Athearn N Scale Survey

[Maletrain]

I have to wonder about the business acumen of the licensing process for models. 

It obviously is not going to be a direct profit driver for Mack or John Deere for some small company to make small models of their prototype products.  But, indirectly, it is definitely an advertisement for Mack and John Deere to have tiny versions of their vehicles seen on model train layouts all around the country.  So, why price the licenses out of the reach of model companies.  I mean, we know that companies pay Hollywood to put their products in movies and TV shows, as part of their advertising budgets.  But, they don't even have to pay model railroad companies to make models of Mack trucks.  Why not just consider it free advertising, or at least make it cost very little?

The only reason I can think of to deny or price out of reason a license would be if the model company was producing such crappy models that the prototype company did not want to be associated with them at all, because they feared it would hurt the sales of the prototypes.

[davefoxx]

I would imagine that it has to do with protecting intellectual property, among other reasons.

DFF

[peteski]

I cannot say this applied to the Mack license that Athearn had, but some licensing agreements require the destruction of the tooling if the license is not renewed.  Perhaps as a way to keep from destroying the tooling, Athearn decided to sell it to a company that does have an active Mack license, even if that company is only producing Mack truck models in scales larger than 1:160.

Remember that Athearn also had a license to produce several different John Deere tractors.  When it became public knowledge that the JD license was going to expire, I recall that the remaining unsold stock of John Deere tractors was very heavily discounted, and sold out quickly.  I have no idea if Athearn was able to save the tooling or not.   

Couldn't Athearn still produce those models, just no longer decorate and market them as Mack or Deere?  Just as generic vehicles?  Or is the general appearance of the model also considered as part of the locense.

This whole licensing thing has been affecting hobby industry for quite few years now.  Same thing takes place with plastic model kits of vehicles like cars or trucks.

In the early days the manufacturers of 1:1 items were actually happy to see model companies producing models of their products.  GM, Chrysler, Ford were all happy to have miniature versions of their cars sold to kids.  Free advertising. Same goes for logos.  Good Year and Firestone were happy that their logos were used on the small scale tires included in the kits. Again, free advertising.  A kid building a model might some day buy real Firestone tires for their car.

Only I think in the '80s things changed (likely when lawyers or accountants got into the act).  Licensing started to cost money, and lean running model companies simply could not afford, or did nto want to spend the money on licenses.  So logos disappeared form the kit's tires, and for a while even the sponsor's stickers so prevalent on NASCAR car models disappeared from the decal sheets included with the model.  It seems that recently sme cool heads prevailed as I am starting to see a logos being again used on model car tires, and the decals have become more colorful (with logos) again.  But it still isnt' 'what it used to be before the 1980s.

It is really too bad that we live in such a litigious and money-grabbing society.

[thomasjmdavis]

Although no one in the model industry really likes to talk about it, licensing also works to their advantage in some ways.  When XYZ model company gets that license from ABC Tractor and Machine Co., it gives them some protections against competitors or cheap knock offs of their own product.  If Atlas wants to produce a competitive product to the one Athearn is producing, they have to go out and get their own "ABC Tractor" license.  Likewise, the cheap Chinese knock off can't be marketed in the US as "realistic model of ABC Tractor".

It also helps them make some sales- there are collectors out there who will buy every ABC Tractor toy or model they can get their hands on.  If you think these aren't collectibles, ask yourself why a Peterbuilt tractor-trailer costs as much as a Kato F unit.

Licensing also helps us get what we pay for.  While no doubt manufacturers take liberties with what rolling stock they paint for Santa Fe or UP or Pennsy, at least nowadays the paint color is probably right (or at least they try) and the logos and lettering fonts are correct- since use of the corporate "style guide" is likely in the licensing agreement as well.

[cfritschle]

I remember when General Motors successfully sued a toy manufacturer for producing a model that looked like a Corvette without GM's permission.  That was at least 30 years ago, and Ford responded at that time that they wanted to encourage toy manufacturers to make models that looked like their vehicles.  They even stated in the article that if kids enjoy the toys that look like Fords, maybe when they grow up they will buy real Fords.  And from what I have heard from the various model vehicle manufacturers, Ford has the most "accommodating" licensing process.

And as a child, I had a several Tonka trucks in the 1950s, and all of them looked like Fords!  About a decade later, I bought my first real pickup which was a 1967 Ford F-100.  Plus, since that initial purchase, I have added a 1968 F-350, a 1969 F-250, a 1974 F-250, two 1976 F-250s, a 1993 F-250 and a 1994 F-150.  I still use the '93 and '94 for my farm operation, and if I ever buy another pickup, it will most likely be a Ford.   

So, Ford's strategy certainly worked on me.   

 

[JMaurer1]

All of the great stuff that they have made in HO scale and we get to choose between a Yugo, a Pontiac Aztek, an AMC Gremlin, a Ford Pinto, and an Edsel. I'll take a MT-4 please...several in fact.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Something to keep in mind too: I bet companies like Ford, GM, John Deere, make so little money on licensing stuff like this that the real reasons the licensing agreements might end is that it's simply not worth paying someone to deal with.

Think about it.

I bet John Deere makes more money off the sale of one implement than they did off of all of those Athearn tractors. I feel like licensing stuff like this is almost all for good will.

I mean, on the other hand, some companies make a killing off it. After all, Harley Davidson is a clothing company that happens to make a few motorcycles.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/harley-davidson-taps-nike-vet-182234210.html

[C855B]

I wouldn't shortchange the legal malevolence of John Deere. They are (severely) misusing the DMCA to sue farmers repairing implements they may own or lease, claiming that doing so violates the licensing of the operating software in the various control modules. It's like Monsanto (now Bayer) with their team army of lawyers suing farmers if their fields had genetic markers from patented varieties that may have been cross-pollinated from adjacent plots.

[kiwi_al]

Would rather see a GP40X than a CF7.

I already have 4 shells (ATSF GP40X) in N scale

[basementcalling]

I remember the days when N scalers wished Athearn would get into N.  Glad to see that they did and care enough about what we might like to buy to ask.

Licensing agreements are a PITA. I always thought they becane necessary for businesses to protect trademarks, because if they don't protect them, especially older ones, a court might rule that they no longer own it because they allowed other companies to use it for free. Or something like that. Not sure where I read/heard that.  I much prefer the older thinking that the toy market was basically free advertising for companies like JD, Ford, or the railroads.

[Jbub]

I wouldn't shortchange the legal malevolence of John Deere. They are (severely) misusing the DMCA to sue farmers repairing implements they may own or lease, claiming that doing so violates the licensing of the operating software in the various control modules. It's like Monsanto (now Bayer) with their team army of lawyers suing farmers if their fields had genetic markers from patented varieties that may have been cross-pollinated from adjacent plots.

Hmmm! I guess when my work is ready for a new backhoe and front end loader, which are deere's right now, I'll be very vocal to go back to Cat

[randgust]

I'm looking at all the interest in the CF7's and going..... HEY....!

I reran the etchings late last year and Atlas announced a rerun of the GP7 for 4th quarter 2022 - with DCC and sound, and unless they have really messed up the chassis my conversion kit 'should' work just fine.   Every Atlas GP7 chassis from the Classics on up does.

http://www.randgust.com/prod07.htm

I've been doing custom builds RTR of these, just about as many as kits, for quite a while, and as we speak, a Pioneer unit is on the workbench, and three Nittany & Bald Eagle units just left.

Hardest part right at the moment is that Atlas is out of long hoods, so you need a donor unit (existing GP7 Phase 1 non-dynamic).

I've got two different frames, four different cabs, variations in the handrails and battery boxes and details, and I'll put my etched parts up with anything anybody else has done, still.  And the best part is that over the years some of the custom decal makers like Highball Graphics, CMR, and Circus City have done a wonderful job on producing CF7-specific decal sets for shortlines.  The NBER decals are CMR.

So you can play 'I wish' with the Athearn survey, wait a couple years, or just contact me for a kit or a build.   I'm literally casting kits every night.



(For the record, Ed passed up two finished CF7's in Yorkrail, new chassis, DCC equipped, from one of my other customers that had to resell them due to a family emergency.....)   That was a really sweet pair, too Ed.      

[mu26aeh]

Damn, I missed seeing those on ebay.  I could have sold my pair and replaced with ones done by professional 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh I know yours are awesome @randgust . But it comes back to my earlier point: I didn't need them enough to justify the (amazingly reasonable given the work involved) price.

It's like the Intermountain SD45-s. Even though they did them in Conrail, having one was never worth the full price for me, and even after I got one for a ridiculously low price, it just wasn't worth putting in all the work to bring it up to spec for how interested I was in having one. The SD40-2s, on the other hand, are worth the effort because it's impossible to purport to model 80s Conrail without them.

[GaryHinshaw]

Voted - thanks for the heads up @James Costello.  I'd love to see the TTRX spines and (maybe even more) the acid tank cars make the cut.  Athearn does a really nice job with the ethanol and LPG tankers.