phil-b259

Then please explain how the Bluebell Railway were able to hit back when the owners of the Thomas the Tank Engine IP sent threatening letters stating the railway was committing IP theft as regards Stepney and big monies had to be paid. By rights its the Bluebell who should have been demanding royalties from TTEs use of Stepney not the other way round! Furthermore there have been plenty of court cases where companies alleging IP infringement due to colour / shape have been told to get lost by judges who generally say colour / shape is not enough to claim IP infringement.... https://www.keystonelaw.com/keynotes/nestle-loses-its-european-trade-mark-for-the-shape-of-the-kitkat https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/kitkat-nestle-loses-high-court-bid-trademark-shape https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47113644

Technically yes (though obviously before the NRM resisted as an organisation then permission would have been required from whoever owned the loco at the time). However back in the 1970s and 80s the NRM probably weren’t that bothered about enforcing it or seeking to profit from it. In recent decades however the Government grant which the Science Museum group gets has not kept up with inflation plus there has been a strong Whitehall push to ‘reduce the burden on hard working taxpayers’ as one party puts it - so organisations like the Science museum have to put a much bigger effort into protecting their IP rights to make ends meet and generate additional funds. The upshot is that today, reproducing a model / artwork / signage which is owned by the SMG will require express permission (and a finically contribution to the organisation) to do so.

Probably because someone at Hornby realised that when looking through photos of British trains the position and number of lamps varies hugely and it dawned on them that simply offering one configuration would be a bad idea. Thing is I get the appeal of working lamps on steam locos as a feature - and the fact it’s generally easy to do on European / North American prototypes will have furled the ‘why can’t we do the same for British modellers thoughts’ The problem is all down to how British Railways used and deployed their movable lamps - it makes any attempts far more difficult and costly than has been the case for other countries….

In other words European prototypes with built in lamps that do not move / disappear like most British locos.

I doubt it - mainly because of the quality control issues which have emerged. Whats the point of fancy gizmos like working lamps if the model itself can’t be used to haul trains….

Yes and very crude it looks too! In this day and age we expect considerably finer and better detail so simply whacking a couple of large immovable lamps on the front doesn’t cut it.

As you well know the automotive industry does not use the railway rulebook* nor rail industry* norms….. Hence why they (and society at large uses ‘bulb’ to mean an electric light source). As such given the way motorists are able to replace / repair / service vehicles themselves it makes perfect sense for things like the MOT test to refer to what the motor industry calls them rather than applying railway industry rules to non railway stuff! However in terms of trying to describe the purpose of the lamps on UK locos and how they differ from most of the rest of the world comparisons with motor vehicles is a useful yardstick. Once the above is properly understood by both manufacturers and designers it becomes apparent that it’s a much more tricky thing to realise with what might be termed ‘standard’** electrical components / techniques than is the case with other countries railway locos. * Being something entirely new the pioneers of the railway industry used the British army as a role model in terms of how they structured themselves - hence the emphasis put on ‘rules’, the various job titles seen in the industry with the word ‘officer’ in them and the culture of preserving its own way of doing things. As any military commander will tell you making sure that choosing one term and sticking with it helps eliminate confusion within the ranks and delays while clarification is sought when quick responses are needed. ** That is to say items which are already mass produced - I’m sure it would be possible to make I insanely tiny LEDs for example but if the only thing which is going to use them is RTR OO gauge British steam locos then the cost of developing them far outstrips the potential sales and is thus not worth it.

In the UK, it would seem as a fallout of privatisation based on what Wheatley has posted (I see that DB Shenker have the rights to all the BR trainload sub sector branding**) - which is disgusting* quite frankly! I know that some things like the BR typeface, the double arrow symbol and even the ‘Intercity’ logos passed to the DfT with the expectation of continued use. *IP created by a Government entity and no longer in use by said entity upon Privatisation should remain the IP the nation and not some private sectors potential money-making device. ** https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmowner/page/search?id=99325&domain=1&app=0&mark=UK00001366470

That’s actually a pretty good description of what’s needed on 99% of British steam loco. And yes as you say in the UK paraffin lamps on steam locos / marker light on diesels are not for seeing your way in the dark any more than sidelights are on your car! Or to put it another way, the sidelights on your car are there for others to see you - not for you to see others. That’s why vehicles also come with separate and much more powerful headlights…. Something UK locos generally lacked until the 1990s!

While that is true of the "Mainline" or "Loadhaul" branding / IP was sold on to EWS along with the companies themselves - its NOT true with respect to the BR Trainload Petroleum livery or BR Trainload Coal livery for example both of which remained the property of the British Railways Board (i.e. the UK state) after privatisation and which is now 'owned by the DfT. As with all Government owned stuff in the public realm there is what might be termed a 'fair use policy' which means that providing its not detrimental to the delivery of Government services (like the use of NHS branding could be) then its use doesn't need any particular permission. The transfer of the NSE trademark to the NSE society happened many years after privatisation and was simply a case of their being an organisation which the DfT were happy to give it to as part of the winding up of the BRB. It is IIRC something of an isolated case and most of British Rails IP rights still rest with the DfT

I suggest you pay attention to what Hornby model - i.e. British Trains! HO locomotives may well have had lights for years - but you go look at the lights fitted to European or North American steam locos - they are HUGE! This is because unlike the UK said railways were not required to be fenced in and thus a strong headlight was considered important so crew could see obstructions on the track in time to give a loud warning on the whistle and whatever was on the tracks a chance of getting clear. That headlight was also permanently fixed in position and was always physically present in the same place regardless of the train being hauled. Therefore when it comes to putting lights on the front of HO gauge locos its easy - it becomes no different to boiler pipework, bells, whistles, safety valves, wheels, etc because they remain mounted on the loco at all times and moreover there is usually only one of them. By contrast in the UK steam (and early diesel) lights were small - and dim! They did NOT illuminate anything ahead of the loco primarily because there was no need to do so as UK railways have, since their earliest days been required to maintain fencing top stop things getting onto the line*. Instead the lights on the front of UK trains / locos were to give routing information and information about the type of train so as to aid station staff and signalmen in their duties of regulating the railway efficiently. which strangely means they had to be dim - otherwise staff would be dazzled at close range and also wouldn't be able to determine the pattern of lights from a distance. Loco lamps on UK steam locos were thus also removable simply by a crew member lifting them off a bracket and during daylight hours white painted discs were often used instead on said bracket with no lamps present on the loco at all! - The painted discs metal discs gave the required routing information to observers during the day which the arrangement of lamps did at night. Consequently adding lighting to UK outline steam locos is a very different proposition to fitting it to HO ones - UK lighting solutions must allow for the removal of some or all lamps, their repositioning between 4 and 6 different locations and their complete replacement plain white discs for daylight running while the lamp representations need to be tiny relatively speaking. Thats why up till now no UK manufacturer has tried to put them on 00 scale models - and Hornbys attempts are actually pretty poor.

Generally speaking, yes - but there are also cases where this is not necessary. For example all of the UKs pre-grouping railways, Big 4 and of course British Railways related 'trademarks' such as logos, liveries, branding etc are deemed to have entered 'the public realm' by virtue of nationalisation and as such anyone is effectively allowed to reuse them on a model as a result. On the other hand something specific like an ex-BR poster which is now owned by the Railway museum in York or one owned by a Heritage railway is not and reproducing it without express permission is not permitted even though it was commissioned and owned for a time by BR So anyone is entitled to produce a model of a LBSCR A1X loco including painting it into the ornate Stroudley livery. However what they cannot do is plonk the name Stepney on the side and call it number 55 / 655 as that particular loco is owned by the Bluebell Railway. A model of a class 60 in a Trainload freight livery (i.e. British Rail condition) requires no licencing - but the moment you put it in EWS / DB livery then you need approval of DB More generally there are also cases where companies have not been rigorous in defending their trademarks and there are quite a few decisions where the courts have said - well if you cannot be bothered to defend your trademark for the past 20 years you cannot suddenly start doing so now. A vacuum cleaner company lost its exclusive rights to the term 'Hoover' precisely because they failed to take action in the early years and judges subsequently ruled it had entered the common language as a generic term for a vacuum cleaner All in all trademarks - which are these days grouped under the category of 'intellectual property rights' is one of those things where professional legal advise from specialist lawyers should be sought to avoid expensive mistakes.

Nope... try again Its still just a 'lamp' regardless whether the source of illumination is a LED or not - and the likes of Clan line and Tornado do incorporate LEDs inside their lamps theses days instead of incandescent filament lamps (or 'bulbs' as heathens call them 😉 ) But to be serious, what the Chinese call them is irrelevant - as long as they get them right! That means making them removable in 99%* of cases (tender included) and as small as physically possible - with the Hornby Black 5 its a failing on both counts.... * The exception would be Bulleid / Thompson locos where they hand non removable built in lamps

If you are wanting to be pedantic...😉 .... The word 'lights' in the railway world refers to window glass (hence the terms 'drop lights' or 'side lights' or 'top lights' with respect to carriages. ALL sources of illumination are, in railway terms 'lamps' regardless of whether they are powered by paraffin, electricity gas, candles etc. Hence why any true railway worker winces at the term 'bulb' being applied to an 'electric filament lamp'! 'Bulbs grow in the ground and produce plants - they don't produce light! Thus the railway rule books have always used the term 'lamp' to refer to things carried on the front or rear (and sides on guards vans of freight trains) . So when referring to sources of illumination on the front of steam locos - every single one is a 'lamp' regardless of how they powered or whether the source of electricity is a flame or not. Its just some are 'portable' and can be removed from the loco and others are a permanent fixture...

Erm that loco DOES have lamps! As per all Bulleid Pacific designs there are three at the bottom, one halfway up each side and one at the top! As I said earlier they are small and deliberately painted black so that when they are tuned off they hard hard to see during the day when discs are used instead - the lamp irons for the discs beoing co-located with the lamps. Thompson on the LNER did a similar thing with his Pacifics and B1 class also fitted with built in lamps (though only 4 as per LNER headcodes required) and they two were painted black so they could not be seen when discs were in use during the day.

You completely ignore that those lights fitted to Bulleid designed locos are built into the loco - i.e. non removable. Thats why they are small and the casings painted black - when turned off they are in effect invisible* The same was true with many of the lamps fitted to European or North American locos - they stayed firmly attached to the loco and never moved - as opposed to traditional British lamps which were expressly designed to be removed completely* *A traditional British style portable lamp doesn't need to be lit for the benefit of a trains headcode / classification it simply has to be physically present in a certain location to have meaning.

InterCity made a concerted effort to fit all their stock with CDL by 1994 - a fact which was greatly helped by the introduction of fixed formations with DVTs / DBSOs limiting the number of stock which required fitment. Of course with the traditional / unmodified HST fleet having only relatively recently been withdrawn from InterCity routes they were in fact one of the last of the former BR sectors to get rid of slam doors. Network SouthEast didn't have the option to fit CDL to its huge fleet of Mk1 EMUs (particularly as they were well overdue for replacement) so passengers on many London commuter routes had to wait until privatisation started delivering new stock - and in some cases that was quite a drawn out affair with slam door units lasting well into the first decade of this century. What was Regional railways made a good start with the replacement of 1st Gen DMUs by Pacers and Sprinters - but their problem was there simply wasn't enough new units built so you did get some 1st gen units or loco hauled stock limping on into the post privatisation era until TurboStar DMUs started arriving in substantial numbers.

Then why clutter up a thread specifically called "WCRC - the ongoing battle with ORR" when you claim your post has nothing to do with that topic? If you want to do generalised comparisons between countries rail systems then why not start a thread about it in the relevant 'Overseas prototype' section of the forum? The fact you haven't done so and stuck it on this thread speaks volumes....

The implicit implication that because other countries don't seem that bothered about things which are prohibited in this country and that the ORR is somehow acting unreasonably / getting carried away / overreaching itself etc! What other countries may or may not do has zero relevance to the actions of the ORR - whose actions are framed by British legislation and nobody elses! Now you can of course argue the British legislation is too stringent - BUT if you do then you need to remember what / who put the legislation into law in the first place, members of the houses of Parliament. Hence, as with many things railways if you don't like the ORRs actions then you need to actually start discussing UK Politics and Parliament - both of which shape the entire legal / regulatory environment ion which all railway entities - including WCR MUST be in full compliance with.

Swiss rail regulators will ensure that the train operators are regulated in accordance with Swiss law - and nobody else’s! If they fall out of a coach window then that is a matter for the Swiss courts to judge according to Swiss law as set down by its own elected politicians.

Last time I looked maters to do with U.K. railways are judged in U.K. courts and to U.K. laws! When will people learn it doesn’t matter how many pictures they post of what goes on overseas - they mean nothing when it comes to U.K. enforcement of U.K. laws. No UK judge is going to turn round and go “Well the Swiss regulators and Swiss law says it OK so we will go along with that are they? The ORR (and other regulatory bodies) make the decisions they do so that the organisations / people they regulate are in compliance with U.K. laws! NOT just because they have made up a set of standards off their own back. IF you feel that UK regulations are excessive then rather than posting pictures of overseas practices and whinging you need to get busy lobbying MPs to change the relevant U.K. laws by bills in the Houses of Parliament! That will then alter the framework under which U.K. courts operate and in turn mean that the approach regulators take will be different.

(1) If you are modelling the Southern Railway or BR(S) the first thing yiou realise is that 99% of coaching stock on the SR was made into fixed sets made up of coaches built to broadly the same design. This compares with other companies / regions where sets were in the minority with most trains formed of whatever vehicles were at hand that matched the accommodation requirements of the train. (2) Even those modellers who don't care about accuracy don't want to run a train consisting of only brake 3rds / brake 2nds! If you look at Hornbys range of coaching stock its notable that there is currently very little by way of BR(S) or SR stock in matching liveries to go with them

(1) A Mk2D doesn't contain a motor which can wear out, gears which can split pickups that can break nor are people likely to want to fit it with DCC - a loco the other hand has a lot of things which can go wrong mechanically plus a large chunk of the market will want DCC capability. (2) Being a sound choice in terms of prototype to model is NOT the same thing as direct duplication. Moreover RTR manufacturers don't usually use availability on the second hand market - particularly when the items are locos which are not DCC ready and are no longer supported by their manufacturer. (3) In terms of viability though I do recognise that he LN was a small in number and although seen as some by the pinnacle of Maunsells career design wise is never going to have as many buyers as other more numerous classes like the Schools or Arthurs. That said the LNER P2 class (to give but one example) had even fewer members yet seems to have sold well so there is some logic in Hornbys decision to go for a LN (4) The issue with the Bulleid brakes has been explained before and has nothing to do with their popularity with modellers and everything to do with a Hornby cock up! As is the norm for Southern railway stock these brake coaches were for the most part ALL formed into a 3 car set* of identical Bullied vehicles (BTK - CK-BTK) NOT as individual coaches! The problem therefore is simply that Hornby under ordered the CK coach which goes in the middle - without which these brake coaches are useless to modellers.

Oh come on - how can Hornbys super detailed LN be said to be 'duplicating' an the ancient split chassis Bachmann design which hasn't been available for years....

It’s a statistical fact that Humans are very bad at repetitive tasks and in terms of H&S measures there is an alarming trend for people not to do things…. Have you ever considered why cars now come with seatbelt sensor that make a racket if it detects you are driving along but they are not deployed for example or why electric lawnmowers come with the need to press 2 buttons (one with each hand) to get them started? Both the above will be more expensive to build than products which didn’t have these features….. Good H&S practice / regulation seeks to automate or build saferty into the device being used precisely to avoid human mistakes - and the railways are no different. Yes stewards can be effective but they are human and y can forget / go off sick / be distracted where as an automated system cannot! Also stewards have to be paid, accommodation be found for them etc where as an automated system after it’s initial fitment has relatively low ongoing costs. Therefore assuming WCR still want to operate the Jacobite for the next 10 years then I bet the actual cost of CDL with regard to ticket prices will be less than paying for the army of stewards (including having enough spare people so that in cases of sickness the train still ins with the required numbe)