UK-outline plastic locos?

Fred2179G said:
Tac, they are not 'history'. You can still buy the 2nd version 2-6-0 and Bachmann is still making them, with the pnp socket in the tender. Similarly the 'industrial' 2-6-0, the various 0-4-0T and even the Lyn was reworked. While street price for the 2-6-0 is $600, it's still a bargain compared with an Accucraft.

LGB and Piko are producing those nice Moguls, etc., and the Forney.

Over here, we currently have a glut of hardly-used collections being sold. I speculate it's the baby-boomers who bought tons of trains 20 years ago and forgot to build a railway. Aristo 2-8-0s pop up regularly, hardly used, and I've heard it said that Bachmann isn't producing more of the old Aristo models as there are too many on the market.
Click to expand...

Bachmann 1/20.3 'Spectrum' models - the brain-children of the late Mr Riley -

The Connie - Bachmann's version of a preserved Mexican sugar plantation 2-8-0 - history.

The two-truck Shay - history.

The three-truck Shay - history.

The Climax - history.

The Heisler - history.

The American 4-4-0 - history.

The old-style Mogul - history.

The K27 - history.

The 'Lyn' HAS been reworked, granted, but has a lot more popularity here in UK because of its association with the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway, where a full-size replica was built by Alan Keefe, coming into service a couple of years back.

I dimly recall a Forney of some kind, but maybe that was wishful thinking - whatever, I've never seen one.

We should be grateful to Bachmann for their daring to bring such products to the market in the fust place - for sure it will never happen again.
 
DickyC said:
Most preserved steam railway lines over the last 40 years have at some point painted some old loco blue and popped a round bit of ply on the front with a scary face and had a regatta ! thats 40 years of history !

View attachment 332989
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I heard that the brand owners started charging a huge amount to licence the TTT brand for these galas that they more or less closed down the market. Just as (in a different context) you never see Jonny Wilkinson's Rughy World Cup drop goal: it costs too much to show, so broadcasters don't use it. :mad:
 
Northsider said:
I could be wrong, but I heard that the brand owners started charging a huge amount to licence the TTT brand for these galas that they more or less closed down the market. Just as (in a different context) you never see Jonny Wilkinson's Rughy World Cup drop goal: it costs too much to show, so broadcasters don't use it. :mad:
Click to expand...
That did happen, SP in USA also I believe also started charging model mfgs for use of their ‘trademarked’ livery. Greed if you ask me, why would anyone charge for free advertising?
 
Northsider said:
I could be wrong, but I heard that the brand owners started charging a huge amount to licence the TTT brand for these galas that they more or less closed down the market. Just as (in a different context) you never see Jonny Wilkinson's Rughy World Cup drop goal: it costs too much to show, so broadcasters don't use it. :mad:
Click to expand...
I think the brand control on TTT galas started a good few years back. To begin with it was suggested to be to do with a gent on one railway who might have been misbehaving in terms of child handling. I think the then owners of the brand, understandably, introduced strict controls over the use of locos imitating TTT characters. I believe the nene valleys Thomas was exempt as their loco had pre dated approval from the Rev Audrey. There may be a wanting a slice of the action nowadays although the brand holders have or had a TTT theme park in the UK which arguably means the preserved rlys were competing with that.
 
dunnyrail said:
That did happen, SP in USA also I believe also started charging model mfgs for use of their ‘trademarked’ livery. Greed if you ask me, why would anyone charge for free advertising?
Click to expand...

The issue is that if you have a brand(ing) or an iconic product then you will want to protect it and get value from those who would want to profit from some aspect of what it represents to the public. I think it is fair that the owner of the IP should recieve a licencing fee. However....

Some 25 years ago I started up a small business making hand built high detail slot cars. Another operator decided to dob me in to the supposed "IP" owner that my 1st model represented. Lo and behold a "cease and desist" letter arrives. I informed their leagle eagles that the car represented was not part of their intellectual property, having been built in 1967, at least not when they took over in '81. However, they did own the marque name. Then it all went quiet. I was told, on the QT, that the company CEO caught wind of what their, rightfully, zealous legal dept had been up to with me. Seems this CEO took the line that - sure pursue the big boys and shysters shifting 2000 units + but leave the little guys alone. So long as the little guys are making a product that adequately reflects his own business values. Those are the worthwhile free advertising ! The imp who dobbed me in retired hurt and vilified by the rest of the trade, when it got out.

Long story short. After this spat I always marketed using only 1) Driver 2) Race series 3) Car type designation 4) Race. No need to name a copyrighted marque. Any self respecting enthusiast, my target buyer will recognise what the are buying from those details alone. Hence you are looking at "Denis Hulme's, Can-Am M6, Laguna Seca". What you can and cannot copyrighted is not as simple as you might think. Where there is awill there is a way. I thank you. Max

1000000752.jpg
 
Last edited:
maxi-model said:
Another operator decided to dob me in to the supposed "IP" owner that my 1st model represented. Lo and behold a "cease and desist" letter arrives. I informed their leagle eagles that the car represented was not part of their intellectual property, having been built in 1967, at least not when they took over in '81. However, they did own the marque name. Then it all went quiet. I was told, on the QT, that the company CEO caught wind of what their, rightfully, zealous legal dept had been up to with me. Seems this CEO took the line that - sure pursue the big boys and shysters shifting 2000 units + but leave the little guys alone.
Click to expand...
Very well done, David beats Goliath once more. :clap:
 
dunnyrail said:
That did happen, SP in USA also I believe also started charging model mfgs for use of their ‘trademarked’ livery. Greed if you ask me, why would anyone charge for free advertising?
Click to expand...

The old Santa Fe company had ALWAYS charged a licensing fee for using their iconic 'warbonnet' paint-scheme on ANY train model. One of the major hassles involving MTH [Mike Wolfe's train house company] concerned to use if certain iconic emblems and colour schemes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top