GM is ending HO/N licenses for scale vehicles

[andrechapelon]

Train Modeler

The big difference between Ford, Chrysler and GM is that the government owns GM.

Note, I only read about 5 of the comments, sorry if I'm repeating.

Richard

Actually, no it doesn't. Gummint ownership of GM stock has fallen to 7.3% of outstanding shares.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130917/AUTO0103/309180017/

Which kind of begs the question, what does that have to do with the original post?

 

Andre

 

[Train Modeler]

The big difference between Ford, Chrysler and GM is that the government owns GM.

Note, I only read about 5 of the comments, sorry if I'm repeating.

Richard

[Catt]

"Time to let this thread die again"

Why if you don't like reading it don't read it.

[Schuylkill and Susquehanna]

The original post is from 2005!

Based on current availability of GM licensed HO and N cars, I'd say that this worked out just fine.  Time to let this thread die again.

S&S

[dknelson]

Adelie

GM sold EMD in 2005 and I would guess the marketing/intellectual property rights went with EMD. I think they are owned by a subsidiary of Caterpillar these days.

It was a brilliant move, really.  GM opted to sell off something that was running in the black to get cash to prop up operations that were hopelessly hemorrhaging money.

 

But let it be said that when GM did own and run EMD the GM sense of public relations applied.  As a boy I wrote to EMD basically saying "send me information on all your locomotives I especially like the F-3."  This would have been in the 1960s and my best engine was a Varney F-3.  EMD replied promptly with superb  SCALE drawings of the then new GP35, GP40, SD40, and SD 35, together with those spectacular color painting ads that they ran in the mid 1960s in Trains and Railway Age magazines, and a typed note said basically the F3 has been out of production for many years and this is the best we can do -- a very decent drawing of the F3 and its interior. 

 

Interestingly the GP40 drawing was very early or even pre production.  A friend of mine is building a 1"=1' version of that engine to run at a local "live steam" railway park, and he was astounded when I could supply him with that drawing. 

 

Dave Nelson

[Adelie]

GM sold EMD in 2005 and I would guess the marketing/intellectual property rights went with EMD. I think they are owned by a subsidiary of Caterpillar these days.

It was a brilliant move, really.  GM opted to sell off something that was running in the black to get cash to prop up operations that were hopelessly hemorrhaging money.

[Redore]

By the way, I'm anxiously awaiting the day that 3D scanners and printers come down in price and I can make any d*** model car or truck I want.

[Redore]

I haven't read through all this thread, but what about all those other GM products we have a lot of.  Is this the end of F7's, GP 9's, and SD40's?  May as well kill the hobby.

I'd swear off GM cars and trucks, but I've already done that.  They made lousey trucks 15 years ago.  That's another story for another place.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Geared Steam

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

brothaslide

I guess we'll be running a lot of Fords on our scale highways.

That's OK with me, that's what I drive in real life too.

Government Motors iswelcome to keep their stuff.

Sheldon

Ford fans are the ones that trade in every 5 years, GM guys drive ours for 20 (because we can) 

That's funny, my 2000 F-150 (13 years old) just turned over 200,000 miles, is not all rusty like a Chevy truck, and runs great, just getting broke in.

Question - number one selling vehicle in the world? Ford F-150 pickup.

I drove Chevys for years, until front wheel drive came along. Chevy does not even make a car to compete with this:

Big car comfort, all wheel drive, 360 HP, 360 lb ft torque, twin turbos, same engine as a Ford Taurus SHO, easy entry and exit for us old people, plenty of room for those trips to the train show, blue tooth, navigation, adjustable pedals. memory seats, leather seats, 20" rims, 390 watt audio, rear view camera, etc, etc, and 26 MPG highway.

Been driving Fords for 20 years, never got rid of one in only 5 years  - except for a crash.

But what do I know?

Sheldon

 

[John Busby]

One interesting story I heard

Was a train manufacturer that ran foul of one of the railway company's for producing its trains livery on the correct model of train.

So they just said shove it and stopped producing it, they produce a lot of other company's trains using the same moulds because they are correct models. and they sell well

The rail company that jacked up is now bust must have had to spend all there money on advertising

No body has thought of all the free advertising the hobby industry can and in all probability does produce.

I think the fair usage argument has some merit our models look like a given car but they are not one hundred  precent copies 

You can't drive one into town to do the shopping for the week.

Some claim model making is an art form that's fair usage is it not

regards John

[zstripe]

Geared Steam

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

brothaslide

I guess we'll be running a lot of Fords on our scale highways.

That's OK with me, that's what I drive in real life too.

Government Motors iswelcome to keep their stuff.

Sheldon

Ford fans are the ones that trade in every 5 years, GM guys drive ours for 20 (because we can) 

Geared Steam,

Just My Two cents,,,,,,,,Are you one of the guy's,that gets a Antique Ford body,puts a Chevy motor in it,with a Ford rear end??

Cheers,

Frank

[Kyle]

Geared steam, my uncle has the first model year of the Expidition, and it runs great, not to mention the fact that it is still comfortable. I admit Ford ha gone a bit down in quality since them, but they are still fine. If you look around in certain areas, there are these old ford trucks still running tough, some people have the several ford trucks in their drive way, a newer one and a older one. Though I do admit, my other uncle has a Chevy silverado that runs fine, and is a 74 I think, not sure. Personally, I would like to have a diverse lay out, and not have the same cars everywhere,

[Geared Steam]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

brothaslide

I guess we'll be running a lot of Fords on our scale highways.

That's OK with me, that's what I drive in real life too.

Government Motors iswelcome to keep their stuff.

Sheldon

Ford fans are the ones that trade in every 5 years, GM guys drive ours for 20 (because we can) 

[don7]

I still see the 1955 Chevys offered by Model Power and a number of 1950 Chev pickups offered.

In fact when this thread was first posted I did buy enough 1955 chevs and 1950 pickups to last me forever, as well as a number of other GM cars such as the 1950's Buick and Caddys as well.

No years later and these are still available............

Then of course there is the Woodland Scenics vehicles, no brand names that look very much like cars that I remember, but without being identified as such

[zstripe]

CSX_road_slug

dknelson

...   More on topic, do we know if in fact General Motors followed through on this threat to smaller-than-S models?   I don't follow the scale vehicle market that closely to know.

I recently bought a 1971 Camaro in HO scale; don't remember who the manfacturer was or where I got it from, but it was brand new and I don't remember seeing it back in 2005.

Does,Classic Metals, 40's,50's era, Trucks and Cars count?? they are not a 71 Camaro,,but they surely were put out after 2005 and there are others..

Cheers,

Frank

[CSX_road_slug]

dknelson

...   More on topic, do we know if in fact General Motors followed through on this threat to smaller-than-S models?   I don't follow the scale vehicle market that closely to know.

I recently bought a 1971 Camaro in HO scale; don't remember who the manfacturer was or where I got it from, but it was brand new and I don't remember seeing it back in 2005.

[BroadwayLion]

The issue is not General Motors...

More than that I cannot say lest I run afoul of the dictates against politics on this board.

ROAR

[dknelson]

maxman

steemtrayn

'bout time this thread got revived.

 

A waste of time.  Let's all do some modeling instead.

 

But other equally old threads insist that we don't do modeling anymore.   More on topic, do we know if in fact General Motors followed through on this threat to smaller-than-S models?   I don't follow the scale vehicle market that closely to know.

Dave Nelson

[maxman]

steemtrayn

'bout time this thread got revived.

 

A waste of time.  Let's all do some modeling instead.

[Soo Line fan]

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

brothaslide

I guess we'll be running a lot of Fords on our scale highways.

That's OK with me, that's what I drive in real life too.

Government Motors iswelcome to keep their stuff.

Sheldon

[zstripe]

Steemtrayn,

Maybe and Maybe not,,,,,,,,,Some will not look at the date,of the thread and that will be a new beginning,,or so it would appear,to them..

Cheers,

Frank

[steemtrayn]

'bout time this thread got revived.

[Kyle]

Sadly, this is the world we live in today, something happens, someone gets hurt, and yea, now they can sue. This I as dumb as saying we aren't making trucks anymore because someone could get run over, or someone could get into a wreck. But sadly that is the world today.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chutton01

I wouldn't mind if they sold stretched late-model Lincolns (yes, I know, not GM - however I could use some limos for a limo garage on my layout).
And you know, I see Ford F350/450/550s (Super Dutys) practically everywhere, hauling, towing, and pulling everything, and rather few Silverados. I think that if they actually started making Japanese models (German models are VERY well covered), plus Ford and Chrysler products, nobody would even notice the lack of late model GM products...
(except Police Car modelers - it seems the Lumina is becoming a Police Standard around these parts (New York/NJ).
Still, to be safe, when this news first came out, I brought 2 late model Boley Top-Kicks, just in case...

Stretch limos would be a neat idea, but it might be easiest to produce the long-wheelbase Lincoln first and let individual modelers work their own magic on a stretch version.

Japanese cars are very interesting, and a topic worth pursuing, but as I mentioned earlier, which ones do you make? Collectors will want things like the Z, model railroaders would rather have Camrys and Accords. Europeans will want something totally different.

To be really honest, my goal at this time is to persuade a couple of modelmakers to begin producing American cars from the 1960s and 1970s. There are plenty of Ford, Mercurys, Plymouths, Dodges, Chryslers and ,yes, Lincolns waiting to make their debut in HO scale.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsf6733

The first post on this thread has got to be the longest in the forum.

Hello BNSF6733,

With all due respect, as I may be reading it wrong, but your comment almost seems like you're taking a "pot shot" at Bill.

Bill Cawthon did something that absolutely exemplifies what this forum is all about...Helping and keeping fellow modelers informed!

How many model railroaders actually knew about the situation with GM? From what I've read, VERY FEW! Myself included. Even many hobby shop dealers were unaware! Since this forum has members from around the globe, word will travel. I've already posted Bill's info on another forum. Other modelers here will likely do the same.

I'm not putting you down, just suggesting that you read your comment carefully and think how the person that it pertains to might perceive it.

Peace!

[Anonymous]

The first post on this thread has got to be the longest in the forum.

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by emeraldisle

PROSECUTE A FEW OF THEM FOR THE DEATHS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE MONEY GRUBBING ATTORNEYS TO FILE THESE LAWSUITS, AND YOU'LL SEE AN END TO THIS STUPIDITY,

It takes an attorney to prosecute someone. And believe it or not if juries wouldn't give the awards then the "money grubbing attorneys" wouldn't make much on those type cases.

[chutton01]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

The solution to the 2.25" minimum is to sell "stretched" versions of the smaller cars. The purchaser could then cut out the stretch section out of the middle of the model, glue the remaining halves together, and produce an authentically kitbashed (kit slashed?) model of the real vehicle.

I wouldn't mind if they sold stretched late-model Lincolns (yes, I know, not GM - however I could use some limos for a limo garage on my layout).
And you know, I see Ford F350/450/550s (Super Dutys) practically everywhere, hauling, towing, and pulling everything, and rather few Silverados. I think that if they actually started making Japanese models (German models are VERY well covered), plus Ford and Chrysler products, nobody would even notice the lack of late model GM products...
(except Police Car modelers - it seems the Lumina is becoming a Police Standard around these parts (New York/NJ).
Still, to be safe, when this news first came out, I brought 2 late model Boley Top-Kicks, just in case...

[Anonymous]

It has been determined by the "AMERICAN FEDERATION OF CHILD PROTECTANCE" that the following hobbies pose a choking hazard to small childern and will therefore no longer be allowed in our society. This is only a partial list and will be added to at a later date. MODEL RAILROADING (ALL SCALES), DIECAST COLLECTING (ALL SCALES), MODEL BUILDING, (ALL SCALES), STAMP COLLECTING, (ANY SIZE), COLLECTING OF ANYTHING WITH PARTS SMALLER THAN A BASKETBALL, ETC,ETC,ETC......GIVE ME A BREAK[V][:(!] WHERE ARE THE STUPID DUMB @&$ PARENTS THAT DON'T WATCH THEIR KIDS OR ALLOW THEM TO PLAY WITH THINGS LIKE 1/87 SCALE VEHICLES TO BE BEGIN WITH. PROSECUTE A FEW OF THEM FOR THE DEATHS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE MONEY GRUBBING ATTORNEYS TO FILE THESE LAWSUITS, AND YOU'LL SEE AN END TO THIS STUPIDITY, AND IF IT IS A MONEY THING WITH GM OR ANYONE ELSE, START LOOKING AT THEIR BOOKS AND YOU'LL FIND THE REAL MONEY GRUBBING YAHOOS.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

The solution to the 2.25" minimum is to sell "stretched" versions of the smaller cars. The purchaser could then cut out the stretch section out of the middle of the model, glue the remaining halves together, and produce an authentically kitbashed (kit slashed?) model of the real vehicle.

There are lots of things one could do, including making the models 1:86 scale or 1:85 scale, which are still quite usable sizes, or tacking on extras to add a 1/16-inch of length, allow more models to cross the threshold.

But why?

It's easier to make precision-scale models of other brands of cars and trucks without jumping through hoops. Can't make a Corvair? Okay, make a Falcon, Valiant or Dart or a Rambler American. No Hummer H3? There's still the Jeep Wrangler. The new Cobalt, G6 and LaCrosse are off limits? Okay, make HO versions of the upcoming Fusion, Milan or the new Chrysler that will replace the Sebring.

And with every new model that comes out, I will send one to the manager of licensing at GM with a note saying, "This could have been a GM car." [}:)]

[AntonioFP45]

Bangert, your post stirs up some memories for me.

I was a loyal, "slam dunk" supporter of GM. My cars, until 1994 were GM.

What turned me off to buying any more GM s was the arrogant attitude that GM's brass exhibited in the 80s regarding quality and customer service. I remember reading back then that GM executives would let known electronic and mechanical defects slide through assembly lines on new models even though the costs to fix them were relatively minor. The attitude that "GM is good for America" still prevailed. Profit must be considered, but at what cost? Unions were blamed for GM's ills, yet the top brass's lucrative salary contract guaranteed them Millions in salaries, bonuses, stock options; regardless whether profits were up or down. The writing was on the wall, the big giant's "Roman Empire" style dominance was beginning to weaken.

Several friends of mine bought GM cars brand new as did the transit agency I worked for. Minor glitches and problems are to be expected, but wow! From what I experienced GMs seemed to be abundant in this area. Anyone remember the fuel tanks on the pickups that exploded on impact? Top it off, there were countless reports of owners complaining about poor customer service.

I visited a Chevy dealer to buy my wife a car. Perhaps it was our jeans and T-shrits, but the salesman treated us like we were wasting his time. GM lost two loyal customers that day! So what happened? Me and my hot rod friends, little by little, started buying Toyotas. Ironic, as I had stated that I would never own a Japanese car. I have had to eat humble pie since then.

So for me, the GM I enjoy.........is the one from my childhood and teen years.

Yes, the new Corvettes and Cadillacs are impressive and better in quality, but I'm no longer interested.

[Anonymous]

If you believe the reports from latest business news about GM, they might not be making any size cars in the future. They have sold off everything in sight to raise money, but they are still going down in market share and will probably be forced to merge or be bankrupt.

[Leon Silverman]

The solution to the 2.25" minimum is to sell "stretched" versions of the smaller cars. The purchaser could then cut out the stretch section out of the middle of the model, glue the remaining halves together, and produce an authentically kitbashed (kit slashed?) model of the real vehicle.

[AntonioFP45]

Bill,

The service you provide is priceless and appreciated! Thanks very much for keeping us updated. I'm passing your information on to other modelers on a Yahoo forum. The more made aware, the better.

It does seem like a modern trend. General Motors, just like Union Pacific is a huge corporation that seems to wants to prevent getting a hangnail in it's little finger..........by completely tearing out the fingernail!

While I'm relieved that the Busch Buses have been spared, I'm dissappointed that other vehicles that I would like to have like the late 60s Cutlass 442 or early 70s Trans Ams are being excluded. I did see some HO GM cars and pickup trucks at my LHS. I'm going to pick up a few of them before they're gone

This situation is a hammer blow to N scale modelers! Especially since N scale is enjoying a strong growth in popularity.

[bcawthon]

Confirmed: GM has changed its mind and will allow 1:87 scale models as long as the model is 2.25 inches or longer!

Don't worry about the Boley models. If what I learned today is correct, they should be in no danger as they are well over 2.25 inches in length.

One interesting thing: The new Model Power Mini 1955 Chevy Bel Air, which is almost exactly right on compared to the prototype, squeaks by the new standards. However, the CMW model of the same car, which is not quite accurate, misses the minimum size standard. So, the Model Power can stay, the CMW will be gone after current inventories are depleted.

I checked 61 randomly selected current and classic GM cars and trucks. Out of the list, only 27 passed the minimum size standard, based on GM specs for the prototype. 28 were between 2.00 inches and 2.24 inches. The remaining six (Vega, Aveo, Solstice, Sky and Fiero) are all under 2 inches.

Next up is pressure to allow models 2 inches and larger. Then comes the real battle: N scale.

But for now, I need to get back to work getting the models we want produced.

[caboose63]

if all production of HO scale GM cars and vehicles ended there is not much anyone could do except stock up on them before the supplies at Walthers were exhausted. i myself would not be upset if that happened since i think GM is not so hot these days. they seem to produce the same kind of car with minor variations and call it a new model. GM's idiotic decision will mean just more publicity for Chrysler-Daimler, Ford and other auto makers that love to have their vehicles made in HO and other scales. besides way GM is going i doubt they will be in business ins say 15 years. i do plan to buy some of boley's HO scale fire fighting equipment and forest service equipment before its too late

[bcawthon]

I don't have all the details yet, but it appears GM blinked. They will now license HO-scale models, provided the model is at least 2.25 inches long. [^]

While that does mean we will be able to have the new Busch bus and certain other existing models, it still cuts off a lot of prototypes. All Camaros, all Corvettes, all Corvairs, all Chevy II and Nova models before 1974, some of the short-wheelbase trucks and more.

We'll be girding up for the charge again. Heck, we haven't even mentioned N scale yet, and that's my scale!

[bcawthon]

Nissan is handled by the same licensing company that handles GM. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Im still waiting for someone to come out with a niasson altima.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gbailey

The heck with GM - someone make a HONDA ACCORD !!!

There is one problem with the Honda Accord you're probably thinking of - it's a North America-only car. The Accord sold elsewhere is a smaller version, meaning that European sales would be close to non-existent.

So, the question is: would North American model railroaders buy the thousands it would take to make it a sound business prospect?

Perhaps, but I would feel more comfortable making a 1963 Ford, 1964 Plymouth or 1965 Rambler. For that matter, I would be happier with a 1957 Ford. After all, we have a bunch of '57 Chevy Bel Airs and the Ford was a better-selling car that year.

As much as I would hate to see a GM-free HO catalog, there is a huge number of American cars that have never been offered in HO. Chryslers, Dodges, Fords, Lincolns, Mercurys, Packards, Plymouths, Ramblers and Studebakers, just to name a few. There have been some here and there, but imagine all the possibilities in just the '60s and '70s, when open auto racks were the rule.

[Anonymous]

The heck with GM - someone make a HONDA ACCORD !!!

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tjsmrinfo

heres my pennies worth (2 cents and uncle sam taxed that) we all switch our ho scale layouts to the early 1900's when it was all ford.

Whoa! It was never "all Ford," even in the early 20th Century. Ford didn't even sell his first car until late 1903.

By the time the Model T appeared in 1907, many of the brands with which we are familiar were already on the market. In fact, General Motors was formed the year after the Tin Lizzie made its debut. At that time, the company consisted of Cadillac (1901), Buick (1904), Oldsmobile (1897) and Oakland (later Pontiac). Chevrolet was added in 1912, when Billy Durant took over GM again. Dodge came along in 1914 after John and Horace had a fight with Henry Ford. Lincoln appeared in 1920 after Henry Leland, who developed the first Cadillac for a bunch of investors who had gotten burned by Henry Ford, got mad at Billy Durant. Chrysler was built on the ashes of the Maxwell in 1924. The first Pontiac was built out of Chevrolet parts in 1926, to replace the failing Oakland brand.

Studebaker had been around for years, having gotten its start in the mid-nineteenth century building covered wagons for the westward migration. In fact, it was Studebaker engineers who helped Walter Chrysler design his first cars.

Of course, in the early 1900s, there was a bewildering assortment of other cars, now long vanished. Plus, there were the European cars, like Mercedes and Rolls-Royce, which were being built in the U.S. (Rolls in Massachusetts, Mercedes at a Steinway factory on Long Island).

[csmincemoyer]

Maybe we should all go to our local GM dealers, talk to a salesman for an hour and when he's ready to close the deal explain to them how upset we are on GM's stance on this. I'd imagine in bigger cities, word would travel pretty quick amongst the dealers.

Also, how acitve is MRIA and NMRA in issues like this?

[davekelly]

Yes there are some outrageous jury results out there - but before telling of the latest outrage - read these sites:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/turley020105.asp

http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media_relations/releases/2003_09/juries_text.html

The article about the furniture store is supposedly from the Stella Awards (a website that looks for silly court cases). At that site it basically says the furniture story is fabricated.

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

But then when you get an email - from some official sounding person or agency (Lt. Hardcase from Metropolitan Police is my favorite) it is human nature to believe it. Especially when Bill Gates is going to give you $10,000 if you forward it to ten people.

Dave

P.S. Here from the Stella award site is what they have posted concerning the coffee incident. The stuff is pretty well laid out pro and con leaving it to the reader to decide:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

[pushnshove]

This is off-thread, but the link was in here for some reason.
Did anyone notice in the photos of the British railroad that this fellow had linked to this site how neat, clean and well maintained and landscaped the RR right of was was in those pictures?
Why are US RRs (and highways for that matter) so darned scummy looking?

[tjsmrinfo]

heres my pennies worth (2 cents and uncle sam taxed that) we all switch our ho scale layouts to the early 1900's when it was all ford. while driving around town i see all vehicle manufacterers represented- ford, gm, chrysler etc.
i have to agree with roger 38 what happened to the common sense?????????????
as far as lawsuits go heres a good 1 for all you parents/grandparents. in 03-04 a lady in austin tx went into a furniture store and looked around for new furnishings for her house. she then tripped fell and broke her ankle, she sued the store and was awarded i think $600,000. now heres the kicker she tripped over her own toddler. what parent in their right collective mind goes into a busy store and puts their toddler on the floor unsupervised??? good thing i wasnt on that jury the dumb***woman wouldnt have got a dime.
back to the thread i kinda like to have a variety of vehicles on my layout--even though i don't have 1 as of yet
but i will have to agree if a petition is proposed put my name on it.

tom
modelling the santa fe circa late 80's early 90's before the bn/sf merger

[AntonioFP45]

Fully understood Bill.

In the meantime I've got locomotives and freight cars to work on. I'll keep an eye on this thread for your post regarding how the meeting went.

I hope very much that the news you post will be positve.

Cheers, amigo!

[bcawthon]

Sorry, Antonio, that information is strictly confidential (especially right now, as these models in limbo until we can get GM sorted out).

[AntonioFP45]

Bill,

Can you tell us what the other proposed models in the works are? (If you have to keep it confidential, though, it's understandable.)

Would be neat if the Flxible "New Look" transit bus were one of them.

[bluepuma]

Once GM was king.... there will be no GM vehicles on my 1:1 driveway either, I swore my Cameo was the last GM, purchased new in Jan '82, I'm more for Ford or Chrysler. Sure would like a N scale '49 VW or some Auto Union, and 64 Hondas, Morris Pickups, Volvos, and Datsuns or Toyotas.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DMNolan

Can anybody provide a link, copy, newsarticle or anything to support this statement? I think that would help the discussion, if we knew where the information came from.

The information came from General Motor's manager of licensing and the senior vice president of the company that handles GM's licensing program. I do have the statements in writing, but they are in archived personal e-mails that I am holding until I know the results of some meetings that will take place in Detroit this week.

The reason I am holding them in confidence is that the GM statement allows for 1:87 models in certain circumstances, while the later statement from the licensing agency was a flat statement such models would not be allowed.

There is also another consideration: the upcoming Busch bus model is not the only one affected. There is another Busch American-prototype model in the works and another company has up to four American models in production for a fall announcement. So this action by GM could cost us up to six models. In addition, it has already cost us some models from another manufacturer.

[dknelson]

I suppose there is an argument -- a strained one, but strained arguments win lawsuits too sometimes (ouch this McDonald's coffee is hot) -- that if GM licenses the product and makes some money off of it, it might have some responsibility -- remember that the UP license program involves, to some degree, the UP having to "approve" the model. So the trial lawyer would get some poor guy from GM on the stand and get him or her to admit that yes GM made money off the model and yes they "approved it" (never allowing them to say what it was they approved) and yes the kid bit off some part and choked and so on and so on.
Frankly no matter what the size of the model if a part breaks off and someone decides to nibble on it choking is a hazard. I don't really see how smaller than S is the problem
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

Is this an absolute, DONE DEAL? I thought somebody mentioned earlier that they [GM]were still deliberating about this. I don't see how an HO bus could be a choking hazard(!?)...

[AntonioFP45]

EricSP,

What makes me want to wack myself in the head with a 2x4 is that the when the Pirate Models Fishbowl buses first appeared in the Walthers Catalog back in 1980 or 1981(?), they were only $13 !!!!!!!! Procrastination does hurt!! I had the money too! I should have bought 10 of those things!

I know to some of you I may sound corny getting worked up over a bus! It's that I rode the darn things as a kid, and repaired them as an adult. I find it so ironic that finally:

(1) A beautiful, low priced model is available....
(2) Busch and Walthers dangle it in front of our faces.......
(3) Now it looks like it's going to be yanked away for no really good reason by GM!

For modelers, life can be so strange at times!

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Bill,

Thanks again for your response.

I had a chance to buy an HO Pirate Models Fisbowl bus a year ago. The thing was $65 though. I guess now I should have gone for it.

I remember Pirate Models in the Walthers catalog. I always thought their name was appropiate.

[JohnT14808]

Ok, so here we have umpteen thousands of modelers in the world that currently have GM 1:87 vehicles on their layouts. Does this mean that all the modelers are in violation of GM licensing now? I suspect that there will be a rash of HO scenes and/or dioramas of wrecked vehicles, smashed and burned beyond GM recognition.... Has anyone modeled at 48 car pileup on a freeway??

[DMNolan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bcawthon

Citing concerns about infant and toddler choking hazards, General Motors will no longer license any scale models of its vehicles smaller than 1:64 or S scale. This is not a rumor. This has been confirmed by the senior executive handling the GM account at EMI and by GM’s manager of licensing.Bill C.

Can anybody provide a link, copy, newsarticle or anything to support this statement? I think that would help the discussion, if we knew where the information came from.

[AntonioFP45]

Bill,

Thanks again for your response.

I had a chance to buy an HO Pirate Models Fisbowl bus a year ago. The thing was $65 though. I guess now I should have gone for it.

[tstage]

How far do you take this? Will thumb tacks and paper clips soon no longer be available because infants could swallow them? How about our currency? Should pennies, nickels and dimes be outlawed or redesigned? (They are all smaller than a 1:87.1 scale car?)

To bring it closer to MRR "home". What about ballast or rail joiners? Woodland Scenic figures? Do we toss out Z-scale cars and locomotives with the "bath water"? The list could go on and on.

With the legal responsibility "paranoia" looming over every aspect of our society these days, it's no wonder that this sort of action is being taken. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for "reasonable" actions being taken to protect toddlers from injuring themselves accidentally. But how far do you take this? What ever happened to parental interaction, responsibility, and involvement? How about common sense? Are we so much more educated now that we're actually becoming more stupid?

It's indeed a sad statement on society and our world as a whole. Everyone is no longer responsible for their own actions: It's always someone else's fault.

And, if you don't like or agree with my above statements, don't blame me...

Tom

[willy6]

Choking hazards? I've yet to see a warning label on a box of toothpicks.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Bill Cawthon,

RE: The GMC Fisbowl buses that Busch is producing. That body style came out in 1959 and lasted till the mid 1970s. So if Germany has the "30 year rule" as you stated then should not the Busch Model Company be able to produce that coach as well as other GM buses, cars and trucks from 1974 on back?

Possibly. Busch has been very careful to refer to the TDH-5301 model as an "American Fishbowl Bus", and avoid the use of the GM name. However, there are two problems:

First, because Busch has models of relatively recent GM vehicles in its product line (1995 Caprice, 1995-98 S-10 Blazer), GM required Busch to license all of its General Motors replicas. This included the bus. It may now be difficult to go back and claim exemption on the basis of abandonment after already having executed the licensing agreement.

Second, the "Fishbowl" series did not go out of production until 1977, meaning Busch would have to mothball all the work done to date for two more years and the company needs to start seeing some returns from a very large investment.

[Anonymous]

I think GM can not get a big profit of their lic rights. GM should feel proud that mrr's using GM vehicles in their layouts. One solution is to have warnings that these models are small and maybe a choking hazard to small children. Bootlegged cars from other countries, etc, then if possible GM try to stop this if can.
I still believe in that not enough profit for their licencing rights.

[AntonioFP45]

Bill Cawthon,

RE: The GMC Fisbowl buses that Busch is producing. That body style came out in 1959 and lasted till the mid 1970s. So if Germany has the "30 year rule" as you stated then should not the Busch Model Company be able to produce that coach as well as other GM buses, cars and trucks from 1974 on back?

[Anonymous]

Next, they'll stop licensing models LARGER than 1/64 - because those do more damage when your kid throws them at his/her sibling. :(

You can't win.

Rob

[bcawthon]

EMD is now owned by Greenbriar. The sale closed last month. The locomotives are now beyond the reach of GM, although Greenbriar is another question. But we can hope...

The Chinese can produce all the ripoffs they can get away with and the Germans can produce models of any GM vehicle more than 30 years old (if not previously licensed). That doesn't do us much good, as those models could not be legally sold in the U.S.

[Roger38]

GM stock is in the tank, and if they are counting on the Hummer and the Chev surbabans to bail them out, they might as well throw in the towel. $ 2.00 + for gas??? The Buick LeSabre and the Pontiac Bonnie are cars that get about 30 MPH, and will sell, but GM is planning on dropping them from the line. They need to get there act together and do anything that will bring in $$$. Parents are the big problem with the swollowing issue. They should know better than to bring somthing that small into the house...I have 5 grand kids, and model in HO. My stuff was off limits until they were old enough to know how to handle things properly. Common sense is not known with many people.

[ort007]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffshultz

Isn't EMD now owned by... or about to be owned by... Greenbrier?

Yes, I believe that is true. But I wondered if GM could claim those products were still identified as theirs. Probably couldn't happen, I hope.

[jeffshultz]

Isn't EMD now owned by... or about to be owned by... Greenbrier?

[ort007]

Is GM limiting only automobile models and no other vechicle? Please tell me this dosen't include EMD products recently owned by GM. Surely, they are not planning to put the kabosh on HO and N locomotives!!

Ort007

[AntonioFP45]

Bill, Dave,

What about this scenario?

Wouldn't it still be possible for Chinese manufacturers to continue producing GM knockoffs and receive nothing more than warnings and wrist slappings?

I'm no legal expert, but I've read where copyrights have been repeatedly violated and ignored by the Chinese in several cases.

[davekelly]

Good points. However, I don't think many attorneys would take on a frivolous case on contingency - at least out where I am. Frivolous cases very often get dismissed early on and at the latest at the end of discovery. In those cases the attorney will make nothing. Sure way to go into bankruptcy. Of course I have had people contact me wanting to sue their neighbors for accidently destroying their dog house or some other such thing. Contingency? 1/3 the cost of a dog house (unless it is the one owned by Jim Bakker) is not the way to make a living. No way. Hourly rate. That usually gets them to decide not to pursue the matter.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

Another case of a corporate self-inflicted gunshot wound.

United Parcel Service has refused to allow their logo to be put onto model trucks for several years, now. Has that stopped toy manufacturers from producing UPS look-alike vehicle models? No. I have quite a few UPS look-alike HO scale trailers and vans -- some with no logo at all; others with things such as "USP" or "PUS" or "SUP" as the abbreviation under the UPS shield.

I think the toy and model makers will continue to produce GM look-alikes without worrying about licensing. GM will be the ultimate losers.

Warning labels are not going to work. Most models already have a warning that they are intended for "Ages 8 and Up" on them. The problem is that most parents pay no attention to those labels when they buy toys for their children. Go to any Wal-mart and watch parents with their children in the toy isles -- they buy whatever their children want, and don't even look at the labels.

Bunch of answers here:

First, UPS will license the use of their logo. They will also license a 1:87 scale model of their parcel delivery car (as they call the brown trucks). How do I know? I talked to Jim Lynch, head of UPS' licensing program and asked him those very questions.

Now it may well be that UPS' license fees are very high. Some licensors, like Ferrari, ask for upfront fees and advance royalties of over $100,000. That's a hunk of money. I do not know how much the UPS license would be, because I did not have a project for them to estimate.

Second, GM can go after the manufacturer of a replica that sufficently resembles a GM product as not to be mistaken for a Ford or Chrysler product, even if it does not have any GM trademarks on it. As I said in an earlier post, GM has protected their trademarks, designs and "trade dress." Will GM go after Woodland Scenics? Hey, I'm not going to tell them. [:p]

Third, next time you're at Wally-Mart, Target or Toys 'R Us, check the aisles. How many 1:87 scale models do you find? Not very many. I know, I looked. So where does one find these dangerous products? At the model railroad or hobby shop. Generally, toy and hobby distribution channels are different. Busch Automodelle's sole U.S. distributor is Wm. K. Walthers, Inc., which didn't do a whole lot of selling into toy stores or mass-merchandisers. The primary company that works both sides of the fence is Boley, which has a wide variety of products aside from their diecast trucks (in fact, their Dept. 1-87 models take up one very small space in the Boley showroom at the Toy Center in New York).

Fourth, the warning labels do work as intended. They tell the consumer whether or not the product is suitable for a given age group and they limit the manufacturer and retailer's liability in case of a mishap. They serve notice that the manufacturer has complied with the government standards pertaining to toy labeling. This means the manufacturer is not liable for the consumer's failure to read the label and exercise proper care, something over which the manufacturer has no control. Is this an absolute shield against nuisance suits? No, but it reduces the likelihood of successful litigation to the point it is an unattractive case to take on contingency, which is how most of these frivolous cases are handled.

[bikerraypa]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

You guys realize that you're getting all worked up over nothing, right?

Woodland Scenics just came out with an entire line of automobiles, and they look suspiciously like GM products (some Fords, too). Since they've not mentioned ANY manufacturer or auto style, they don't have to follow licensing. The cars are "generic", but look suspiciously like real vehicles...

This is kinda what I was thinking. Just because my convertible has whitewalls, a chromed-up grill and gigantic tailfins doesn't mean it HAS to be a 1959 Eldo. Just don't put a 1:87 or 1:160 bowtie on the grill, and you're ok.

Plus, I'm sure GM knows which side of their bread is buttered. You'll note that they said "smaller than 1:64." Fine, they'll lose a couple bucks from the HO and N models that are actually licensed. But, you notice they aren't ending licensing for 1:64 or 1:24 cars, which happen to be the most popular size in NASCAR die-cast collecting. If they stop licensing THOSE sizes, it would severely hardscrew the toymakers, who make megabucks from any piece of crap that they stamp the NASCAR logo on. Ending HO and N won't even blip on anybody's economic radar.

As for me....I think my layout could use a Packard or two. [:D]


Ray out

[davekelly]

Where can I find someone that will buy me whatever I want without looking at the labels (especially the price label)?

[cacole]

Another case of a corporate self-inflicted gunshot wound.

United Parcel Service has refused to allow their logo to be put onto model trucks for several years, now. Has that stopped toy manufacturers from producing UPS look-alike vehicle models? No. I have quite a few UPS look-alike HO scale trailers and vans -- some with no logo at all; others with things such as "USP" or "PUS" or "SUP" as the abbreviation under the UPS shield.

I think the toy and model makers will continue to produce GM look-alikes without worrying about licensing. GM will be the ultimate losers.

Warning labels are not going to work. Most models already have a warning that they are intended for "Ages 8 and Up" on them. The problem is that most parents pay no attention to those labels when they buy toys for their children. Go to any Wal-mart and watch parents with their children in the toy isles -- they buy whatever their children want, and don't even look at the labels.

[bcawthon]

Sorry, Bikerdad, there was never a need to recall, simply a need to redesign. The Ivey memo was written in 1973, the cars involved in the fuel-tank-related injuries and deaths were model year 1978 and later A-Bodies, which had been reduced in size and weight to reduce costs and improve fuel economy (and if you want to debate that, I will be happy to refer you to the findings of the National Academy of Science's original findings in the CAFE report which said more weight was stripped out of cars in this period to reduce cost than to improve fuel economy).

In 1978, GM had 50% of the American light vehicle market and sold more cars than trucks (GM was the last of the Big Three to shift to making a majority its sales from light trucks). If I recall correctly, while earnings were pressured because of the gasoline crises and poor economic conditions, GM was still profitable from operations.

The jury award came in large part because the plaintiff's attorneys were able to show the jury that GM knew of the problem, yet failed to fix it, having assigned an arbitrary value to human life (in spite of Ivey's warning about the dangers of doing this in his memo) and used that to justify not changing the position of the fuel tank, even though the new A-Body design removed 11 inches of space that had protected the fuel tank in the previous model.

The plaintiff's attorneys were also able to show that GM had gone to great lengths, including risking jail time for its own attorneys, to cover up the memo and deny any knowledge of the risks of the new A-Body's fuel tank design.

I hope to have more information by the end of next week.

[Bikerdad]

QUOTE: As to the comments about lawsuits and such, consider this: Some years back, GM conducted an internal cost-benefit study of the Chevrolet Malibu and actually determined it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death and injury lawsuits than move a poorly located gas tank. We’re not talking lots cheaper; the difference was less than $10 per car, if I recall correctly. Getting whacked with a $4.9 billion punitive damages judgment kind of messed up their math, but that was after GM allowed a number of people, including some children, to be burned to death.

First, the cost was going to be more than $10 per car, that was the difference in production cost, it does not account for the economic impact on the production line, nor does it take into account their existing exposure on cars already on the road by the time the problem came to light. Finally, the Malibu was, and still is, a car where low cost is a significant factor in the purchasing decision, and GM wasn't making money on their small cars at the time. So, when faced with losing another $5-10 million dollars on the car, what do ya do?

Second, and more importantly, the gas tank location is only a problem when someone else hits the car. THAT is beyond GMs control. The same logic that fault GM for this decision can also find Ford responsible for this year's Metra crash in SoCal. Hey, Ford should have designed their Explorer so that it bounces off the front of cab cars on commuter trains so that the train won't derail. They didn't, instead they allowed [banghead][banghead] people to die.

Back to the thread topic:
I think it would be a fine idea to dun GM with letters of disgruntlement. Make sure you indicate which of GM's new cars that would theoretically fit the bill for your next car is off the list.

[davekelly]

bc,
Excellent points. Compensatory damages - big defendants might be able to absorb and work into cost of business analysis. Thus the idea of punitives - punish wrong doers into correcting their ways. I've always wondered, however, should the plaintiff get the punitives? There was one state that debated the idea of punitives going into a fund to help out those that were injured by non-insured motorists, but I'm not sure what happened to that.

[bcawthon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

You guys realize that you're getting all worked up over nothing, right?

Woodland Scenics just came out with an entire line of automobiles, and they look suspiciously like GM products (some Fords, too). Since they've not mentioned ANY manufacturer or auto style, they don't have to follow licensing. The cars are "generic", but look suspiciously like real vehicles...

Actually, that's not quite true. GM not only protects its trademarks, but its designs and trade dress, which covers styling. The litmus test is if the model looks sufficiently like a GM car to be either identified as one or mistaken for one. Obviously, the Woodland Scenics automobiles look enough like GM or Ford vehicles for us to identify them as such, so there are grounds for future legal problems for Woodland Scenics.

As to the comments about lawsuits and such, consider this: Some years back, GM conducted an internal cost-benefit study of the Chevrolet Malibu and actually determined it would be cheaper to pay the wrongful death and injury lawsuits than move a poorly located gas tank. We’re not talking lots cheaper; the difference was less than $10 per car, if I recall correctly. Getting whacked with a $4.9 billion punitive damages judgment kind of messed up their math, but that was after GM allowed a number of people, including some children, to be burned to death.

You tell me: What's fair punishment for a company that would allow children to die in one of the most horribly agonizing ways possible - to save ten bucks?

I'm not saying that GM hasn't been hit with more than its share of silly lawsuits or that personal injury attorneys are angels, but if we want to see real reform in the American tort system, the easiest method is to adopt 50% rule (who was most responsible) and add the British system: loser pays all costs. Adopting caps is a political sop to corporations and insurance companies who want to avoid penalties that match the severity of their own malfeasance. (BTW: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV).

As to raising its license fees, if GM wants to play games and angle for higher fees; well, there are some nice folks just down the street who make a bunch of mighty fine cars and trucks and are very interested in working with modelmakers.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it surreal that our society has reached an amoeboid level of coping with elementary fundamentals that day-to-day living demands? As Tileguy so aptly explained, our society has come to rely almost entirely upon a judicial system bent on political autonomy while settng "political" dogmas. In American democracy, you simply cannot have both. As you can see, this circumvents all "checks and balances" for the Judicial branch while the Administrative and Executive branches must adhere to them. If you are old enough to remember the addage: "Hasn't enough sense to come in out of the rain," then you are "old enough" to recognize the agonies of a once self-reliant and accountable society "slip down the slippery slope" into total domination by a handful of "think tank" adjudicators so insulated from life's realities as to be rationally embryonic. Those too young to remember that along with individual freedom comes "individual" responsibilities, probably welcome the ever tightening control the courts have over the choices they no longer need to make for themselves. Today, we are already at the point of citizens casting all of their responsibilities to someone, ANYONE else. Sure, this makes for a simple life. It also makes for a "simple" person who will never be required to stand , let alone run, in his comfortable "simple" world. I'm ready to do some railroading, how about you?

[bsteel4065]

I think we should find someone who can actually EAT a full size Chevy. Then we collectively sue GM. Ha!!!!!!!!!

[orsonroy]

You guys realize that you're getting all worked up over nothing, right?

Woodland Scenics just came out with an entire line of automobiles, and they look suspiciously like GM products (some Fords, too). Since they've not mentioned ANY manufacturer or auto style, they don't have to follow licensing. The cars are "generic", but look suspiciously like real vehicles...

[AntonioFP45]

Attaboy,

You bring up an interesting angle. GM, unfortunately, has played corporate games with the public in the past.

I have to admit that if it comes to that, I'll pay the little extra for the vehicles I want. I would buy only a limited quantity since, as mentioned, there are plenty of Ford and Chrysler vehicles available in 1/87 scale.

As for the bus, if it doesn't work out an option that Busch could try would be the Flxible "New Look" series buses, which competed against GM's fishbowls and have an almost identical body styling. These too were used all over the U.S, though the Fishbowl was on top of the food chain for two decades as far as city transit coach sales.

[IRONROOSTER]

The solution is to stop modeling in HO and move up to S scale. [:D]

OTH we could declare models of real things to be fair use, sort of like mentioning Chevy or Ford in a story, or including it in a painting. Then the whole licensing / liability issue goes away.


Enjoy
Paul

[davekelly]

Attaboy,

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting. "We are so afraid of the liability that we aren't going to give out any licences. Of course if we raise the fee a bit then we can get additional insurance to protect ourselves and perhaps could license again."

Hmmmmm. Makes one think doesn't it?

[Adelie]

That thought has crossed my mind, attaboy. Since they don't seem to know how to turn a buck making 1:1 scale cars, maybe they figure they can do better by getting a fee on the 1:87 or 1:160 offerings.

[Attaboy]

Consider the possibility that GM is taking this action to cause just the kind of outrage seen on this thread so they can raise their licensing fees.

[davekelly]

Tileguy,

I agree, the rampant attorneys are bilking the corporations out of millions. You'd think the corporations would be smart enough to hire some of these folks themselves. Newsflash - corporations have attorneys too.

The person didn't burn her mouth - she lost 3/4 of her privates. The cap was never placed on the coffee and in juror interviews afterwards the jury was really turned off by the McD's exec who stated that although they got hundreds of complaints that the coffee was too hot they weren't going to change a thing because it was a good profit maker. They were also turned off by the exec's "i have more important places to be" attitude. Also - bottom line - it was a jury award. Of course I guess it was awarded because the plaintiff had one of those lawyers that can twist things around and mislead everyone (of course only the jury got misled - everyone else in the country saw right through it - good lawyering on the plaintiff's attorney's part to get the only 12 people in the nation that could get so misled). Also, of course, McDonalds didn't have the smarts to hire a good attorney.

We shouldn't forget that many courts have set precedent that you can't sue McD's for being overweight from eating too many Big Macs.

[Anonymous]

Are we blaming the wrong people??
Consider, who puts corporations into the position where they feel the need to protect themselves.
Are Corporations out of control or is it our legal system that gives millions of dollars to a customer that burned his mouth on hot coffee.Millions!!!!!
If you want to point a finger of blame for idiotic thinking, lets make certain we point it in the proper direction.
Will the mentality ever change if we do nothing but stand aside and let the rampant attorneys knowingly bilk huge amounts of money out of corporations for silly crap.
What ever happened to common sense?
It got ridden over by greed.Its the big attorneys who put that gleam into the eye of a guy who burned his tongue.The one that says "Son we are going to make you rich"
Precedents are set which basically becomes law without ever having to go through capital hill.
Judges are not supposed to make law but they do it day in and day out.
Find someone else to blame, dont blame the corporation that is intelligent enough to see the writing on the wall.5000 lobbyists in washington will not affect that 1 judge who allows a ruling due to a precedent that was set 20 years ago.A precedent that in fact is not law!!

[davekelly]

Gray Loess
Interesting quote. Yup ole Bill did say that. Of course the line was uttered by a person contemplating how to take over a country - but I digress.

Of course we should probably look at those "outrageous" awards given to some plaintiffs. Yes at times it appears that we've become a lawsuit happy society - but why is that? If there weren't "outrageous" awards would anyone want to sue? Why are there "outrageous" awards? Yes, we all like to say "it's the lawyers with their trickery." But doesn't the defense have lawyers too? Or is it that GM and other "deep pocket" defendants don't have the financial ability or good sense to hire good attorneys? Or could it be something else? Most of the "outrageous" awards are jury awards given by jurors. In that case should we say "kill the jurors?" After all - everyone here gladly answers the jury summons they get right? Or, because it is a common joke that juries are made up of folks "not smart enough to get out of it" perhaps we should say "kill those that avoid jury duty?"

If this licensing thing is true - why is GM scared? I have not been able to think of a single way a plaintiff could argue that their is a causal relationship between GM's licensing of a model to a kid choking on a car. Allowing the car to look like a Corvette rather than a generic "car" would make it no more likely that a kid would try to eat the thing. Could it be that GM is frightened that if such a case were to come up - a jury wouldn't be able to see the silliness of it? Perhaps the quote should be "let's kill all the uneducated or stupid people?"

If we have become a suit happy society, there is only one place to place the blame. On the society itself.

To show that I try to be balanced:

Q: What is the difference between a catfish and an attorney?
A: One's a bottom dwelling scum sucker - the other a fish.

Dave (I do so enjoy lawyer jokes)

[Leon Silverman]

I wonder if the real reason is that GM failed to achieve a five-star crash rating of their models against HO and N scale locomotives and faces sanctions from the NHSTB?

[JPowell]

Well, I guess I'll just resort to buying Matchbox cars now!
JP

[Adelie]

I guess I'm not surprised. GM has developed a habit of running everything it touches into the ground. I guess the railroads ought to feel lucky they sold of EMD before they nosed it completely in.

Looks like another product that may become an ebay exclusive.

[Anonymous]

As Shakespeare said, "First, we kill all the lawyers."

Corporate executives should probably be next.[:(!]

[trolleyboy]

This is distressing and I might say a very narrow nearsighted thing to do.I work in retail and come accross stuff like this all the time. There is a reason for toy testing that is to put proper age ranges on product.The kids who could choke on this stuff can and would choke on 1/64th as well. This is why once tested toys are given a recomended age not recomended for children under three etc.If labled as an adult hobby product like preiser figures for instance they would be covered.As long as the warnings and age recomendations are there it is up to the concummer to use properly.Not meaning to sound awfull but if someone were to give a toddler one of these and god forbib the child is hurt or worse it would be THEIR FALT not the licencee or manufacturer as they had done their dur diligence and recieved an age and production test/warning from govt, testing agencies.My feeling is this is more of GM trying to find money and their fear is the potential of loosing money in a court.All tied into their poor sales and money numbers right now.This is a complete knee jerk reaction unfortunate but here it is. Rob

[RedGrey62]

Their decision is really curious especially with recent explosion of interesnt (and buying) of HO and N scale vehicles. Look at what happened with Classic Metal Works, their line up to a few years ago was all the 1/24th scale stufff. I'd be willing to wager they're making more now since they've entered the HO and N markets than off their original lines. First we have the whole UP licensing fiasco and now this. Just when we're getting the finest ready to run stuff ever, this happens. Well, enough venting for now. I still need some more Walthers 67 fastback Mustangs to fill my trilevel autorack, I would like to see them rrerun them, since Ford hasn't abandoned us modelers!

Rick

[AntonioFP45]

Funny thing for me is that I no longer drive GM vehicles.

But since my layout's theme will be 1960s-71, GM buses, cars, and trucks, are a virtual required part of the scenery! This is why I was so steamed earlier.

We owe Bill Cawthon our gratitude for informing us of this situation as most likely we all would have been caught off guard. Even my LHS's owner wasn't aware of this!

Bill, if you think petitions would help, please let us know. [;)]

Keep us posted. Thanks!

[brazos87]

Warning labels are everywhere! On the bottom of my beer bottle--"Open other end", top of my ladder, "Stop!". It's a shame that we have to regulate and protect manufacturers, retailers, et al., from the stupidity, laziness, and downright predatory nature of a lawsuit happy society.

[mustanggt]

Bob Lutz must have been on something when he OK'd this decision. Kids have a higher chance of choking on legos than they do on an HO or similiar size vehicles.

[BR60103]

Would it help if the models were made of fudge or stale bread dough?

[Anonymous]

About six months ago on the GM DealerWorld wed site they sent out a message to the effect that higgas prices would have no effect on sales. Duh... What is it they think they sell econoboxes? Or did they think the buying public was to stupid to put 2 and 2 together?

I have worked for a lof of companies and it seems that the bigger they are the worse they are managed. As GM's newest ads say, they are the biggest.

[Virginian]

Please help me remember, how did we get from 2 people to over 3 BILLION without Warning Labels, Child Proof Caps, I D for Glue, 20,000 gun laws, Mandatory seat belt laws, lead free gas, handicapped parking, Amy's Law, Amber Alerts, Megan's Law.... the list is endless.
Are things really better? Well, except for the quality of HO stuff, NO as far as I am concerned. As for anyone who needs a note on an envelope to tell them they have to put on a stamp, as far as I am concerned anyone that stupid doesn't need to use the mail anyway.

[willy6]

Welcome to the UNITED STATES OF LAWSUITS, an on going thing that will continue.[|(][|(][|(]

[rrinker]

I gotta wonder about the people running GM these days. I really think they haven't a clue. They just keep on cranking out the same rent-a-cars, with superficial improvements, or when they do a complete redesign, it produces a car that would be top of the heap - 10 years ago!
And now - reduce their public exposure by insuring that no small models of their cars will be legally produced. Wow... now wonder the company is in deep trouble.

--Randy

[rtraincollector]

Gimmie a VW beatle any day LOL .

[Anonymous]

If it's true, time to "roll your own"! Scratchbuilders, unite!

OK, so where are the Studes, Packards, DeSoto pickups, and how about a Stude pickup? How about a Kaiser or a Henry J DeLuxe? And just where are all those AMCs, something besides a Javelin?

[Cox 47]

Nothing runs like a ford! Cox 47

[dharmon]

The way things are going at GM, you'd think they be trying to expand the marketing of anything that provides income...

[davekelly]

Dave,

Good question. If I was a conspiracy theory type person I could have a field day with this one lol. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

BTW: I love the pic at the bottom of your post. Great job on the rock work and trees. The angle of the shoot is fantastic also!

[dave9999]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Dave,

The label is a good idea, but I'm still not sure what liability they would need protecting from in the first place. Generally licensing is limited to things such as likeness, name, shape etc. It would be different if the license were to produce an actual Corvette - then there are some liability issues that could come back to bite them.

Just my opinion.

Dave,
I see your point... It kind of makes the whole thing seem a little odd. What are
they concerned with?? Dave

[davekelly]

Dave,

The label is a good idea, but I'm still not sure what liability they would need protecting from in the first place. Generally licensing is limited to things such as likeness, name, shape etc. It would be different if the license were to produce an actual Corvette - then there are some liability issues that could come back to bite them.

I'm pretty sure that if GM were ever to be sued because someone ate a Preiser Chevy, it wouldn't be all that hard to get summary judgmented out of the case. Heck it wouldn't even cost $1000.00 and would set a precedent that would protect other manufacturers also.

Just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Wonderful, absolutely wonderful, another case of the corporate "thought" process doing damage to the little guys, to protect them selves from the lowest common denominators of society.

Nevermind the warning labels, people don't read those anyway.

I agree with the comments that parts for a 1:24th scale model can be more dangerous then a 1:8th model.

Alvie.

[Fergmiester]

QUOTE: Originally posted by steveblackledge

This post is very well thought out Bill, Here in the UK we are being flooded out with tat from China that is not licenced or tested to EU standards and is sold for next to nothing, now this stuff IS dangerous to small children. The situation is out of control here. If GM did there homework to ensure only model producers with a safe quallity record built models of there products there should not be a problem, but i may be wrong,
over to you

Well said Steve as I agree 100% as toys must be made to a safe standard. However the manufactureres can't be made to supervise or control what the children put in their mouths. Thats why they have parents.

Fergie

[dave9999]

Couldn't the whole problem be solved with a label on the package such as... THIS
PRODUCT IS INTENDED FOR SCALE MODELING ONLY. THIS IS NOT A TOY.
NOT RECOMENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER EIGHT... or something along
those lines. It would protect them from legal liabilities if a young child got it's
hands on them and tried to eat the model car. Just a thought, Dave

[davekelly]

This move totally baffles me. I don't see how GM could be liable should someone swallow a model. As GM is not in the stream of commerce for these models I think a plaintiff would have a hard time of making a prima facie case against GM. Of course their decision to stick with 1/64 and larger models doesn't make sense either. If they think that a kid swallowing a 1/87th Chevy will cost them millions, why do they think a kid swallowing a 1/24 rear view mirror would cost any less?

Hopefully some inhouse attorney at GM will set them straight.

[AntonioFP45]

Bill,

Thanks so much! Let's hope that the meeting will go well and common sense prevails.

[bcawthon]

The GM bus is in the final production stages for a summer release and Busch is now looking at losing a huge amount of money, which it will not be able to recover from GM.

GM has been going back and forth with this silliness since last year and most recently said that Busch's products were safe. I was in the uncomfortable position of having to deliver the bad news to Busch's managing director, a good friend of mine.

When you consider just how many models Busch will have to drop from its line ('50 Buick, '50 Chevy pickup, '52 Cadillac, '56 Corvette, '66 Cadillac, including the new American ambulance, '72 Firebird, '95 Caprice, '95 Blazer), it will be a major blow to the American modeler's best friend among the German modelmakers.

Add to that the fact Model Power will have to drop the new '55 Bel Air, '69 Camaro, Firebird and will not be able to release their upcoming Oldsmobile 442 and other models in the works.

No more CMWs, no more GMC Generals from Promotex or those ex-Monogram Mini-Exacts Herpa has kept in production. No more Wiking Opel GT and Opel Manta (both of which were sold through Buick dealers in America).

I sent a long letter to the gentlemen at EMI and GM, urging them to consider a more reasonable standard. There will be a meeting in Detroit next week, where we will learn if there is some hope.

[AntonioFP45]

Bill,

But hasnt' the GMC fishbowl already been produced?

I have to admit, I'm pretty steamed right now as I as well as a number of modelers have been waiting for this bus..........FOR YEARS!

This is crazy! I hope that there will be a light at the end of the tunnel.

[brothaslide]

I guess we'll be running a lot of Fords on our scale highways.

[steveblackledge]

This post is very well thought out Bill, Here in the UK we are being flooded out with tat from China that is not licenced or tested to EU standards and is sold for next to nothing, now this stuff IS dangerous to small children. The situation is out of control here. If GM did there homework to ensure only model producers with a safe quallity record built models of there products there should not be a problem, but i may be wrong,
over to you