Jump to content
 

DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19


RJennings
 Share

Message added by AY Mod

Please keep posts on topic. Rubbish will be removed.

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 The next stage beyond CADs is tooling and that's where the big money starts to be spent.   So perhaps, because it has some commercial backing, his best chance now is to go really hard for the N gauge 'King' (which is reportedly about to start tooling) and make sure it is a good job simply in order to rebuild any reputation he might have.  Assuming he gets the finance for that (back to the crowdfunders?) and does a good job he might get somewhere.

 

 

From the thread quoted above

 

Quote

 

Posted September 10, 2018

I am pleased to announce that the N gauge King locomotive cad/cam has now been fully approved for tooling, and i have today paid the cad/cam design balance on this project and in full on the forthcoming OO gauge APT project.

 

 

That was just under 8 months ago.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we're on page 35 of the announcement thread we're into familiar territory.

 

The usual concerns about Dave, his business model and the state of his business.

 

But usually there is an equal group of people who are rooting for Dave and would push back on the criticism.  The announcement seems to have united both camps and there has been very little of the leave him alone.

 

Whilst there is evidence of a rush to purchase RevolutioN 92s and there has been discussion in this thread of cancellation of DJM orders what we don't know is actually how many people have cancelled or have written off their deposits.  The RevolutioN rush may include people who didn't realise the order book was closing and people who are hedging that DJM might not deliver so making additional orders.

 

Until DJM announces a model isn't going ahead then we have to assume he has the numbers still, as these are crowdfunding models then he won't have all the capital he needs other than to complete what has been paid for, so second payments will be the point at which we will actually know whether any of these models can get over the line.

 

I agree that with Digitrains backing the King looks like the model that should be tooling first but he cannot afford to  hang around on the 92 and APT either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
56 minutes ago, DavidH said:

 

I took this posting at face value but couldn't work out how he was going to afford to work on the model:
 

 

But actually, the second paragraph suggests it might be profitable, depending on orders.

 

 

The N Gauge King appears to have been managed using the same peculiar business model.

 

 

A5B1953A-E281-435F-9600-F47E857B10F0.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a hilarious irony in this..

I mean he's claiming IP to designs that someone else has paid him for and as far as i'm aware he hasn't done the work himself.

He managed to take over a design/manufacturing role on items for Kernow that I guess he worked on or was slowly working on at Dapol when he was employed by them.

He's crying foul on anyone thats producing items he is / wants to but doesn't see it that way when he goes to do something someone else is working on or produced..

He's crying foul on people going direct to factories he uses when thats exactly what he did to start his business.

Remember the first CADs and EPs for the J94? Weird that they had exactly the same join line on the tanks that the old Dapol/Hornby model had wasn't it!

People have said for a while that he should just stop with the stupid rants, poor old me routines etc and just get on and produce the stuff that he says he will. Instead he's constantly added more and more to his production list without finishing other things and throws out lame excuse after excuse blaming anyone but himself when things go wrong.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 11
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lapford34102 said:

Really going round in circles now........! Truffy, it's been pretty clearly explained in a number of previous posts that this is not the case.

Thanks for the clarification, Stu. Sorry to go 'round in circles, but I haven't read all 33-and-counting pages. I shall now bow out and leave it alone, suitably chastised.

 

I opted out long ago by setting the thread to ignore, but it keeps cropping up in the higher levels of the forum. I really do wish that ignoring a thread worked on a 'global' level rather than just at the local level.

Edited by truffy
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No leeway built in (to the King project)! And no one commented on this at the time? I recall Dave said he was hit quite hard by Chinese price increases - was it on the J94? (as were many others), but to not build in any contingency on other projects seems remiss.

Edited by DavidH
  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I really don't understand why everyone got so hot under the collar about that original announcement.  It seems to me that Dave has been shafted somewhere along the line (probably more than once), was told/advised about registration, misunderstood/was badly advised about it, and thought (wrongly) that registering some designs would stop any other manufacturer making models of that prototype.  So he went ahead and registered and was then probably shocked and bewildered by the response to his announcement.  I suspect that he then went back to his advisor, was told that he'd got the wrong end of the stick, and then had to make his clarification.  A bit daft maybe, but no cause for the vilification that followed and certainly nothing to justify any boycott of his business.

 

Where people are justified in feeling aggrieved is the crowdfunding fiasco which has apparenty left so many out of pocket.  To regain trust he really has got to do something about that.  Meanwhile, however, I would echo the comments of those who have reminded us that we are dealing with a human being who started out honestly with great hopes and expectations, and encouragement from many on this board,  and has subsequently seem much of it crumble around him, probably as much due to naivety as anything else.  I feel really quite sad for him.

 

DT

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the mess as it is on UK shores, how could we imagine it might be any better in China?  Surely, no manufacturer is going to be interested in producing anything now for DJM unless CAD design can be approved in good time (if based correctly on a comprehensively prepared dossier of information).  That Dave, apparently is reliant on others for CAD skills makes me think he is ill-equipped for managing these projects.

 

Only after the completion of the CAD stage can the manufacturer get started generating full income from the efforts of his factory workers - assuming the requisite hefty step up in payments is made. 

 

Somewhere in this area is where Dave seems to have difficulty in progressing - and I would be asking why if a crowdfunder.

 

In a practical sense (given the geographical areas involved) the registration of designs is nonsensical and not worth discussing.  OK, so there is argy bargy going on with some existing tooling.  For a reason I keep envisaging a pot calling the kettle black.

 

-Brian M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Torper said:

I really don't understand why everyone got so hot under the collar about that original announcement.  It seems to me that Dave has been shafted somewhere along the line (probably more than once), [...].

 

Where people are justified in feeling aggrieved is the crowdfunding fiasco which has apparenty left so many out of pocket.  [...]

 

I think you've got the emphasis back to front.

 

There is no crowdfunding fiasco that has left people out of pocket (that I can see) - or at least, suggestion of such is jumping the gun immensely, as without an official announcement (oh dear) from DJM, these projects are still ongoing. Whether or not people refuse to pay any subsequent installments has not yet been tested.

 

The original announcement, however, just follows a series of unfortunately worded communications, many of which finger point at other people being to blame for DJM's problems. It also suggested a potentially aggressive approach to his competitors (since retracted?) which surprised many people. I shouldn't need to say more, it's been said many times here.

Edited by DavidH
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could pass on some advice to Dave - this is what a lecturer wrote on a report about an electrical engineering student to his employer, HM Naval Dockyard, over 50 years ago. ' I suggest he takes up light engineering, preferably gardening' It seems fairly apparent to me, that Dave is not able to operate basically as an individual entity, in this particular business. Some folk need the direction that an employer provides, and are completely unaware of the requirements of running a company. Gardening may be the answer, you deal with one customer at a time, probably get about £20.00 an hour, a small ad in the local paper wil get you plenty of work - provided you keep your word, do a good job, and don't let your customers down. (Or it may not be the answer, in this case)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, raymw said:

Gardening may be the answer, you deal with one customer at a time, probably get about £20.00 an hour, a small ad in the local paper wil get you plenty of work

 

But would he be using his own tools, or do they belong to the householder?

 

And what about the design of the mowed lawn?. Does the IP stay with DJM who cut the grass or the householder whose lawn it is?

  • Funny 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DavidH said:

No leeway built in (to the King project)! And no one commented on this at the time? I recall Dave said he was hit quite hard by Chinese price increases - was it on the J94? (as were many others), but to not build in any contingency on other projects seems remiss.

 

I presume that he anticipated making his money on subsequent production runs . Crowd-funding and ordering would cover the cost of the project from the first run, leaving him at break even. He would "own" the tooling, and with no tooling depreciation charge against a second round of production DJM could reasonably expect to make a respectable profit.

 

The business model isn't radically flawed here - cover your development costs from crowd-funding, lock in a customer base through it [ we saw that did work with the class 71 as crowd-funders stuck with his product] , and then after the first round of production you've recovered all your costs . The project then becomes a bet on the model becoming well-regarded, and there being room in a small market like British N for successful re-runs.

 

This might even look better than funding the development yourself and needing a second run to cover some of the tooling costs, with no commitment from those wish-listing that they would actually buy the thing when it is released

 

The APT-P  in OO is much more of a gamble since the scope for future re-runs of the thing seems pretty limited, especially at £1000 a pop. The King might be a bread-and-butter subject; an APT is very expensive exotica

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, DavidH said:

There is no crowdfunding fiasco that has left people out of pocket (that I can see) -

 

I think Kernow may disagree,  having had to refund 'crowdfunders' they took quite a hit on fees to refund.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

He won't announce any project dead yet not until he has asked for second payments and when these don't arrive in sufficient numbers the crowdfunders who didn't pay will be taking the blame for the projects failure. This will be instead of looking at the reasons why people have lost faith in the projects in the first place.

 

 

There is a history of diverting blame elsewhere!

Edited by Markwj
  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold


In addition to asking myself if I still have confidence in Dave to complete the APT, (as pointed out already he has not said that he won't), I also have to ask if I have confidence in the other crowdfunders to continue funding.

The problem as I see it for APT crowdfunders is that even if Dave was to guarantee completion in a reasonable timescale, individual crowdfunders may be reluctant to pay the next 25% in case the others don't causing the project to collapse, then the first and second 25% is lost.

Even if that worked the next hurdle would be whether if we paid the third 25% there is the risk that the project flounders if not everyone does. The same with the final payment.

I have a suggestion that I am happy to put to Dave if it gathers support here and that is as follows:

Dave to ask for the remaining balance (i.e. 75% not 25%) with the following protection in place.

All the money goes into an escrow account and none is released into the project until it is all in. If crowdfunders drop out and don't pay by a specified date then the 75%s can be refunded in full. If sufficient is paid, then it is released for completing the project.

That way we all could put our money in without worrowing about losing it because of drop outs as we would be refunded in such a scenario. We would not worry about lack of funding for the third and fourth quarters as ALL the money required to produce an APT would have been paid.

What are your thoughts?

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 02/05/2019 at 07:55, AY Mod said:

 

 

 

I have to say that I'm somewhat sceptical of anyone who uses the argument that 'others have also made mistakes' to either excuse or even explain their own mistakes, certainly since my wife told me that I wasn't allowed to do this either.

 

Edited by Captain Kernow
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
19 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

What are your thoughts?

 

My thoughts are that you are sounding far too sensible for this thread.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
39 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:



Dave to ask for the remaining balance (i.e. 75% not 25%) with the following protection in place.

All the money goes into an escrow account and none is released into the project until it is all in. If crowdfunders drop out and don't pay by a specified date then the 75%s can be refunded in full. If sufficient is paid, then it is released for completing the project.

 

With an independant project manager, collaborating with Dave and China to create a workable project plan with realistic deliveries. That PM would be responsible for communications, to crowd funders and China, and releasing the funds.

But before any of this, work out what the costs are, what the revenue looks like and if there’s a gap, a plan to figure it out.

 

A plan that sees funds going to escrow is meaningless without a specific criteria for releasing those funds, either forwards or reverse.

 

one of the aims of the project was with funding the deliverables come faster.. this benefit of the project has not been realised in both the class 92’s which in my mind puts the business case at risk for both..., bearing in mind the competing n class 92 was in the same timescales as this project, and was delayed by a factory move in China, but is now about to go into production in a few weeks. You may recall doing both n and OO was meant to bring cost / time savings, yet both don’t seem to be beyond a 3D cad (and a print) and a dispute. The Accurascale 92 was announced a few months ago, and were getting CADs already.

 

An APT without a delivery date doesn’t mean much... CADs at current progress could take many many many months if not years unless something changes or there’s a rabbit waiting to be pulled from the hat that we don’t know about.

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Free At Last said:

For those that drop out Dave could offer those accounts to others to just pay the balance. There may be someone willing to take the risk for 25% or 50% off.

 

lol. So if 4 people drop out can I have one for free !

 

Bit like the old gag about engines failing on a Boeing 747 "If another one fails, we'll be up here all night"

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 minutes ago, Free At Last said:

For those that drop out Dave could offer those accounts to others to just pay the balance. There may be someone willing to take the risk for 25% or 50% off.

The problem with the DJ 92 is the same as the Bachmann class 66.

 

Theres not much room in the middle when there’s a high spec one at an attractive price and a cheap one. Hornby has just reduced its 92’s to a quite attractive price, I can only speculate that they feel there’s wont sell at current price levels, so why would DJ’s ?

 

i’ll put If differently, I’m in the market for 92’s, probably 3 of them, anyone give me a compelling reason why would I sign up for a DJ 92 right now ?

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:


In addition to asking myself if I still have confidence in Dave to complete the APT, (as pointed out already he has not said that he won't), I also have to ask if I have confidence in the other crowdfunders to continue funding.

The problem as I see it for APT crowdfunders is that even if Dave was to guarantee completion in a reasonable timescale, individual crowdfunders may be reluctant to pay the next 25% in case the others don't causing the project to collapse, then the first and second 25% is lost.

Even if that worked the next hurdle would be whether if we paid the third 25% there is the risk that the project flounders if not everyone does. The same with the final payment.

I have a suggestion that I am happy to put to Dave if it gathers support here and that is as follows:

Dave to ask for the remaining balance (i.e. 75% not 25%) with the following protection in place.

All the money goes into an escrow account and none is released into the project until it is all in. If crowdfunders drop out and don't pay by a specified date then the 75%s can be refunded in full. If sufficient is paid, then it is released for completing the project.

That way we all could put our money in without worrowing about losing it because of drop outs as we would be refunded in such a scenario. We would not worry about lack of funding for the third and fourth quarters as ALL the money required to produce an APT would have been paid.

What are your thoughts?

All sounds like a workable solution. My issue is that customers are having to come up with ideas to run DJM business.  Surely that's not sustainable?

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...