Metropolitan Railway E Class - Met No.1

[Les1952]

On 23/07/2024 at 12:10, AY Mod said:

Prettiest loco of the year so far? Gets my vote.

 

 

is that chimney on straight?  It looks a little as if it is leaning t the right....

 

Les

 

[AY Mod]

It's fine.

[Michael Hodgson]

23 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

is that chimney on straight?  It looks a little as if it is leaning t the right....

 

Les

 

If it were, you could always name it Jacob Rees-Mogg!😁

[D3489gibson]

As an unplanned group decision, we put Folly Lane up at the club tonight. Seemed like a perfect excuse to take Met 1 with me and give her a spin on the layout! 

 

Nathan

[SRman]

3 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

is that chimney on straight?  It looks a little as if it is leaning t the right....

 

Les

 

 

More likely a little lens distortion from the camera.

[No Decorum]

On 25/07/2024 at 08:57, SRman said:

I have now made a short video of my No. 1 in as preserved condition. I'm posting this on my Newton Broadway layout topic as well.

I remapped most of the functions from F5 upwards to bring them more into line with my usual preferences (e.g. F5 is the coupling clank, F11 is flange squeal, and so on).

I tweaked the bass and treble sound outputs and I think that improves the already good sounds. Bass (CV196) is now 24, and treble (CV197) is now 12.

 

I added the extra details where possible, although I haven't figured out exactly where the frame gussets should fit, and I tried the tank balance pipes, including grinding inner parts of them away, but couldn't quite get the clearances to work for reliable running.

 

 

 

 

Lovely models and very attractive layout. I noticed Bachmann’s wagons from the LT train sets; mine were retailer-split from the sets. Sometimes RTR modelling is a long game – get something which might be useful some day and that day is starting to arrive increasingly often.

[SRman]

2 hours ago, No Decorum said:

Lovely models and very attractive layout. I noticed Bachmann’s wagons from the LT train sets; mine were retailer-split from the sets. Sometimes RTR modelling is a long game – get something which might be useful some day and that day is starting to arrive increasingly often.

 

One of each was from an original set (with the split chassis pannier tank), the rest are from retailer-split sets. The low-sided wagons have Kim Durose's 3D printed door bumpers added. I also have a couple of his conversion sets for two Dapol Turbot wagons. I have started the conversion but have yet to complete them. I renumbered one of the brake vans, but have fudged the wagon numbers by obscuring them a bit.
 

p.s. Thanks for the compliments. 😎

Edited July 26 by SRman

[GoingUnderground]

On 25/07/2024 at 12:47, RogerTE said:

One comment though - Why does the box say TFL Official Licensed Product? The loco itself is privately owned. Is it because they need to licence the London Transport wording?

 

 

Yes,I believe that is the situation. TfL as the latest successors to LPTB and before that UERL and the Metropolitan Railway will own the copyright and trade marks to all graphics, logos, and lettering used by the original companies from 1863 through to the present day. 

Edited July 26 by GoingUnderground

[Compound2632]

19 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

Yes,I believe that is the situation. TfL as the latest successors to LPTB and before that UERL and the Metropolitan Railway will own the copyright and trade marks to all graphics, logos, and lettering used by the original companies from 1863 through to the present day. 

 

Interestingly different and much more proprietorial than whatever body now holds British Rail's rights is. Nobody's after you if you sell a model with the LNWR cauliflower, the letters LMS, or the unicycling lion on the side. I doubt that the position you ascribe to TfL would actually be enforcable, for anything over about 70 years old. 

 

https://www.railtec-models.com/showitem.php?id=5135

Edited July 27 by Compound2632

[Mark Dickerson]

On 23/07/2024 at 18:34, PhilJ W said:

ECS working of the Chesham branch stock 1935 to c.1955. Probably taken at Neasden. 

[LTM image of L44 with Ashbury stock 20 Oct 1960]

Much as I really, really want this to be true, I suspect that this was something more unusual (or posed?) - although an emergency replacement is great for Rule 1. The stock swaps AFAIK[*] were always Sunday mornings, and this is dated to a Thursday a month after the Chesham shuttle officially stopped - although I think I've seen an image of an Ivatt 2MT with a couple of Dreadnoughts in 1961. If the date is out I've seen reference to L44 running a special on the penultimate day, so perhaps the LTM image is of that?

 

[*]The only WTT I've looked at (1951), if I read it correctly, has the Sunday morning Southbound running Chesham-Rickmansworth, as a passenger service, changing to an electric loco, and then running to connect with an ex-Uxbridge P Stock service at Wembley Park before running (ECS) to Neasden. Northbound is reverse without the connection to an Uxbridge service; I wonder if the Southbound connection was a replacement of what was discussed as an earlier working (early 1940s) on the District Dave forum, where an extra carriage was added to the Chesham set and then worked into Baker St. More research needed, I think, but at the very least one could have two Chesham sets crossing with a Metrovick on each...

[Metr0Land]

30 minutes ago, Mark Dickerson said:

 

 I think I've seen an image of an Ivatt 2MT with a couple of Dreadnoughts in 1961.

 

There was an occasion when power was off after the change from steam to electric, the Chesham set had gone to the Bluebell but some Dreadnoughts were available

[Gordon Connell]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interestingly different and much more proprietorial than whatever body now holds British Rail's rights is. Nobody's after you if you sell a model with the LNWR cauliflower, the letters LMS, or the unicycling lion on the side. I doubt that the position you ascribe to TfL would actually be enforcable, for anything over about 70 years old. 

 

https://www.railtec-models.com/showitem.php?id=5135

 

Stephen, I think you're confusing copyright and trademarks when you mention 70 years. As long as trademarks are re-registered every 10 years there is no time limit, certainly London Transport has been registered since 1934.

[Compound2632]

49 minutes ago, Gordon Connell said:

Stephen, I think you're confusing copyright and trademarks when you mention 70 years. As long as trademarks are re-registered every 10 years there is no time limit, certainly London Transport has been registered since 1934.

 

Well, being vague, since uncertain of the law. But has TfL re-registered the Metropolitan Railway's coat of arms as a trademark within the last 10 years?

[rapidoandy]

There are quite a lot of IP items owned by TfL and licensed on their behalf by IMG (who are a massive licensing company).

 

Items like the Johnston font, Roundel, Mind the Gap, London Transport and associated logos and even some items relating toe Metropolitan Railway are protected and need agreements to use.

 

That said - with a proper agreement we get access and help to official materials which will help with a project. It does cost a pretty penny mind…

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, rapidoandy said:

There are quite a lot of IP items owned by TfL and licensed on their behalf by IMG (who are a massive licensing company).

 

Items like the Johnston font, Roundel, Mind the Gap, London Transport and associated logos and even some items relating toe Metropolitan Railway are protected and need agreements to use.

 

That said - with a proper agreement we get access and help to official materials which will help with a project. It does cost a pretty penny mind…

Sounds like a minefield for the unwary, as Hornby found out over the Titfield Thunderbolt. 

[GoingUnderground]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interestingly different and much more proprietorial than whatever body now holds British Rail's rights is. Nobody's after you if you sell a model with the LNWR cauliflower, the letters LMS, or the unicycling lion on the side. I doubt that the position you ascribe to TfL would actually be enforcable, for anything over about 70 years old. 

 

https://www.railtec-models.com/showitem.php?id=5135

There are 4 models in the Rapido E Class series, 2 of which, L.44 and L.48, use the Johnson typeface, which is protected, for the running number and the "London transporT" lettering. And I can't see any manufacturer in their right mind having separate box lids just for those models.

 

The reproduction of all graphics and logos depends entirely on whether they are currently subject to copyright or trade mark protection and, more importantly, whether the holders of those rights enforce them. Does anyone hold the rights to the logos etc of the pre-nationalisation railway companies and if they do, do they bother to enforce them? Or have all rights lapsed and they've passed into the public domain? Unlike copyright, trade marks do not expire after a set period of time, provided they are renewed every 10 years. It would seem sensible, at least to me, for anyone seeking to reproduce graphics etc commercially to make enquiries first to avoid a lot of grief later.

 

TfL does, as I understand it, enforce its rights. IIRC, the Metropolitan coat of arms was used on A60 stock DMs in, I think it was, the late 1990s just prior to their refurbishment and repainting in the corporate RWB livery. Whether the coat of arms is the subject of copyright or trade mark protection I don't know, but as it has been used as recently as the 1990s by LU/TfL then it may well be protected.

 

On the subject of the packaging, when Modelmaster Jackson Evans used to produce transfers for LT/LU stock their PoS materials always said that they had permission.  Gilbow/EFE did not make any mention of whether they had permission to use the roundel etc on the packaging of their static models of the '38 and '59 Tube stock or on their models of LT buses. Neither did Hornby on the packaging of their 0-6-0 Sentinel DL.81 nor on their relatively recent "Corgi" release of a Feltham Tram in LT livery. However the Bachmann/EFE Rail motorised models of the '38 & '59 Stock do have the "permission" wording.

[Dan Hamblin]

4 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

That said - with a proper agreement we get access and help to official materials which will help with a project. It does cost a pretty penny mind…

If it helps pay my wages... 😁

 

Regards,

 

Dan

 

p.s. gorgeous model and glad I got L48 and Met 1.

[LondonCharivari]

4 hours ago, GoingUnderground said:

There are 4 models in the Rapido E Class series, 2 of which, L.44 and L.48, use the Johnson typeface, which is protected, for the running number and the "London transporT" lettering. And I can't see any manufacturer in their right mind having separate box lids just for those models.

 

The reproduction of all graphics and logos depends entirely on whether they are currently subject to copyright or trade mark protection and, more importantly, whether the holders of those rights enforce them. Does anyone hold the rights to the logos etc of the pre-nationalisation railway companies and if they do, do they bother to enforce them? Or have all rights lapsed and they've passed into the public domain? Unlike copyright, trade marks do not expire after a set period of time, provided they are renewed every 10 years. It would seem sensible, at least to me, for anyone seeking to reproduce graphics etc commercially to make enquiries first to avoid a lot of grief later.

 

TfL does, as I understand it, enforce its rights. IIRC, the Metropolitan coat of arms was used on A60 stock DMs in, I think it was, the late 1990s just prior to their refurbishment and repainting in the corporate RWB livery. Whether the coat of arms is the subject of copyright or trade mark protection I don't know, but as it has been used as recently as the 1990s by LU/TfL then it may well be protected.

 

On the subject of the packaging, when Modelmaster Jackson Evans used to produce transfers for LT/LU stock their PoS materials always said that they had permission.  Gilbow/EFE did not make any mention of whether they had permission to use the roundel etc on the packaging of their static models of the '38 and '59 Tube stock or on their models of LT buses. Neither did Hornby on the packaging of their 0-6-0 Sentinel DL.81 nor on their relatively recent "Corgi" release of a Feltham Tram in LT livery. However the Bachmann/EFE Rail motorised models of the '38 & '59 Stock do have the "permission" wording.

I could be wrong (and it was well before my time), but I recall hearing from some colleagues that the Met coat of arms that appeared on the A stock in the 90s was unofficially done by the Line team and earned short thrift from corporate headquarters when they realised. Perhaps someone closer to it all could confirm!

[RogerTE]

Just talked to one of the guys working on the real one, and his comment was "now you know why we've always done her in Met livery", which sort of indicates they would have to license LT wording, but don't have to pay extra for the Metropoplitan stuff.

[RogerTE]

3 minutes ago, LondonCharivari said:

I could be wrong (and it was well before my time), but I recall hearing from some colleagues that the Met coat of arms that appeared on the A stock in the 90s was unofficially done by the Line team and earned short thrift from corporate headquarters when they realised. Perhaps someone closer to it all could confirm!

Yes it was unofficial, and also included the Neasden coat of arms and the names of some well known Neasden employees. It actually happened in the late 1980s. When the corporates found out the trains were recalled and had the "extras" removed, and people received official warnings. The remaining transfers that were produced were destroyed.

One of the "culprits" was the LT representative on the  committee for organising the 1989 Chesham Centenary Celebration, and we had a long chat about it.

[Michael Hodgson]

17 minutes ago, LondonCharivari said:

I could be wrong (and it was well before my time), but I recall hearing from some colleagues that the Met coat of arms that appeared on the A stock in the 90s was unofficially done by the Line team and earned short thrift from corporate headquarters when they realised. Perhaps someone closer to it all could confirm!

I have no idea about this particular one but most railway heraldic crests were just drawn up by the companies concerned and are considered nonsense by the College of Arms.  There were a few exceptions who had them granted them properly however.

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I have no idea about this particular one but most railway heraldic crests were just drawn up by the companies concerned and are considered nonsense by the College of Arms.  There were a few exceptions who had them granted them properly however.

One of those companies that had a 'proper' coat of arms was the GER. There were only two companies IIRC that had an official coat of arms though the other one escapes me at the moment.

[phil-b259]

16 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interestingly different and much more proprietorial than whatever body now holds British Rail's rights is. Nobody's after you if you sell a model with the LNWR cauliflower, the letters LMS, or the unicycling lion on the side. I doubt that the position you ascribe to TfL would actually be enforcable, for anything over about 70 years old. 

 

https://www.railtec-models.com/showitem.php?id=5135

 

To a large extent the degree to which any 'branding' for want of a better term is protected by legislation depends on whether the owners have continually enforced that protection.

 

Intellectual Property law is littered with examples where because a company has not rigorously defended its IP and as a consequence Judges have considered that the term has entered the public domain. Its also has examples where precisely because the owners of IP have consistently protected their IP rights the courts hold that specific permission is required by 3rd parties to use IP however many decades have passed.

 

The LPTB and particularly Frank Pick was very well aware of the power of a good brand image and as such the organisation has long had a protective stance over the IP the organisation holds, a stance which has been inherited by TfL who work hard to make sure that any IP it holds is protected with due acknowledgement given when it is licensed for use by 3rd parties.

 

By contrast the Big 4 or indeed British Rail saw no value in protecting the IP of which they may have inherited - and thus let it be used by anyone without specific permission required and as such it has deemed to have entered the public domain and can be used without any permissions being required.

 

 

[No Decorum]

11 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

One of those companies that had a 'proper' coat of arms was the GER. There were only two companies IIRC that had an official coat of arms though the other one escapes me at the moment.

I think the Great Central did. The LNER also did, adopting the motto “Forward” from the GC arms. Come to think of it, didn’t the Southern also have a “proper” coat of arms? As my brain starts to work, the British Railways Board had one as well and used the crest from it on tenders from 1956 (there being a well-known fuss over the way the lion faced).

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I have no idea about this particular one but most railway heraldic crests were just drawn up by the companies concerned and are considered nonsense by the College of Arms.  There were a few exceptions who had them granted them properly however.

 

Most companies adopted the arms of places they served, without making any claim that they were their own - the Liverpool & Manchester started this. They seem to have got away with it - it may just be that the Victorians had a healthy disregard for such an antique body as the College of Arms. (There's a relevant quote I can't track down - a put-down along the lines of 'silly man doesn't understand his own silly science'.) 

 

The Caledonian appropriated the Royal Arms of Scotland, shield, helm, crest, supporters, collar of the Order of the Thistle, mottoes, and all, with the addition of a banner reading 'Caledonian Railway Company' which must certainly have constituted lèse-majesté. Yet in three-quarters of a century, no Caledonian director was tried for high treason.