The LNER Encyclopedia

I've just moved the (non-locomotive) rolling stock pages over, and I'm reminded of the sorry state that they are in.

I have way too much going on at the moment to seriously address this, but things should settle down by late August (after a house move), and I might be able to locate the relevant books from storage...
I'm thinking these pages should be similar to the loco pages - ie. rolling stock is "on topic" if it was used by the LNER, although there might be scope for historical background. E.g. a page on NER coal hoppers could include passing references to P1 chaldrons and possibly P2s just for context.
Rather than having a page for every single diagram (which would result in large numbers of low-content pages), I'm think we should have a page for each type. Contributions for constituents would be included on these pages, but they could be 'pulled out' onto their own page if the subject is big enough - NER coal hoppers would be a good example, and perhaps GCR fish vans is another?

Thoughts?

I am also going to be on the look out for suitable pictures and drawings with suitable copyright permission. Tatlow (and Harris, etc) might be packed full of photos, but they are covered by copyright. I would be interested in anything anyone has that has suitable permission. Quality wins of course, but I also need a wide variety. A poor quality picture is better than none at all.

As with other contributions and photos, I can acknowledge every photo, mini-essay, etc that I use. Acknowledgments can include a web link (eg. to a personal website, society, etc) but I won't include an email address because it only attracts spam.

Feel free to contact me about images immediately. My reply might be slow at times during the summer, but I can keep them until I'm ready to write the pages.

You need not be so exercised regarding copyright when the image in question is an 'official' view. These are almost certainly, with the exception of the last 3 years of the LNER [at the present year - 2015], out of both the 70-year regular and 50-year Crown Copyright periods.

To give you a perverse example, in the recent Bachmann catalogues the copyright of the 'official' views of the Thompson vestibule carriages is attributed to an individual. That cannot be since the copyright was with the company and it transferred to its successor on Nationalisation.

However I do not see the point of expending a lot of effort into reproducing something that has, with all due respect, been done so much more comprehensively and it is unlikely that this forum could add much to that which is already in print.

richard wrote: I'm thinking these pages should be similar to the loco pages - ie. rolling stock is "on topic" if it was used by the LNER, although there might be scope for historical background. E.g. a page on NER coal hoppers could include passing references to P1 chaldrons and possibly P2s just for context.
Rather than having a page for every single diagram (which would result in large numbers of low-content pages), I'm think we should have a page for each type. Contributions for constituents would be included on these pages, but they could be 'pulled out' onto their own page if the subject is big enough - NER coal hoppers would be a good example, and perhaps GCR fish vans is another?

As with other contributions and photos, I can acknowledge every photo, mini-essay, etc that I use. Acknowledgments can include a web link (eg. to a personal website, society, etc) but I won't include an email address because it only attracts spam.

Feel free to contact me about images immediately. My reply might be slow at times during the summer, but I can keep them until I'm ready to write the pages.

You might guess my comment.

Snowploughs would be an example that One section could cover all types.
11 Designs of NER Ploughs and only 24 examples.
However that may be possibly extended into the 12 early BR replacements as they were Eastern designed and Gorton built.

I feel LNER standard wagons and coaches at least have some place on this website. even if it's simply articles on broad types (EG standard vans) with a basic overview, then listing the different variations by diagram/type with the number series included.

Nova wrote:I feel LNER standard wagons and coaches at least have some place on this website. even if it's simply articles on broad types (EG standard vans) with a basic overview, then listing the different variations by diagram/type with the number series included.

Pretty well covered by Peter Tatlow in his 4 volume 5 part work on the LNER standard vehicles and those of the constituents.

It would be better I would have though to start work on documenting those areas not well-covered - the 'lineside' for starters. The LMS Society is a good example here as to the breadth of potential subject coverage.

65447 wrote: Pretty well covered by Peter Tatlow in his 4 volume 5 part work on the LNER standard vehicles and those of the constituents.

yes, but not everyone has access to said books, myself included, more so those living in other countries. This fact will only become more prevalent as time since the discontinue of print increases and copies become harder to obtain and thus more expensive.

not only that but simply dismissing someone new to the study of the LNER, and indeed the hobby of model railways, who may not have those books or any way to access them, to "go read a book on the subject" is a surefire way to put them off and IMHO counterintuitive to the basic purpose of this website and forum: to provide information and educate about the LNER. and if members are going to simply divert the curious towards books then why bother with the articles on locomotive classes because there are surely books on those subjects as well.

In this age of the internet, a lot of people of my generation and the generation now entering their early teens don't have easy access to books such as Tatlows works. so a website like this provides a brilliant platform to access said information.

Obvious time constraints and real life commitments of the creator of this website aside (for whom I have endless respect for taking the time and effort into creating this website), I feel a website dedicated to the subject of the LNER should at least touch on every major aspect of the LNER.

Nova wrote:

65447 wrote: Pretty well covered by Peter Tatlow in his 4 volume 5 part work on the LNER standard vehicles and those of the constituents.

yes, but not everyone has access to said books, myself included, more so those living in other countries. This fact will only become more prevalent as time since the discontinue of print increases and copies become harder to obtain and thus more expensive.

not only that but simply dismissing someone new to the study of the LNER, and indeed the hobby of model railways, who may not have those books or any way to access them, to "go read a book on the subject" is a surefire way to put them off and IMHO counterintuitive to the basic purpose of this website and forum: to provide information and educate about the LNER. and if members are going to simply divert the curious towards books then why bother with the articles on locomotive classes because there are surely books on those subjects as well.

In this age of the internet, a lot of people of my generation and the generation now entering their early teens don't have easy access to books such as Tatlows works. so a website like this provides a brilliant platform to access said information.

Obvious time constraints and real life commitments of the creator of this website aside (for whom I have endless respect for taking the time and effort into creating this website), I feel a website dedicated to the subject of the LNER should at least touch on every major aspect of the LNER.

Whilst I understand what you're saying in one respect, it can also be read that when someone goes to great lengths to fully research a subject and provide a definitive history you're asking for all that work to be put online for free.
It is freely and easily available in book form at present for what is a nominal sum, and if you confine your research to just what you see on the screen you'll miss out on so much.
You can at present purchase Peters illustrated overview of LNER wagons for £15 on Ebay, which is less than a 1/3rd of the cost of a Bachmann Thompson coach.
I know what I'd rather have.

Dave S wrote:Whilst I understand what you're saying in one respect, it can also be read that when someone goes to great lengths to fully research a subject and provide a definitive history you're asking for all that work to be put online for free.
.

that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting something more along the lines of a basic overview of broad types, such as brake vans, as one article, giving a general overview of how they came to be. followed by a list with a picture (where possible) of each type with accompanying info.

example:

LNER Toad B/D/E (plus other standard types, I've forgotten if there wwere any more than those three standard brake vans)

Insert basic overview such as :

The LNER Toad Brake vans have their origins in a North Eastern Railway design adopted as standard upon grouping, this steadily developed with the move from wooden to metal duckets and finally in an extended wheelbase for more stability on express goods. More in depth information can be found in Tatlows "LNER Wagons Volume 4B: LNER Standard & Other Designs"

that was really basic, and will obviously be a little more indepth.

Toad B (Diagram 034)
insert image
Table with info on Build dates, Number series, Wheelbase, Dimensions, Weight, Etc.

rinse and repeat the above info altering where necessary for different diagrams. with the obligatory "available models" at the bottom

and it would be the same for other types, open wagons, goods vans, specialised wagons, etc. enough to provide a basis for fledgling railway modelers to then delve deeper for further research

As per the marking on the photograph you have posted ,you are breaching the copyright on the photograph which is not your property to use.

I suggest you remove asap before legal proceedings can or will be taken against you , as already pointed out by previous posts .

mick b wrote:As per the marking on the photograph you have posted ,you are breaching the copyright on the photograph which is not your property to use.

I suggest you remove asap before legal proceedings can or will be taken against you , as already pointed out by previous posts .

Apologies, the image has been removed.

however, to my understanding the use and display of photographs not owned by myself on this forum is legally permitted under fair use (USA) and Fair dealing (UK):

Fair dealing (UK) - It is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which provide three types of situation in which fair dealing is a valid defence: where the use is for the purposes of research or private study, where it is to allow for criticism or review, and where it is for the purpose of reporting current events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_deal ... ingdom_law

the majority of the use of pictures not owned by myself on this forum falls under the first defence: where the use is for the purposes of research or private study

Fair use (USA) - Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use# ... e_Internet

in this instance it falls under comment and research.

so I am legally within my right to display said images so long as I do not claim them as my own and do not profit.

Nova wrote:
Apologies, the image has been removed.

however, to my understanding the use and display of photographs not owned by myself on this forum is legally permitted under fair use (USA) and Fair dealing (UK):

Fair dealing (UK) - It is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which provide three types of situation in which fair dealing is a valid defence: where the use is for the purposes of research or private study, where it is to allow for criticism or review, and where it is for the purpose of reporting current events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_deal ... ingdom_law

the majority of the use of pictures not owned by myself on this forum falls under the first defence: where the use is for the purposes of research or private study

Fair use (USA) - Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use# ... e_Internet

in this instance it falls under comment and research.

so I am legally within my right to display said images so long as I do not claim them as my own and do not profit.

Posting on a public forum is not "Research or private study" or "Comment and research" but publishing, especially in the format you describe as you intend it to inform and educate others as a source of material.

The simple rule is that if it isn't yours and you don't have permission then don't publish. You could put a link to where it is posted if needed.

Dave S wrote:
Posting on a public forum is not "Research or private study" or "Comment and research" but publishing

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. for one thing for it to legally class as copyright infringement I would need to be profiting some way or claiming it as my own.


Additionally, if an image appears on google image search that that LEGALLY means it's falling under public use*, which means people are legally allowed to use images obtained on Google images (which is what I do 99% of the time) so long as I don't claim the work as my own. there is evan an option to block said images being used on google images, he has failed to do so meaning he understands that the image may get shared round from time to time, he's also plastered a copyright sign and the photo credit on each photograph, not to stop it from being copied, but to ensure people don't mistake the credit of the original photo. additionally if you were to rightclick and select "copy image URL" it would bring up the original url.


in short, sure the original owner can contact me and ask me to take down an image, and 99% of the time I would oblige out of courtesy, but he/she could not take legal action on the matter.


*please understand that public use does not mean the original copyright is revoked, it just means the people are allowed within the law to post said images on forums, message boards, IMs, ETC. so long as they do not claim it as their own.

from now on unless a moderator tells me to take an image down, quoting exactly any applicable laws, they will remain up

Nova wrote: I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. for one thing for it to legally class as copyright infringement I would need to be profiting some way or claiming it as my own.


Additionally, if an image appears on google image search that that LEGALLY means it's falling under public use*, which means people are legally allowed to use images obtained on Google images (which is what I do 99% of the time) so long as I don't claim the work as my own. there is evan an option to block said images being used on google images, he has failed to do so meaning he understands that the image may get shared round from time to time, he's also plastered a copyright sign and the photo credit on each photograph, not to stop it from being copied, but to ensure people don't mistake the credit of the original photo. additionally if you were to rightclick and select "copy image URL" it would bring up the original url.


in short, sure the original owner can contact me and ask me to take down an image, and 99% of the time I would oblige out of courtesy, but he/she could not take legal action on the matter.


*please understand that public use does not mean the original copyright is revoked, it just means the people are allowed within the law to post said images on forums, message boards, IMs, ETC. so long as they do not claim it as their own.

from now on unless a moderator tells me to take an image down, quoting exactly any applicable laws, they will remain up

So in short what you're saying is, that even though you knew the picture was copyright to another you copied and used it here, but you say that as you're not profiting then that's fine. And yet in other posts you say you're going to make kits which will by the nature of the business make you a profit.

Just because an image appears on Google it does not mean it's fair game, this statement you made

there is evan an option to block said images being used on google images, he has failed to do so meaning he understands that the image may get shared round from time to time,

You've assumed something that you cannot prove, I for one did not know you could exclude from a Google search so what is there to say that the owner didn't as well?

This part amused me the most this morning.

from now on unless a moderator tells me to take an image down, quoting exactly any applicable laws, they will remain up

You're now moderating the moderators, good luck with that. Sometimes things aren't about the law and how you can apply it to suit your own wants but how you interpret it so that it is fair.
I recently had to study copyright law regarding the ownership of certain items and I would say that if you are using Wiki as a source of interpretation for the law on copyright in this country then your education on it will fall short.

Dave S wrote:So in short what you're saying is, that even though you knew the picture was copyright to another you copied and used it here

it does not fall under copying as I used the source URL (in this instance: http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/img/s/ ... 9445-3.jpg). if I'd downloaded the image, reuploaded it to an image hosting site such as Imgur, then posted it here THEN I'd be in the wrong. in this instance it's merely redisplaying said image

I recently had to study copyright law regarding the ownership of certain items

then by all means, direct me to a case when someone was taken to court and lost for posting copyrighted material such as images or an article on a forum in the manner I have done. I can direct you to one where the person being accused won:

In June 2011, Judge Philip Pro of the District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v. Hoehn that the posting of an entire editorial article from the Las Vegas Review Journal in a comment as part of an online discussion was unarguably fair use. Judge Pro noted that "Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. ... Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. ... This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. § 107 provides fair use protection. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. … wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. ... there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate."[29] On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Righthaven did not even have the standing needed to sue Hoehn for copyright infringement in the first place.[30]

If i ended up being taken to court on the matter it would presumable go the same way, being ruled non commercial and non profit


seems to me you've misunderstood some of the things you've learned, for one thing posting on a forum does not count as publishing, at least nowhere near in the context of things such as books, magazines, etc.

You're now moderating the moderators, good luck with that

not at all, merely saying I will take the image down if they can provide a good enough reason. At the end of the day moderators, whilst wielding a great deal of authority, do not have total authority to tell me to take things down unchallenged, and I'm within my right to stand up for myself and argue against if necessary.

Nova wrote: I can direct you to one where the person being accused won:

In June 2011, Judge Philip Pro of the District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v. Hoehn <snip>

If i ended up being taken to court on the matter it would presumable go the same way, being ruled non commercial and non profit

In reply to the first part of your post you have quoted US law which varies from State to State, The US has State law as well as Federal law, the Law in the US is based around the constitution and part of the US constitution includes the right to Free speech. We do not have the same right to free speech in the UK (We are Subjects).
The issue is not whether you think you'll win something but having a bit of respect for others property in the first place.

I will take the image down if they can provide a good enough reason. At the end of the day moderators, whilst wielding a great deal of authority, do not have total authority to tell me to take things down unchallenged, and I'm within my right to stand up for myself and argue against if necessary

I'm going to guess that you'll do as the moderators ask, if they don't want you to do something they don't have to give a reason but I'd trust their judgement.
At the end of the day nothing is free on the internet, someone is paying for bandwidth somewhere along the line so this forum is the property of someone, and if they're not happy with you posting copyrighted images and don't want to give a reason why, it's not your place to argue.