Hornby Announce L&MR 0-4-2 "Lion"?

[I.C.L. 11]

On 05/07/2022 at 16:43, JSpencer said:

"Those of you who brought the special Triang memory rocket pack will now have the chance to own those coaches a second time..."

The coaches ought to be Hornby's strong suit in all this, particularly since @rapidoandy has confirmed they won't be duplicated by Rapido. Lion was restored to steam and six coaches of the types produced by Hornby were constructed to form a complete 1838 "heritage" train long before the Titfield Thunderbolt movie was ever thought of.

 

Very disappointing that Hornby have chosen to repeat themselves with two carriage names which are inaccurate for the L&MR centenary train that the newly announced packs represent. There is an often reproduced postcard photo showing the centenary train with the names 'Experience', 'Traveller' and 'Huskisson' clearly visible if you zoom in a little. Hornby have used this photo twice on the packaging and again on the web pages (albeit cropped) and still appear to have got the names wrong; incorrectly stating in the R4037 coach pack product info "The exhibition train was made up of ‘Lion’, plus three replica First Class coaches, ‘Times’, ‘Despatch’ and Experience’...".

 

'Experience' is a worthy inclusion in the pack as it has toured extensively with Lion since they were transferred to Liverpool Museums together with one of the opens and they remain in their care. 'Traveller' and 'Huskisson' are part of the National Collection and I strongly suspect Hornby are withholding those names in the hope of producing a Railway Museum edition Rocket pack in the future. Hornby should certainly know of Traveller's existence as it is the vehicle they measured and based their model on according to the photos in the Jan 2020 Engine Shed blog!

 

I feel sorry for anyone who forks out for the full six coach train only to be fobbed off with two erroneous names.

 

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Call that an apology?  Reads more like something a cabinet minister would write!

Quite, as I stated it was the required apology……obviously a condition of the legal process.

 

Do you really think Hornby would flail themselves and roll in tar for a good feathering if they didn’t have to? 🤣

[JSpencer]

17 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

  And they might well 'do a Terrier' and shove the production schedule for something else to one side and shoehorn 'Lion' into its place just to show  how (childishly) clever they can be at 'beating the competition'; just wonder about which items promised for 2022 have gone back some way  into 2023.

 

I suspect that these sets replace the "Inspired by" products which were doubtless to be rushed out before the competition.

Of course there general track record on delivery is a bit long in the tooth... But they do seem to have the ability to escalate at least one product a year if the need is required.  

[Butler Henderson]

No doubt should someone actually buy one from a model shop with the shops on price label visible it will be worth ££££ in rarity given Hornbys attrouious tretament of shop orders and if , given the appalling wiring on Rocket (and other issues), it actually works maybe a few pennies more.

[wainwright1]

7 hours ago, I.C.L. 11 said:

The coaches ought to be Hornby's strong suit in all this, particularly since @rapidoandy has confirmed they won't be duplicated by Rapido. Lion was restored to steam and six coaches of the types produced by Hornby were constructed to form a complete 1838 "heritage" train long before the Titfield Thunderbolt movie was ever thought of.

 

Very disappointing that Hornby have chosen to repeat themselves with two carriage names which are inaccurate for the L&MR centenary train that the newly announced packs represent. There is an often reproduced postcard photo showing the centenary train with the names 'Experience', 'Traveller' and 'Huskisson' clearly visible if you zoom in a little. Hornby have used this photo twice on the packaging and again on the web pages (albeit cropped) and still appear to have got the names wrong; incorrectly stating in the R4037 coach pack product info "The exhibition train was made up of ‘Lion’, plus three replica First Class coaches, ‘Times’, ‘Despatch’ and Experience’...".

 

'Experience' is a worthy inclusion in the pack as it has toured extensively with Lion since they were transferred to Liverpool Museums together with one of the opens and they remain in their care. 'Traveller' and 'Huskisson' are part of the National Collection and I strongly suspect Hornby are withholding those names in the hope of producing a Railway Museum edition Rocket pack in the future. Hornby should certainly know of Traveller's existence as it is the vehicle they measured and based their model on according to the photos in the Jan 2020 Engine Shed blog!

 

I feel sorry for anyone who forks out for the full six coach train only to be fobbed off with two erroneous names.

 

The coaches in the yellow Hornby Rocket set are called Wellington, Globe and Renown. So no duplication there.

 

Its only the ones in the Tri-ang limited edition pack that are Times, Experience and Dispatch

 

All the best

Ray

[I.C.L. 11]

48 minutes ago, wainwright1 said:

The coaches in the yellow Hornby Rocket set are called Wellington, Globe and Renown. So no duplication there.

 

Its only the ones in the Tri-ang limited edition pack that are Times, Experience and Dispatch.

Yes and the latest Rocket mail train pack includes 'Treasurer' so a total of 7 first class carriage names produced to date for anyone who wants to collect them all. The point I'm trying to make is that they've already produced 1500 'Times' and 'Despatch' so why repeat these names which are incorrect for Lion's train when they could simply do the right ones. They were planning to produce 'Huskisson' at least for The Lady with a Lamp pack so why not for the L&MR centenary Lion?

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, I.C.L. 11 said:

Yes and the latest Rocket mail train pack includes 'Treasurer' so a total of 7 first class carriage names produced to date for anyone who wants to collect them all. The point I'm trying to make is that they've already produced 1500 'Times' and 'Despatch' so why repeat these names which are incorrect for Lion's train when they could simply do the right ones. They were planning to produce 'Huskisson' at least for The Lady with a Lamp pack so why not for the L&MR centenary Lion?

Maybe they are treading carefully where SC are involved.  Simple question - were the coach names changed for the film?  if they were only seen in the film with those names then SC have them bang to rights yet again.

[5Dublo2]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe they are treading carefully where SC are involved.  Simple question - were the coach names changed for the film?  if they were only seen in the film with those names then SC have them bang to rights yet again.

I believe the coach names were visible to the public during the 1930 centenary event and as such were not unique to any  specific film.

[Compound2632]

47 minutes ago, 5Dublo2 said:

I believe the coach names were visible to the public during the 1930 centenary event and as such were not unique to any  specific film.

 

And are visible in the LMS publicity postcard as posted by @I.C.L. 11 above.

[phil-b259]

On 07/07/2022 at 15:53, Compound2632 said:

 

And are visible in the LMS publicity postcard as posted by @I.C.L. 11 above.

 

And anything produced by the LMS has effectively become part of the public domain as a result of nationalisation of said company!

[Hroth]

21 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And anything produced by the LMS has effectively become part of the public domain as a result of nationalisation of said company!

 

Yet Hornby seem to have a licencing agreement with the NRM to use the names "Flying Scotsman" and "Mallard", despite them belonging to locomotives of the LNER and thus "part of the public domain as a result of nationalisation".  I think the companies involved in the monetisation of Intellectual Property doesn't give a damn for such considerations!

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Hroth
Twisted TLA!

[Compound2632]

44 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

And anything produced by the LMS has effectively become part of the public domain as a result of nationalisation of said company!

 

It is, as I understand it, a consequence of BRB (Residuary) - IIRC - declaring that it has no proprietary interest in material that does not relate to the currently operational railway. Various organisations hold a letter from BRB (Residuary) to that effect.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Compound2632

[phil-b259]

46 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Yet Hornby seem to have a licencing agreement with the NRM to use the names "Flying Scotsman" and "Mallard", despite them belonging to locomotives of the LNER and thus "part of the public domain as a result of nationalisation".  I think the companies involved in the monetisation of Intellectual Property doesn't give a damn for such considerations!

 

 

 

The situation is complex but basically the 'names' you mention are not 'assets' of the NRM so do not require permission of the NRM to be used.

 

Anyone can call a loco / train / object  'the Flying Scotsman' as its in the public domain

 

This is rather different to, say, quoting 'Coca-Cola' in your publicity as that is a registered trade mark of said organisation and the words are NOT considered in the public domain.

 

Now while it is true that the locomotives themselves or any LNER / BR publicity material within the NRM archives does require their permission to be reproduced, thats only because you are copying an asset they hold in their collection.

 

If however you used a photo from the Getty archives for example, or movie images from British Pathé then you would owe the NRM nothing - but on the flip side would owe royalties to the aforementioned businesses (or their successors)

 

Moreover there was a period of time when, as a Branch of Government, it was not considered in the public interest to restrict access to publicly owned archive material - and in a similar vein to the 'Freedom of Information laws, reasonable use of BR archive material was granted without restriction.

 

The privatisation of British Rail has of course changed the environment for anything which came afterwards but as is cited above by Compound2632, the general rule that anything in the possession of British Railways can be used freely without worrying about applying for express permission or paying royalties to HM Government still stands - the exsistance of the locos named in the NRM does nothing to alter that.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by phil-b259

[adb968008]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The situation is complex but basically the 'names' you mention are not 'assets' of the NRM so do not require permission of the NRM to be used.

 

Anyone can call a loco / train / object  'the Flying Scotsman' as its in the public domain

 

This is rather different to, say, quoting 'Coca-Cola' in your publicity as that is a registered trade mark of said organisation and the words are NOT considered in the public domain.

 

Now while it is true that the locomotives themselves or any LNER / BR publicity material within the NRM archives does require their permission to be reproduced, thats only because you are copying an asset they hold in their collection.

 

If however you used a photo from the Getty archives for example, or movie images from British Pathé then you would owe the NRM nothing - but on the flip side would owe royalties to the aforementioned businesses (or their successors)

 

Moreover there was a period of time when, as a Branch of Government, it was not considered in the public interest to restrict access to publicly owned archive material - and in a similar vein to the 'Freedom of Information laws, reasonable use of BR archive material was granted without restriction.

 

The privatisation of British Rail has of course changed the environment for anything which came afterwards but as is cited above by Compound2632, the general rule that anything in the possession of British Railways can be used freely without worrying about applying for express permission or paying royalties to HM Government still stands - the exsistance of the locos named in the NRM does nothing to alter that.

 

 

That maybe why so little post privatisation models are made…

[Compound2632]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The privatisation of British Rail has of course changed the environment for anything which came afterwards but as is cited above by Compound2632, the general rule that anything in the possession of British Railways can be used freely without worrying about applying for express permission or paying royalties to HM Government still stands - the exsistance of the locos named in the NRM does nothing to alter that.

 

To clarify, I was specifically referring to material formerly the property of BRB (Residuary) or its predecessors but now held in various society archives, etc.; however as I understand it the same applies to material held by public bodies. There is, as far as I'm aware, no restriction on using drawings held by NRM as reference material in the development of a commercial model, for instance. Of course it will always be good practice and common courtesy for the source of the material to be acknowledged.

[Graham_Muz]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The situation is complex but basically the 'names' you mention are not 'assets' of the NRM so do not require permission of the NRM to be used.

 

Anyone can call a loco / train / object  'the Flying Scotsman' as its in the public domain

 

This is rather different to, say, quoting 'Coca-Cola' in your publicity as that is a registered trade mark of said organisation and the words are NOT considered in the public domain.

 

 

 

Not true I'm afraid, the Science Museum Group  hold a wide range of "Flying Scotsman" and "Mallard" registered trademarks across a number of trademark classes. 

[eldomtom2]

36 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

 

Not true I'm afraid, the Science Museum Group  hold a wide range of "Flying Scotsman" and "Mallard" registered trademarks across a number of trademark classes. 

The question is how capable they actually would be of enforcing those trademarks regarding models.

 

Thomas the Tank Engine got away with selling toys of their own faced Flying Scotsman with no apparent money paid to the NRM...

[phil-b259]

55 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

The question is how capable they actually would be of enforcing those trademarks regarding models.

 

Thomas the Tank Engine got away with selling toys of their own faced Flying Scotsman with no apparent money paid to the NRM...

The problem here is the way words escape into general usage. We have seen this with the likes of ‘Hoover’ which slipped into common usage to such a degree that the Hoover brand cannot start restricting its use.

 

With the British Railways board having adopted a similar ‘laze a fare’ attitude to stuff it inherited upon nationalisation escaping into the wider world unrestricted then certain aspects related to the Flying Scotsman are similarly in the public sphere even if the actual locos are now the intellectual property of the NRM.

 

Naturally if anyone wants to copy or use NRM owned material (including the locos) to produce their product then that’s a very different story - but technically a model company could knock up a rough approximation of the Flying Scotsman from alternative sources (including calling it that) without the need to involve the NRM - which is how the likes of TTE get away with it.

 

 

 

 

[Graham_Muz]

2 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

The question is how capable they actually would be of enforcing those trademarks regarding models.

 

Thomas the Tank Engine got away with selling toys of their own faced Flying Scotsman with no apparent money paid to the NRM...

 

The fact that they are suitably registered enables the Science Museum Group to protect them with legal action / licencing agreements should they wish to do (as Studiocanal have recently demonstrated), any IP is only worth what the rights owner is prepared to pay in time and initial resources in taking action. 

 

Note: in the Hoover example also quoted, above whilst the term might be in generic public use, they still prevent any other  manufacturer directly using the term.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Graham_Muz

[eldomtom2]

41 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

The fact that they are suitably registered enables the Science Museum Group to protect them with legal action / licencing agreements should they wish to do (as Studiocanal have recently demonstrated), any IP is only worth what the rights owner is prepared to pay in time and initial resources in taking action.

That is not how registered trademarks work. The courts can still deem them invalid in certain situations or entirely.

[Graham_Muz]

1 hour ago, eldomtom2 said:

That is not how registered trademarks work. The courts can still deem them invalid in certain situations or entirely.

Except in most cases it is how it works, it is quite rare for a court to deem them invalid and that is usually down to lack of actual use of, or a change in or use of the actual mark. 

[boxbrownie]

Have we an IP lawyer in the house? 😇

[Nile]

I think they are wisely keeping out of this.

[boxbrownie]

55 minutes ago, Nile said:

I think they are wisely keeping out of this.

I mentioned this thread to my DiL who has been an IP lawyer for years she declined to get into it 🤣

[Graham_Muz]

17 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

I mentioned this thread to my DiL who has been an IP lawyer for years she declined to get into it 🤣

I'm not surprised ;) I've dealt with and employed quite a few in my past life...