Clearwater

On 02/06/2022 at 06:41, Barry O said:

Sad to hear but this looks like its an organised theft. The thieves knew what they wanted and where it was. There can't be many EM LMS late period layouts around who could use the locos. Any track builders aware of such a layout?

 

Just hope the locos can be found and returned.

 

Baz

I agree this looks like an organised theft deliberately targeting this layout.  If this is correct, that means whoever committed the crime must have known exactly where to go and appears to have taken some care about the break in.  If a targeted break in, then the thief will know as well as we do that ebay will be too visible to dispose of such a collection.  I don’t think it is a random as otherwise they would probably not have taken as much care to not damage the rest of the layout.

Picking up on a point made to me on Facebook, this may be for a collector and not a model operator.  If the former, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that they’ve commissioned model builders in the past as well.  I wonder if that community, as well as track builders, might be aware of those with an interest in that period?

Sadly, I doubt this crime is one the police will ultimately  have much interest in unless there’s a DS Dodds around… as such, if the crime is to be solved, the information is likely to come from within the modelling community.

This strikes me as a bizarre release harking back to such hits as the 2012 Olympic sets. It suggests a more toy as opposed to enthusiast driven mentality at present.  

We obviously don't know the economics to Hornby.  A few extra units at a low marginal cost may help amortise tool cost / be quite profitable if they sell a couple of hundred sets.....

14 hours ago, KNP said:

 

Nice group of pictures.

 

I like the shirt button motif anyway which is why I based LM around 1938 but for some reason it seems to sit very well on brown.

 

 

I agree that it looks particularly good on brown however I feel the shirt button can look lost on large tenders or tanks.

5 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

The Margate site is not suited to modern distribution logistics which is why the warehouse operation is elsewhere 

Barwell seems a much better location… central, good motorway links to all parts, road/rail connectivity to Far East trade ports.  Almost like they thought about where made sense to locate!

I'm not quite sure of our holiday plans yet, but if I'm in the country I'd love to come and would be unlikely to get away without being accompanied by my sons..... (10 and 6).

David

Given Hornby is refreshing their black 5, I can’t see that happening.  Think a Saint was also mentioned (which is arguably a proto black 5…) as well.

I’d reckon they’d be more likely to pick a small ish tank engine not from the GWR.  How about a jinty?

On 05/04/2022 at 12:09, NHY 581 said:

 

 

Always thought the EMGauge Society AGM was a bit weird.........

I went once but found it hard to gauge the meeting.

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Basically, paint schemes apart, the WR was still very much the GWR in operational terms until around 1960 or even later on various remaining country lines which wren't touched at all prior to closure in the early 1960s.  Train services were often exactly the same as they had been for years give or take a few minutes difference in departure times etc.  And although obviously variously amended  as time had passed since their publication the WR still worked in accordance with the GWR 1936 General Appendix and Signalling Regulations.  And even some stuff in the 1960 WR Regional Appendix was exactly as it had been in the (amended) GWR 1936 GA.

Mike

how  different was the (G)WR In this respect to the other former big 4 concerns?  Was the LNER still discernible, for example, particularly in obscure outposts in the same way in the late 50s?

David 

Great picture.  Is it the angle of the photo or does the track camber?

@The Fatadder - that's my justification for never selling anything!

This has popped up on my Facebook feed.  Is it from when @Andy Y visited Brent?

41 minutes ago, rovex said:

I would expect Dapol to do an all third, composite and brake third (because that's what we always get).

 

Personally I'd like the panelled ones as this would really make them stand out against the Colletts and Hawksworths.

 

I also predict no effort to panel/plate over the sides. We'll buy them anyway.

I’d wonder if Dapol could cheat a little and mimic panelling through a good paint job like the Hornby clerestories.
 

Someone cleverer might think of a new hybrid technique.  For example, could you injection mould flat sides for a steel bodied diagram, but then clamp the side into a 3D printer and overlay the beading onto that side?

On 31/01/2022 at 13:02, jools1959 said:

Having seen Rapido's North American coaching stock, how about a 100% full fat Mk1's, all diagrams and liveries, with the correct bogies for the era.  I'm now sitting awaiting for the doctors to take me away to the funny farm, ha ha, hee hee 

I’m not sure that works.  I’d reckon if someone was a stickler for accuracy, they’d have already modified the commercially available Mk1s and detailed them.  If you’re not too bothered, why would you shell out for the marginal improvement?

Doing a bit of desktop research, am I right that these are all 48’ diagrams ?  Also, did these coaches run on suburban services up towards Princes Risborough?  Third question.  Wouldn’t the GWR lake livery have gone by the time the 41xx were introduced.  Can we reasonably infer that Dapol must also be planning a Churchward era 2-6-2 tank?

Interesting that they ran direct services from Reading to Moorgate.  A precedent for Crossrail services…

18 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

56' or 57'. I can't see a manufacturer being particularly comfortable about doing a 70-footer. I'd go for:

 

- a brake composite

- a brake 3rd

- a 3rd

 

Dapol now have a 9' fishbelly, so this will probably inform the choice of corridor types.

 

Time to dust off Neal's Toplight thread I think, but I suspect Dapol will have read that, and will already have a good idea of what they are going to do.

 

I agree.  56/57 foot and gloss over the 4mm difference. Analysis I did pictured below.  You pretty much end up with the diagrams Slaters chose.  Funny that.
 

Smart I think to pick both a pretty livery (crimson lake) and sets.  People will buy 4/5 for the set.  If I was them, I’d a) pick prototype numbers that weren’t plated over in BR days and therefore wouldn’t have been in earlier liveries and b) look at the whitewash as an ‘unusual’ coach given its longevity (I know was much modified later).

7 minutes ago, brianusa said:

Now soon begins the discussion of whether or not to return Lode Star to the main line again; 2999 needs a friend around the same age and the Edwardians have been neglected long enough

There's always C of T though!

     Brian.

 

 

There’s a good article on Lode Star and it’s condition in the newest GWS magazine. Lots of interior photos of the smoke box and how the elbow pipes were patched over.  Basically, it looks like it was not intended /expected to steam again and the conservationists want to keep the Swindon work. 

Given, in true internet fashion, we’re all now absolute experts in IP and related commercial behaviours, I thought this article about M&S in most of today’s papers was interesting:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bath-marks-one-spencer-aldi-b1999554.html
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m-s-concedes-perfect-match-valentines-gifts-are-strikingly-similar-k99ww3fdg

11 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

Be that as it may, I would have expected anyone with a modicum of education (or, even, just a subscription to the History Channel or some such) to be aware of its deployment against Chamberlain,.  I think I can recall someone like Lord Boothby retelling the episode in the World at War documentary series. 

 

I find Horrible Histories suffices to ensure some basic historical knowledge.  Clearly Johnson’s current small kids are a few years away from graduating from Peppa to HH.

I’m not going to Wade through every post…. However, with one or two exceptions, it strikes me that railways are usually incidental to the plot of the film.  Interesting to use enthusiasts but ultimately not the thing you focus on in the movie.  Yes, there’s some malapropisms of Bulleid locos in From `Russia with `love and tenuously, you could claim the Orient Express as a feature of the plot but to base a train pack around it?  I think it’s stretching the point.

One recent movie that does feature steam trains is Paddington 2.  A chase scene involving Tornado.   A circus train.  A pullman.  That to me has the ingredients for a “Railways in film.”

We can probably make a guestimate of the size of the exposure.  If Rapido make an average of £200 per set of revenue and sells say 5,000, their sales are £1m.  Clearly their loss isn't going to be the full amount, but I'd have thought a claim in the hundreds of thousand pounds could be a good starting point.  A large number for Hornby, plus legal fees, who don't make much profit, but the real cost in in the management time that it takes up.

32 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I asked at the press briefing if it was legitimate to do this as it was public knowledge that Rapido Trains had been given an exclusive licence by Studio Canal to produce and market ‘The Titfield Thunderbolt’, he responded by saying “Well, the point is it’s a touch of semantics, it’s not so much as ‘Exclusive’ but what we have produced is what we call ‘Inspired by’. We are not promoting the film ‘The Titfield Thunderbolt’, we’re not using any of their assets as in packaging and all the rest of it. So, the loco exists, the rolling stock exists and, as I say, the key there is that the packs are inspired by the trains that you see on film.”

 

Simon continued, “I think the key thing is, you know, we’re not using any of the branding from the film and that’s the thing; we are producing a model of items that exist”.

 

Simon was asked if there were likely to be any legal issues in this regard; he responded “No, I doubt that very much. You know, you can start going into registration marks and all the rest of it and what class it is in, remember we are producing Class 28 which is classed as toys”.

Based on that logic, will the next in the film series be a Blue E4 locomotive with a pack of two generic teak four wheel coaches "inspired by Thomas and the Magic Railroad?"

5 minutes ago, john new said:

Knowing how offices work over a length of time with reorganisations etc.,, and IIRC some major management shake-ups that Hornby's staff have had, perhaps more plausible is that the person who did actually know has now gone and their related files had been binned. (Happened where I worked albeit in a different sphere). Hence...

 

Past conversation - along the lines of Person a - "Have we got the rights to Titfield Thunderbolt merchandise?" Response from person b - "Yes I remember when we got those."

 

Options like - (1) They did and at the time were still valid and then the staff shake up happened or (2) No one then bothered to search for the records at they time or they did and they were lost/misfiled etc., etc..

 

Being kind to Hornby here let's assume (1) applied and it is months, or even a year or two later, that production and marketing want to move on to market and so recheck, the oh **** moment then occurs when because of the changes they find out the rights renewal got overlooked because those office staff in the know had gone. It happened with their tooling why not with the office paperwork too. 

 

Where I worked a new broom manager cleared out many of the back records in the 1990s and years of archived civil engineering records and drawings, allfine until they are needed 10 years down the line when the sites get redeveloped and no-one still working in the place has a clue where all the underground pipe runs and cabling is/goes. So yes these things do happen, yes some were railway related, all academic now (and for a slightly different but related reason),  records of the old Weymouth Station site plans had long gone and a major sewer pipe drive hit the old Brunelian era foundations.

There's a number of scenarios. I'd be surprised if SK did not know the broad legal position around licensing given it's been a core part of their business. They'll have a General Counsel and almost certainly at least one other in house lawyer.  Whilst I wouldn't expect that lawyer to be an IP expert, I'd expect them to know enough to know when they need to go to get external legal advice. 

From the April Rapido announcement, it sounds like Hornby approached asking for the rights and were told they were already given up.  Whether the approach was jointly for the Titchfield and Railway Children or whether the rights to the latter were offered as an alternative, we don't (and probably won't) know.  I'd expect that if this does go to litigation that management would need to flag it in their board report under actual or pending litigation (unless they can convince themselves its under a reporting threshold.  If I was a Non-Exec, and they've just got a new one, I'd be asking the CEO what he knew and other board members knew and when.  And given Hornby's profitability is low, that threshold shouldn't be very high).  Did management know that there was a risk that this launch could be the subject of litigation?  What representations did management give?  What legal advice was sought and given?  How was it summarised to the board?  If there is a relationship problem with Studio Canal, how does that affect the Railway Children licence (and other items in this new film range)?  Lots of questions.  

I've just finished watching most of the Hornby UKTV series.  What's noticeable is how front and centre SK is  albeit he is not a main board director.  I assume he is a member of whatever they call their senior management team (ExCo, SLT etc).  He is the face of the Hornby brand.  I think it's noticeable that we don't see the CEO (or at least not memorably) in the programme.  If there is litigation, he will be under a lot of scrutiny as, from the outside, it would appear that he is the central figure in these type of discussions.  eg "Simon has a plan to outfox the competition and is sending junior staff member to measure 2007 Prince of Wales."

IF Rapido and Studio Canal press their case, this has the capacity to put a lot of strain on the management team when they should still be focused on the turnaround and delivery of sustainable profit.  Hence part of my thinking above that if this is a problem (and we're not all just living in the RMWeb bubble where we and only we think it matters) that they will have to find a way of u-turning.

As someone pointed out a few pages back, Rapido must have been tipped off in advance of the Hornby catalogue and hence the unseemly shuffle of Honrby’s announcement from 10am to 7am.  That video wasn’t made in 5 mins (though probably not an overly long time period).  
 

Rapido would be taking a huge risk if they’d not cleared with Studio Canal what they were doing with that video.

 It may be that Studio Canal are quite amused by this spat.  After all, it could be viewed in a comic light as “two toy manufacturers” argue about an old film.   however if they don’t honour the contract with Rapido, it may have other consequences for them with things they care more about.  

11 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

"As explained before" - was that by experienced IP lawyers who have a detailed understanding of the issues that none of us are privy to? I am not an IP lawyer but I have dealt with IP issues for a high profile multi-billion pound organisation that in its history lost IP rights over an asset in a well documented case and now manages them rather more proactively. I am unclear how anyone is jumping to the conclusion Studio Canal have to act or else they lose in court.

 

It is a big leap to be suggesting that Hornby putting the words "inspired by" on some packaging is some earth shattering piece of game changing IP case law in the making. For example I have yet to see any discussion regarding the law on 'incidental use', which Hornby's actions appear to be at first glance.

 

It is quite possible for Studio Canal to write to Hornby with a strongly worded letter that says we have noted your use of the wording and consider it a breach of our IP but given the trivial nature of it we do not consider it worth pursuing at this time (and English courts prefer court hearings to be avoided if possible) but we reserve the right to take action if we feel approrpiate at any time to reclaim profits etc, and if you repeat this trick we will make a large claim against you and/or send you a bill for £x and tie you up in legal action for the next 5 years. That in itself can be sufficient to protect their IP. That then gives Hornby de facto consent with the threat of the kitchen sink being thrown at them in the future whilst asserting Studio Canal's IP rights so they can demonstrate they have acted in any future case. That then puts the onus on Hornby to then deny SC's rights.

 

But the proof will be in the pudding as to what SC do and whether there is any publicity around it.

With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, I'd have thought the sequence would play out as follows.  Rapido believe they have a contract with StudioCanal that gives them exclusive rights to exploit this IP.  Question as to what is in that contract, what exactly the rights and obligations are of each party, eg to enforce breach of IP, termination etc.  That is not a public contract and we are all speculating (sometimes with the basis of knowledge of what is in similar contracts).  Presumably Rapido feel that if StudioCanal does not enforce their IP rights, and that Rapido have a loss under that contract.  If Rapido claim against StudioCanal, then StudioCanal now has a potential loss for which they can sue Hornby against for breach of their IP.  Of course, if StudioCanal, with much greater power in these negotiations can 'persuade' Hornby to drop their use, then the problem goes away.   I'd expect any competent IP lawyer to be able very quickly to assess the nature of the contract and whether there is a breach.  Whilst lawyers don't, in my experience, give definitive views as to how a court would judge an issue, they can be pretty unequivocal.  This, though, feels like a relationship issue between StudioCanal and Hornby, particularly given the latter's contract with them for the use of the Railway Children licence.

1 hour ago, McC said:

Todays tease.... more to come shortly  

I really wish you'd stop posting pictures like this as it makes me rethink how many more of these I should have ordered!

45 minutes ago, Aire Head said:

 

This is definitely the worst part so far for Hornby in that what should have been a big announcement with new developments has now descended into something which has distracted from the big news.

 

Sure it makes some people like Mr Moy double down on their support for Hornby (or on their dislike of Rapido) but it seems to be generating a lot more antipathy. Meaning people who weren't happy with Hornby are now convinced in an embargo on their product or people like myself who were relatively neutral now feel a degree of antipathy towards Hornby.

 

I somehow doubt it will turn out to be an earth-shattering event or that it will severely undermine either Rapido or Hornbys margins in a major way but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth and certainly isn't healthy for the hobby as a whole.

If you were cynical, you could argue that with an underwhelming list of new items (partly driven by the 2021 backlog), the creation of the "film" range to give cover for the inspired by item and the inevitable row draws attention away from the lack of other new goodies.  If you take the volume of posts on this thread and similar ones compared to the Black Five thread, it is clear what is the big issue on the 2022 range.

It wouldn't surprise me if Hornby thought all publicity was good publicity and that they could get further publicity in a month or so time by issuing a statement of their own.  "We had been keen to bring our inspired by the TTTB to market but were surprised and dismayed by the negative comments we received due to the presence of a competing product.  Having reviewed the position, we are taking the step to withdraw our product.  We wish our competitor luck with their sales." or similar.  Suddenly they're being magnanimous and seeking to be "the good guys."   And get another round of free publicity for their products.