Bob Reid

I reckon Harris got that quote a bit mixed up. Sure the Mk 2b's onwards were longer over the body ends at 66'-0" and were to be the same till the end with the 2f's however the prototype Mk 2, the production Mk 2's and 2a's were all the same length as each other at 65'-4 1/4" over the body ends. The long underframe Mk1's which were shorter at 64'-6" again over the body ends.

A little dead Dave :) it's been 5 years since the last posting and 13 since Chard started it. Anyway you could save yourself some time by going back to the beginning of the thread where there's a list with links to various photo's of them including on the Kyle line..... Bob

Okay, short story time about the Mk2f FO SC 3284... in the beginning In 1970 When the region introduced the 2x27 Push Pull's on the E&G, 5 sets including an FK were needed to cover the daily diagram workings. The then GM organised the cascade of stock from the LM onto the ScR following conversion to add Air/Disc Brakes & Through Control wiring. For the daily requirement of 5 full sets, they were given 7 FK's i.e. with 2 spare FK for failures or vehicles on works. Plenty. When the replacement new service was introduced in 1979 with the DBSO's and Mk3 sets, the number of daily working diagrams was increased to six to allow for one set with its 1 x Mk3a FO to be diagrammed out daily for maintenance / exams at Craigentinny - except they got the sums a bit wrong (from a CM&EE point of view) they gave us 7 FO's including the "luxury" of extra for spares/repair - except they'd never factored in that inevitably within the first year there would probably be one FO needing shopping or out for an extended time, so were one short After a bit of persuasion by Geoff Passey no doubt, another FO was cascaded in and as the LM who were not happy at having to let 34 of the oldest Mk3a's they could find go another Mk3a was off the table the only other suitable vehicle type, and with the same passenger environment was found. Mk2f FO SC3284 SC3284 became dedicated to the E&G fleet and like the all the E&G Fleet before it was not to be used on any other service under pain of death. Most of the time if not under maintenance sat idle at Craigentinny where it was allocated. Even when the Glasgow-Aberdeen's were introduced its rarely ventured off the depot unless working the E&G. This was relaxed later following Polmont out of necessity and likewise when the fleet was "downgraded" by Regional Railways to Class 158 (hardly EXPRESS) via 156's in the late 1980s it was no longer needed so lost its status and could be seen anywhere on or off Region. In almost all the shots you'll see of it in traffic on both the E&G's and Aberdeen's it's in as a spare could have been for the day maybe later on for that week but not as one of the vehicles normally diagrammed to work the service. It was very much an ad-hoc vehicle that led a solitary life. It might all seem looking back, that these internal regional squabbles but we lived in a glass half full or glass half empty era depending on who in BR you worked for never mind from what region... As for 3284, happily it emigrated to New Zealand to live its life out there. The legend that was SC 3284 - The Unknown Soldier Bob.

Definitely not. He wouldn't be on here otherwise and would be producing misshapen MTK lumps of metal....

Funnily enough, My Grandfather's occupation at least during his time with the LMS in the early 1920's is given as "Engine Stoker", his whole working life spent on the footplate until he progressed to driving. He certainly wasn't fighting fires and I do wonder at what point "Fireman" became the more common description.

They think it's all over? It is now....

I meant to add, If DJ took someone to court over it, he'd not only need to prove they were produced by copying or using his "appropriated" moulds but also what had made them unique to him in the first place. A clever defence would run rings round that I've no doubt.

If you look at other design registrations you see better examples of the kind of thing it covers. Someone on the thread indicated with a image a plain old fashioned Mug. I can't register just a plain old mug. Everyone makes a plain mug generally the same way. If however I design mine to be made up uniquely in five parts where they are generally made in two and registering that, illustated by the CAD drawing, it becomes one visual cue to recognise anyone else using my moulds or just plain copying. To get redress though, having identified whose responsible for producing them, I'd need to take them to court and show that they are exactly the same as mine.

It's not the shape as such he's registering - it's the uniqueness, or "his way" that's been specified in the registration, for those particular models. Those are generally the cues he's referring to - basically he's registered the things that make the production readily identifiable as uniquely his and anyone else using those exact same ways could be seen to be either making a copy or using tools that he owns without hi permission. He could create another Caley 123 'his way' and register it but he could not take Hornby's 123 as it's produced and register it as his own.

I don't think Dave has tried to say otherwise. It is commonplace for the entire design work, requiring CAD's to show the final form and CAM files for the actual cutting of the tools to produce that final form entirely in the factory. I would doubt Accurascale or Cavalex produce the manufacturing files that create the moulds in house, but only the CAD's showing the item as collection of seperate completed parts that make up the whole. The factory producing them will be responsible for the actual production / manufacturing files.

The problem is that we are only aware of the images that have been registered not the descriptive part. We don't know exactly what has been described in the registration which would explain better what he's asked to be protected using those images to illustrate them. Full access to the registered design would give us that from the IP office. At face value he's attempting to protect the visual cues - his way of describing the unique form and features , possibly the form of the assembly of the model, created using his unique methods. That would prevent anyone else coming along and adopting those exact same forms (therefore implying that they are copies of his design) without reference to him, the holder of the design rights. Any other company could avoid that unique form and not fall foul of his protections. Bob

it's perfectly legal to have IP protection of the CAD's, provided you created them. It gives protection to your work even if the subject you created it of is not yours.

Thanks Andy for clearing that up. I had thought of purchasing one when first announced but unfortunately was scared off by the thought of crowdfunding (a personal thing). Looking at it afresh, it come across that when you sign up it, it's 4 equal staged payments with what appears to be a guarantee of delivery at the end. I'll have to look at it again, but the T&C's don't appear on his web site which is a bit concerning. Bob.

I really do feel for Dave Jones. He went into all of this voluntarily and with his own money and the best of intentions. I suspect he's got to the point where he sees all of this "feedback" on much of the Internet 'fora' as part of the cause of where he finds himself today, and thinks that his present course of action will go some way to resolving the other "issues". He could be proven right, none of us at the moment really know how this will pan out. I very much doubt he'll have sufficient funds nor the ability to fight any legal cases he has to take out in defence of his IP. It is a shame that its all come to this and I do wish him well but perhaps he should consider stepping back from this approach and trying to work better with those he no doubt sees as the enemy. As Mike Storey previously stated better than I, the loss of DJM as a manufacturer would make the industry the poorer for it. It's never too late. Get some half decent advice from within the trade and move on Dave.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did make it clear in his original announcement that there would be an announcement, that he'd retained the services of that well known Scottish Solicitor's, Messr's Gossip, Slander and Libel w.s. to sort out all you "nare do wells" (his words not mine).... Whilst he must have known there would be some "feedback" on his announcement, I doubt he'd have seen this lot coming.

You are not kidding Mike, he was overtaken by circumstances before the first model had been produced and almost immediately began knocking other planned projects on the head, whilst at times it's been a bit over the top, just who should shoulder the blame for what's occurred but Dave. It is a real pity, as he came along with good references, but it is no one's fault but his own and he grossly overestimated his ability as a one man band and underestimated his risks or how to mitigate them in the open market. Other players have not had the same problems that have merited this kind of response. Bob.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Mick. I fear for Dave Jones, no matter what respect I do have for him, he's been sold a pup taking this line for protection of his Designs for a classs of toy. If you read the qualifiers for IP protection of the design by registering them does not mean that it automatically becomes your IP. Bear in mind he will have to be the one taking them to court I'm sure all the other manufacturers will just carry on, do what they always do, and await the registered letter from DJM hitting the doormat. Bob

B&D - I'm certain your friend will come back with it as being a piece of nonsense and all down to his interpretation of what he thinks he's getting. As the detailed "look" of a specific vehicle pre-exists , they are not his to slap IP on. If I am wrong, and I could be, I'd fear he'll have just nailed his own coffin shut. If he attempts to close all these doors to the other manufacturers, then he will no time to produce anything - most of his time could be spent in court whilst he tries to protect his IP. I can imagine what Hornby / Bachmann / Dapol will make of this. Just what makes hm think that doing this (closing off any competition) its good for the industry? Bob.

When your father was an Engine Fitter and your grandad a Driver (65B), wasn't it inevitable that this would be bought at the station to keep me entertained on every journey at the start to end of holiday? (and of course the obligatory stamped metal name plate)... Bob

Which I'm afraid sounds like it's the kind of thing handed over the counter in a plain brown envelope! Bob.

It's not looking good, maybe come back at 10?

First published for Awdry in 1945 apparently...

Do shout up directly if in the future if it is related to the Mk1 based derivatives Clive. I might have the right or nearest drawing that could help you. Amongst the several hundred I have there are the odd EMU one's though usually for the SR based stock.... Bob

Yes it is Clive, but no doubt you (with ER EMU's ) or like myself with Mk1 carriages, have to decide where all the research and achieving that higher level of accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling. For some that's not an easy decision, for me its not the end of the world. Bob

In simple terms, study of the past surely. Where however that can go wrong in railway modelling is the reliance on single sources whether it's a published work, engineering drawings, photo's, including these days those from the Internet or even going direct to the NRM or the archives at Kew. Without multiple sources and reference to original records, it is difficult to put a lot of what you think you see into context and apply it to your modelling. Sometimes that's impossible perhaps due to the length of time that's elapsed or the plain fact that the why's and wherefore's were just never recorded. Relying on so-called experts in their field even the renowned one's and those that were around at the time isn't a guarantee of accuracy, but at least it's a good place to start. Just how far you want to take and use the information provided is entirely a matter of personal choice. One man's inaccurate steam collector / dome is another's accurate enough representation. We all have to decide where those details sit in our modelling. Bob.