Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends - Time to say "Goodbye"?

Only if you can't distinguish between a long term strategic choice to convert a loco over a period of time to act as Thomas saving hire in fees and a short term hire to resolve a specific issue. Hiring in the Barclay 0-4-0 is about dealing with a track alignment problem on the branchline which may be causing excess wear on loco tyres for longer wheel base locos and giving cover on that line for the SRM. Hindsight might have dictated a different order of locos in the works (particularly as 1363 which possibly has a short enough wheel base to be used even though a 0-6-0 has taken much longer than expected) with maybe one of the 0-4-0's going through first but in reality hiring in the Barclay is nothing to do with the decision to have a home "Thomas". In the longer term having another small loco available as back up (even if it is a funny shade of blue and looks suspiciously like Thomas with no face) helps rather than hinders.

I'd say the priorities were fine and sensible - allowing for a lack of crystal balls available on site!

 

Not guilty, we didn't make Thomas, that was a competitor. But knowing the work we needed to do when we produce licenced rides it will have been the licence companies fault, they dream up the hoops we have to jump through.

When Britt Allcroft had the licence the manufacturer of the Thomas ride wasn't allowed to sell the ride and was only allowed to use it on it's own operation, such was the control that Britt Allcroft exercised on the licence, this was 20 years ago when the first Thomas rides came out.

When HiT took up the licence they relaxed this to enable rides to be sold to other operators, typically a licence will have an initial fee and then a percentage of each sale; which brings in more cash to the licence holder. HiT took up the Thomas licence after they'd acquired the Bob the Builder licence but it wasn't as successful.

 

The hog roast I remember, was held at The Black Lion at Consall, cooked by the landlord, very nice too. The parents enjoyed it but some of the children would not eat any of it

 

It all hinges on trademark legislation I believe. Many supermarkets use the same colours and are very good at mimicking branded products - while the symbols used by various smartphone software suppliers are as close as they can be to each other as is legally possible. In fact several big brands have been slapped down when they have tried to claim that a particular packaging format / colour combination belongs exclusively to them (Kit-Kat being a recent one IIRC)

The owners of Thomas cannot copyright / trademark a steam engines of any design, or a blue or red livery etc for the same reasons - its the number and the face that make the difference.

 

However it is dressed up it still amounts to hiring a locomotive in order to avoid hiring a locomotive. The priorities remain odd on second consideration as well as first.

PH

 

I think you are correct here, whilst the original Thomas stories occasionally included real engines; Stepney for example, generally the chance of finding a sky blue tank engine or pacific that carried that livery pre preservation is slim. The chance of finding a black 0-6-0 tender goods or a green 0-4-0 saddle tank are much more likely. None of the Thomas engines had nameplates so what makes your 0-4-0 a Percy, only a number and a face. If a parent points at your green saddletank and says "that looks a bit like Percy" your safe, but put a face on it and it IS Percy then your on a sticky wicket. A licence company will only go for you if they think you are trading off or near their product and more importantly think they could convince a judge of that. So is putting a face on any locomotive infringing on the Thomas franchise? Well he wasn't the only one with a face. I don't know who has the rights to Sammy the Shunter, but I suspect the only winners would be the lawyers.

 

Just harking back to who is still running Thomas events I'd add that the size of the railway makes a huge difference in whether or not you can actually get enough paying customers in to cover all the fees, licenses, transport etc.

I think we stopped doing Thomas in 2014 (I'm sure Matt will correct me if I'm wrong) when we estimated that we needed to run over 1,000 passengers a day to cover our costs - On what was a small contry line with typically small country platforms? Lots of excited children and crowded platforms don't mix...

Those events also needed practically all of our volunteers to be on duty and after the typical three or four day event over Easter everyone was just about ready to drop. And the general feeling was that we probably made less profit than on normal running days!

Now we do an Easter bunny, Easter egg hunt and treasure trail. Much more relaxed, no huge expenses and, surprise, surprise, a far better return!

I should think that those railways out there that think nothing of 1,500 or 2,000 PAX a day should be able to make a Thomas event reasonably profitable but for us small 'uns, limited by the physical capacity of the railway it's very difficult.

PS. Not sure of the accuracy of the following but I think it is somewhere near correct:-
The last I heard about additional costs was that you had to buy the faces (at £900 each) and that they could only be used for three years than had to be replaced.. and,
Hit were talking about all online bookings and payments going through their website/bank account and then they'd pay the railway (less their comission and fees etc) four to six weeks after the event....

 

From what I gather from various places this is just about 100% correct! I would only add that it would appear the various forms of "squeeze" applied by the franchise holders can remove any form of profit entirely unless the population of the catchment area is so large as to justify the event being held over several days. Most people who work hard for the railway they support do so for the benefit of the line concerned and not for that of HIT.

Paul H

 

Good grief! The last "official" faces that we purchased cost £30 each, they're still lying around here somewhere! £900 each?? Greedy, or what!

 

Reading in the heritage railway mag the West Somerset Railway were denied a Thomas licence by Mattel because Minehead station is not big enough to hold the crowds. The article goes on to state the the railway didn't make much money anyway due to royalties.
I think that's the dumbest reasons not to grant a licence, Mineheads platforms are one of the biggest if not the biggest platforms in the heritage railway movement.

 

They seem to be cutting back on events, Lakeside & Haverthwaite announced on Facebook yesterday:
'So long Thomas''

Dear all
After 10 years hosting successful, award winning and rewarding, well supported ‘Day out with Thomas’ events, it is with great sadness that the Lakeside and Haverthwaite Railway Company Limited has to announce that due to circumstances beyond our control, for the foreseeable future, we will not be holding any further ‘Thomas’ events'

 

Sounds as if it is another place which is finding these events represent a lot of hard work for very little, if any, financial reward. Someone I know who volunteered for "Thomas " duties says he found the lists of "do's and don'ts" to be very frustrating. When a line's volunteers become cheesed off with a scarcely profitable event it is time for it to be dumped.

PH

 

RIP Thomas.

 

Thomas is not dead just because one less heritage line is stopped doing it does not mean Thomas is dead. The heritage that still do it are still making money and the numbers. Such as Mid Hants Railway, North Norfolk Railway, East Anglia Railway Museum, Buckinghamshire Railway Centre, Colne Valley Railway, Didcot Railway Centre, Spa Valley Railway, Dean Forest Railway, Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway, Llangollen Railway, South Devon Railway, Eastleigh Lakeside Steam Railway, Kent & East Sussex Railway, Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway, East Lancashire Railway, Kirklees Light Railway, Stephenson Railway Museum, Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway and Caledonian Railway. The only other events that can match numbers with Thomas are galas and Flyingscotsman. It helps pay for keep the railway running and helps pay for overhauls.

 

Not so at all. I am aware of at least one railway which not only has a better bottom line with their Thomas replacement but also higher numbers of people carried as well.

I can well understand railways being unwilling to take the risk of jettisoning Thomas but IMHO they will have to do so eventually. It would be sensible to start investigating alternatives.

PH

 

If there is a railway that carried more passengers and made more money from an alternative event then it must have been pretty poor attempt at a Thomas event in the first place. Having said that with the railways that have recently either turned away from Thomas (or that have been turned away, not necessarily for the reasons that have publically been given) it will no doubt being wondered by those who remain what the franchisees intentions really are, and good business practice mean that this eventuality should be considered.

 

The reasoning in the first sentence is a non sequitur. However, the reasoning in the second sentence is likely to be correct. (IMHO)

PH

 

Beg to differ but then again plain English would help.

 

Try Google. Any conclusion which does not follow logically from the previous argument is a non-sequitur. If the same people get both higher margins and attendances from a new event than the former one, then the previous event was the problem and nothing else. Quicker to type "non-sequitur".

PH

 

Try Victor Meldrew and the quote ' What language are you talking in now? It appears to be bol***ks'.
To repeat, if somewhere is getting a higher margin and better attendances from a 'new' event as opposed to a Thomas event then there was something wrong with the attempt at a Thomas event. If you are so sure of this then please advise the event so that the heritage movement as a whole can or could benefit.