Hi - Tank/George, please move this to a more appropriate forum if I'm in the wrong place ...
I've been watching an eBay auction for a CL40 - D369 - and I started to wonder why that number? Why wasn't D1 - "Scafell Pike" offered? Was it the expense of the nameplate?
What of the great CL47's namers - 1662 -"Isambard Kingdom Brunel" or 1663 "Sir Daniel Gooch".
Do manufacturers go generic for a reason? I think the D369 model is lovely, and I wish I could afford it, but wouldn't it get a price-jump if it was "notable"?
4462 is notable and identifiable. Woudn't a humble Class 40 get a lift it had "1" on the cab side?
Genuinely interested in what y'all have to say.
An interesting question, which I can't answer, but I can tell you it's ok where it is. :thumbsup:
Got my curiosity up.... looking forward to responses!
Steve. Is it a farish 371181? Would this answer the title: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/140512-how-to-know-the-difference/ (https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/140512-how-to-know-the-difference/)
Hi Chris
Thanks for the info - no, it's more of a general question of when GF or Dapol pull the trigger on a production run, which liveries or numbering do they decide on?
I know there are some obvious modern liveries which will sell well, but when you're back in BR Green or BR Blue, how do they decide that D369 is a great choice? I'm sure the loco served well, but wouldn't as a modeller you'd rather see "D1" or "D5" (the only Peak Namer I saw, on the Fawley Oil Train). Showing my age.
The CL47's were mostly unnamed until 1661, the 40's were named from 1-10 then a large gap. I'm not surprised, there are only so many "peaks" in England and you run out of them pretty quickly.
It's a whole other topic about why or whether locos were named. The Hymeks never were, despite being surrounded by Westerns and Warships. The Cromptons went about their anonymous business until much later when all kinds of weird names were attached. I don't think a CL25 nor a CL31 was ever named, but the Deltics all were? A mystery.
They used to name shunters, but the CL08 put paid to that. It seems sad that you toil away in your goods yard and you're never more than a number. I hope some old railwaymen had nicknames.
Just wondering.
25322 tamworth castle. 31105 bescot and, 31106 Spalding 4.5.02 to 30.6.09, 31130 Calder hall power station, 146 brush veteran , 233 severn valley railway 6.5.93 to late 1999 , 289 phoenix ,31271 Stratford 1840 to 2001 ,31327 Philips imperial , 413 took over 233s plates , 423 Jerome k Jerome , 601 the mayor of caster bridge when it was bournemouth Weymouth to Salisbury based. Ok I get the point steve
Some great numbers and names there, @crewearpley40 (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3894) . Thanks Chris! Maybe Dapol and GF should take a look at that list.
Great question Steve :claphappy:
I would imagine, but usually wrong, do they not try and select a kind of generic loco out of the fleet??
Quite a few had things in slightly different places and naming a loco technically should make it an exact replica of that and IF there were parts only on that one or in a different place or a slightly different size they then cant use the tooling for other versions and makes a lot of work for the modeller :dunce:
An official word from manufacturers behind the reasoning would be nice.
Quote from: exmouthcraig on May 12, 2020, 06:48:40 AM
Quite a few had things in slightly different places and naming a loco technically should make it an exact replica of that and IF there were parts only on that one or in a different place or a slightly different size they then cant use the tooling for other versions and makes a lot of work for the modeller :dunce:
I think you nailed it. I'm not a purist but if I was and I saw "D1" I'd be paying close attention. Not that I'd be able to tell any difference between D1 and D369, but I'm playing this by ear :beers:
Having spoken to Hornby and several others about this I can give a somewhat objective reply.
If the engine still exists then there is copyright, and a manufacturer would pay so much to the owner of the copyright, if the owner is a trust or preserved railway, they can also specify how many can be produced for that sum.
If the engine doesn't exist, then the title to the number (or name) passes to the people that scrapped it, unless BR retained the number, (which they did in 99.9% of cases)
This is where my knowledge gets sketchy, I think now that York museum owns most of the designs and patents that were taken out, so reproduction of any engine probably has to be bought off them.
As for why one number and not another, that could simply be down to the drawings that are available
That's interesting. :thumbsup:
I could tell the LMS twins, but that's probably about all.
With the availability of etched brass nameplates and stuff like that these days, wouldn't it just be a matter of sticking them on, and away you go, your own model?!
Or are there subtle differences that only those in the know are aware of?
I know I wouldn't notice unless someone pointed them out to me! Hell, I'd be lucky to see the nameplate!
Quote from: Bealman on May 12, 2020, 07:17:03 AM
That's interesting. :thumbsup:
I could tell the LMS twins, but that's probably about all.
With the availability of etched brass nameplates and stuff like that these days, wouldn't it just be a matter of sticking them on, and away you go, your own model?!
Or are there subtle differences that only those in the know are aware of?
I know I wouldn't notice unless someone pointed them out to me! Hell, I'd be lucky to see the nameplate!
If you watch some of the old BR an regional films on YT, you soon learn that everything on these engines are interchangeable.
Some of them on major services even had refurbished boilers fitted !
The naming of engines was o0riginally done by railway companies in the very early days to recognise benefactors and investors, it then became a tradition, we Brits have to give everything a name !
Numbering was purely an inventory thing to keep track of servicing and timetabling
With Scotsman it was originally the service that was called the "Flying Scotsman" that gradually became associated with one engine which was the most regular on the run.
Quote from: LASteve on May 12, 2020, 06:53:38 AMI think you nailed it. I'm not a purist but if I was and I saw "D1" I'd be paying close attention. Not that I'd be able to tell any difference between D1 and D369, but I'm playing this by ear :beers:
Err, if it's any help, they're completely different classes - D1 was a Class 44 and D369 a Class 40.
Also if it's any help, D1 has also been produced by Farish, see e.g.: Graham Farish 371-201 British Rail Class 44 Peak 'D1' (https://www.modelraildatabase.com/locomotives/details/2340/), though hard to find now.
One influence might be having good quality all round photos of a locomotive which matches what can be achieved from the tooling suite. Standard release in basic livery needs to be in the range for easy renumbering. With named versions removing the nameplate easily and cleanly would present a challenge for a simple renumbering to a standard un-named version.
Quote from: Bealman on May 12, 2020, 07:17:03 AM
With the availability of etched brass nameplates and stuff like that these days, wouldn't it just be a matter of sticking them on, and away you go, your own model?!
Or are there subtle differences that only those in the know are aware of?
I know I wouldn't notice unless someone pointed them out to me! Hell, I'd be lucky to see the nameplate!
Well you can't just go and stick a "Sir Hogwash Philistine" nameplate on the Dapfar model of the Class 49 because the model represents the locomotive as it was before the mercury inverter intake inlets were plated over, etc. etc. ;)
Wonder how old this is, whether it's in stock ? ...... https://www.hampshiremodels.co.uk/products/graham-farish-371-201-n-gauge-br-green-class-44-d1-scafell-pike (https://www.hampshiremodels.co.uk/products/graham-farish-371-201-n-gauge-br-green-class-44-d1-scafell-pike)
@railsquid (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3832) THE SECOND you put a photo up of your creation some clown will have to come and tell you EVERYTHING that is wrong with it even if it was THE BEST modelled loco ever.
We seem to have a selection in society that HAVE to go to every length possible to prove something is wrong!! :no:
Quote from: LASteve on May 12, 2020, 03:42:55 AMI've been watching an eBay auction for a CL40 - D369 - and I started to wonder why that number? Why wasn't D1 - "Scafell Pike" offered? Was it the expense of the nameplate?
Woudn't a humble Class 40 get a lift it had "1" on the cab side?
The most obvious reason for NOT putting D1 on the side of a Class 40 is that the real D1 was a class 44 not a 40 and they would quite rightly be vilified by most modellers - it's the equivalent of putting the name "Flying Scotsman" on an LMS Duchess, and D1 HAS been done on their Class 44 model. Why do wrong something you've already done right??
The 'celebrity' locos DO in fact get produced as well as the mundane. IIRC the most notable class 40 - long survivor in Green - D200 HAS been done.
From the manufacturing point of view, there is a tendency to avoid individual locos that had visual differences to the bulk of the class so they don't have to modify tools for each individual production run. Those attention grabbing celebrities are also often the focus of premium price, (often retailer supported) limited editions targeted at the collector market.
For the modeller buying in multiple, you'd want different numbers available, and if you want a realistic fleet, you'd really only want one of the 'celebrities' and the rest more mundane. If your wanting to renumber, for variety, its easier to put a name plate on than take it off.
Steve @LASteve (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=6889) , heres a youtube clip https://youtu.be/f8O5k5dHAO4. (https://youtu.be/f8O5k5dHAO4.) Look for 31105 and 31107. Also https://youtu.be/_SVxUYP1E9w (https://youtu.be/_SVxUYP1E9w) . Named 31s in the 90s. I wont go what's been said already in this enjoyable topic
Read through this topic with interest and most of the points I had have been made.
One extra thing I have been told about manufacture choice for loco releases (albeit more linked to livery than specific number, but some liveries were only on a handful on examples):
The initial releases (say three examples) deliberately does not contain the most popular liveries, so those who REALLY want one will get the "next best" livery and wait for another release. Thus securing multiple sales.
Now I personally see two risks in this; lots of unsold examples or people simply buying one loco.
However it's a tactic I have been told is employed by manufactures from at least two sources.
Skyline2uk
Quote from: Skyline2uk on May 12, 2020, 08:36:21 AM
Read through this topic with interest and most of the points I had have been made.
One extra thing I have been told about manufacture choice for loco releases (albeit more linked to livery than specific number, but some liveries were only on a handful on examples):
The initial releases (say three examples) deliberately does not contain the most popular liveries, so those who REALLY want one will get the "next best" livery and wait for another release. Thus securing multiple sales.
Now I personally see two risks in this; lots of unsold examples or people simply buying one loco.
However it's a tactic I have been told is employed by manufactures from at least two sources.
Skyline2uk
Hornby's warehouse is full oif examples of this very thing, and during lockdown they have been trying to peddle them out to the trade at stupid prices, and still no-one is buying them, a classic is their Class 73 (I think).
Buyers are wise to it, and there is a growing aftermarket of people willing to relivery and re-number loco's at reasonable prices
Harking back to my spotting days in the 1960s (and armed with my Ian Allan Locospotters books once I'd got a Saturday job to pay for them) it was always the 'namers' we tried to bag rather than the 'day to day' unnamed ones. It was the only reason, really, I'd head to the capital to get round Paddington, Kings Cross, St.Pancras and Waterloo.
As to models, I have 3 Peaks (all named) and 5 class 40s (2 of which are named although one is the later named 'Atlantic Conveyor)
There are also loco numbers which will probably never be released e.g the class 40 involved in The Great Train Robbery (D326?)
Quote from: Graham Walters on May 12, 2020, 08:42:44 AM
However it's a tactic I have been told is employed by manufactures from at least two sources.
Yes that's a very common tactic. You get the 'early adopters' who have to have one of the first examples, and then you get repeat buyers when you do the livery they really want. That'll happen with Dapol 50s in revised NSE I'll wager. "Buyers being wise to it" is still good for the manufacturers, they get the sales from those who will repaint, and then still get the second 'wave' from the production run.
I think often the choice is random, frankly! Whilst Railsquid's point is funny it is true that there are a spectacular number of 'errors' between subclasses or mixing and matching of details/logos. Few will know, even fewer will care, but they're there. The Dapol 50, for example - the large logo version has NSE logos between the marker lights, but by the time they were fitted it carried a different name (IIRC). Dapol have recently done 66002, but actually 66001 and 66002 had EWS maroon bodyside grills (admittedly they promptly turned black, the other 248 EWS ones were delivered with black grills).
What bemuses me is the propensity for brands to duplicate offerings. Farish and Dapol both do 66101, 66111 and 66152. Less surprising is doing "Evening Star" and other 'specials', but for comparatively run of the mill models it seems a bizarre choice.
Hello Steve,
I can only speak for Revolution Trains, but we give a fair amount of thought to what numbers the vehicles will have.
For the Pendolino, which was our first powered model, we created a poll among our crowdfunding backers and enabled them to select 7 of the 10 versions that were produced.
The only ones we insisted on were 390103 "Virgin Hero", so we could make a donation to the Royal British Legion, 390104 as it was in the special "Alstom" livery, and 390151 "Virgin Ambassador", which has the union flag on each side.
For the revised versions, although production has not been finalised, as Flowing Silk is now defunct, we will probably select the trains that ran in it for longest; 390010 was the first to be outshopped in the livery, while 390156 was the first to receive the new Avanti colours IIRC.
For the 92s, again there were reasons each was chosen, some notable examples: 92003 "Beethoven" - chosen as it hauled the very last train under British Rail before privatisation; 92009 "Marco Polo" - the first repainted into DB Red; 92018; hauled the inaugural Caledonian Sleeper service.
Similarly, and for steam enthusiasts, when we helped Sonic Models finalise the numbers to be offered of the 56xx 0-6-2 tank much work was done to find photographs that confirmed combinations of liveries and details, and of course in some instances preserved locomotives in particular were selected, with a small donation to be made, for example, to the owners of 5637.
Beyond that, for most wagons I select numbers for which I have found clear photographs. For example, the numbers of the Sfins2 vans currently under development in Norsk Hydro, Cargowaggon and Unbranded liveries were taken from photographs found on Paul Bartlett's excellent photo reference website here: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/ferrynorskhydro
Apologies for the length of this post - I hope it is of interest.
Cheers
Ben A.
Sadly @Newportnobby (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=264) . D326 only in a larger scale. Still have my blue 40.
Quote from: Newportnobby on May 12, 2020, 10:05:12 AM
There are also loco numbers which will probably never be released e.g the class 40 involved in The Great Train Robbery (D326?)
Not sure about in N Gauge, but allegedly requested at least twice in 00 by retailers as special commissions but declined by the manufacturers...
It did have a chequered history and was considered 'jinxed' by some. Engine probs, then the robbery, then a secondman was electrocuted whilst washing its windows and lastly total brake failure so it ran into the back of another train.
Not sure I'd want one! :no: :no:
I think locos involved in major accidents would be ones I would avoid as a manufacturer. Some may well consider them "tainted".
Quote from: Graham Walters on May 12, 2020, 07:11:35 AM
Having spoken to Hornby and several others about this I can give a somewhat objective reply.
If the engine still exists then there is copyright, and a manufacturer would pay so much to the owner of the copyright, if the owner is a trust or preserved railway, they can also specify how many can be produced for that sum.
If the engine doesn't exist, then the title to the number (or name) passes to the people that scrapped it, unless BR retained the number, (which they did in 99.9% of cases)
Graham
Sorry but that isn't true - if Hornby are telling people that then they are spreading fake news! You can't apply copyright from a full size loco to a model.
What can be covered under IP laws are trademarks eg brand names/logos - for that you may need permission. Most ex-BR stuff ended up with BRB Residual (though IIRC that has gone now), though some ended up elsewhere. Current franchises are normally relatively easy to deal with but franchises that are defunct can be difficult if the owner no longer wants to see the brand even in model form!
Cheers Mike
Quote from: njee20 on May 12, 2020, 10:44:19 AM
I think locos involved in major accidents would be ones I would avoid as a manufacturer. Some may well consider them "tainted".
Certainly none of the ones listed in 'Incidents' on Wikipedia have been manufactured in N....
Incidents
15 August 1963. Knowle and Dorridge rail crash. No. 1040 Western Queen collided with a freight train, crushing the cab and killing the three traincrew. The locomotive was repaired and returned to service.[15]
11 January 1967. St Annes Bristol rail crash. No. 1071 Western Renown in charge of the diverted 12:00 Paddington to Swansea collided with the rear of the 11:45 Paddington to Bristol hauled by No. 1067 Western Druid. The collision resulted in very severe damage being caused to the leading cab of locomotive No.1071, but the three men in the cab escaped injury by moving into the centre of the locomotive. Nineteen passengers required first aid or medical treatment but there were no fatalities or serious injuries. The locomotive was repaired and returned to service.[16][17][18]
19 December 1973. Ealing rail crash. No. 1007 Western Talisman derailed while hauling an express passenger train, after an unlocked battery box door fell open, broke off and changed points under the locomotive. Ten people were killed.[19] The locomotive did not return to service.
3 January 1976 (Worcester Tunnel). No. 1055 Western Advocate crashed into a stationary parcels train killing the driver and guard of the Western.[20] The locomotive did not return to service.
4 October 1976 (Stoke Canon, Exeter). No. 1001 Western Pathfinder was working an overnight parcels train from London Paddington to Penzance when the train was in collision with a workers' van at a level crossing. One workman in the van died in the accident. The locomotive was removed to Exeter St Davids depot. Despite sustaining relatively minor damage, the imminent demise of the entire fleet of Class 52's resulted in condemnation of the locomotive. Up to this point, Western Pathfinder had been a serious contender for preservation.[ci
Lima in OO scale released a model of 50025 Invincible in Network SouthEast livery, the loco which derailed at West Ealing in 1989.
No other manufacturer has released another identical version
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lima-oo-class-50025-invincible-254084127 (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lima-oo-class-50025-invincible-254084127)
Quote from: gc4946 on May 12, 2020, 11:01:38 AM
Lima in OO scale released a model of 50025 Invincible in Network SouthEast livery, the loco which derailed at West Ealing in 1989.
No other manufacturer has released another identical version
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lima-oo-class-50025-invincible-254084127 (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lima-oo-class-50025-invincible-254084127)
Whilst spectacular it wasn't a fatal incident though. Heljan offered Western Talisman, which did come to grief in a very similar place, killing 10. Dapol haven't done it though, I'm not sure about Hornby/Farish/Lima 'back in the day'.
Quote from: red_death on May 12, 2020, 10:46:36 AM
Quote from: Graham Walters on May 12, 2020, 07:11:35 AM
Having spoken to Hornby and several others about this I can give a somewhat objective reply.
If the engine still exists then there is copyright, and a manufacturer would pay so much to the owner of the copyright, if the owner is a trust or preserved railway, they can also specify how many can be produced for that sum.
If the engine doesn't exist, then the title to the number (or name) passes to the people that scrapped it, unless BR retained the number, (which they did in 99.9% of cases)
Graham
Sorry but that isn't true - if Hornby are telling people that then they are spreading fake news! You can't apply copyright from a full size loco to a model.
What can be covered under IP laws are trademarks eg brand names/logos - for that you may need permission. Most ex-BR stuff ended up with BRB Residual (though IIRC that has gone now), though some ended up elsewhere. Current franchises are normally relatively easy to deal with but franchises that are defunct can be difficult if the owner no longer wants to see the brand even in model form!
Feels like there may be some misinterpretation in terminology - if you're wanting to model a DB 66 you should (although I know there have been cases in court where a manufacturer has failed to stop production of an "unauthorised model") obtain permission from DB Schenker. If you choose a running number which they have sold that process is no different. Ie there is IP on the brand elements, but not the specific loco. So the process isn't different if the loco still exists, more if the operator/owner does.
Hello all,
I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the situation as this chestnut comes round from time to time.
TBH there are no definitive answers, in large part because British law is governed largely by precedent, so previous rulings by learned judges have as much influence as parliamentary statute.
There is case law in Europe that has come down on the side of the model manufacturer.
Most IP and trademark law is designed to prevent passing-off; that is, if I buy a locomotive, paint it red and then claim to be working for DB that would be actionable.
For clarity, if you are producing a model you are creating a 3D facsimile of a real thing in a reduced scale. It does not serve, or purport to serve, the same purpose as the original.
In this way, a model *could* be regarded as a 3D version of a photograph; if I photograph a DB train I can sell that photograph to a magazine with no need to pay DB anything; the same could hold if I produce a 3D facsimile.
Certainly, in the past Audi tried to take a diecast car manufacturer to court for using their four-rings icon on a model without permission and lost.
Having said that, Revolution always tries to get co-operation from the owners of the real thing not just because we are wary of the law, but for the more prosaic reason that it makes for a better model - usually the owners will have drawings and control access to the prototype; for example it was pointless trying to model the MOD flask wagons without the co-operation of DRS who allowed us to visit their site and measure/photograph the elusive prototype.
Cheers
Ben A.
Well, @Ben A (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=94) and everyone, I think we've got the answer. Truly appreciate the viewpoints and input. An idle thought last night and I learned a lot!
Next time my wife calls me an idle so and so, I'll tell her I'm not idle, I'm learning ;D
Quote from: Graham Walters on May 12, 2020, 07:30:49 AMWith Scotsman it was originally the service that was called the "Flying Scotsman" that gradually became associated with one engine which was the most regular on the run.
Not quite...
The simultaneous departures at 10:00 from London Kings Cross and the Edinburgh Waverley were officially titled the "
Special Scotch Express" from 1862. The first reference to "Flying Scotsman" was the nickname of a regular Edinburgh driver on the service, which was later adopted by English crews for the
Southbound leg of the "
Special Scotch Express".
In MAY 1924 the LNER officially renamed the accelerated "
Special Scotch Express" the "
Flying Scotsman" and to publicise the service named the newly built loco 1472 "Flying Scotsman" in February 1924 and placed it on display at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley Park from April 1924 to October 1925, so the naming of the Loco predates the official naming of the service by 3 months, and (arguably) both are named after an infamous Scottish Driver...
Steve @LASteve (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=6889) further to posts # 4 and 5 .... https://www.flickr.com/photos/15038/34145889230, (https://www.flickr.com/photos/15038/34145889230,) was named the black countryman. Here she is at warrington ....... https://youtu.be/hjjhuUah0Ds (https://youtu.be/hjjhuUah0Ds). If steve you need any info on D369 , 40169 please pm me
Quote from: PLD on May 13, 2020, 07:49:48 AM
Quote from: Graham Walters on May 12, 2020, 07:30:49 AMWith Scotsman it was originally the service that was called the "Flying Scotsman" that gradually became associated with one engine which was the most regular on the run.
Not quite...
The simultaneous departures at 10:00 from London Kings Cross and the Edinburgh Waverley were officially titled the "Special Scotch Express" from 1862. The first reference to "Flying Scotsman" was the nickname of a regular Edinburgh driver on the service, which was later adopted by English crews for the Southbound leg of the "Special Scotch Express".
In MAY 1924 the LNER officially renamed the accelerated "Special Scotch Express" the "Flying Scotsman" and to publicise the service named the newly built loco 1472 "Flying Scotsman" in February 1924 and placed it on display at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley Park from April 1924 to October 1925, so the naming of the Loco predates the official naming of the service by 3 months, and (arguably) both are named after an infamous Scottish Driver...
Well in that case the documenary I watched on YT produced by Pathe is wrong ! And there's Abraham Lincoln saying "everything on the internet is true"
D1 became a Class 44. The Class 40s started at D201.
Quote from: LASteve on May 12, 2020, 05:25:23 AM
the 40's were named from 1-10 then a large gap. I'm not surprised, there are only so many "peaks" in England and you run out of them pretty quickly.
Unfortunately the Class 40s were not named after peaks, that was the Class 44. Some Class 40s were named after ocean liners.
D200 BECAME 40122 . d201 to 321 became 40001 to 40121 , 323 to 399 became 40123 to 199