as it was product of the output of two companies to a design by BR.  But its actually more complicated then can you IP the prototype....im going to say....no because its a ridgid vehicle with 4 wheels....can i IP a ridgid vehicle with 4 wheels and 4 sets of bus doors....yes i can but what would the point be....and thats the key point you can not IP a concept you can IP a technology.

 

So lets say for example i create a pacer that can travel through time. This pacer is identical to a class 143, and its achieves time travel with the help of a flux capacitor....i cant ip the pacer, i cant ip time travel, i cant ip a time travelling pacer....i can ip the flux capacitor because its technology that i have invented that enables time travel.

 

DJmodels employed this idea and at the time heads were scratched because the argument was the same, and the IP was worth less than what he paid for it because there was no way it would standup in court, if you squinted at the autopsy of the demise of DJ models you could speculate that it was a futile attempt at increasing the value of assets which could be used to stave off insolvency.

 

*if doc brown is reading i fully disclose that i did not invent the flux capacitor

Edited February 2, 2023 by pheaton

[Ravenser]

9 minutes ago, pheaton said:

I dont understand where this IP business is coming from.....you cant IP something you physically dont own.... E100 mentions having IP over a tooling that you dont own...that doesn't work....you can claim IP of the idea of a plastic moulding injection tooling...and you also cant claim IP of a plastic injection moulding tool that makes for example a class 143...

 

why cant you IP this....well for a start you don't own the original prototype, in the case of the 143 its actually questionable who does own it, as it was product of the output of two companies to a design by BR.  But its actually more complicated then can you IP the prototype....im going to say....no because its a ridgid vehicle with 4 wheels....can i IP a ridgid vehicle with 4 wheels and 4 sets of bus doors....yes i can but what would the point be....and thats the key point you can not IP a concept you can IP a technology.

 

So lets say for example i create a pacer that can travel through time. This pacer is identical to a class 143, and its achieves time travel with the help of a flux capacitor....i cant ip the pacer, i cant ip time travel, i cant ip a time travelling pacer....i can ip the flux capacitor because its technology that i have invented that enables time travel.

 

DJmodels employed this idea and at the time heads were scratched because the argument was the same, and the IP was worth less than what he paid for it because there was no way it would standup in court, if you squinted at the autopsy of the demise of DJ models you could speculate that it was a futile attempt at increasing the value of assets which could be used to stave off insolvency.

 

You cannot reverse-engineer someone else's tooling 

 

We don't know the ins and outs of what has happened here, but as a general principle you can't take a model by someone else and back-engineer to a tool and then say "but it's mine! I made this tool. So I'm entitled to sell the models"

 

Someone in the Far East did that with Triang Big Big many many years ago

Edited February 2, 2023 by Ravenser

[pheaton]

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

You cannot reverse-engineer someone else's tooling 

correct but why an earth would you need to reverse engineer a tooling (if you are talking about an injection moulding) you obtain the designs from the prototype by scanning or the manufacturers drawings and create your own....

 

on the subject of reverse engineering however....i wouldn't take that as gospel....the 3 main cpu companies were all reverse engineering each others CPUs in the early 2000s, and creating copies of proprietary technology and making enough changes to it to allow its be sold on the open market and this was tested repeatedly in the US court circuit. Hence the reason AMD were able to add and advertise MMX support for the AMD K6-2 processor. Which was an Intel proprietary product.

 

to reverse engineer a tooling you would have to take unlawful possession of it and thats an offence in itself, you could 3d scan it which would be quicker than drawing from the prototype or scanning...but id be willing to bet you would spend more time correcting errors in the scan than doing it from scatch.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by pheaton

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, lyneux said:

 

I think you misunderstand the role of customs officers if you think they check IP rights as well as collect import duties!

 

They do though. Look at the amount of fake football shirts and music merchandise they confiscate per year. You are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds worth, probably billions.

 

Old article but still relevant.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/border-force-seize-thousands-of-fake-football-shirts

 

More recent article showing it still happens.

 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/police-seize-500000-fake-football-7841763

 

They're totally on the ball when it comes to IP rights and copyright.

 

 

Jason

[G-BOAF]

I'm trying to get my head around all this:

 

EFE is probably using the same factory as Realtrack used for their 143/144

Realtrack don't use that factory any more (we know they moved to Rapido for the 156, but are now now partnering with AS???)

Realtrack own the 143/144 tooling for their model and did not give permission for EFE to use it

The factory has previous instances of producing models reusing tooling or CADs independently of original commissioners.

The EFE Pacer looks very similar to the Realtrack pacer, but is not being produced in conjunction with RT

The EFE model has some mechanical and electrical differences.

But some 'deliberate errors' incorporated into the RT model also appear in the EFE model.

 

So either

i) the Realtrack tooling is being used without permission

Or ii) the Realtrack design work has been reused by the factory to produce new tools which are 'very similar' to the RT tools

 

Is this the state of what we know thus far?

[Rivercider]

18 hours ago, russ p said:

 

There are quite a lot of differences 143s are Alexander bodies on Andrew barclay chassis whereas the 144 uses a BREL 142 type chassis.  The 143s didn't bounce as much 

The driving desks are slightly different too

That is interesting. I travelled a lot on the 143s, commuting to Bristol, and thought the refurb to 2+2 seating was a great improvement which made me think other work had been done too.

Later when the GWR 143s migrated west to Exeter I still travelled on them quite often on leisure journeys.

For some time they worked alongside some 142s (with 2+3 seating) at Exeter and I felt the 143s were definitely a much superior riding experience,

 

cheers

Edited February 2, 2023 by Rivercider
tidying up.

[jjb1970]

I found that Pacers rode well on decent continuously welded rail but they were ruthless on anything less.

 

The original bus seating was very basic but OK for short journeys.

 

They weren't great but they fulfilled their purpose as a low cost train and had long careers.

 

For all that I always found the 143 a very good looking train.

[wombatofludham]

Interesting to read the explanations as to how this model has emerged.  Hopefully by the time Realtrack issue their planned upgraded 143-4 in earlier liveries there will still be a market for them.

I am a bit of a Pacer fan, despite most enthusiasts of my age hating them.  Having travelled from Manchester to Blackpool, Newcastle to Carlisle and Middlesbrough to Whitby on them I found them fine even on longer journeys notwithstanding the low back seats.  Of course, the fact WMPTE-Centro flatly refused to have them in their area despite coming under pressure to take a batch made them extra rare when I went off on Railrovers in their early years.  I think the T&W version might make a "Rule 1" appearance in my fleet being demonstrated to WMPTE as part of the arm-wrestling to get them accepted by the PTE!

[arran]

HI All

 

The Realtrack 143 144 were made at Maytex and so are the EFE models , but i am prepared to stand corrected if thats not the case .

 

Regards Arran

[E100]

Slightly more back on topic at least. Certainly in more recent years I remember these to be largely quite clean on the outside as well.

 

I do therefore wonder how well these spray weathered examples will sell? For me I appreciate that in times past the spray type shown on the pacers was more acceptable but for me it has put me off knowing that I will have to do a fair bit of work to them (notwithstanding the above topic meaning my money will stay put until we get clarification). I found these two videos very interesting watching.

 

 

Thankfully Dean Park (can't remember his name on here) has done a great video on removing Bachmann weathering so it need not be the deal breaker it may first appear to be, just a shame it's not the blank canvas it could have been.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by E100

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, charliepetty said:

The Realtrack Class 142 is not being made in the same factory as the above EFE Class 144/143, this factory sadly had been stung with the DJ Models collapse, thus you see the DJ models range re-introduction under new branding, as they needed to get some re-compense for monies owed, the Cornish link is with the same factory too.

 

Realtrack made a consiouse decision 5 years ago to 'jump ship' with them due to similar issues with North American models being touted about in the United States, some were for valid financial reasons but others sadly not.

 

The Realtrack plan is to offer an advanced model of the 142, 143, 144 meeting todays high standards in quality and with digital inovations to a high specification with the assistance of one of the new inovators in the UK market today.  We have been so impressed with there profesionalism, attitude and sheer determination to 'Get it right' that this was a no brainer decision on our part. Looking back at the New ranges introduced from them in the last 18 months we know our decision is 100% justified, sadly the covid situation and Chinese government restrictions added two + years to our plans.

 

Arran & Charlie

 

Its sad in away that old designs are basically re-introduced with new 'tweeks' and higher prices, but we are where we are, looking to the future we hope all new models in the UK will well researched  and of high quality, as we all should encourage this.  As without 'New Blood' the hobby will decline.

 

Charlie

I really appreciate this reply Charlie, and you keep my support.

I think others reading this will too.

 

[andyman7]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

I'm trying to get my head around all this:

 

EFE is probably using the same factory as Realtrack used for their 143/144

 

 

The clarification is that 'EFE' is the vehicle by which these third party models are badged and distributed. It won't be EFE Rail that has 'made' the model

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, pheaton said:

correct but why an earth would you need to reverse engineer a tooling (if you are talking about an injection moulding) you obtain the designs from the prototype by scanning or the manufacturers drawings and create your own....

 

on the subject of reverse engineering however....i wouldn't take that as gospel....the 3 main cpu companies were all reverse engineering each others CPUs in the early 2000s, and creating copies of proprietary technology and making enough changes to it to allow its be sold on the open market and this was tested repeatedly in the US court circuit. Hence the reason AMD were able to add and advertise MMX support for the AMD K6-2 processor. Which was an Intel proprietary product.

 

to reverse engineer a tooling you would have to take unlawful possession of it and thats an offence in itself, you could 3d scan it which would be quicker than drawing from the prototype or scanning...but id be willing to bet you would spend more time correcting errors in the scan than doing it from scatch.

 

 

Could it be they have just made a duplicate tooling ?

 

whatever it is, If its a true “new” tooling then unfortunately it is what it is and several companies do that. If theres an element of “flattery” reflected in the new tooling from a previous, it doesnt sit well with me, even if it is legit.
 

In the fallout of Airfix/Mainline into Replica /Dapol situation in the 1990’s  I think the out come was some duplicate toolings were made. iirc one was a mk1 coach bogie, which was identical, but with a number “2” embossed in it, i think another was a modern coal wagon tooling which several companies seemed to make identical versions. 

I wonder if we will see a Class 71 (or maybe a 74) appear in an EFE box ?

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by adb968008

[G-BOAF]

3 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

 

The clarification is that 'EFE' is the vehicle by which these third party models are badged and distributed. It won't be EFE Rail that has 'made' the model

So in that case it will be interesting to see which manufacturer's name is on the bottom of the chassis....

[frobisher]

7 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I wonder if we will see a Class 71 (or maybe a 74) appear in an EFE box ?

 

Fairly high I would say (the 74 less so as that never got close to tooling).  The drive chain and electrics were the weak points of the DJM model as I understand it, and that seems to be the bit that gets attention from the EFE commissions.

[JSpencer]

10 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Fairly high I would say (the 74 less so as that never got close to tooling).  The drive chain and electrics were the weak points of the DJM model as I understand it, and that seems to be the bit that gets attention from the EFE commissions.

 

On the DJM 71, motor too small, bogies far too little up and down play, drive towers not in the middle making lifting hooks (I think they are that) impossible to fit without the bogie fowling them (even on 6ft curves - Hornby with drive towers in the centre have no issue) .

Not enough weight to pull a scale train at scale speed (compounded with the tiny motor). For DCC sound, no holes for sound to escape. The panto is too weak to raise but most will run it with panto down anyway... The shape, horrible....

Overall, by far the worst diesel or electric RTR loco in my collection produced since 2000 by some margin (and I own a Fell!)!

There are some minor detail and useful features to redeem it slightly - by it sits there as a reminder not to crowd fund!

As you know, nothing happened on the 74. Not even a CAD. 

[frobisher]

3 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

Overall, by far the worst diesel or electric RTR loco in my collection produced since 2000 by some margin (and I own a Fell!)!

 

Oh :( I might revise my opinion then to "I surely hope they don't".

[Legend]

While there is a Realtrack 143/144 apparently made at Maytex per Arran , could it be that the tooling is not actually owned by Realtrack but retained by Maytex .   I seem to recall that when Sanda Kan stopped trading that Hornby had difficulties retrieving tooling because the factory said it retained ownership .  This would explain why Maytex are presumably now offering these models to EFE. I don't believe for one minute that EFE or Bachmann are doing anything underhand and must have established that Maytex have the right to supply models.  They must know of the existence of the Realtrack model and have asked the question.

[Legend]

30 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Fairly high I would say (the 74 less so as that never got close to tooling).  The drive chain and electrics were the weak points of the DJM model as I understand it, and that seems to be the bit that gets attention from the EFE commissions.

 

In theory I suppose it could emerge , but why would you, given that there are still Hornby ones around heavily discounted .