Mainline Modeler still scrapping with UP/CSX

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The fee is 3% of the WHOLESALE cost of merchandise with a UP logo or ,5% of the wholesale price of all merchandise sold.

Is that 5% of UP merchandise or 3% of all? Why would the manufacturer pay 5% of all merchandise when they could pay 3% of some?

[Anonymous]

I think its sad that our enjoyment of this hobby is no longer affected by just the production capabilities of a particular manufacturer. But now as much by their corporate legal stragey, I must say that the people who have posted in this forum have made this very enlightening and the way you guys have disected the issue have made it alot easier for a simple person such as myself to understand. I must agree that the whole licensing issue is very counterproductive and idiotic. I just wonder if those executives that thought this up got their start in the world of trains with the model railroad set under the Christmas tree, as so many of us did.

[Anonymous]

ericsp
I think that is .5 percent, not 5 percent.

[PennsyHoosier]

The bottom line is that it mean higher prices for the modeler. "That's the fact, Jack," as an old movie stated it.

[Anonymous]

I think there's also a movie line that goes something like "I'm mad as hell and I"m not goint to take it anymore." lol

[BRAKIE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The decal company would pay 3% of the cost of the decals, so if the wholesale cost of the decals was $2 then the UP would get 6 cents.

Now the question I would have is would Athearn have to pay a royalty on its challengers?

Steam engines rarely have a logo on them. The only catch is the sheild number plate and that UP used a unique type style. On the other hand a Missouri Pacific early switcher or steam engine has nothing but a generic roman text. Would they require a license?

Dave H.

All to sadly yes..UP owns the rights to the MP road name..And there lays the loop hole.[:(]

[Anonymous]

dougal, I think UP equipment has always been heavily marketed. Using Ebay as a source, I found that the largest percentage of models offered were for Santa Fe and next was Union Pacific, so UP has always been popular. I just went through the January MR issue and could find no indications at hobby retailer's pages where UP products are more expensive. I would hypothesize this means the increase has been spread across the products offered, at the retail level. If true, this means that we are all paying for UP's idiotic idea.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

I just went through the January MR issue and could find no indications at hobby retailer's pages where UP products are more expensive. I would hypothesize this means the increase has been spread across the products offered, at the retail level. If true, this means that we are all paying for UP's idiotic idea.

Well in my copy of January MR, on the inside back cover there is a one page ad by Kato. On the lower left hand corner is a block re their EMD SD38-2's coming in February, and at the bottom it says "MSRP $140.00, $145.00 for C&NW and UP.

That does seem like $5.00 more for a UP (and C&NW) model to me. I've seen others, but this ad only took me seconds to find.

I personally don't give a rat's patootie what prices UP stuff is, because I don't have any need for it.

Bob Boudreau

[PennsyHoosier]

LOL dkelly! The problem is, other present-day railroads may try and follow UP's route here. And that would be bad for the hobby as a whole.

Still stocking up on decals. What's next, paint colors? Should I buy a bunch of brunswick green and tuscan red, as well?

[Anonymous]

Bob Boudreau, I stand corrected. I looked at Standard, Trainworld, etc. and could see no price differences. I don't model UP either, however, UP and its' subsidiaries could be found on The N.P. so I am effected. Like I have said many times, it's not the cost, it's the principle! And, I don't give a rat's patootie if it is within UP's rights to do so, this decision SUCKS!

[dehusman]

Well lets do the math.

The RETAIL price is $140. Assuming Kato goes with the 3% option, that make s the license fee $4.20. So right off the bat Kato is charging the er 80 cents additional no matter how you figure it.
Since the fee is on the wholesale price, at a 50% markup that would make the price $70 and the fee $2.10. At a 50% markup Kato is raising the price $5 to cover a $2.10 fee.
At a 25% markup that would make the wholesale price $105 and the fee $3.15. So Kato would be charging $5 for a $3.15 fee.

Any way you cut it Kato is charging way more than the fee.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

Dave H. Wouldn't it be within Kato's right to charge what ever they like to cover, or even not cover the fee. There is book keeping work that would go along with gathering, keeping track of and mailing UP what they're owed.

What the hey! Like they say, A million here and a million there and pretty soon we're talking about some real money! Or, has it been raised to billions now?

[Anonymous]

First, arguing that the fee is only 3% so therefore we shouldn't oppose it, is fallacious as that is how income tax was started - the "we'll just just take a little iddy bit." Its the door to door salesman old trick - the foot in the door trick.

Now my own personal opinion is that the modelling industry is doomed to accept it. My experience is that there is virtually no "clout" in the modelling industry to affect a larger RR like UP. The only reason the CEO of UP might care at all what the CEO of Atlas might think is that if some how it is going to significantly impact the books of UP, which is hardly likely. This isn't me being rude, this is plain economic reality.

So for those companies that are going to fight it, they had better have pretty good precedent law on the books to back them up, and not just some high priced smooth talking lawyer who wants to add an addition on to his house and send his children to private school. The law is more on the side of UP than on the opposition. Personally I wish it weren't so, but who cares what I think, UP and the courts don't.