Author Topic: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!  (Read 2599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7828
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +50
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2017, 01:36:19 PM »
0
As stated by Jon in the original post, this potentially affects not only Pan Am but MEC, B&M, etc.

The Pan Am SD40-2s from the first release are still in stock at MBK:

https://www.modeltrainstuff.com/N-Scale-Locomotives-s/1437.htm?searching=Y&sort=3&cat=1437&brand=Intermountain&show=30&page=1&search=%20pan%20am

Mark

ljudice

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2517
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +40
    • Round Mountain Models
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2017, 01:45:32 PM »
0
As stated by Jon in the original post, this potentially affects not only Pan Am but MEC, B&M, etc.

The Pan Am SD40-2s from the first release are still in stock at MBK:

https://www.modeltrainstuff.com/N-Scale-Locomotives-s/1437.htm?searching=Y&sort=3&cat=1437&brand=Intermountain&show=30&page=1&search=%20pan%20am

Mark


Soon to be "vintage, rare, collectible" on Ebay!    :D

garethashenden

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 825
  • Respect: +113
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2017, 02:13:21 PM »
0
Regardless of liscensing, the Pan Am SD40-2s were some of the worst sellers for Kato, I don't know why IM would chase that road. No one wants excess inventory sitting around. That's not good business.

I'm not interested in modelling Pan Am, but I'm somewhat interested in modelling their predecessor Guilford and very interested in modelling Guilford's constituents, particularly the Boston & Maine.

nuno81291

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 255
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +46
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2017, 07:28:50 PM »
0
This affects me because the period I model there was a TON of MEC and BM equipment still in service along with guilford. Panam is too modern for my taste but the idea this could be from their camp and not a lack of preorders doesn't surprise me, but does concern me. Now if anyone would run some more mbta gear that would be great :RUEffinKiddingMe:
Guilford Rail System in the 80s/90s

basementcalling

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1987
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +110
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2017, 03:16:14 AM »
+1
And here thought from the title this thread was about some miracle number of cars  an IM  unit could tow behind it.  :D
Peter Pfotenhauer

central.vermont

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2175
  • Gender: Male
  • Jon
  • Respect: +28
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2017, 06:54:44 AM »
0
And here thought from the title this thread was about some miracle number of cars  an IM  unit could tow behind it.  :D

That's funny Peter!!!  :D
What my biggest concern is that it involves the predecessor railroads, Boston & Maine, Maine Central, Portland Terminal, Springfield Terminal and Guilford Rail System as well as the Pan Am Railways.

Jon

central.vermont

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2175
  • Gender: Male
  • Jon
  • Respect: +28
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2017, 06:58:44 AM »
0
I am also wondering if any of the other manufactures have been hit with this and if so maybe some insight from them would be nice to hear. 

Hello Paul??  ;)

Jon

bman

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 299
  • Gender: Male
  • I gotta have more Conrail!
  • Respect: +13
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2017, 09:49:10 AM »
0
This, too. IM is well-known for dropping offered paint schemes if pre-orders are lacking, so I still feel the "licensing" assertion needs to be verified.


I'm going to have to go along with this answer.  If the PAR offering was being pulled due to licensing issues wouldn't you think that IM would make a big to do over it. And IMHO(it's free so ya get what ya pay for) it is easier to just make a pre-order disappear for lack of interest without a lot of fanfare vs. announcing "we're not going to make this due to lack of pre-orders" and get the whole discussion of the pre-order system drug back out into the open.  At this point both theories though are unproven.  But Atlas still shows the N scale caboose for B&M for the spring quarter of this year if that means anything.

drgw0579

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +15
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2017, 01:23:41 PM »
0
>If the PAR offering was being pulled due to licensing issues wouldn't you think that IM would make a big to do over it.

Not necessarily, there could be ongoing discussions and saying anything publicly prematurely might torpedo them.  When UP and CSX announced their programs, they were very specific and public, but in this case we're all clueless of what is happening.  If I owned a trademark that I thought was in high demand, the initial price for using it would be "how much money do you have?" (sort of like how selling software was in the old days).  Maybe I negotiate a lower figure, but that could depend on the other party's attitude and how well they behave during negotiations.

Spades

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 350
  • Respect: +11
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2017, 01:54:54 PM »
0
If the the Pan Am Railway is like the the three prior Pan Am Airlines , well Guilford did acquire the Pan Am name in bankruptcy.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 06:36:58 PM by Spades »

coosvalley

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Respect: +123
    • N-Scaler.com
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2017, 04:49:44 PM »
0
Just remembered  :facepalm:....Doesn't one of our moderators work for PAR?

@Ian MacMillan  ?
My photos at:  http://www.n-scaler.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10010

Springfield Terminal - The Rotten Mellon Route
Railfanning is wanting a time machine, model railroading is wanting a shrink ray..

central.vermont

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2175
  • Gender: Male
  • Jon
  • Respect: +28
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #26 on: March 17, 2017, 05:59:53 PM »
0
Just remembered  :facepalm:....Doesn't one of our moderators work for PAR?

@Ian MacMillan  ?

Used to.  :trollface:

reinhardtjh

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1313
  • Respect: +56
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2017, 12:33:13 PM »
0
This, too. IM is well-known for dropping offered paint schemes if pre-orders are lacking, so I still feel the "licensing" assertion needs to be verified.

It wouldn't hurt to verify with IM, but generally, if a scheme doesn't receive enough pre-orders, the scheduled date changes to "TBD" until it either does get enough orders or the whole run has been delivered and the item drops into Neverland.  For example, the SD40-2 Allegheny Midland and Virginian & Ohio schemes are "TBD" as are nearly all of the 1937 AAR 40' Boxcars listed.
John H. Reinhardt
PRRT&HS #8909
C&O HS #11530
N-Trak #7566

ChrisKLAS

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • Respect: +25
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2017, 12:39:37 PM »
0
I consult for a large model airplane manufacturer who does indeed pay (significant) quarterly royalties on every Pan Am model produced and sold, FWIW.

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13140
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +650
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Pan Am Railways IM SD40-2 PULLED!!!
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2017, 02:48:57 PM »
0
I consult for a large model airplane manufacturer who does indeed pay (significant) quarterly royalties on every Pan Am model produced and sold, FWIW.

That is not a good news for railroad modelers.  Especially if the licensing and royalties would extend to the other names, like B&M, MEC, Guilford and whatever else I left out.  We might not see any more models of those produced, or the extra cost might be passed onto the consumers.

While protecting trademarks is understandable (even though they are pretty much dormant and fading away), having those trademarks on models is basically free advertising for them. Why kill that by charging large royalties?  A token licensing fee should be all that is required.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 02:52:16 PM by peteski »
--- Peteski de Snarkski