Jump to content
 

DJM N gauge Crowdfunded King Class Steam Loco has started


DJM Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Why not just post pictures when you get them?

 

It's now expected to hear you say you'll show something and then delay it. Not that it matters but then what's the point of the post?

 

Just saying....

Speaking as a bystander here, and a Great Western modeller to boot...

 

I'd guess that Dave just wants to get it right; you can't complain about that. If you're running an SME (look it up) then there are chances that other attention will divide his time. I did 'instruct' Dave that he must sit down every night, and write out everything that he did during the day, excluding the bodily functions. He told me to ...."FOFF"....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as a bystander here, and a Great Western modeller to boot...

 

I'd guess that Dave just wants to get it right; you can't complain about that. If you're running an SME (look it up) then there are chances that other attention will divide his time. I did 'instruct' Dave that he must sit down every night, and write out everything that he did during the day, excluding the bodily functions. He told me to ...."FOFF"....

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

Well it's just friendly advice to Dave, that's all. I've seen it happen time and time again. He's told people to watch out for news and then nothing. Through no fault of his own, but not everyone will understand that. This type of thing has put off others in the past and it has been said before, so I am not the first person to notice it.

 

As I said it's friendly advice, it's just there for Dave to accept, if not he can simply ignore it and move on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The bogie still has the post 1955/56 strengthening strips on it - they only appeared on engines with 4 row superheaters.

 

 

Hi mate,

 

agreed, the problem comes as a cost against reward excercise.

a 3rd / 4th bogie (if you take into account with and without coupler box) will just cost so much more than i am comfortable i have orders / payments for.

cheers

Dave

 

It looks like a lack research and knowledge of the subject that's not setting standards higher it's the complete opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a lack research and knowledge of the subject that's not setting standards higher it's the complete opposite.

why would you say that?

 

I stated that a second bogie version would cost the project more, and as such wasnt budgeted as where do you stop?

 

As it is there will be a bogie with coupling box and a bogie without as standard.

 

If you would like to send me your proof of order, i will gladly cancel it for you as obviously the model is inferior to your needs, for which i can only apologise.

 

If you can also let everyone here know just how much it would cost to do ALL versions totally accurately, and how you intend to produce the N gauge model King within a set budget, including, for example, a minimum of 5 chimneys, 3 cabs (not forgetting the cab roof vents)

bogies (both with and without strengthening fillets, and with and without coupling box), both smokebox doors, not forgetting both styles of buffer shank.....( i could go on), and do it all for an initial price, including design work, cad/cam, tooling, ep samples, tooling again, ep samples. testing, decorated samples, samples to the press, shipping across the world, distribution to the end customer, spares etc all for £135.00 for your obviously superior model, then please let me know how here in front of everyone and i will stand aside and let you do it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you say that?

 

I stated that a second bogie version would cost the project more, and as such wasnt budgeted as where do you stop?

 

As it is there will be a bogie with coupling box and a bogie without as standard.

 

If you would like to send me your proof of order, i will gladly cancel it for you as obviously the model is inferior to your needs, for which i can only apologise.

 

If you can also let everyone here know just how much it would cost to do ALL versions totally accurately, and how you intend to produce the N gauge model King within a set budget, including, for example, a minimum of 5 chimneys, 3 cabs (not forgetting the cab roof vents)

bogies (both with and without strengthening fillets, and with and without coupling box), both smokebox doors, not forgetting both styles of buffer shank.....( i could go on), and do it all for an initial price, including design work, cad/cam, tooling, ep samples, tooling again, ep samples. testing, decorated samples, samples to the press, shipping across the world, distribution to the end customer, spares etc all for £135.00 for your obviously superior model, then please let me know how here in front of everyone and i will stand aside and let you do it.

 

 

Dave don't get irritated by people who have no clue what is involved in producing this model.   There are always a few armchair Generals  :yes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's good that things are moving again. It really looks like it will be happening soon. I thought all the naysayers had disappeared into their lairs after the hysterical outbursts of doom and gloom when it was first announced.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you be taking credit cards or PayPal payment please? I am reluctant to crowdfund without the protection these offer.

Hi,

 

The project will alter from PayPay to Lloyds Click Safe and take credit card / debit card payments, but please note the information freely availale on my web site regarding the project, payments and risk versus return.

 

Cheers

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

why would you say that?

 

I stated that a second bogie version would cost the project more, and as such wasnt budgeted as where do you stop?

 

As it is there will be a bogie with coupling box and a bogie without as standard.

 

If you would like to send me your proof of order, i will gladly cancel it for you as obviously the model is inferior to your needs, for which i can only apologise.

 

If you can also let everyone here know just how much it would cost to do ALL versions totally accurately, and how you intend to produce the N gauge model King within a set budget, including, for example, a minimum of 5 chimneys, 3 cabs (not forgetting the cab roof vents)

bogies (both with and without strengthening fillets, and with and without coupling box), both smokebox doors, not forgetting both styles of buffer shank.....( i could go on), and do it all for an initial price, including design work, cad/cam, tooling, ep samples, tooling again, ep samples. testing, decorated samples, samples to the press, shipping across the world, distribution to the end customer, spares etc all for £135.00 for your obviously superior model, then please let me know how here in front of everyone and i will stand aside and let you do it.

 

Dave, don't feed the trolls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Trolls not withstanding, here, as promised are the latest cad/cam's for the early King.

 

I have included some angles which were areas of concern.

 

Cheers

Dave

post-1144-0-97513300-1531211353_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-77517400-1531211365_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-62928000-1531211375_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-89032500-1531211382_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-65145700-1531211393_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-28341600-1531211401_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-89966500-1531211409_thumb.jpg

post-1144-0-36883400-1531211422_thumb.jpg

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Lloyds Click Safe is merely a card verification system and does not provide any buyer protection. However if you can accept credit card and PayPal payments that's fine.

Also be aware you are not covered under section 75 of the consumer credit act if you pay with a credit card through paypal. 

 

In addition unless you paid £100+ per transaction to each part of the crowdfunded project you  may not be covered under section 75 of the consumer credit act. It would depend on how the card company views the various parts of the transaction. WHICH? seem to imply you are covered but it looks like a bit of a grey area....to be 100% sure i would talk to your credit card provider, or the financial services ombudsman

 

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act

 

 

basically if the project does not go ahead for any reason and you cant claim on section 75 you are reliant on the vendor refunding your money, if the vendor for any reason becomes insolvent you then may have a claim as a creditor of the company.

Edited by pheaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Isn’t the whole point of crowdfunding that you are investing in a business venture and therefore taking a risk with your investment? If there was a rock solid guarantee that a project would be a success with zero risk then the banks would be falling over themselves to lend money to that project. The reward for the investment is a. you get a nice new model (if successful) and b. you pay less than others who did not take part in the funding if they come on sale to all in the future.

 

There has to be an element of trust between the crowdfunders and the person behind the project. Dave doesn’t sound like the most organised person in the world and he has crossed a few people in the past (I’m told). On the other hand he has designed some nice models while at Dapol and since. I don’t know Dave at all but I’m happy to support this venture on the grounds that I believe Dave to have good intentions and that it will be good for the N gauge section of the hobby. I am also aware that there can be no absolute guarantee that any business venture will end in success but it is a risk I am prepared to take based on what I have seen so far. So far as I understand this is not quite the same as merely paying an up front deposit on a new loco; it is raising the funds to invest in a project.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Isn’t the whole point of crowdfunding that you are investing in a business venture and therefore taking a risk with your investment? If there was a rock solid guarantee that a project would be a success with zero risk then the banks would be falling over themselves to lend money to that project. The reward for the investment is a. you get a nice new model (if successful) and b. you pay less than others who did not take part in the funding if they come on sale to all in the future.

 

There has to be an element of trust between the crowdfunders and the person behind the project. Dave doesn’t sound like the most organised person in the world and he has crossed a few people in the past (I’m told). On the other hand he has designed some nice models while at Dapol and since. I don’t know Dave at all but I’m happy to support this venture on the grounds that I believe Dave to have good intentions and that it will be good for the N gauge section of the hobby. I am also aware that there can be no absolute guarantee that any business venture will end in success but it is a risk I am prepared to take based on what I have seen so far. So far as I understand this is not quite the same as merely paying an up front deposit on a new loco; it is raising the funds to invest in a project.

 

There is a thread covering crowdfunding elsewhere on RMweb and it has examined most of the issues and potential pitfalls, and benefits, involved including some of the legal ramifications and consumer protection issues.  Post 35 on this page addresses and summarises the latter two points fairly comprehensively-

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133839-crowdfunding-or-minimising-risk/page-2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit card protection whilst no guarantee should greatly mitigate the risk to the backers of a failed project and as such benefits both the crowdfunder and his customers. So it makes a great deal of sense to promote this method of payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to send this thread off tangent and probably should post in the Crowdfunding thread - but reward based crowdfunding is an investment and the reward/return is a train.

 

When you pay Dave are you paying for an item or adding to the investment - those who are funding at the crowdfunding price are most likely investing whilst those who make a purchase of an item at the higher price non crowd funded price are ordering a train.

 

If Section 75 of the CCA covered investing then lots of sharedealers would hedge their investments by buying on a credit card and then claiming back their losses via the CCA.  As Dave has indicated, look at his web site there is an element of risk, as there is an element of risk then this is an investment not a purchase.

 

Has anyone tested section 75 against a failed crowdfunding activity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Without wishing to send this thread off tangent and probably should post in the Crowdfunding thread - but reward based crowdfunding is an investment and the reward/return is a train.

 

When you pay Dave are you paying for an item or adding to the investment - those who are funding at the crowdfunding price are most likely investing whilst those who make a purchase of an item at the higher price non crowd funded price are ordering a train.

 

If Section 75 of the CCA covered investing then lots of sharedealers would hedge their investments by buying on a credit card and then claiming back their losses via the CCA.  As Dave has indicated, look at his web site there is an element of risk, as there is an element of risk then this is an investment not a purchase.

 

Has anyone tested section 75 against a failed crowdfunding activity?

 

The answer to your final question is 'yes' although appears to be under ordinary contract law.  The case is linked in the crowdfunding thread but basically somebody paid in to a company based crowd funding scheme for a new built replica ZX computer and it was not delivered by the expected date so he took the company to court to get his money back.  The claimant won his case but was not awarded expenses against the proprietors of the company which was using crowd funding to get the computers manufactured by a third party.

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/31/crowdfunding_court_case_refund_retro_computers_zx_vega_plus/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link Stationmaster. It does support the view emerging from the crowdfunding thread that a customer-funded project is likely to be treated in the UK like any other consumer purchase, with all that implies in terms of customer rights.

Edited by dpgibbons
Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your final question is 'yes' although appears to be under ordinary contract law.  The case is linked in the crowdfunding thread but basically somebody paid in to a company based crowd funding scheme for a new built replica ZX computer and it was not delivered by the expected date so he took the company to court to get his money back.  The claimant won his case but was not awarded expenses against the proprietors of the company which was using crowd funding to get the computers manufactured by a third party.

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/31/crowdfunding_court_case_refund_retro_computers_zx_vega_plus/

The right to a refund was what they won, which as we've seen elsewhere is the right to change your mind which is different to getting your money back if the business fails to deliver on it's investment and folds unable to meet all it's financial obligations.

 

If it was all so easy to use section 75 I am sure a lot of the 489 people wanting their money back who are owed £55k would not be considering debt collection agencies but banging on the door of their credit card companies.

 

interesting view from Paypal here: https://thechargebackcompany.com/new-paypal-chargeback-rules-merchants-need-know/

 

I've only brought this up in this thread because of mentions of protection, this thread was refreshingly free of the money talk until earlier today allowing Dave to focus on showing off his CADs. 

 

Edit: Reported myself to Andy Y to adjudicate, I don't want to detract this thread from the King.

Edited by woodenhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Trolls not withstanding, here, as promised are the latest cad/cam's for the early King.

 

I have included some angles which were areas of concern.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

 

 

Dave,

 

Sorry I missed this before but the spacing of the lower row of washout plugs on the side of the firebox is incorrect - the spacing should be equal (again see the photo of 6001 in post 354).

 

Also I am still not convinced that the profile of the cab roof is correct although it is possible I am being misled  by optical illusions. The flat section in the centre still looks a little too wide to me. Also, imagining you are looking down on top of the roof, it seems to me that the rear section/extension should be wider before it curves back in on each side to meet up with the cab sides.

 

What do others think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Dave,

 

Sorry I missed this before but the spacing of the lower row of washout plugs on the side of the firebox is incorrect - the spacing should be equal (again see the photo of 6001 in post 354).

 

Also I am still not convinced that the profile of the cab roof is correct although it is possible I am being misled  by optical illusions. The flat section in the centre still looks a little too wide to me. Also, imagining you are looking down on top of the roof, it seems to me that the rear section/extension should be wider before it curves back in on each side to meet up with the cab sides.

 

What do others think?

 

It might be an optical illusion but it is difficult to tell.  Several (non-Swindon) drawings show things slightly differently which doesn't help but what does appear incorrect - by a smidgeon in 2mm scale - is the relative height of the safety valve cover and the cab roof.  One drawing clearly show the top of the sv cover as higher than the cab roof, another (the Charles Lake version) is less clear and at a small scale which makes it more difficult to judge although it too on the original 1930s printed version indicates the sv cover is higher.  The Westbourne Park incident would tend to confirm this in that it reportedly left the chimney and cab roof undamaged but took off the sv cover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Several (non-Swindon) drawings show things slightly differently which doesn't help but what does appear incorrect - by a smidgeon in 2mm scale - is the relative height of the safety valve cover and the cab roof.  One drawing clearly show the top of the sv cover as higher than the cab roof, another (the Charles Lake version) is less clear and at a small scale which makes it more difficult to judge although it too on the original 1930s printed version indicates the sv cover is higher.[/i]

Looking at the real thing and the CAD in broadside, I think the relative heights of the cab, SVC and chimney look pretty much correct.

 

post-887-0-97197700-1531311468_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...