Dapol Update News Shocker....

[bbishop]

Right guys, if I could insert my two pennyworth. I've known Adrian for the best part of four decades and have built quite a few of his kits and have modified other kits with his components. During this time Adrian has worn out at least four scarves. Adrian has built up a couple of reputations, as a manufacturer of accurate kits (apart from "drawing pin" buffer heads and the most g*d awful wagon floors - both easily replaced) and maybe not the most organised business man in this world. So I doubt whether Adrian is that concerned if he never sells another kit, but he's bothered by the fact that people might be unknowingly buying an inaccurate model. So he is going to point out errors, in his own kits as well as other people's models. He is not doing it for profit, he is doing it for integrity.

 

And as for the likelihood of getting a discount for this "review", did you see that porcine flap overhead?

 

Bill

[woodenhead]

Then I apologise if I have got the wrong end of the stick.

[adrianbs]

Hi  Woodenhead,  So why in that case  have I been supplying information and drawings to RW in a, possibly vain, attempt to try and prevent some of the errors appearing on the production models of the DBT and SR Brakevan then ??????????????????????????????????????????????????                 I have made absolutely no specific criticism of the O gauge SR brakevan design at the request of RW apart from confirming what others have said about errors they spotted.  I had forcefully listed many faults with the prepro and CADs of the Hornby magazine  DBT with the result that I believe the production was halted until RW had obtained sufficient information to upgrade the design. I was contacted by him and asked what I had, and supplied copies of the bogie GAs and various comments in the hope there was still a sufficient budget to basically start all over again.  At no point have Dapol themselves approached me to act as an unpaid consultant, let alone offering any sort of financial inducement, so i feel fully justified in criticising anything they do whether or not it be a direct duplicate of my products.  My original posts were aimed at the Dapol POWs and I am in no way a direct competitor as both Slaters and Parkside duplicated my proposed models when I was only part way through tooling.  I would have been pleased to see the SR brakevans available had they been the designs originally announced as they would NOT have duplicated any of the 3 kits available and I would have bought at least 2 possibly 3 but the design has been changed and is now a duplicate of what I already have and may not even be up to the standards I set for myself.

    I can assure you that there are far more devious ways of trying to " Do down "  Dapol than posting criticism under my own name and had I wished to I could have just simply waited until the models were in production with all their faults and then given someone else a list to post on the forum without any reference to me. Dapol have been their own worst enemy by not ensuring that proper research and accurate designs have been produced in the case of the POWs and the SR brakevan and other items in the past. Although RW is now in charge of this, he will undoubtedly still need outside assistance to ensure high quality products are produced, just as I have. Not even the last 45 years in the business makes me an expert on everything. far from it, as I only have in-depth knowledge of items I have researched for my own products and interests.  

   It is perfectly possible to obtain sufficient information on many prototypes without outside help, especially if the full size item still exists and original drawings etc are available but that does not eliminate errors being made on CADs or in the toolroom and this requires careful checking at every stage and is possible by anyone with an eye for detail and only a general knowledge of railways.  I never claimed to be an innocent modeller indeed ,had I been, I very much doubt I would have had sufficient knowledge to be able to make the comments I have, and to supply the information needed to correct faults that I was able to spot with my background in the trade.

   I would prefer it if you stopped implying I have motives aimed at damaging Dapols reputation when actually they are doing quite well without my help.

          Regards all adrianbs

[woodenhead]

Both products are produced as kits by me and had they bought one of each they would have saved themselves making most of the mistakes that have been made.even if they had slavishly copied them detail for detail. There would have been a few minor errors left which is hardly surprising bearing in mind the DBT kit is 40+ years old and the SR brake is over 25 years old. I think both predate the very existence of Dapol as a model railway manufacturer, the DBT certainly does.

Hi Adrian,

 

I do apologise and I won't repeat the implication.  In my defence, you did make a "my product is better than your's statement" and in the absence of any third party corroboration it would be natural to make the assumption, but since Bill has offered an outside view of where you are coming from I will accept that your intentions are to the greater good.

[Downendian]

I think this thread has been caught up with the "any criticism is manufacturer bashing" old chestnut.

I've only known Adrian through this forum via his input on the HM/Dapol DBT, and his input has potentially rescued a disastrous hybrid version of the tender to something much more accurate. He did this in conjunction with HM and it must be added at the potential expense of loss of sales of his own kits.

Criticism of any model is justified when it's constructive - we know the errors and as modellers we can correct if we so wish - or be happy to ignore them. Keep posting Adrian and don't be put off - I would rather have faults in models pointed out than not, but this does not in any me from buying RTR as it's the best starting point available. So I will make a beeline for his posts when I see them.

Neil

[adrianbs]

Hi All  By the way I have managed to lose a scarf or three and if anyone is holding on to them in the hope that they will, in the future, become as valuable as Marilyn Monroes updraft skirt I can assure them  this is very unlikely, as I never signed any of them. Their return would be appreciated as I hate having to spend money on anything other than model railways.!!     Regards   adrianbs

[PLD]

So we started with a light-hearted dig at Dapols reputation for somewhat variable communication with their customers, and who should weigh in with the most vocal criticisms of their communication and products? A manufacturer with an even worse reputation for being uncontactable and not producing much sought after products from the many ranges he has bought up over the years...

 

how ironic...

[mikeharvey22]

An apology has appeared on the News pages of the Dapol website for the absence from last Saturday's N Gauge Society exhibition and AGM.

[Les1952]

An apology has appeared on the News pages of the Dapol website for the absence from last Saturday's N Gauge Society exhibition and AGM.

 

Cock-up rather than running away from critics.   OK, cock-ups shouldn't happen and there are too many of these, but the alternative suggested in some quarters (not just on RMWeb) is much worse.

 

Apology was also signed by the NGS Chairman, David Baverstock, a man whom I have very great respect for.

 

All the very best

Les

[Karhedron]

As both parties have apologised and avoided apportioning blame in a gentlemanly fashion, perhaps it is best to let this one lie.

[Oldddudders]

As both parties have apologised and avoided apportioning blame in a gentlemanly fashion, perhaps it is best to let this one lie.

Being reasonable has no place in this sort of thread. Please desist forthwith.

[Benn]

I think it's a fair enough statement, and I'm grateful that the situation has been clarified in a professional manner by both sides as an honest mistake and nothing more. We are all human, we all make mistakes and an apology from both sides is very reasonable and as much as anyone could ask for.

As an N gauger I have great respect for the excellent work that both parties (and Farish too!) carry out for the benefit of our hobby. It's a scale that's no longer in the dark ages thanks to the competition that Dapol have injected into the gauge with their innovative and forward thinking of the last few years.

Yes, there is room for improvement, but that's surely a universal ambition across all manufacturers in the UK, and all gauges too.

I'm getting a little tired of once constructive and informative threads being hijacked and turned in to rants which are neither pleasant nor helpful. Yes these manufacturers are a business, but they are also people, let's remember that.

 

As for the topic title; tongue in cheek or not, describing a website update as shocking? Let's get a grip and get back to talking about some modelling, yeah?

 

Cheers,

Benn.

[oreamnos]

I think you are being far more charitable to Dapol than it presently deserves, Benn.  Dapol is throwing away all the goodwill Dave Jones worked so hard to earn for the company.  Yes, I want to see the company succeed and so it's a pity to see that happen.  But I also think the OP's mocking commentary about the present state of affairs is right on the mark.

 

Matt

[Dr Al]

Am I the only one that thinks this thread has been a bit unfair to Dapol, given it's slightly provocative startpoint?

 

Clearly Dapol are going through quite a period of change regarding their new product team and that's going to take some time to settle down...

 

Cheers,

Alan

[oreamnos]

I think your comment is valid, Alan, and Dave Jones was certainly going to be a very tough act to follow.  The question is how much time is long enough before customers should rightfully expect the new product team to finally have gotten a handle on the business?  While my memory could certainly be wrong, I seem to remember that the announcement about the "new team" stated it was highly experienced.  Given that experience, that it has been seven or eight months since the transition started, and that in relative terms Dapol is not a very big company, I think it is also valid at this point in time for customers to start to assess if enough time has passed for them to expect the transition to have been completed and to have things back to running properly.  Some customers think more time should be granted, others are not as patient.  The situation is exacerbated by the 180 degree turn the company took with regards to engaging with its customers after the start of the transition and also the recent debacle of the company not bothering to proactively enquire when the NGS was having its AGM so that it could be certain to show up. 

 

I like Dapol's products and I want it to succeed as a company.  But I can't think of a better way for Dapol to tell its customers how little it thinks they matter when it doesn't go out of its way to show them it is interested in their business.  The company is giving the impression to some (and possibly to many) that it hasn't got a clue what it's all about right now.  Whether or not that is true is irrelevant - it's the perception of it that actually matters.  I think the company needs to change how it is being perceived.

 

Matt

[rembrow]

The July BRM carries an article with an update on progress of most of Dapol's proposed models across the 3 gauges. What is surprising are the number of models where much of the original R&D has been scrapped, for whatever reason. We already knew that the GWR/BR railcar had been changed to the later variants, however the other major changes are:

 

• n gauge Class 33 complete retool underway
• oo gauge Class 73/1 or JB variant - R&D restarted from scratch
• oo gauge Turbot bogie engineering wagon- Being redesigned from scratch and will incorporate tooling for later Bogie Bolster E

Most models in R&D are now showing as expected to be produced in 2015 or unspecified date.

 

It would seem that the new Dapol team has carried out a 'root and branch' review of all R&D in hand and has decided in some case to take the difficult and costly step of going back to the start or an earlier stage, which will build in delays over and above those due to personnel changes. I hope this type of update continues from Dapol as it explains more to me about what has been going on with new model review and answers the question I posed in the 'Ask Dapol' thread about an updated time line for production of 'oo' gauge models

 

 

Edit: to correct grammar

[Fat Controller]

Glad to see they're looking at doing the Bolster E; the Lima ones, which can scrub up nicely, are becoming scarce.

[Roy L S]

Hi Rembrow

 

Thanks for posting. Do they say WHY so much R&D has had to start again from scratch?

 

Take the example of the N Gauge 33. Test-shots of the body have been shown and I do not recall any huge outcry or adverse comments, certainly it looked good to my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject. If I recall correctly (please correct me if memory is failing) the 33's chassis was on the verge of being signed off too? So what was so drastically wrong with the tooling that it had to be scrapped? We are told that to tool a loco costs many tens of thousands of pounds, so unless something radically different were planned surely there would be ways of "saving" or repairing the tooling to prevent the loss?

 

For me (possibly others too?) it is exactly this additional information and explanation that is likely to gain my understanding and support in the face of such issues and the consequent delays. No good just telling me what the issue is, tell me why too!

 

I will buy BRM when I am next in town, but in the meantime if there is any other information that can be shared I would be grateful if it could be posted here.

 

Roy

[rembrow]

Hi Roy

 

Sorry, there is limited info, it says that R&D and design work is underway on more than 20 items of new tooling and that a number of projects are being reappraised to improve their specification, of this aspect it quotes the 'oo'gauge Class 73 as an example which has been 're-researched from the ground up' with new electronics and lighting features also being added. I was also surprised that the 'oo' gauge Class 73/1 was being started afresh as originally they advised that the tooling was being reviewed and should be just behind the 73/0.

Another interesting aspect in relation to the debate about China production, is that Dapol is bringing the production of its ISO containers back to the UK. As Dapol already has wagon production for 'oo;gauge rtr less complex models in the UK, its not a fresh start for them

[Benn]

Alan, no you're not thankfully, far from it by the looks of things too, hense my previous post. I don't think charity has anything to do with it either to be honest...?

Moreover, perhaps the article due in BRM could be the reason why they haven't updated their website every time someone turns a computer on? What's the point in posting news when there's a publication due with everything they have ready to disclose in it? Makes sense to me, most manufacturers are keeping their cards close to their chests these days, that's the excitement of competition for you! Case closed your honour?

Cheers,

Benn.

[Roy L S]

Hi Benn

 

I do not necessarily think that it is "Case Closed" at all with respect.

 

Knowing that an article is forthcoming in a paper publication is no reason not to also update your website. Not everybody buys all publications, these days many depend much more on the instant nature of internet communications, especially Forums like this one. Therefore it makes sense as far as possible surely to use all sources of communication at one's disposal to keep your valued customers "in the loop"?

 

To an extent it is understandable that manufacturers will keep cards close to their chest as far as yet to be announced products are concerned but once a product and expected delivery date is announced it appears to me to be good customer care to keep your customers in the loop as far as delays are concerned and why things like significant changes such as complete retooling becomes necessary with the resultant delays.

 

To take the example of the N Gauge Grange was announced at TINGS last September, delivery was due Q1 2014. As far as I know we haven't even seen a CAD yet, so proactively telling the customer (1) the current position (2) why (3) when we might realistically expect to see the product. It  just seems like a sensible approach to maintaining customer loyalty and support?

 

Regards

 

Roy

[Karhedron]

I think your comment is valid, Alan, and Dave Jones was certainly going to be a very tough act to follow.  The question is how much time is long enough before customers should rightfully expect the new product team to finally have gotten a handle on the business?

The question is what we as customers should expect from a company. I think that Dave Jones had a very open approach to customer interaction. Dapol's business is making and selling model trains. Whilst we would like them to be open and available for dialogue, I think we need to remember that some of the things people are complaining about are "nice to haves" rather than a core part of their business.

 

Obviously if I buy a product that is faulty then I expect to be able to contact them for returns or servicing. But when it comes to attending trade shows (which is the NGS AGM is effectively) or maintaining a dialogue about the progress of their R&D, I think we need to be reasonable in our expectations.

 

Do we need to know exactly why the class 33 went back to the drawing board? Probably not. It is frustrating for those customers waiting for it but an explanation of what went wrong will inevitably lead to discussions of whose fault it was and how things should have been done differently. It is human nature for us to be curious but ultimately we don't need to know about a lot of this stuff in order to buy Dapol's products.

[adrianbs]

  Hi All  The idea that manufacturers need to keep their cards close to their chests is fine if they know they have  4 Aces  ie 10 out of 10 for dimension, detail, definition and design or even just jacks and  queens.  When they reveal their hand and all they have is a mixed bag of 2s and 3s it would seem better they had shown what they have, so that improvements could be made before it is too late.  Obviously there is little point in showing their hand early but taking no notice, and clearly in the case of the 7mm POWs little was known until they were released even though questions had been posed and assurances given.  Similarly the SR brakevans and milk tanks have had queries raised but it would appear at the moment from any available preproduction information that a significant number of errors remain unaltered.  Pretty coloured CADs may look clever and impressive but as they are not dimensioned in any way the model may not even be the right scale, as is the case with the POWs.  Conventional 3 view dimensioned drawings with details of hidden areas will often be of far more use in evaluating the accuracy of a proposed model and a lot easier to see the detail.  The use of Computer Aided Design seems almost to have become an end in itself instead of just an additional aid to accuracy.  If the model looks like the CAD image all is well, even if it looks little like the real thing. !!        Regards all  adrianbs

   

 

[frobisher]

Pretty coloured CADs may look clever and impressive but as they are not dimensioned in any way the model may not even be the right scale, as is the case with the POWs.  Conventional 3 view dimensioned drawings with details of hidden areas will often be of far more use in evaluating the accuracy of a proposed model and a lot easier to see the detail.

The thing is, those drawings aren't produced as part of this process. They could be produced as an output of the modelling, but wouldn't be what you expect as they would be renderings from a particular viewpoint rather than flat drawings.

 

The use of Computer Aided Design seems almost to have become an end in itself instead of just an additional aid to accuracy.  If the model looks like the CAD image all is well, even if it looks little like the real thing. !!

You really don't seem to understand what CAD is do you? The CAD model is used to produce the tooling so of course the CAD will match the model. The accuracy of the CAD is only as good as the diligence of the 3D modeller working with the CAD package. Working with CAD allows accuracy to be checked before metal is cut on tooling.

[Roy L S]

Hi Karhedron

 

I do accept that some things may be considered a "nice to know" and for the sake of balance other manufacturers have been equally prone to delays and not being too forthcoming with explanations on occasion.

 

Yes, we were utterly spoiled by Dave's interactive approach and I don't think anyone expected it to be continued in the same format after he left, but being a small and therefore in theory at least more agile company, having some kind of similar approach as regards customers would be a valuable advantage. That they do not or seem not to see the impact that the lack of communication/information now has on people's perception of them is what bothers me.

 

Ultimately I doubt it really matters what anyone posts on here as regards opinions one way or the other, so probably not worth much more comment (from me at least) on the subject.

 

Regards

 

Roy