Rapido new products

[Bigmet]

Two steam locos for OO:
15xx 0-6-0PT,
Large Hunslet 0-6-0ST.

And this may cause some excitement, a diesel In N gauge. Metrovick type 2 CoBo (TOPS 28).

[mahoganydog]

Oh great, more locos I'd like.

Wonder in the Metrovic will be more reliable than the real thing?

[Mike Parkes]

Oddly Rapidos web site does not list all the versions they intend to do but their postings on rmweb do

15xx 0-6-0PT OO
BR unlined black (3 versions) 904001: No. 1506 no emblem; 904002: No. 1500 early emblem; 904004: No. 1504 late emblem
BR lined black (2 versions) 904003: No. 1505 early emblem; 904005: No. 1501, early emblem (as preserved)
NCB maroon 904006: No. 1509

Hunslet 16" 0-6-0ST OO
903001: No. 3716/1952, Alex, Oxfordshire Ironstone lined red.
903002: No. 3782/1953, Arthur, Markham Main Colliery lined green
903003: No. 2705/1945, Beatrice, NCB lined red
903004: No. 3783/1953, Holly Bank No. 3, NCB lined blue (preserved)
903005: No. 1953/1939, Jacks Green, Naylor Benzon & Co lined green
903006: No. 3715/1952, Primrose No. 2, NCB lined black
903007: No. 3714/1951 Thorne No. 1, plain green

Gunpowder van OO
Dia. 1/260 BR bauxite 902001: No. B887021 and 902002: No. M701508
Dia. 1/260 BR grey 902003: No. B887001
Dia Z4 GWR 902004: No. 105777 and 902005: No. 105708
RCH pattern LMS 902006: No. 701016 and 902007: No. 299031
RCH pattern LNER 902008: No. N260936 and 902009: No. 147511
RCH pattern Royal Ordnance Factory 902010: No. 11

Class 28 Metro Vick Co-Bo N
BR green 905001: D5709
BR green with yellow warning panels (3 versions) 905002: D5711; 905003: D5713; 905005: D5705
BR green with yellow ends 905004: D5707
BR blue with yellow ends 905006: D5701

[Bigmet]

The Titfield Tunderbolt set for release in 2023.
Lion 0-4-2, in film guise as Thunderbolt.
GER coach - likely also to be of interest to many owners of the J70 tram engine.
The ancient fellow's ancient coach body on a lowmac. (Potentially useful model to add variety as this lowmac is a GWR design, whereas past and current RTR models are of a vehicle of GCR/LNER/BR design ancestry, and the Airfix kit now with Dapol is of GER design. Strange that both selections came from the LNER group...)
GWR design brake van.
A single decker bus.

[Mike Parkes]

Ones to wait and see what they look like - not particularly impressed with the bunker joints they have on the Modelrail 16xx
http://www.modelrailoffers.co.uk/p/6553 ... umber-1609

[Bigmet]

... not particularly impressed with the bunker joints they have on the Modelrail 16xx.

Perhaps Swindon had the same trouble and that's why it has those staples each side to help keep it in place?

It's the old story, that as the overall standard of a model is improved, small errors show up disproportionately. On my screen those images in the retailer link you kindly provided are probably about size for gauge 1 or 2, and overall the model still looks good. 'Daylight by misalignment' on the bunker apart, the flanges are an assault on the eyes. RTR OO doesn't need these vast flanges, Heljan have been doing far better for coming up 20 years of RTR OO productions, and I do wish the other manufacturers would look and learn. (I also wish that the product photos would show the model without NEM pockets and couplings, but I expect the retailers would just laughingly brush that off with 'We can do without the telephone calls asking if couplers are provided' &c.)

Personally, if I needed a 16xx for my modelling interest I would buy and fix. I cannot make a model that good by DIY, and that applies to most RTR OO. I could write a very long list of locos with similar but far worse defects that I have had to correct, starting with Hornby's A3 and A4, which have a socking great air gap millimetres wide where solid frames should obscure all light... But such decisions are very much a matter for the individual.

[Bigmet]

The Titfield Tunderbolt set for release in 2023 ...

Rapido fire warning shot concerning their rights deal with the film studio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii0TaKq3mqg&t=25s

[Mike Parkes]

Hornby obviously think StudioCanal will not take them on unlike Mattel who would hammer them if they relauched Thomas the Tank Engine.

[Bigmet]

The parallel with TTTE is apt. Mattel came unstuck, not realising that an item they thought included in their Intellectual Property, was actually 'prior art' and therefore free game for any manufacturer: the 'Terrier' livery and name 'Stepney' predated Awdry's work, so any model of that loco - without a face - is fine.

Any manufacturer can definitely model all of the road and rail vehicles in the fillum, with the probable exception of the unique coach body on loriot combo, which is solely a creation of the film maker. Just so long as original film images, text and the like are not infringed upon, there will be nothing to complain of.

[boxbrownie]

The parallel with TTTE is apt. Mattel came unstuck, not realising that an item they thought included in their Intellectual Property, was actually 'prior art' and therefore free game for any manufacturer: the 'Terrier' livery and name 'Stepney' predated Awdry's work, so any model of that loco - without a face - is fine.

Any manufacturer can definitely model all of the road and rail vehicles in the fillum, with the probable exception of the unique coach body on loriot combo, which is solely a creation of the film maker. Just so long as original film images, text and the like are not infringed upon, there will be nothing to complain of.

True, but putting “The Titfield Thunderbolt” on the box artwork is sailing very close to the wind.

[Mike Parkes]

and doing Dans House (the coach body on the flat wagon) as well as naming Lion Thunderbolt - all matters in StudioCanals remit. Solicitors rubbing their hands no doubt.

[Bigmet]

I am no IP lawyer, but have several times had a close view of their actions in a different business context. Outcomes are sometimes very surprising,I have seen what outwardly looked like very clear cut infringement completely dismissed: bottom line was that a dating error rendered the claim for infringement void, IP rights had elapsed. There's plenty of room for error in the case of a film created by one organisation near 70 years ago, the title, copyright &c. subsequently acquired by a different organisation; and that's only one possible avenue to explore.

I should hope Hornby have gone into this, first taking advice from an IP specialist...

[Bigmet]

and doing Dans House (the coach body on the flat wagon) as well as naming Lion Thunderbolt - all matters in StudioCanals remit...

This is one of those grey areas, thanks to the strange mish-mash composition of Intellectual Property law.

(The huge and major flaw of which is that patent protection for technical invention has vastly less duration, than that for 'art', which has been steadily extended in duration. And yet it is on technical inventions that much of the continuing value in 'art' depends. For my money the protection should be the same for both, creativity is creativity.)

Here's how I think it works in these cases. The unique items made for the film are 'props', and they don't get the protection duration afforded to 'art', so any IP will be long expired. But the film with the props in, and any artwork such as posters etc. depicting those props; oh that's 'art' so the IP is still protected. Crazy, no? As already mentioned above, I am not an IP lawyer or specialist, so may yet be surprised: but that's the nature of IP law, it's not systematic or rational.

[Bufferstop]

The rights on a design seem to be much shorter than for images and written works. They seem to vary around the world and some are taken from the date first produced or first traded whilst others are from the date of last production or sale. On that basis models of virtually all steam locos and many diesels and electrics are fair game.
I remember the hullabaloo that my fathers company stirred up when they informed the world that they intended to produce a competing version of the Hardy-Spicer universal joint for propshafts. They settled the matter decisively when they discovered during development that they could make a distinct improvement to the useful angle of deflection. They then went on to do the same for the "constant velocity joints" used the British Leyland front wheel drive system. almost inevitably they competed up to the point where the original manufacturers offered to sell them their business and they became the sole suppliers, which wasn't quite why they had been encouraged by the motor trade to become an alternative supplier.

[D605Eagle]

Some may remember the film "gone in 60 seconds" from about 20 years ago. There was a car in that celled Eleanor. Do a Google search for copyright infringements to do with that car and name and it will show you if the owner is determined, and believe me studio canal have a reputation for protecting their assets rigidly, Hornby may well be in very hot water over this. Hornby also released a very poor titfield thunderbolt set years ago, I wonder if they had permission for that?