RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 12, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 12, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Phil Parker said: Isn't there more than one factory? Will all this investigation going to cost more than the assets available to pay for it? It depends what we are talking about. As I understand things the items which were involved in a dispute (Class 17 part completed work, Class 71 and J94 fully tooled, Class 92 CADs part completed to an unknown level and possibly one wagon) were with the factory DJM originally used and which also produced mdels for Kernow, including the recent D6XX, and the Hattons 14XX. That factory also does work for other customers in the British Isles. The more recent DJM developments in the shape of the crowdfunded N gauge 'King', the APT, the more recent Class 92, and a couple of DJM own account N gauge wagons, are definitely not with that factory (for obvious reasons) and might well be with more than one other factory. So overall there are at least two factories involved which between them could potentially be holding anything from CADs (at various stage of completion and utility) right through to full production standard tooling (e.g Class 71). So important questions are not only about the ownership of any potential assets they might hold but the extent to which they might also be creditors of DJM . 10 hours ago, BR Blue said: The IP would rest with the designer but it seems that DJM got a factory to do the "designing". This would mean that once DJM paid for this service then DJM would own the IP. However if DJM did not pay then the ownership of the IP would be in dispute. But what if a third party had paid for the CAD? What if all the work done on the CAD was solely between that third party and the factory with DJM acting, at most, as a post-office for communication? Edited June 13, 2019 by The Stationmaster Edit to revert to APT from APT, oops! 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted June 12, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 12, 2019 43 minutes ago, jcredfer said: Which is why OS and other map makers introduce a deliberate set of errors so those who wish to profit from their work may be proved to have copied the original. DJM will have to find proof that his design is unique and has been copied, in order to make an IP claim. J But as adb968008 said on page 37, once DJmodels is wound up then they cease to exist and the IP becomes worthless since a company that doesn't exist can't sue anyone. So whoever has the means to make ex DJmodels models can just sit tight until the liquidation is complete, then go into production. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianCAD Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: . . . So important questions are not only about the ownership of any potential assets they might hold but the extent to which they might also be creditors of DJM . Yes, I'd fully expect that the Chinese businesses involved will show that they are also creditors, or at least successfully construe to do so. I don't foresee any return from there to the people who funded Dave's lifestyle. Furthermore, unless the Chinese can make a quick sale of existing tooling, the cavity plates within the mould sets will be stripped out, and the sets modified to accept new cavity plates for perhaps a European, American or Australian prototype. Pandering to the whims of a meddling enthusiast has exacted a toll on all parties - as it also did for Dave's former employer. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 13, 2019 If the Chinese are holding onto tooling worth a multiple of what they are owed it might be possible to have it sold and have change left over after paying said Chinese from the proceeds. How that fits in with avoiding treating that particular creditor differently to all the other creditors is part of what the liquidators are paid to work out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
acko22 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Hi All, Firstly I have to say this as people are coming back to this the whole IP issue, they are not worth the internet space as it shows a shape and that is it there is nothing that defines it uniquely. Anyone can produce a model of say the mermaids themselves so as long as they do their own work it can be almost identical but at the end of the day there is only so much difference there can be in a representation of a real thing. I think with the may announcement it was a prelude to this in all honesty with DJM trying to make an asset out of a picture, which are in the cold light of day pretty much worthless. As for the full CADs and any tooling work that has been worked on, CG and CO to tell customers that there is no money to refund then it leads me to believe that they have them and they may not been paid for the work that's been done. In which case they will take control as payment or as part of a claim to regain some of their loses. With all this and by his own announcements DJM was NOT designing the models but was project managing and badly at that, with everything that has passed now the class 17 debacle was the first indication that things weren't been done right. After this he announced some crowdfunding projects which honestly the way he managed them for me appeared more a pre-order scheme in the hope the minimum order quantity would be reached and all have failed to do so leaving gapping holes in finances and actually would give some credence to him announcing numerous models to try and balance the books which hasn't happened leading to the current state of affairs. I am not going to do I told you so for a number of reasons: Many people may not known of his previous ventures (N'thusiast resprays as an example) Some may have heard of him at Dapol and thought that he did a good job there (working as part of a team doesn't make you great on your own) Finally it was a new manufacturer offering new things and "higher standards", makes a tempting offer especially when it's models people do want. And my last point, while I fully understand people are not happy with what has gone on and with DJM making the claim "his house is been used to fund / his house is on the line / he has remortgaged his house" , but searching zoopla for house prices is a little far fetched. If he has done what he has claimed on a few occasions then that is his choice and doesn't really involve us! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Phil Parker said: Isn't there more than one factory? Will all this investigation going to cost more than the assets available to pay for it? It seems that only his first factory had tools which would be of value. The second never got beyond CAD work. The former we know had issues with DJ (though not what they are), the second either was paid in advance or will be another creditor. The liquidators won,t plough heavy resources into it. They will gather through enquiries over time, allow time for people to come forwards. I think looking on here, they already concluded that there is not enough to pay creditors. That will already be part of the risk appraisal. Following enquiries, the factory might even become another creditor, albeit one in pocession of the tools. In practice, if there are businesses out there that wish to use those tools, new production orders will be of more value to the factory than scrap and the liquidators might be able to recover some money from that too. But if no one is interested, they won't waste their time (though they will allow time for businesses to come forwards). Edited June 13, 2019 by JSpencer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 6 hours ago, jcredfer said: OS and other map makers introduce a deliberate set of errors That might explain my wife’s navigation 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spikey Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 6 hours ago, brianCAD said: ... unless the Chinese can make a quick sale of existing tooling, the cavity plates within the mould sets will be stripped out, and the sets modified to accept new cavity plates ... I've been wondering about this all along,but it's been quite a while now since I worked in a toolroom or ran a moulding shop so I have to ask ... Assuming the factory's set up for the production of finished scale models of the type we're talking about, would that actually make sense nowadays unless they were so miffed with the customer that they'd feel better if they rendered "his" tooling FUBAR? All they'd gain is the advantage in the short term of having a standard mould tool body available for a different job, which I wouldn't have thought was a particularly big deal for a single-impression tool body. If I were in their shoes, I'd just sit on the complete tooling including assembly and printing jigs and fixtures, look after them, maybe write them off in the accounts, and see who comes knocking on the door ... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 hour ago, truffy said: That might explain my wife’s navigation It's only the 1950s in our model railways, you know. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 8 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said: They may accurately appraise the value but may offer much less than that to get a bargain. Indeed. It depends how many businesses show interest and to what extent they are prepared to pay. The final figure might not be little different than if they had been sold off normally - as I doubt even then they would get their book value. The best bet with these tools is to gain rights to them, use the same factory, pay for some chassis modifications (for the J94, swap the coreless for a bigger open frame type, have the loco's weight correctly centered, those are the two worst aspects to address) and restart production. The class 17 in N could be developed to conclusion too. Indeed I'm pretty certain, there is at least UK make out there already in regular use with the same factory. They would have the best chance - but only if they interested. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) Realistically what amount of future sales would any of his existing range actually sell ?. A quick look at Hattons show lots of stock of the whole range , why would another maker bother with any of them ? especially if the chassis need a redesign, therefore additional costs before any chance of any profit. Hattons need to sort out their pages as well, as they are still listing lots of pre production items. Edited June 13, 2019 by micklner 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 is it possible Hattons (as a manufacturer) are looking at the company to purchase rights to some models. They have the factory, the skills, money and with pre-orders perhaps some knowledge of what there is to salvage from DJM, maybe that is why they haven't removed anything. The N King, the class 17 in N, the industrial steam loco and of course the 14/58xx. Whether the 92 has legs with two makes of model in OO already either in or coming to market I don't know and the then there is the APT - might that see the light of day? The big challenge on the APT might be the lost deposits - but of course Section 75 may help here if most people can get their money back then with a company like Hattons at the helm perhaps people would happily put down a deposit again, some of the work may have already been paid for by DJM so may not need to be repeated on the CADs. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
classy52 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 After all this and 38+ pages later do you think Dave would turn up & show his face at any future model railway exhibitions or events? If he does then I would suggest purchasing a Sumo suite for all occasions, seriously I can't see how he would recover from this in any shape or form within this business...very sad for all concerned. 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 13, 2019 The sound of pitchforks being sharpened has been looming large in the background since the 1st of May so I would venture any public appearance by Dave would be extremely unwise for some considerable time to come. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truffy Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, classy52 said: After all this and 38+ pages later do you think Dave would turn up & show his face at any future model railway exhibitions or events? If he does then I would suggest purchasing a Sumo suite for all occasions, seriously I can't see how he would recover from this in any shape or form within this business...very sad for all concerned. Even with his almost ElizabethHolmesesque capacity to talk the talk it would be a very awkward situation, to say the least. 1 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 I'm 99.9% sure that Dave never intended for things to end this way but it is quite clear he bit off more than he could chew and dabbled in areas way beyond his ability. It all smacks of "desperation" towards the end. Not the first business to end this way and certainly not the last. I'm not in any way sticking up for him, and agree that he's unlikely to have any kind of future within the hobby. I just don't see what all this speculation and analysis on RMWeb will achieve. I guess if this thread makes those who have lost money feel better for having an outlet to vent frustration, then that's fine. I just think that if the liquidators are in for a long job, and this thread continues to multiply, where will it be in a year's time? 100+ pages of what, exactly? 1 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianCAD Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 42 minutes ago, spikey said: If I were in their shoes, I'd just sit on the complete tooling including assembly and printing jigs and fixtures, look after them, maybe write them off in the accounts, and see who comes knocking on the door ... And that may happen. But DJM's custom is quite insignificant when viewed against the volume of model railway equipment the Chinese are catering for globally. Eventually, failing a good offer, they may consider past production has sated the market - and be pleased to move on. There is still good value in the many parts associated with a mould set, even after the expensive cavity work is removed, and it would ease the need for storage, especially where there are multiple tools for a single model. The sudden closure of Affa Technology last year caused quite a re-jigging in the supply chain, with plenty of opportunity for manufacturers to replace an errant customer (until such time as higher US tariffs kick in perhaps? ). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRail Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 I received an official letter from the liquidators and in it there is a statement regarding tooling and the fact that the company was in dispute with the suppliers in China and Hong Kong. There was also a deposit paid to a supplier although it implies this may be difficult to recover The liquidators costs are currently estimated at £33,666 plus £2,000 disbursements although these are not fixed and the solicitors costs are unknown at this stage seems the only winners will be the liquidators and the solicitors 1 7 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 hour ago, woodenhead said: is it possible Hattons (as a manufacturer) are looking at the company to purchase rights to some models. They have the factory, the skills, money and with pre-orders perhaps some knowledge of what there is to salvage from DJM, maybe that is why they haven't removed anything. The N King, the class 17 in N, the industrial steam loco and of course the 14/58xx. Whether the 92 has legs with two makes of model in OO already either in or coming to market I don't know and the then there is the APT - might that see the light of day? The big challenge on the APT might be the lost deposits - but of course Section 75 may help here if most people can get their money back then with a company like Hattons at the helm perhaps people would happily put down a deposit again, some of the work may have already been paid for by DJM so may not need to be repeated on the CADs. You might well be making some assumptions about what does or does not exist. The only known DJM 'own label' tooling which exists is as I've previously listed and I doubt anyone would have much interest in an under-geared Class 71 except possibly for the bogie detail when the Hornby one is out there and stocks of the DJM one appear to exist at various shops. The J94 is a different kettle of fish to some extent but to turn it into something mechanically acceptable to a wider market will require a lot of investment although I think it might make a rather useful body kit albeit one with a multitude of parts. But in both those cases if, as has been said in some circles, the factory is trying to make some sort of financial return the prices might not be cheap - unless somebody simply orders re-runs of past detail/decoration combinations (with the previous mechanicals as well). The Class 17 appears to have not progressed a great distance in terms of tooling so it could be big money to bring it to production - would anybody be willing or able to pay that? The more recent projects appear to be no more than CADS but if they are as near complete as appears to be the case with the 'King' then all? it might need is perhaps for any outstanding costs to be paid and then tooling and production costs to be paid - so again would anybody consider there is market to justify what will probably be getting towards a six figure investment of c.£100,000? The Class 92 must inevitably be a dead duck - why bother when there is competition out there and coming to market in the not too distant future? And as for the APT there is clearly a huge amount of work to do with - according to one reliable source - CADs existing for only two vehicles out of the entire train: and just how good are those CADs? So to get an APT, even with a few coaches let alone a whole rake, would be a huge investment and once it gets anywhere near market Hornby will no doubt 'do a Class 66' and dust off its old tooling and pump out something for less than a quarter of the price. 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 13, 2019 With a class of over 400 locomotives,all in various liveries, makes the Hunslet 18" Austerity a very attractive proposition. If you leave out the fictitious liveries, there is/are nearly 200 identifiable bona-fide liveries to be seen. Perhaps all is not lost, after all! Ian. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 13, 2019 12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said: The Class 17 appears to have not progressed a great distance in terms of tooling so it could be big money to bring it to production - would anybody be willing or able to pay that? The Class 17 got to a nice looking working EP prototype so was not far off completion (which is of course when it all suddenly started going wrong). Also in N the Mermaids exist so could in theory be put into production straight away and the Shark was also at advanced EP stage so again not much in theory needed to get it running too. However as far as I can tell that is all the N scale tooling that exists in a tangible form. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 13, 2019 I’m guessing that unless the tooling was offered for absolute peanuts or as a desirable model with no need for any remedial work then it would not be attractive to other manufacturers. The Class 71 is a niche prototype and Hornby have an excellent model which has much better running qualities to satisfy any potential future demand for that prototype (the prevalence of deeply discounted Class 71 models would indicate that there is probably not much demand for further runs, at least not for a few years). The J94 is a nice looking model but I’m not sure if anybody else would want the chassis and mechanism, and the prospect of facing a need to redesign the under gubbins would add cost and a need to provide resource to addressing the short comings. A company might consider that a decent proposition if the tooling is available for a low cost, if the cost is higher they might question whether it might be better to just do the whole job again if they really want a J94 in their range. And all of this assumes that the tooling is available to buy and not just retained by the factory regardless of anything the liquidator might do. I do think it could throw a cat among a few kitchens if the factory with the J94 tooling ran off a batch which they sold directly via a shop on Ali or an EBay shop based in China but visible to UK users (there are plenty of Chinese companies selling into the UK), as they would be able to price them very aggressively and I’m guessing it wouldn’t be difficult for them to find a willing enthusiast to give them some prototype info for a small consideration. As things go on it does appear that there is very little for the liquidators to liquidate other than some disputed assets in China. And those assets are not primarily assets related to crowd funding projects as none of the crowd funding schemes (APT, class 92’s, King) seem to have progressed past CAD and 3D print stage despite repeated assurances over the last few years that they were just about to go into tooling. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Popular Post jjb1970 Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Popular Post Share Posted June 13, 2019 39 minutes ago, LongRail said: I received an official letter from the liquidators and in it there is a statement regarding tooling and the fact that the company was in dispute with the suppliers in China and Hong Kong. There was also a deposit paid to a supplier although it implies this may be difficult to recover The liquidators costs are currently estimated at £33,666 plus £2,000 disbursements although these are not fixed and the solicitors costs are unknown at this stage seems the only winners will be the liquidators and the solicitors I'm not sure whether it is fair to describe the liquidators as a winner in this. They provide a professional service for which they (quite reasonably) expect to be paid. Their business is what it is, it may not be the most palatable concept to some but as with undertakers and waste sorting and recycling it is an important function that somebody needs to do. 1 20 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, jjb1970 said: I do think it could throw a cat among a few kitchens Interesting new saying! 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted June 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, 'CHARD said: Interesting new saying! It's the best thing I can think of to do with cats. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts