DJM N gauge Crowdfunded King Class Steam Loco has started

[grahame]

Yes, you're right, just pulled up the newsletter again and re-read, although it does say further down that "So the basic process of tooling YOUR king model has started". 

 

Tom.  

 

I wonder what he means by 'basic' process. Does it mean that cutting metal and manufacturing the tooling has begun or just that the administrative process has started (for example checking and agreeing the CADs are acceptable, negotiating a price, scheduling a slot in the toolroom and so on). If that was in the October newsletter then it's been three months since then. Shame Dave no longer frequents RMweb to explain.

 

G.

[jjb1970]

To re-state, we don't know what has happened between DJM and their factory other than that it seems clear that there has been a breakdown in the relationship.

 

We have had one version of events, which implied (without directly stating so unless I missed something) nefarious practices on the part of the factory which appears to have been accepted as factual by some.

 

We have not had a response or counter view from the factory.

 

In any contractual dispute or allegation of malfeasance it is unwise (foolhardy) to accept one version of events at face value without having some understanding of what happened, or at least reviewing both versions of events and forming an opinion based on a balance of probabilities.

 

Since we are not in a position to review both versions of what happened, and since I suspect nobody on this board was a witness to events then I really don't see how anybody can really have an opinion either way other than to acknowledge that we just don't know.

 

One thing I will say, I've spent a lot of time in China and done a lot of business there, and on the whole found the experiences to be no more problematic than anywhere else in the world I've had to do business. Other small model companies such as Hattons, SLW and Kernow don't appear to have any complaints about their Chinese factories which have produced some superb models to a high quality standard (and interestingly, the problem models produced by Hattons for example seem to have been produced before Hattons took everything in-house on this side of the world). And for those who think poor business ethics are a Chinese phenomena it may be worth taking a look at a few of the business scandals closer to home around our own country, Europe, North America etc. 

[chris p bacon]

Any contract agreed in China (and Hong Kong) even if it is stated as primarily lawful in another jurisdiction is subservient to Chinese law.

 

 

A contract written in Chinese law doesn't allow the factory (for example) to change the terms or payments on a whim unless it's poorly written or unenforceable.

 

This notion that China is the wild west and they mistreat foreigners and rob them doesn't stack up when there is evidence of other companies trading successfully in both the world of MR and elsewhere.

 

There is an alternative that the Chinese factory were actually unpaid for work done...but no one seems to want to think that.

[Snowwolflair]

A contract written in Chinese law doesn't allow the factory (for example) to change the terms or payments on a whim unless it's poorly written or unenforceable.

 

This notion that China is the wild west and they mistreat foreigners and rob them doesn't stack up when there is evidence of other companies trading successfully in both the world of MR and elsewhere.

 

There is an alternative that the Chinese factory were actually unpaid for work done...but no one seems to want to think that.

They are unpaid for work they did not get authorisation to carry out.

[adb968008]

They are unpaid for work they did not get authorisation to carry out.

The term you refer to there is “Work At Risk”.

This infers the person doing the work would own the work, as it was their risk to do it without authorisation and ergo not received payment.

 

It happens, I recall a few years back a construction yard built an “insert” piece for a ship to make it longer, by cutting the ship in half and inserting in the new piece...

 

Only the company owning the ship folded before the ship arrived at the yard for the work, leaving the yard with the rather unique piece of ship insert !!!... that was working at risk !

 

Obviously we dont know if thats the case here ?

Edited January 23, 2019 by adb968008

[Snowwolflair]

The term you refer to there is “Work At Risk”.

This infers the person doing the work would own the work, as it was their risk to do it without authorisation and ergo not received payment.

 

It happens, I recall a few years back a construction yard built an “insert” piece for a ship to make it longer, by cutting the ship in half and inserting in the new piece...

 

Only the company owning the ship folded before the ship arrived at the yard for the work, leaving the yard with the rather unique piece of ship insert !!!... that was working at risk !

 

Obviously we dont know if thats the case here ?

 

You are partially correct, however, In most of the world the additional authorised work to complete the work as specified in the contract is at the factories risk (the client must be asked for approval for the additional work).  In China its at the clients risk even though the client does not authorise the additional work to complete the contractually deliverable product..  You can easily see how this can be abused.  Its a bit like a cost plus contract.

[adb968008]

You are partially correct, however, In most of the world the additional authorised work to complete the work as specified in the contract is at the factories risk (the client must be asked for approval for the additional work). In China its at the clients risk even though the client does not authorise the additional work to complete the contractually deliverable product.. You can easily see how this can be abused. Its a bit like a cost plus contract.

Its not just in China, it happens in Chigwell, Chester and Chelsea and insert any other place you choose too.

Almost nothing in this world is 100% perfect on the first go, everything needs rework.. ever had someone work on your house ? - Theres always something “discovered” that “must” be done, regardless the original contract, which is unfinished renders the end product incomplete, thats the reason for contingencies.

 

This is all hypothesis.

Last week i saw the new TPE express on test, complete with its upside down LED displays.. somewhere theres contingency for fixing things that must be done... minor, but suppose the doors didnt have mechanisms to open them.. the choice is to do it.. or have a train whos doors doesnt open, regardless fault.

I have a great travel story, from Eastern Poland, this pet shop ordered puppies from Ukraine, sold them to customers. months later they were growing a bit too big, turns out they were bears...

Another example is auditors on piece work... they estimate x items to be audited, but discover y.... Do you pay x, and ignore y, knowing your getting incomplete / missing data from the auditors ?

Edited January 23, 2019 by adb968008

[Chris M]

My knowledge of Chinese manufacturing is now about 15 years old and relates to automotive but back then the factory would claim to be the owner of the tooling you paid for even though they accept that you paid for it. This is very different from the EU where tooling you had paid for could be removed from any factory at any time subject to any contracted notice.

[Snowwolflair]

.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Snowwolflair

[Snowwolflair]

Its not just in China, it happens in Chigwell, Chester and Chelsea and insert any other place you choose too.

Almost nothing in this world is 100% perfect on the first go, everything needs rework.. ever had someone work on your house ? - Theres always something “discovered” that “must” be done, regardless the original contract, which is unfinished renders the end product incomplete, thats the reason for contingencies.

 

This is all hypothesis.

Last week i saw the new TPE express on test, complete with its upside down LED displays.. somewhere theres contingency for fixing things that must be done... minor, but suppose the doors didnt have mechanisms to open them.. the choice is to do it.. or have a train whos doors doesnt open, regardless fault.

I have a great travel story, from Eastern Poland, this pet shop ordered puppies from Ukraine, sold them to customers. months later they were growing a bit too big, turns out they were bears...

Another example is auditors on piece work... they estimate x items to be audited, but discover y.... Do you pay x, and ignore y, knowing your getting incomplete / missing data from the auditors ?

You deliberately misunderstand.

 

I order a cake and pay for it. When it’s ready the baker says it the cost we agreed plus the cost of three extra eggs and although I made the mistake of giving you the wrong price you have to pay for the extra eggs.

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Snowwolflair

[Snowwolflair]

My knowledge of Chinese manufacturing is now about 15 years old and relates to automotive but back then the factory would claim to be the owner of the tooling you paid for even though they accept that you paid for it. This is very different from the EU where tooling you had paid for could be removed from any factory at any time subject to any contracted notice.

 

Absolutely it is still the case.

[jjb1970]

Thank the lord for the gift of nefarious Chinese people, for where would we be without a convenient johnny foreigner scape goat to blame for everything?  

Edited January 23, 2019 by jjb1970

[adb968008]

My knowledge of Chinese manufacturing is now about 15 years old and relates to automotive but back then the factory would claim to be the owner of the tooling you paid for even though they accept that you paid for it. This is very different from the EU where tooling you had paid for could be removed from any factory at any time subject to any contracted notice.

Absolutely it is still the case.

wouldnt that make the discussion about tooling ownership nebulous then ?

 

Its not unique to China either.., remember how hard it was to get 70013 out of Bressingham.

Theres a crab out there, without its wheels currently.

Humans are posessive by nature, globally, the UK built an empire by taking pposession and charging those it took posession of for the costs of their own conquest !

You deliberately misunderstand.

 

No i didnt, i just disagree with your view point.

 

I order a cake and pay for it. When it’s ready the baker says it the cost we agreed plus the cost of three extra eggs and although I made the mistake of giving you the wrong price you have to pay for the extra eggs.

 

Fixed price vs Time and Materials ?

Expectation management ?

Cultural awareness ?

 

None of this is unique to China.

Time to agree to disagree, were way off topic.

Edited January 23, 2019 by adb968008

[black and decker boy]

It still comes back to money.

 

Does the current business model provide the working capital and cash flow to continue developing multiple new models or does the mass reliance on preorders and crowdfunding suggest the opposite?

 

Also the early cash generation from 3rd party commissions seems to have dried up as they have mainly gone direct or now commission from other start ups such as RevolutioN and Accurascale.

[Hyper Aus]

So what does any of this have to do with the King project?

 

If the required numbers had been reached, we would have a newsletter update stating that fact and that it is now moving to tooling.

[JSpencer]

There is a lot of supposition in the post above as to the ownership of the tooling and rights to its use.

 

Problems in business always come down to just one issue, Money. The post above has painted the factory in a negative light, when it could actually be that work has not been paid for. If it were those circumstances then the factory will retain ownership.

Dave has previously said the tools are stamped in his name and he has certificates. We the market would instantly recognise an Austerity as DJM's if someone else was to re-introduce them. Neither party could make a statement of ownership until such a case had been resolved (either in or out of court) and even then there could be formal statement.

The details of who did what are not publicly known but until ownership was resolved, a UK importer selling products which came from (former?) DJM tools could be open for attack in a UK court. Best this is cleared and sorted before anything is done.

I would steer clear from being such a product that I believe belongs to Dave and I suspect much of the market would feel the same. So I don,t think the factory could use them easily again without first resolving the ownership issue in the UK markets eyes.

 

The easiest way to do that would be a small royalty to Dave and have him make the statement otherwise you won,t easily get buyer confidence.

 

Some 30 years ago there was a dispute whereby Dapol thought they owned all the Airfix/Mainline tools are Replica was selling items made from former Mainline tooling. Even if technically the dispute over tool ownership was in the Far East, the dispute finished in the courts over here and was resolved by Replica putting a ticket in the boxes thanking Dapol.

Again if someone starts selling trains in the UK made using (former?) DJM tools could easily be in the courts unless that ownership issue had been resolved over here.

We are way off the King thread but safe to say the Old factory isn,t likely to be churning out N gauge kings soon from the CADs they have in their possession.

Edited January 24, 2019 by JSpencer

[Chris M]

I'm going to guess that the volumes for pretty much any N gauge British outline loco are so small that Chinese factories aren't too bothered whether they do a run or not. The revenue from UK locos is going to be nit sh*t compared to the total turnover of these factories and so the work will always be low priority to them. Probably looked upon as a fill in job when things are quiet. We have to be realistic about the size of our hobby and the size of everything else in the world. This probably explains why the class 17 didn't happen.

 

I think there is a danger with the King in that Dave will have negotiated with the current Chinese factory in good faith based on orders made but will now be losing face (which is incredibly important in Asia) because he has not delivered the order for tooling when he expected to. This in itself could kill the project and whatever else is said the problem is down to a significant number of modellers not putting their money where their mouth is.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Chris M

[Chris M]

Thank the lord for the gift of nefarious Chinese people, for where would we be without a convenient johnny foreigner scape goat to blame for everything?  

Not blaming them for anything, just saying their normal business practice isn't the same as what we are used to in the Western world. This has caught out many businesses, including some big ones.

[jjb1970]

I'm going to guess that the volumes for pretty much any N gauge British outline loco are so small that Chinese factories aren't too bothered whether they do a run or not. The revenue from UK locos is going to be nit sh*t compared to the total turnover of these factories and so the work will always be low priority to them. Probably looked upon as a fill in job when things are quiet. We have to be realistic about the size of our hobby and the size of everything else in the world. This probably explains why the class 17 didn't happen.

 

I think there is a danger with the King in that Dave will have negotiated with the current Chinese factory in good faith based on orders made but will now be losing face (which is incredibly important in Asia) because he has not delivered the order for tooling when he expected to. This in itself could kill the project and whatever else is said the problem is down to a significant number of modellers not putting their money where their mouth is.

And yet Sonic obviously see enough mileage in UK N gauge to enter the market directly in partnership with Revolution. Revolution themselves seem to be doing OK and have established themselves as a well respected supplier. Kader wouldn't maintain Grafar if it wasn't worth their while. The N gauge market is a lot smaller than the OO market but the overall British model train market is no minnow in model train terms. In terms of the factories, if the stories of excess capacity are true I think factories will be looking for any profitable work. Not long ago I seem to recall that Jason Shron was offering to help factories needing work by making introductions.

[jjb1970]

Not blaming them for anything, just saying their normal business practice isn't the same as what we are used to in the Western world. This has caught out many businesses, including some big ones.

Not blaming you but when I read certain threads there is a rather unpleasant undercurrent in terms of some attitudes about China and Chinese people.

[wellseasoned]

Well they say no news is good news.

 

However, I cannot be alone in craving for just a few snippets of info'....can I?

 

Well, my comment above has certainly generated some discussion.

 

Sadly I don't think Dave does himself any favours with often long periods with no updates. It does not have to be reams of information, just something to reassure those who have shown faith in him and parted with their money. In so many walks of life a lack of information can lead to rumours, suspicion, and loss of faith.

 

I have always wanted the King to succeed as I believe supporting Dave Jones could lead to further models. I have parted with my money, so like others have put my money where my mouth is. There will always be unseen expense that can lead to many of us having to drop a planned expenditure. However, the number of expressions of interest not backed up with firm orders and money is really annoying.

 

Hopefully we will get an update from D.J. fairly soon.

[chris p bacon]

Dave has previously said the tools are stamped in his name and he has certificates.  

 

 

But this is only one side of the story, if his claim was legitimate and he had a contract in place then he would be able to pursue the factory under Chinese law,  Without this the factory has for whatever reason claimed ownership and the toolng doesn't belong to him. The UK may operate a different system/law but the work was carried out in China, not here. 

 

The details of who did what are not publicly known but until ownership was resolved,

 

 

But you said DJM owned it......

 

 

I would steer clear from being such a product that I believe belongs to Dave and I suspect much of the market would feel the same

 

 

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism, I think if the factory produced a fair model at a price which suited purchasers they'd sell them, I don't think that people give a toss about where things come from or any legalities, so long as it's cheap enough. If Joe Public were that bothered about anything, they'd be a boycott of all the companies that don't pay tax such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google etc

 

 

Even if technically the dispute over tool ownership was in the Far East, the dispute finished in the courts over here and was resolved by Replica putting a ticket in the boxes thanking Dapol.

Again if someone starts selling trains in the UK made using (former?) DJM tools could easily be in the courts unless that ownership issue had been resolved over here.

 

 

 

The dispute over ownership is in another country and that country places its own law above that of another country. To be fair to China the order and work were carried out in a Chinese factory, payments were made to the factory and the dispute was with the factory, So why would the Chinese defer to a decision over ownership in a foreign land. There is nothing to stop them producing a item and selling it from China in the same way that they produce and sell through the internet.

 

We are way off the King thread but safe to say the Old factory isn,t likely to be churning out N gauge kings soon from the CADs they have in their possession.

 

 

Whilst issues in the past have concerned other tooling, I would say they could have a bearing on current production.  All business relies on good faith, and whilst there is a loyal customer base willing to put their money down for future projects, I do think that DJM has made the wrong decision about not giving regular updates on forums etc so they reach a much wider audience. Without the numbers the project will stall.

[adb968008]

Some 30 years ago there was a dispute whereby Dapol thought they owned all the Airfix/Mainline tools are Replica was selling items made from former Mainline tooling. Even if technically the dispute over tool ownership was in the Far East, the dispute finished in the courts over here and was resolved by Replica putting a ticket in the boxes thanking Dapol.

Again if someone starts selling trains in the UK made using (former?) DJM tools could easily be in the courts unless that ownership issue had been resolved over here.

We are way off the King thread but safe to say the Old factory isn,t likely to be churning out N gauge kings soon from the CADs they have in their possession.

The dispute is discussed here on Replica’s site.

“Dapol Model Railways took legal action against Replica Railways as they were under the impression that they had purchased the rights to all the items produced from the Kader tooling by default of purchasing the ‘Mainline’ brand.”

http://www.replicarailways.co.uk/information/company-history

 

There is 1 key word here that is pertinent and omitted from your quote above... “rights”.

 

I can only speculate why that word is used... however my speculation in that context might relate to this discussion about ownership of toolings or its interpretation. But could it be, that ownership of the IP and ownership of toolings are separate, and that rights to use the tooling is relevent ? Afterall People think they own their flats and apartments, when infact they are leaseholders with rights to use to a time period and under conditions determined by the owner.

 

As an example commissioned models are “exclusive rights” to the modelshop to use that tooling for a time denominated period before they appear in manufacturers catalogs (Thumper, CoBo, class 14 etc).

 

I dont know, just a thought ?

Edited January 24, 2019 by adb968008

[JSpencer]

But this is only one side of the story, if his claim was legitimate and he had a contract in place then he would be able to pursue the factory under Chinese law, Without this the factory has for whatever reason claimed ownership and the toolng doesn't belong to him. The UK may operate a different system/law but the work was carried out in China, not here.

 

 

But you said DJM owned it......

 

 

 

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism, I think if the factory produced a fair model at a price which suited purchasers they'd sell them, I don't think that people give a toss about where things come from or any legalities, so long as it's cheap enough. If Joe Public were that bothered about anything, they'd be a boycott of all the companies that don't pay tax such as Starbucks, Amazon, Google etc

 

 

 

The dispute over ownership is in another country and that country places its own law above that of another country. To be fair to China the order and work were carried out in a Chinese factory, payments were made to the factory and the dispute was with the factory, So why would the Chinese defer to a decision over ownership in a foreign land. There is nothing to stop them producing a item and selling it from China in the same way that they produce and sell through the internet.

 

 

Whilst issues in the past have concerned other tooling, I would say they could have a bearing on current production. All business relies on good faith, and whilst there is a loyal customer base willing to put their money down for future projects, I do think that DJM has made the wrong decision about not giving regular updates on forums etc so they reach a much wider audience. Without the numbers the project will stall.

My point is that the tooling was definitely owned by DJM in the past, we don,t what the status is today, but unless some other statement comes out proving otherwise, no one else has the right to use them. Best approach would be to have Dave's approval to avoid any doubt. Sure joe public does not care about Amazon, but trains is a smaller more informed market and most probably would be deterred buying a product where an issue could be suspect.

 

Perfectly agree on the last statement. He needs to stimulate his market.

Edited January 24, 2019 by JSpencer

[DavidH]

My point is that the tooling was definitely owned by DJM in the past,

 

You know that to 100% certainty?