New N gauge Crowdfunded Class 92 electric locomotive project

[DJM Dave]

Well, I have had a change of mind and put myself down for a GBRf Europorte version, DCC fitted. 

This may have been asked before, so forgive me if it has:

 

What decoder is fitted in the DCC-fitted versions, please, Dave?

Hi,

 

There is no DCC fitted option, merely a DCC sound fitted option.

DCC sound is fitted to all models that have an 'S' after the product code.

Cheers

Dave

[DJM Dave]

Hi everyone from the Fareham show where the 92 seems to be going down a storm and it's nice to be able to tell to crowdfunders here, and potential new customers about this model and tell them the odd snippet of information regarding detail etc, that will come out on here the next few weeks as you all see the cad/cams, prior to metal cutting.

 

I've a slot booked for metal cutting which, if all went well will see a 1st ep arrive here the week before 2017 Chinese New Year.

 

So I'm hoping that with all the differences in the front and body taken into account between what is almost sub classes, I can show you all what your going to get, and I think you'll be suitably impressed.

Using the works drawings, which have proved inaccurate in many respects, I've had to alter, fettle and change quite a bit.

And it's proved, like the 71 in OO an experience that makes you appreciate the real thing even more.

 

I've also got DJM stockists asking for these models, but I won't under the crowdfunding initiative supply these models in the proposed formats to them. They are special and they are yours!

 

I will supply models to the trade after the crowdfunding ones have been supplied, and only in alternate names, liveries and weathered, but of course at a much higher price and lot in as limited runs.

 

A wise old sage from Bideford once said.....'the futures bright, the futures N', well with the DJM model of the 92 he has never been more correct.

 

Cheers

Dave

[DJM Dave]

Can all those interested please take a minute out to look at the class 92 in N and OO thread i have made tonight?

cheers

Dave

[MGR Hooper!]

Presumably this one that has (quite rightly) been locked.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/115432-class-92-electric-loco-in-n-and-oo-gauge-decision-and-thoughts/

 

That's your business, not ours.

 

Mistakes made etc. etc., I think it should've been deleted completely! One manufacturer made the mistake of telling the other (intentions aside), the other made a mistake of making his competitor's plans public and lastly the admin hasn't done his job and removed the thread completely!

Edited October 2, 2016 by MGR Hooper!

[Wolf27]

Unfortunately the damage has been done. No one wins in this sort of situation, it only creates bad feeling.

 

Cheers

 

Shane

[DJM Dave]

Mistakes made etc. etc., I think it should've been deleted completely! One manufacturer made the mistake of telling the other (intentions aside), the other made a mistake of making his competitor's plans public and lastly the admin hasn't done his job and removed the thread completely!

Just to make things clearer in case people aren't picking up on it.

It was never my intention to announce another's project.

 

However my train (please excuse the pun) of thought was that as plans on view at Leamington show had been seen and reported back to me, 2 members of the press have mentioned it directly to me in the last 24 hours, and quite a few people at yesterdays show to my face naming the manufacturer, plus the cancellations i have had either naming the manufacturer or a third party, I genuinely thought it had been announced publicly.

 

Hope this clarifies things and i shall comment no more on the matter.

Cheers

Dave

[Legend]

Quite. If someone is showing plans at a show I think you can regard it as announced. Seems to contradict with the not announcing it until ready for market. Unless it's imminent, of course

[Revolution Mike]

Hi folks

 

Just to be clear, we first started talking to our customers about a 92 at TINGS (Leamington) in 2015. We weren't at that point firm in our plans, but over the last 9 months we had been doing our research (getting plans etc and Brush/Wabtec's co-operation) and sorting out the livery permissions that we didn't already have (including Caledonian Sleeper) so that we were ready to make an announcement at a suitable point. 

 

As Ben mentioned on the now locked thread we were incredibly reluctant to announce a new model until we had started to deliver our first models to our customers but we were asked repeatedly at TINGS 2016 about our plans for a 92.

 

I apologise for wading on another enthusiast's thread, but there are some assumptions being made that we probably need to dispel.

 

Cheers, Mike

[DavidH]

Just to make things clearer in case people aren't picking up on it.

It was never my intention to announce another's project.

 

 

But that's exactly what you did! Intention counts for nothing in the world of black-and-white print. We can (still) see what you said. I recall a time on this forum, not so long ago, when people were warned about releasing the Hornby new year announcement ahead of time.

 

Is there a business case or not? If there isn't, don't do it. If there is, get on with it and be wary of running your business plan via committee on this forum. As you repeatedly remind us, we haven't put our house on the line for this, what do we know about manufacturing? (And remember that applies to the enthusiastic "I'll have five of those" as much as the voices of doom and gloom.)

[bigP]

Can all those interested please take a minute out to look at the class 92 in N and OO thread i have made tonight?

cheers

Dave

 

 

Hi everyone from the Fareham show where the 92 seems to be going down a storm and it's nice to be able to tell to crowdfunders here, and potential new customers about this model and tell them the odd snippet of information regarding detail etc, that will come out on here the next few weeks as you all see the cad/cams, prior to metal cutting.

 

I've a slot booked for metal cutting which, if all went well will see a 1st ep arrive here the week before 2017 Chinese New Year.

 

So I'm hoping that with all the differences in the front and body taken into account between what is almost sub classes, I can show you all what your going to get, and I think you'll be suitably impressed.

Using the works drawings, which have proved inaccurate in many respects, I've had to alter, fettle and change quite a bit.

And it's proved, like the 71 in OO an experience that makes you appreciate the real thing even more.

 

I've also got DJM stockists asking for these models, but I won't under the crowdfunding initiative supply these models in the proposed formats to them. They are special and they are yours!

 

I will supply models to the trade after the crowdfunding ones have been supplied, and only in alternate names, liveries and weathered, but of course at a much higher price and lot in as limited runs.

 

A wise old sage from Bideford once said.....'the futures bright, the futures N', well with the DJM model of the 92 he has never been more correct.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

Good Afternoon Dave Jones,

 

 

In the now locked thread you said, "So what do i do? Over to you."

 

Well, we can't answer that one for you but it would appear that you have already made the decision.  In that post you state that you were contacted by another manufacturer after you initially announced the 92.  At the announcement point you were not taking any money from the public for either the N or OO model.  I recall this as I looked around your website when submitting an 'expression of interest'.

You have since begun to take monies from the public and so one can assume you have taken the decision to press on with the 92 already armed with the knowledge that another manufacturer was intending to produce it also.

 

You, Hornby, Bachmann or any other manufacturer are all quite entitled to produce whatever models you like (subject to the necessary licensing of course) and that fact remains so there is no reason why you shouldn't carry on.

 

 

Now, whilst I'm posting this I'll take the opportunity to mention that I will no longer be purchasing a DJM 'N' 92, and that my decision has nothing to do with another manufacturer's plans but simply down to what I personally take to be deplorable behaviour on your part.  Allow me to explain why I feel this way.

 

 

Yesterday you posted that you intend on producing 92s for sale to the trade once the 'crowdfunders' have received their 92s and that the trade 92s will sell at at higher price.  When you initially announced the 92 project there was no mention of this whatsoever in either the N or OO thread (screenshot attached).  This had given me the impression that the only way to acquire a DJM 92 was to pay upfront for one of a limited run, which I was happy to do.

 

However, you are now stating that you intend to produce another batch of 92s to the trade.  This is an issue for me because as I see it any monies I give to you for the crowdfunded 92s are simply to bankroll a production of 92s for the trade from which you will profit greatly.

 

Given the estimated crowdfunded prices of £130 and £150 per loco for N and OO respectively, and given the nature of crowdfunding being a wholly funded entity, the crowdfunding will; pay for the R&D, pay for the CAD work, pay for the tooling, pay for livery licences, pay for the materials and production, and finally supply the models to the 'crowdfunders'.  Undoubtably you will make a little profit for reinvesment as you or anyone else quite rightly should given the hard work you will put in to such a project!

 

You will then produce another batch of 92s to the trade after we, the public, will have bankrolled all the R&D, CAD work, the tooling and the livery licenses.  You have already stated the trade models will sell at higher prices, and to differentiate them from the crowdfunded models they will have different running numbers/names. But that it all.

 

This, therefore, is not a social crowdfunding (community/not-for-profit) project in the traditional sense, but is more a form of equity crowdfunding, though you are not offering the public any equity or return on investment.  You are merely offering to return investments in the form of a model locomotive, leaving you to benefit greatly from a much reduced production cost run of 92s to sell directly to trade with a high(er) RRP. 

 

This is great business for you but a lousy investment for me!

 

 

The alternative of course is that DJM is co-funding this project and investing in the R&D, CAD, tooling and licensing as well.  However, if that is the case then you have no grounds to claim that this is a 'crowdfunded' project nor advertise it as such.

If this is jointly funded then I am greatly concerned at the estimated costs of the models to funders, let alone what the price to trade and RRP will be and thus how that would affect trade sales.  High I can only assume.

 

 

I will assume that the 'trade selling' idea is something that has evolved naturally, but for me seeds of doubt now exist over the veracity of the claim 'crowdfunded model' in the DJM context.   I'm left with the impression that you have used the spirit and goodwill of a 'social enterprise' concept as the basis to fund a commerical enterprise, with no intention of returning any of the profit to the investers that made it happen.  This is something that does not sit well with me. 

Your comments on this forum over the past 24 hours or so only agitate my concerns further, as you have given the appearance that as the 'crowd funds' are removed the possibility of a trade run of 92s and their associated profits for you slips away.  The notion 'We fund it, you profit from it', I find quite distasteful, as do I find using a modelling forum to air dirty laundry in an attempt to manipulate the public into 'chosing sides'.

 

Where I am to invest in a business/entity then I need to trust the individuals running it, and now quite simply, I don't trust you.  Could I please suggest that in future any products intended for trade sale are funded through private equity, business loans etc, and not this way.

 

I see no reason why a manufacturer should not make a profit for their work on a crowdfunded 'social enterprise' project, but using public crowdfunding to bankroll a trade run is simply inexcuseable and risks the reputation and future progress of genuine 'crowd funded' social enterprises.

 

 

These reasons, therefore, are why I am not prepared to get involved in any initiatives that DJM claim to be 'crowdfunded'.  And to clarify, it is your actions and words that have led me to making this decision, not those of another party.  As 'Dragons' do say, "I'm out!".

 

Sincerely,

Paul (bigP)

.attached

Edited October 2, 2016 by bigP

[Hilux5972]

I'm sorry BigP but did you really need to duplicate that post on both the N and OO gauge model threads? It's obvious Dave reads all threads in the DJM section and I feel like you are just trying to beat him down any way you can. You made your thoughts perfectly clear on the other thread, and I agree with what many others are saying, in that if it weren't for people like Dave willing to take these chances on crowdfunding models, then some would never come to light.

Obviously it is your choice whether or not to help towards this crowd funded model, and that is entirely your prerogative. However, I do feel like you are taking it a step far expecting that Dave should have to produce these models and then not gain any profit for himself. After all, he does have the right to a wage does he not?

[mikeharvey22]

I would not be suggesting that DJM should not make a profit from the crowd-funding, and I am sure that a producer margin is built in. If it is not built-in then DJM must have some deep pockets.

 

I am not sure where "trade margin" fits into the equation. For the crowd-funding business model the producer deals directly with the eventual buyer so no trade margin, but the chance to make a producer margin. When a future batch is made and sold through the trade, there is still the producer margin, but an additional retail margin which would drive the selling price higher. I had not expected a crowd-funded model to be exclusive forever, but I had expected there to be a financial advantage to crowdfunders, in effect being the saving of the trade margin.

[Cape Town Trev]

I'm sorry BigP but did you really need to duplicate that post on both the N and OO gauge model threads? It's obvious Dave reads all threads in the DJM section and I feel like you are just trying to beat him down any way you can. You made your thoughts perfectly clear on the other thread, and I agree with what many others are saying, in that if it weren't for people like Dave willing to take these chances on crowdfunding models, then some would never come to light.

Obviously it is your choice whether or not to help towards this crowd funded model, and that is entirely your prerogative. However, I do feel like you are taking it a step far expecting that Dave should have to produce these models and then not gain any profit for himself. After all, he does have the right to a wage does he not?

As I am an N gauge modeler, I only read this thread so for me it was useful that the post was in both threads.

 

With regard to BigP's post - I think that Revolution for the Pendolino whilst crowdfunded, Rapido can sell the model after X years.  I think Rapido own the tooling so I have contributed to the R&D and tooling costs.  Admittedly, Rapido underwrote the original crowdfunding shortfall.  For me if Rapido / DJM produce further items as long as at a higher price I gain in buying at a discount and having the item years before the "general public".  I missed out on the Revolution TEAs and see the premium I need to pay to secure one that has gone straight to the trade. 

[lucazone]

The Pendolino financing isnt that clear cut. The crowd funding exercise failed, so no money was taken by Kickstarter. Rapido then stepped in, happy to facilitate production of the project given the interest shown. Deposits were then taken (and still are!) by Revolution themselves who subsequently carried out R&D.

 

I believe Revolution have said there will be no Pendolinos in the market for 2years from delivery of their project to original backers. Am I right thinking this is the same approach the NGS takes with RTR commissions? (Thinking brake vans and inspection coaches here). WRT NGS commisions, is it thus that membership fees are partly 'bankrolling' (to coin an earlier phrase) the R&D for the RTR manufacturer who win the commission?

 

I guessing thus that the pivatol issue is the implied keenness of Dave to let RTR manufacturers release their own versions of the 92 soon after the crowd funders get theirs, rather than leaving a large time gap. At least, this is the impression Im reading.

 

I am backing Daves project as I want a mass market 92 to be developed, just like I have a Pendolino on order with Revolution. It is an interesting time where customers are almost forcing through models they want because RTR manufacturers have lost the guts to be bold (ah the days of John Smith). These new ways are presenting new challenges.

[mikeharvey22]

I guessing thus that the pivatol issue is the implied keenness of Dave to let RTR manufacturers release their own versions of the 92 soon after the crowd funders get theirs, rather than leaving a large time gap. At least, this is the impression Im reading.

I am backing Daves project as I want a mass market 92 to be developed, just like I have a Pendolino on order with Revolution. It is an interesting time where customers are almost forcing through models they want because RTR manufacturers have lost the guts to be bold (ah the days of John Smith). These new ways are presenting new challenges.

In this case, of course, DJ Models Ltd is the RTR manufacturer, as well as the intermediary in the crowdfunding. I have to admit to being surprised, and incredibly impressed, that the whole thing has reached enough committed buyers so quickly. All of which makes the objective of the initial posting on the closed thread difficult to understand. Sadly it cast doubt on DJ Models Ltd in the minds of many potential buyers including me, and I am finding that very difficult to dispel.

[DJM Dave]

In this case, of course, DJ Models Ltd is the RTR manufacturer, as well as the intermediary in the crowdfunding. I have to admit to being surprised, and incredibly impressed, that the whole thing has reached enough committed buyers so quickly. All of which makes the objective of the initial posting on the closed thread difficult to understand. Sadly it cast doubt on DJ Models Ltd in the minds of many potential buyers including me, and I am finding that very difficult to dispel.

 

Hi Mike,

 

I fully understand your reasoning, i really do. I was foolish and should have done some homework and found out if the model was officially launched that day instead of shooting from the hip.

I could have and should have acted differently, but when faced with a huge amount of evidence i didn't, i acted rashly.

I cannot change what has been done, however i can apologise here publicly to Ben and Mike for the way it was done.

 

As for the OO and N gauge projects, i'm equally stunned as i had hoped that there would just be enough in N gauge to make it viable but thought the OO one would get over the line first.

However it's been a very quick ride to get to where we are at the minute, and things are moving apace now on both gauges.

Having seen the OO class 71 run a fair bit on a third parties layout yesterday the coreless motor is going to be a boon in the 92, with lots of grunt, but little noise, and leaving lots of space for the speaker, and 22 pin decoder socket.

 

By the way, the 71 has solder tabs on the end of the pcb board for the speaker to be attached to. Does this, in general seem like a good thing or in peoples experience does the process need changing a bit? Suggestions please. Also with 1 of the tabs being labelled 'RED' is this enough do you think?

I am open to suggestions for both gauges to be honest, but i've got the huge amount of detail down and sorted and so far it's a market leader in the detail department.

 

Many of my DJM stockists have given me pre-orders for the loco in the choices they want (I havn't solicited them, they are truly excited after seeing the 71) and although i will stock the model with them, it will be long after the crowdfunders are out, and at a much higher price to reflect the work put in, make me some wages (i have yet to take any from crowdfunding preferring to get it out first then try and make something from them), and not in the liveries or running numbers release through crowdfunding as its only right.

 

I think for the first time in many a year, this overhead mallarky stands a very good chance of catching on! Those gorgeous MK3's that Oxford have shown, the 86/87 'rumour' , the 90 from Bachmann, and Emu's and no doubt someone will announce the Hitachi soon, the future for overhead is very rosy.

 

Now i'd love an 84 and an 81 in my model collection to go with my gorgeous Bachmann 85. Lovely. :-)

 

Cheers

Dave

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello all,

 

As Dave has been good enough in this thread to issue a public apology then it would be churlish not to respond so yes, Mike and I will accept that he acted in good faith and we are willing to draw a line under the completely unexpected and slightly bizarre events of last weekend.

 

We understand the pressures Dave is under, with lots of projects on the go. Yes, t can be easy to lose a sense of perspective. I sympathise and I am happy to record publicly that I am sure no real harm was intended.

 

MIke and I will, as we have always said, stick to our plan of proposing our new model to those receiving their TEA tankers in the first instance, with a public announcement here and elsewhere very soon. Private, or Personal, Messages - PMs - are just that and should in my view remain private.

 

Beyond that, there seems to be no great panic and I am sure potential backers can make their selection of any project they wish to support on the basis of its individual merit, having taken the time to assess all options and relevant factors. We hope it will be ours, but if Dave's supporters choose to back him then fair enough, and we wish he and them well.

 

To make this easier, (our TEA customers will already know this) we will not require any financial commitment until after The National Model Railway Exhibition at the NEC that Revolution is attending with Rapido. We will be happy to discuss our plans and answer questions there, or in our own thread which will be opening in due course.

 

I hope this will give everyone a little breathing space to assess their options and reach any decision - and also perhaps take the heat out of a situation which, though unfortunate, is no one's fault.

 

If we all take a step back we can see that this is an amazing time for this hobby, and in many ways we are all privileged to be a part of such exciting and innovative times.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[No Decorum]

By the way, the 71 has solder tabs on the end of the pcb board for the speaker to be attached to. Does this, in general seem like a good thing or in peoples experience does the process need changing a bit? Suggestions please. Also with 1 of the tabs being labelled 'RED' is this enough do you think?

I am open to suggestions for both gauges to be honest, but i've got the huge amount of detail down and sorted and so far it's a market leader in the detail department.

 

Now i'd love an 84 and an 81 in my model collection to go with my gorgeous Bachmann 85. Lovely. :-)

 

Cheers

Dave

I don’t think the polarity of speakers matters, so I don’t think even labelling one solder tab is necessary (so long, of course, as the tabs are labelled SPKR or some such). On the other hand, solder tabs for stay-alive capacitors would be very welcome and these would need to be labelled; perhaps + & -, which would need less space than RED and BLACK.

 

You are not alone in wanting an 84 and an 81. As for me, I’d like the whole range of AC electric locos, including an 80 with slides to allow 18100 to be produced as well.

[Roy Langridge]

I don’t think the polarity of speakers matters, so I don’t think even labelling one solder tab is necessary (so long, of course, as the tabs are labelled SPKR or some such). On the other hand, solder tabs for stay-alive capacitors would be very welcome and these would need to be labelled; perhaps + & -, which would need less space than RED and BLACK.

 

You are not alone in wanting an 84 and an 81. As for me, I’d like the whole range of AC electric locos, including an 80 with slides to allow 18100 to be produced as well.

 

As you say it does not matter for a single speaker. However, some chassis have speaker terminals at both ends, in which case labelling is essential.

 

Roy

[njee20]

Given the events of the last week it doesn't seem unreasonable to link to this!

[MGR Hooper!]

Driven on all wheels on both bogies

Coreless motor

Directional lighting (day and night modes)

2 scale sprung pantographs

Sound compatible (roof for largest speaker for space available)

Next18 DCC socket onboard

Darkend profile wheels

Close coupling system

NEM coupling pockets

Replacement no coupling hole valance

Fully modeled and painted cab interiors

Etched nameplates, polo mint tunnel logos, depot plaques and arrows (where necessary)

Switch for turning rear lights off.

 

I'm glad the Class 92 has large windows...would've been a waste to have that detail and not be able to see it!

 

Will all those nameplates etc come factory fitted?

[MRDBLUE17]

Dave,

 

As per a previous PM on the class 71.

 

Regarding the speaker tabs to solder too so long as they are marked SP +\- or similar like I've seen on other models then given the space to clip a bass speaker into as you did on the 71 this will be the simplest way. If fitting a base speaker you need to solder them anyway and it's a quick job if the tabs are next to the clip as the supplied wires are quite short.

 

Just for clarity I have seen a sample model of the 71 that Dave brought to Perth that was given to Charlie for sound fitting with Bif. I was given the loco to fit the base speaker into which was really easy to do as the PCB is clear to access with 2 tabs to solder the speaker too and this clips into a section on top of the chassis. Plenty of space for a small loco and the 21pin decoder was also easy to slot in. Job done. This is the easiest sound fitting with base speaker I've done. So would stick to this arrangement.

 

Thanks

Mark

[DJM Dave]

Dave,

As per a previous PM on the class 71.

Regarding the speaker tabs to solder too so long as they are marked SP +\- or similar like I've seen on other models then given the space to clip a bass speaker into as you did on the 71 this will be the simplest way. If fitting a base speaker you need to solder them anyway and it's a quick job if the tabs are next to the clip as the supplied wires are quite short.

Just for clarity I have seen a sample model of the 71 that Dave brought to Perth that was given to Charlie for sound fitting with Bif. I was given the loco to fit the base speaker into which was really easy to do as the PCB is clear to access with 2 tabs to solder the speaker too and this clips into a section on top of the chassis. Plenty of space for a small loco and the 21pin decoder was also easy to slot in. Job done. This is the easiest sound fitting with base speaker I've done. So would stick to this arrangement.

Thanks

Mark

Yup, the 92 will have a clip in speaker area, ala the OO 71, 92 and previous models such as the Western and 22.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Karhedron]

I believe Revolution have said there will be no Pendolinos in the market for 2years from delivery of their project to original backers. Am I right thinking this is the same approach the NGS takes with RTR commissions? (Thinking brake vans and inspection coaches here). WRT NGS commisions, is it thus that membership fees are partly 'bankrolling' (to coin an earlier phrase) the R&D for the RTR manufacturer who win the commission?

 

The NGS takes each model on a case-by-case basis. In the case of those from Bachmann, that included a 2 year exclusivity arrangement. In the case of the Stove-R and Snow Plough, I believe the NGS owns the actual tooling. I am not sure about the K41.

 

Although Mike and Ben are both active and influential members of the society, I don't think the management of the NGS RTR projects has any particular bearing upon how RevolutioN will approach things. My assumption is that they will make the best deal they can with the appropriate manufacturer for each model they produce rather than locking themselves into a particular mode of production.

[DJM Dave]

The NGS takes each model on a case-by-case basis. In the case of those from Bachmann, that included a 2 year exclusivity arrangement. In the case of the Stove-R and Snow Plough, I believe the NGS owns the actual tooling. I am not sure about the K41.

 

Although Mike and Ben are both active and influential members of the society, I don't think the management of the NGS RTR projects has any particular bearing upon how RevolutioN will approach things. My assumption is that they will make the best deal they can with the appropriate manufacturer for each model they produce rather than locking themselves into a particular mode of production.

 

Hi everyone,

 

Along with an announcement elsewhere, and in keeping with all the customers who are keeping faith, i will endevour to produce cad/cam's for the class 92 in both N and OO gauges in time for Warley show weekend (probably here and on my website).

 

From there we will be, with only a hop skip and jump away from tooling.

 

Oh and to reply to a PM on here, the pantographs will be a pair of fine sprung models that will 'ride the wire' and not be poseable in both gauges.

 

The engineer in China is currently scratching his head going from the plans which aren't accurate or complete (got from Brush directly) and the 1500 (yes that much) photo survey hi-res photographs taken of the beast itself. The roof well detail will be a 'doozy'!

 

cheers

Dave