OO gauge Crowdfunded APT-P (Warley announcement)

[jjb1970]

I personally have no problem with people posting who have no intention of buying the model. What I do question is when non puchasers seem intent on finding fault with Dave business and almost appear to be hell bent on trying to make the project fail.

 

 

Nobody wants this project to fail, and I certainly don't want DJM to fail. However, if a project is requesting a rather large sum to fund development and there are certain red flag indicators then it is only reasonable to expect transparency over what is going on. This isn't just about this project or DJM as it could potentially affect peoples attitudes to such projects in general.

[black and decker boy]

I personally have no problem with people posting who have no intention of buying the model. What I do question is when non puchasers seem intent on finding fault with Dave business and almost appear to be hell bent on trying to make the project fail.

Maybe some of us would have been buying the APT but for the business model and consumer risk being offered. Maybe if the model comes to fruition at the standard promised then we will still be buyers and content to pay the risk free premium.

[reevesthecat]

Is there anyway to check if we are being refunded or not. I know as a kickstart venture my money is at risk but it is feeling more and more that it might be.

Mark

[delticfan]

Quicker Dave gets sorted out and the sooner the model gets produced I’ll be happy, then we won’t have to be reading this thread, getting a bit boring now my posts included! Lots of talk no action...

[tetsudofan]

As I've said, we have been told this a number of times. There is a risk involved. Life is one big risk, if you don't want to take the risk you don't take it. Simples.

 

Of course its going to cost a reasonable sum of money....but then the ATP-P is somewhat bigger model than say a Stirling Single of a Dynamometer Car....

 

Keith

[royaloak]

As I've said, we have been told this a number of times. There is a risk involved. Life is one big risk, if you don't want to take the risk you don't take it. Simples.

 

Of course its going to cost a reasonable sum of money....but then the ATP-P is somewhat bigger model than say a Stirling Single of a Dynamometer Car....

 

Keith

There is a difference between taking a (small) risk with a well known company/ individual with an excellent reputation (DJM/Dave at the beginning) and what is now happening here, no accounts filed despite assurances they would be, refunding most of the investors but not others (yes I understand why) and expecting them to then use a different method to invest, and all the other promises which have come to nowt.

 

If I get a refund I dont know whether I will re-invest or not, losing £250 is a big deal but possibly losing £1000 if the project is pulled at a late stage doesnt bear thinking about, what happens if some of those who wont get a refund decide it is a step too far and dont want to make any more instalments?

 

All we have had is a couple of grand spent on a scanning party at Crewe and we will be expected to make a second and possibly a third and fourth instalment but I dont think we will see anything else 'in the flesh' (it int difficult to knock up a prototype or two so people can see 'something') until the models are (supposedly) ready to be dispatched? So to my cynical old mind all that money is at risk and to put that amount of trust on a person who cant even get his accounts in on time is a bit of a stretch. Taken to an illogical conclusion if, just before the models are supposed to be delivered and all the instalments have been paid, there is 'a problem' and the scheme folds how much money would have been in the kitty if nothing other than the Crewe do and a couple of prototypes had been produced before transfer of all remaining to the account in the Cayman Islands, enough to comfortably retire on? I did say it was illogical.

 

Do I want an APT? Yes absolutely that is why I ordered a 14 coach one, but do I want to risk anything up to £1000 on a promise of jam later? I am not so sure now, the number of red flags is increasing and we are not even that far into the scheme yet!

Edited July 29, 2018 by royaloak

[royaloak]

As I've said, we have been told this a number of times. There is a risk involved. Life is one big risk, if you don't want to take the risk you don't take it. Simples.

 

Of course its going to cost a reasonable sum of money....but then the ATP-P is somewhat bigger model than say a Stirling Single of a Dynamometer Car....

 

Keith

We all know there is a risk, the question is how much risk?

 

There is a risk crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing, there is a much bigger risk trying to cross a motorway, ultimately they are both just crossing a road!

[Gulliver]

Although legally/ultimately the responsibility to file on time lies with the company, here I believe DJMs accounts had been prepared and submitted to the accountant but DJM was left in limbo due an accountant that had failed to file them in the correct time frames with Companies House ( or is that with HMRC who then update the company financial status on the Companies House databases) either way I am not sure DJM has failed to meet that basic task you refer to.  Companies House data is also not a paragon of absolute fact at any given time and is subject to the odd error.

 

Amazed to be honest that a thread of model trains has got into this level of depth on financial affairs.............quite the eye opener.

 

Nothing to do with the accountant, Dave confirmed on the previous thread that was locked that it was his fault, copied below.

 

 

Posted 30 June 2018 - 15:54

Gulliver, on 30 Jun 2018 - 13:54, said:

Dave, your accountant hopefully is aware that you have to file your accounts with Companies House - this is where your notice of being struck off has come from.  It is nothing to do with HMRC.  I am surprised your accountant had not warned you that you were so overdue, or that the strike off notice had been raised as you would have had two warnings about this prior to the first gazette for compulsory strike off being issued.  Your accountant would usually deal with all of this to prevent this sort of situation arising?

Hi mate,

 

forgive me if i dont wash that particular item in public. and yes she was, but it was my fault for not supplying her with this info.

like i said, my fault.

[Gulliver]

There is a difference between taking a (small) risk with a well known company/ individual with an excellent reputation (DJM/Dave at the beginning) and what is now happening here, no accounts filed despite assurances they would be, refunding most of the investors but not others (yes I understand why) and expecting them to then use a different method to invest, and all the other promises which have come to nowt.

 

If I get a refund I dont know whether I will re-invest or not, losing £250 is a big deal but possibly losing £1000 if the project is pulled at a late stage doesnt bear thinking about, what happens if some of those who wont get a refund decide it is a step too far and dont want to make any more instalments?

 

Snip

 

Do I want an APT? Yes absolutely that is why I ordered a 14 coach one, but do I want to risk anything up to £1000 on a promise of jam later? I am not so sure now, the number of red flags is increasing and we are not even that far into the scheme yet!

 

If 1000 people have ordered, we are talking £1m here, with £0.25m in deposits paid so far.  A lot of money to be thrown in to a company that has failed to file accounts on time two years running.

[Colin_McLeod]

The risk of the project itself has not changed so I will be happy to re pay my deposit but first I really really need to know that the business is getting the attention it deserves. I will ask Dave again: have the accounts been submitted yet and if not when will they be? The sooner things are sorted the sooner people will repay the first deposit and the sooner Dave can get back to the project.

[Ncarter2]

I have a 14 on order and have just received my refund.

I’m in a dilemma, given all the red flags recently do I play safe and not reorder? Or do I continue to support for a model I really do want? I fear a lot more will drop out now they have chance and those who don’t will be financially disadvantaged. With Dave now offering to refund those who didn’t get a refund but still wanting one what hope does this leave for DJM? I have 92’s on pre order, we all know Dave can produce. I guess it will be a case of how many are willing to back him? Gut feeling says there will be more dropping out, possibly more than when the initial deposit was requested. At what level does the project become untenable and go the same route of the 74, albeit several investors out of pocket, or worse still, Dave hounours his statement and refunds all those who want it and DJM is then in a poor financial position which in turn has a larger effect on his customer base, possibly the loss of models or the company.

For me I want the APT, I want the 92’s. I want DJM to thrive and produce even more great models.

I share people’s concerns and it’s a big problem form most to look past.

[Clearwater]

Reading this thread highlights many of the points on the other crowd funding thread. As Gulliver and Royaloak point out, there is a lot of money at stake both for individuals and DJM as a whole. This is not a tiny concern like many of the small kit manufacturers. I have taken a look at both DJModel's site and the DToS site. Amongst points that would concern me were I wish to invest:

1) No clear programme of when the model is to be delivered. I know schedules can be moveable feasts but it would be useful to set out an aspiration as to what timeframe is to be met. Not least from DJM's perspective as they are taking credit risk on their customers as well - if customers are asking for too much money in too short a time frame, some may struggle to meet the payment schedule - how does the project cope if say 10% of investors fall away/cant meet the future payment schedule? I'd have thought some clarity on the timings of the stages would be helpful

 

2) there is no budget information or indication of what type of numbers/sales make this project viable. On the former, how can investors form any sort of view as to whether after three/four payments, there won't be an additional request. Without a clear delivery timetable, and people can take a view on the realism of such a timetable, it's hard to judge whether the risk of subsequent price rise due to the passage of time has been adequately included. Inflation ain't going away! Without an idea of budget and costings, there's no ability to judge whether there is the capacity to absorb price rises / currency fluctuations. DJM won't be able to hedge payments - does a 10% fall in sterling relative to the dollar remove the profit margin? How has that risk, and others, been priced into the prices quoted?

 

In my view, this is exacerbated by the uniqueness of the prototype. If a retailer was asking for funding for a new wagon at a price we can all see that wagons retail within, we can take a view that the pricing looks robust. How many other 6-14 car prototypes can we benchmark the price against? Is the price realistic? I've no idea and no way of judging nor have enough information to make my own assessment.

 

There are a number of crowdfunding websites eg crowdcube, seedrs etc where entrepreneurs are looking for money to support their schemes. There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn. I'd recommend looking at some of the prospectuses and levels of detail include in those pitches to gauge what level of information can reasonably be expected. Most of these sites allow you to register and view opportunities. I'd also note how their info pages show how close each opportunity is to being subscribed. They also give you an idea of the professionalism of the entities.

 

3) Phasing of payments - why 4 equal installments? Everything I've read suggests that the bulk of the costs are at the tooling stage and then really step up when production nears. Therefore, it appears that the project should be cash positive in the early stages - how is DJM managing the cash? Is it in a separate account? What happens if DJM is insolvent? The "T&C" page on the DJM website is not a set of T&Cs - its a description of process. I'd expect those sort of issues to be described and explained in a proper set of T&Cs. That will cost to do (needs a lawyer to help) but if DJM intend to do multiple schemes, it may be money well spent.

 

Like most here, I wish Dave and DJM well. However, there looks to me to be a lot of work to do to get not least to make the website and descriptions more transparent. At the moment, it comes across as a 'wing and a prayer.' A total cost of £1m is material by anyone's standards. Dave is clearly a charismatic and talented product engineer. It is a hell of an achievement to have made the models he has to date. However, without upping his game, he is running the risk of a major failure.

 

David

Edited July 29, 2018 by Clearwater

[eddie an engine]

I recently discovered that the DJMODELS.CO.UK domain name expired on the 11th July.

 

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=djmodels.co.uk#whois-results

 

I assume the website is only still operating due to the 30 day 'grace' period most ISPs and Nominet operate.

No other variations appear to be registered to Dave Jones. (A quick search at most hosting companies will show variations on a registered name which are registered already.

 

Since a companies domain name is its online identity, One would usually be very reluctant to loose it. Normally this is renewed by standing order (being only £6 - £12 per year in costs).  Of course, this could be a planned change of identity from one which has been established over many years, though why this would be desirable cannot surmise, when names are freely and easily transferable to new web hosts and web sites etc.

 

I'm certain therefore, this will turn out to be either bad advice received or a silly oversight due to various factors. Once more, a quick online action would put this right within hours David.

[Colin_McLeod]

Have you brought this to Dave's attention or did you want to post it here first?

[tarifa]

Have you brought this to Dave's attention or did you want to post it here first?

Should one need to ?.

 

Mike

[JSpencer]

1) No clear programme of when the model is to be delivered. I know schedules can be moveable feasts but it would be useful to set out an aspiration as to what timeframe is to be met. Not least from DJM's perspective as they are taking credit risk on their customers as well - if customers are asking for too much money in too short a time frame, some may struggle to meet the payment schedule - how does the project cope if say 10% of investors fall away/cant meet the future payment schedule? I'd have thought some clarity on the timings of the stages would be helpful

 

 

To be honest we never had that from any make unless the EPs were already done and production was about to happen. When it is entirely from scratch, about 2 years is often quoted from start to finish. Few do so in that time and most take almost twice that.

We have seen progress reports from other makes, but here DJM does progress reports too.

 

 

2) there is no budget information or indication of what type of numbers/sales make this project viable. On the former, how can investors form any sort of view as to whether after three/four payments, there won't be an additional request. Without a clear delivery timetable, and people can take a view on the realism of such a timetable, it's hard to judge whether the risk of subsequent price rise due to the passage of time has been adequately included. Inflation ain't going away! Without an idea of budget and costings, there's no ability to judge whether there is the capacity to absorb price rises / currency fluctuations. DJM won't be able to hedge payments - does a 10% fall in sterling relative to the dollar remove the profit margin? How has that risk, and others, been priced into the prices quoted?

 

 

 

Agree, that this has been hinted at in other crowdfunded projects before like the Pendalino. There they could keep tight on the budget and numbers and Rapido were prepared to finance the gap (they get the tools for further runs maybe in a few years - but this is a long term investment, and just one of a huge number of projects they now run).

There are other cases which technically are not crowd funded but you do get a cheaper price if you pay fully (like the NRM Stirling single). And I can quickly see the lines being blurred between a crowdfunded and non crowdfunded model. But will keep it simple in that one uses only customer up front funds to finance the project, the other gets financed anyway regardless of whatever percentage pay fully/partly or not at all up front. However I've no idea what final figures of the Stirling were made. It could be as low as 1000, or 2000 or 5000, but certainly I suspect not more than 10,000.

 

At the start Dave did say he is not expecting to make a profit from this run and gets a nice set of tools. We don't know how much margin/leeway he factored into that. If it is too small, he really must have everything running clock work. i;e He gives go for Production when China say so. This relies on the EPs being spot on first time round, CADs being signed off quickly and so on. If the slot is missed, the price goes up.

Another head ache is BREXIT, maybe nothing will happen, maybe the pound will loose power and recover 2 months later (you don't want to pay an invoice to china at that point but not paying on time delay's the project and increases cost.......). I would want a good 30-40% margin over the China quoted costs to cover these - just in case - and the fact that I,ve no personal historical data to go on. Remember, you can always give customers nice surprises at the end if you feel that you have not kept your promise of doing this at cost than to come back saying "we need an extra £200 from each to finish the project due to.........". But I assume he factored in a safety margin, and equally some of his business costs (flights to china, and doubtless he needs a salary too, things are still running outside in the real world).

Another form of additional margin is to have say 20% (again figure is me being conservative with zero historical data) more orders worth than the cost of running the project. Some people drop out, don't pay on time... you have a margin to cope with that.

 

At the end of the day, we don't know what they are, nor do we need to, but I sincerely expect someone experienced like Dave already did all the calculations for that. And all this adds up to an overall target figure of units to make which I agree would be nice for crowdfunders to know.

 

 

3) Phasing of payments - why 4 equal installments? Everything I've read suggests that the bulk of the costs are at the tooling stage and then really step up when production nears. Therefore, it appears that the project should be cash positive in the early stages - how is DJM managing the cash? Is it in a separate account? What happens if DJM is insolvent? The "T&C" page on the DJM website is not a set of T&Cs - its a description of process. I'd expect those sort of issues to be described and explained in a proper set of T&Cs. That will cost to do (needs a lawyer to help) but if DJM intend to do multiple schemes, it may be money well spent.

 

 

I think that is easy to answer. People will find it easier to pay 4 equal amounts spread over equal time frames (once every 6 months). Than £100 then £200, then £300 and finally £400. The higher figures will have everyone taking longer period to pay but you need money now to pay for production which is not cheap (a good equal to tooling costs and maybe more - we have hand assembled models with 100s of small parts - that cannot be cheap even in China).

 

T&Cs mean nothing if consumer laws are precise in certain areas, likewise it means nothing if the company folds. Dave has said he is setting up an e-commerce site which might allow for true credit card transactions that would offer a degree of protection (and might also explain the new domain issue mentioned in another post). I find it ironic Dave took over payment from Durham Trains of S, where the orders were placed, in order to ease transactions - which caused confusion and grief at the time. But maybe with hindsight, it might have been better if payment had happened on DToS instead (if their system will cope of course - maybe it too would block at a certain point). DTos would of course then probably be obliged to admin and pay for each milestone as its invoiced from various parties and even underwrite the project, a big risk for a small company (The crowdfunder risks loosing £1000, someone underwriting it could loose 6 figures!).

 

At the end of the day, the question is are you prepared to risk £1000 for the model APT-P of your dreams. I have a friend who hands out £50K to charities like we would give a fiver. If you cannot really afford it then don't, if it means nothing, by all means take part. Each to judge their own from the info freely available of course.

[ThaneofFife]

a perfectly valid reason for late filing of accounts is when there has been a change in the reporting period.

[The Stationmaster]

a perfectly valid reason for late filing of accounts is when there has been a change in the reporting period.

 

Provided it is agreed in advance with Companies House - there is a laid down procedure for doing that, prior to the date at which the accounts were originally due.  But of course if the reporting period is changed the submission deadline date will also change and there will be notes to that effect on the filing record and submission could still be late.   Companies House website does not show that the reporting period has been changed and the original reporting deadline date of 30 April 2018, in respect of an accounting period up to 31 July 2017, still applies. (that being the normal period of grace allowed for the submission of small concern accounts).  In other words 'the accounts', actually a Micro-Entity balance sheet, are still for an accounting period which ended almost 12 months ago.

[cs233]

Whilst I have not ordered simply due to the prices, cannot justify that figure currently for a hobby I really do look forward to the model and knowing the level of quality Dave has produced models to I feel the project will be a success. It is very ambitious in terms of the scale of the project but the rewards should be more than worth it.

[dogbox321]

To be honest we never had that from any make unless the EPs were already done and production was about to happen. When it is entirely from scratch, about 2 years is often quoted from start to finish. Few do so in that time and most take almost twice that.

We have seen progress reports from other makes, but here DJM does progress reports too.

 

 

 

Agree, that this has been hinted at in other crowdfunded projects before like the Pendalino. There they could keep tight on the budget and numbers and Rapido were prepared to finance the gap (they get the tools for further runs maybe in a few years - but this is a long term investment, and just one of a huge number of projects they now run).

There are other cases which technically are not crowd funded but you do get a cheaper price if you pay fully (like the NRM Stirling single). And I can quickly see the lines being blurred between a crowdfunded and non crowdfunded model. But will keep it simple in that one uses only customer up front funds to finance the project, the other gets financed anyway regardless of whatever percentage pay fully/partly or not at all up front. However I've no idea what final figures of the Stirling were made. It could be as low as 1000, or 2000 or 5000, but certainly I suspect not more than 10,000.

 

At the start Dave did say he is not expecting to make a profit from this run and gets a nice set of tools. We don't know how much margin/leeway he factored into that. If it is too small, he really must have everything running clock work. i;e He gives go for Production when China say so. This relies on the EPs being spot on first time round, CADs being signed off quickly and so on. If the slot is missed, the price goes up.

Another head ache is BREXIT, maybe nothing will happen, maybe the pound will loose power and recover 2 months later (you don't want to pay an invoice to china at that point but not paying on time delay's the project and increases cost.......). I would want a good 30-40% margin over the China quoted costs to cover these - just in case - and the fact that I,ve no personal historical data to go on. Remember, you can always give customers nice surprises at the end if you feel that you have not kept your promise of doing this at cost than to come back saying "we need an extra £200 from each to finish the project due to.........". But I assume he factored in a safety margin, and equally some of his business costs (flights to china, and doubtless he needs a salary too, things are still running outside in the real world).

Another form of additional margin is to have say 20% (again figure is me being conservative with zero historical data) more orders worth than the cost of running the project. Some people drop out, don't pay on time... you have a margin to cope with that.

 

At the end of the day, we don't know what they are, nor do we need to, but I sincerely expect someone experienced like Dave already did all the calculations for that. And all this adds up to an overall target figure of units to make which I agree would be nice for crowdfunders to know.

 

 

 

I think that is easy to answer. People will find it easier to pay 4 equal amounts spread over equal time frames (once every 6 months). Than £100 then £200, then £300 and finally £400. The higher figures will have everyone taking longer period to pay but you need money now to pay for production which is not cheap (a good equal to tooling costs and maybe more - we have hand assembled models with 100s of small parts - that cannot be cheap even in China).

 

T&Cs mean nothing if consumer laws are precise in certain areas, likewise it means nothing if the company folds. Dave has said he is setting up an e-commerce site which might allow for true credit card transactions that would offer a degree of protection (and might also explain the new domain issue mentioned in another post). I find it ironic Dave took over payment from Durham Trains of S, where the orders were placed, in order to ease transactions - which caused confusion and grief at the time. But maybe with hindsight, it might have been better if payment had happened on DToS instead (if their system will cope of course - maybe it too would block at a certain point). DTos would of course then probably be obliged to admin and pay for each milestone as its invoiced from various parties and even underwrite the project, a big risk for a small company (The crowdfunder risks loosing £1000, someone underwriting it could loose 6 figures!).

 

At the end of the day, the question is are you prepared to risk £1000 for the model APT-P of your dreams. I have a friend who hands out £50K to charities like we would give a fiver. If you cannot really afford it then don't, if it means nothing, by all means take part. Each to judge their own from the info freely available of course.

 

I think there a number of issues here - firstly, it is in Dave's interests to get this model produced as soon as possible (so costs don't rise, maintain crowdfunder confidence etc),

secondly, if it were me, as the Chinese mainly deal in Dollars, when money was invested I'd be transferring it into Dollars as soon as the exchange rate was favourable, to give some level of certainty,

thirdly, Dave has said that he expects it to be a "one hit train", with no repeat runs envasaged, so DJM need to be making money from it,

and forthly, for Dave, I would say the APT is extremely important - Ultimately its the model that will make or break DJ Models. If it fails (and I'm not saying it will, and sincerely hope that it dosen't, especially as I have one on order), then no-one would touch another DJM crowd funding model with a barge pole, but if it is successful, and produced within reasonable timescales, then it will raise DJM's profile and reputation substantially.  He's got the crowdfunders there who have put the money forward, so in reality, the progress should be quite speedy - as Dave can sort the design and manufacture out.  The only caveat to this is, that if you look at the likes of the APT-E, Stirling Single, TEA tank, etc., they have all had heavy delays, so some may be inevitable, to ensure the model is as good as can be.  In my opinion if this fails - Dave has much more to loose than the crowdfunders, but everything to gain, by getting it done.

 

As per your comments about DTOS - then I must admit, I do find their involvement "confusing", as originally when talking to Mike (DTOS), DJModels were going to be subbed the work, not taking over from DTOS.  

 

Regards,

 

C.    

[Cape Town Trev]

Looking at Revolution Trains accounts the 2016 look to have been filed very late, due July 2017 filed July 2018. A loss of about 4.5 thousand in 2015 then a profit of about 5.6 thousand to October 2016. October 2017 accounts are due tomorrow.

Don’t know if people were concerned about the very late filing of the 2016 accounts.

Yes there is a risk in paying monies upfront to anyone. Each to their own viv a vis red flags. I am in for the n gauge 92 and King.

[JSpencer]

I think there a number of issues here - firstly, it is in Dave's interests to get this model produced as soon as possible (so costs don't rise, maintain crowdfunder confidence etc),

secondly, if it were me, as the Chinese mainly deal in Dollars, when money was invested I'd be transferring it into Dollars as soon as the exchange rate was favourable, to give some level of certainty,

thirdly, Dave has said that he expects it to be a "one hit train", with no repeat runs envasaged, so DJM need to be making money from it,

and forthly, for Dave, I would say the APT is extremely important - Ultimately its the model that will make or break DJ Models. If it fails (and I'm not saying it will, and sincerely hope that it dosen't, especially as I have one on order), then no-one would touch another DJM crowd funding model with a barge pole, but if it is successful, and produced within reasonable timescales, then it will raise DJM's profile and reputation substantially.  He's got the crowdfunders there who have put the money forward, so in reality, the progress should be quite speedy - as Dave can sort the design and manufacture out.  The only caveat to this is, that if you look at the likes of the APT-E, Stirling Single, TEA tank, etc., they have all had heavy delays, so some may be inevitable, to ensure the model is as good as can be.  In my opinion if this fails - Dave has much more to loose than the crowdfunders, but everything to gain, by getting it done.

 

As per your comments about DTOS - then I must admit, I do find their involvement "confusing", as originally when talking to Mike (DTOS), DJModels were going to be subbed the work, not taking over from DTOS.  

 

Regards,

 

C.

 

I,m reminded of an American in "A bridge too far" who said "Nuts'!

To say that both there will never be another run AND being done not for profit but for love (lack of better word), is either not truth (I hope for his sake) or crazy. The three main projects still running look to be stated as 'not for profit" crowdfunders. Life and business runs on and that needs money. Admittedly the other 2 can go through re-runs easily (King and 92, both big long living popular classes) but that will be years away before such runs happen.

 

Agree Dave is taking an awful big risk, but I hope he pulls it off - and makes a profit (well merited for the close to 7 figure sums at work here) - for his and everyone else's sake.

[woodenhead]

I am a little dismayed that with all the goings on on this thread Dave has chosen to not post anything here but answer questions on several other threads and raise a question about having his own forum on his own website.

 

Dave, you need to dispel people's concerns and then all this can be put to bed and deliver the model.

[woodenhead]

Can't agree that Dave needs to do much of anything on here, with so many others minding his business for him!  They appear to have all the answers.  Perhaps Brexit can be sorted out at the same time as Dave's life?

Welcome to the forum MarkWebb.

 

This thread is about the biggest most important piece of development for Dave at the moment, there is the King and the 92 but the one that has everyone's attention is the APT.

 

Technically, no one questions Dave cannot produce this model but there are red flags appearing when it comes to the finance side which has some people concerned. 

 

As Dave is in an awful situation of this coming to a head at the same time he is having to refund nearly everyone via PayPal then there is a large risk that a lot of people will go 'thank you very much, that's me out' which then makes the rest of the project a risk and some people could lose money.

 

It needs honest answers from Dave to reassure people and steady the ship, ignoring the comments could be viewed as burying your head in the sand and only fuel fires.

 

I like Dave, I like his models (i have 5 of them and want the opportunity in future to add more) but I can see where some people are coming from.

[Winter123]

Think the overriding issue here is that DJM announces so many projects that can't possibly be delivered on in a reasonable time frame. Even the most diligent and organised people would struggle to maintain the administrative side of a business if they were to embark on so many initiatives at the same time. The Class 59 was announced and it got canned. The Class 74 was announced and it got canned. The 86/87 and so on..... There appears to be no coherent plan of action which can ultimately result in this kind of situation. 

 

The APT-P must be a massively complex project to undertake. The big hitters are taking years to produce newly tooled models and they have a whole project team on the case. Personally I'm not interested in the APT but I am in the Class 92. Decided to consider buying one only if and when it appears at retailers (don't care about paying the extra £20 or whatever it is-better than losing £150+). 

 

This hobby is becoming increasingly expensive (almost prohibitive in some cases) and it's unacceptable that people are losing money. Appreciate that crowd funding is a risk as money is required up front but surely would be more viable and easier to manage all aspects if less plates were spinning. Most of the other smaller players look like they are producing models purely for the love what they want to achieve, and one model at a time, because there's certainly no major profit to be made.

 

Really hope that DJ can resolve all the issues and everyone concerned ends up with a superb model without being out of pocket.