OO Gauge class 71 Electric Locomotive

[mikesndbs]

I never knew they were in electric blue like this!!!

 

 

[jsp3970]

Looks more green to me than electric blue. I think the shade of the grass is throwing off the loco green.

[SRman]

Just the sky reflecting off the green livery. If it was in blue it would have at least some form of yellow panel.

As far as I know, no SR-based locomotives carried electric blue. The class 73/1s that people attribute as electric blue were, in fact, the early matte finish BR blue done with an airless spray technique which gave the impression of being a lighter shade than the later gloss or semi-gloss finish - electric blue was lighter still than that.

[rembrow]

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for the posting.

Nope, you've missed nothing.

 

I know it's a funny way to do things ( get people to give you their money and tell them nothing), but I really need to be keeping the info close to my chest at the moment, for obvious commercial reasons.

 

However I am very pleased with progress, and I hope I might be able to give some information when certain milestones are reached / passed, in a little while.

 

Thanks to you and all those sigh ups, that have had so much patience and understanding in this.

Cheers

Dave

 

Dave

 

As someone who has invested in this project (2 pledges/payments), and my understanding is that we are investors, who will receive a 'dividend' for our investment of one Class 71 model for each £125, the investment being used to research, develop and produce the initial runs of the model, with funds controlled by Kernow Model Rail and released by them in stages to DJM. The tools being owned by DJM would then be used for further commercial model runs. I have become concerned that a decision has been made to restrict info on the development due to commercial risk, which is the decision of a competitor to produce the same prototype. I don't think the dynamics of this first 'crowd sourcing' project have been given sufficient weight, in that while it would be normal to restrict info to the general audience in such competitive situations, shouldn't the investors be treated differently. I did, several months ago, suggest a newsletter e-mail be set up to advise progress to investors, which you agreed with and were going to discuss with Chris at Kernow, but nothing has come of it. I suggest that we investors should be provided regular updates, which need not be images of CADs or tooling work, but a progress written update, which will have little benefit for the competitor. At present it has soured my view of involvement in future crowd sourcing as I feel insufficient weight has been given to the need to update the investors who are funding the project.

 

I thought long and hard over several days before drafting this, but was finally tipped when the competitor, Hornby, has produced images on its development blog site today, of its progress on the Class 71 model, with photos of tool cutting and stated that they hope to have the first non running EP in May with the first running EP in June. Clearly they are prepared to go public with their progress. I intend to maintain the faith with the DJM Class 71, but I believe you need to review your decision on limiting information where investors are concerned otherwise you risk curtailing interest in crowd sourced projects

Edited April 17, 2015 by rembrow

[JSpencer]

Hornby.s blog says they started in Augustl last year, one week to one month after DJM.

[Vistisen]

Hornby.s blog says they started in Augustl last year, one week to one month after DJM.

Actually the article says 'The Hornby Class 71 development project began back in August 2014 when our team were given access to the only preserved engine' But i seriously doubt that they rang up the evening before to ask if they could nip round in the morning! So the probability is that they made the decision at the same time or before DJM  announced their project. I'm sure that there is quite a bit of work done in feasibility, financing, marketing departments that leads up to the point in time where the decision to go for it is made,  All happens before the development project starts

Edited April 17, 2015 by Vistiaen

[SRman]

I have to say that with the recent price hikes from both Bachmann and Hornby, our investment seems like far more reasonable value for money than it looked initially! 

I am prepared to wait patiently for the result. Regardless of whether or not we are kept fully informed, as long as the end result is as promised, I, for one, will be very happy. It is nice if the information we receive is updated regularly, though, and Dave does do a good job of informing and consulting with us, IMHO.

I'm not sure what price Hornby's effort will be, but by the time both models are out, I may be in a position to buy a second one - just whose that may be will depend on price, available liveries/identities, and the quality of the product.

[DJM Dave]

Dave

 

As someone who has invested in this project (2 pledges/payments), and my understanding is that we are investors, who will receive a 'dividend' for our investment of one Class 71 model for each £125, the investment being used to research, develop and produce the initial runs of the model, with funds controlled by Kernow Model Rail and released by them in stages to DJM. The tools being owned by DJM would then be used for further commercial model runs. I have become concerned that a decision has been made to restrict info on the development due to commercial risk, which is the decision of a competitor to produce the same prototype. I don't think the dynamics of this first 'crowd sourcing' project have been given sufficient weight, in that while it would be normal to restrict info to the general audience in such competitive situations, shouldn't the investors be treated differently. I did, several months ago, suggest a newsletter e-mail be set up to advise progress to investors, which you agreed with and were going to discuss with Chris at Kernow, but nothing has come of it. I suggest that we investors should be provided regular updates, which need not be images of CADs or tooling work, but a progress written update, which will have little benefit for the competitor. At present it has soured my view of involvement in future crowd sourcing as I feel insufficient weight has been given to the need to update the investors who are funding the project.

 

I thought long and hard over several days before drafting this, but was finally tipped when the competitor, Hornby, has produced images on its development blog site today, of its progress on the Class 71 model, with photos of tool cutting and stated that they hope to have the first non running EP in May with the first running EP in June. Clearly they are prepared to go public with their progress. I intend to maintain the faith with the DJM Class 71, but I believe you need to review your decision on limiting information where investors are concerned otherwise you risk curtailing interest in crowd sourced projects

Hi mate,

 

What a well conceived and thought out posting, thank you. :-)

You are quite right and as such I have changed my mind.

 

I'm out this morning ( Saturday) until mid afternoon. Once back I will post a full update here, and on my home page.

Cheers

Dave

[phil gollin]

............. when the competitor, Hornby, has produced images on its development blog site today, of its progress on the Class 71 model, ..........

.

 

One should be cautious about the idea that Hornby is being open.

 

IF you look at the CAD images you will see that they have been deliberately distorted (e.g.reverse perspective and dimensional distortion and probably more subtle things I have not noticed).

 

This approach to commercial secrecy is very common. 

[rembrow]

.

 

One should be cautious about the idea that Hornby is being open.

 

IF you look at the CAD images you will see that they have been deliberately distorted (e.g.reverse perspective and dimensional distortion and probably more subtle things I have not noticed).

 

This approach to commercial secrecy is very common. 

 

The info that Hornby has produced was not the driving force for my request to Dave to provide more information about the DJM model progress, it was more about sorting out what 'crowd sourcing' investors should expect after they have paid over funds, in terms of being supplied progress updates. This is the first 'crowd sourced' model development and we're feeling our way, however I felt that the decision to restrict info by DJM needed to be reconsidered regarding the role of the 'crowd sourcing investors' as we are different to advance buyers, in that at present our funds are to produce the hardware to make the model and fund the production of a set of special first runs. Crowd Sourcing is a new concept to the UK model industry and the dialogue between the maker and investors has to be worked through, as this is the first of what will hopefully be a number of such projects.

 

In so far as the Hornby material, I think that whether they have electronically scrambled the CAD images is somewhat irrelevant. They have published photos of tool cutting, one of which is clearly a Class 71 roof tool and have given a timeline for the provision of first EPs, so they are showing progress of a model that they plan to be available in 2016, which looks like it could be early 2016 if the running EP is ready in June 2015. They have started the 'Engine Shed' blog recently, the purpose of which is to update progress on forthcoming models and so far the have shown promise, with material on the S15, King and now Class 71. I have no doubt that the decision to publish the Class 71 material was to spook the competition (DJM).

[DJM Dave]

The info that Hornby has produced was not the driving force for my request to Dave to provide more information about the DJM model progress, it was more about sorting out what 'crowd sourcing' investors should expect after they have paid over funds, in terms of being supplied progress updates. This is the first 'crowd sourced' model development and we're feeling our way, however I felt that the decision to restrict info by DJM needed to be reconsidered regarding the role of the 'crowd sourcing investors' as we are different to advance buyers, in that at present our funds are to produce the hardware to make the model and fund the production of a set of special first runs. Crowd Sourcing is a new concept to the UK model industry and the dialogue between the maker and investors has to be worked through, as this is the first of what will hopefully be a number of such projects.

 

In so far as the Hornby material, I think that whether they have electronically scrambled the CAD images is somewhat irrelevant. They have published photos of tool cutting, one of which is clearly a Class 71 roof tool and have given a timeline for the provision of first EPs, so they are showing progress of a model that they plan to be available in 2016, which looks like it could be early 2016 if the running EP is ready in June 2015. They have started the 'Engine Shed' blog recently, the purpose of which is to update progress on forthcoming models and so far the have shown promise, with material on the S15, King and now Class 71. I have no doubt that the decision to publish the Class 71 material was to spook the competition (DJM).

Totally agree on ALL points raised here

Cheers

Dave ( currently sitting in the sun thinking through the 71 update for later today)

[jsp3970]

I can understand Dave's desire for secrecy, especially with someone else doing the same model, I can also understand rembow's post. I also liked his comment about a news letter and while Dave is busy actually getting models into our hands how about seeing if Kernow will do it? After all they are the ones we ordered from so don't they have all the info as to investors? Won't they have our contact details, email address, and if they don't a message could be put out for people to contact Kernow and provide their emails 'if' they want an update.

 

Just a thought, but would hate for Dave's hard work to become public and someone else steal his ideas.

[Igor]

Rembrow: "spooking the competition... "

 

I'd be sh1tting myself seeing that Hornby are as far advanced as cutting metal!

 

And I'd be very worried if I'd handed over money as part of the crowd funding without knowing progress. (I hope it is as advanced as Hornby).

 

Is the market big enough for two models especially if they don't arrive in the shops simultaneously?

[rembrow]

Rembrow: "spooking the competition... "

 

I'd be sh1tting myself seeing that Hornby are as far advanced as cutting metal!

 

And I'd be very worried if I'd handed over money as part of the crowd funding without knowing progress. (I hope it is as advanced as Hornby).

 

Is the market big enough for two models especially if they don't arrive in the shops simultaneously?

What a doom merchant you are. Bit of 'trolling' I think going on. Well I'm not worried so no pleasure to you then, have you ordered any DJM locos, probably not. I already have a Class 71 from a DC Kits model I made many years ago so am quite content to wait. With Hornby's errors on most recent diesel/electric models, would rather wait for the more accurate version. I didn't go into this crowd sourcing project with my eyes closed. If you can't offer anything positive, find another thread cause I see you've hopped over from the DJM new models thread where you totally misrepresented the point I made in this thread, still you wouldn't want to use facts would you

[Arthur]

And I'd be very worried if I'd handed over money as part of the crowd funding without knowing progress.

 

Then crowd funding is not for you, we pioneers are made of sterner stuff.

[Igor]

What a doom merchant you are. Bit of 'trolling' I think going on. Well I'm not worried so no pleasure to you then, have you ordered any DJM locos, probably not. I already have a Class 71 from a DC Kits model I made many years ago so am quite content to wait. With Hornby's errors on most recent diesel/electric models, would rather wait for the more accurate version. I didn't go into this crowd sourcing project with my eyes closed. If you can't offer anything positive, find another thread cause I see you've hopped over from the DJM new models thread where you totally misrepresented the point I made in this thread, still you wouldn't want to use facts would you

I was simply commenting on the lack of information available in DJ product announcements and highlighting the fact that their website had not been updated. This is especially relevant in the light of Hornbys engine shed blog. DJ Models said they will address this in the case of the 71. But there are other models as well.

 

I have not ordered any DJ loco's. I buy my models after I have a chance to see them in the flesh, so to say.

 

Why should Hornby have mistakes? They are both using Lidar scanning information for this model. Hopefully this should mean there are no mistakes on either model.

 

Why cannot anyone say anything critical? I was positive in saying I hoped the crowd sourced model was similar well advanced. I think they were valid concerns and all opinions are equal.

[Arthur]

 

If you want to make a serious point then avoid terms like ''sh1ting myself' and 'I'd be very worried', particularly as you are not one of the investors.

 

Comes across as inflammatory trolling.

[Igor]

Sorry if my plain speaking offended. I may not be as eloquent as others on here. But you've given the game away, Arthur.

 

At least I now know that I should have invested before my comments could be taken seriously.

 

It does seem like a 'clique' at times! Nevertheless, I look forward to a couple of nice SR electrics in due course.

[rembrow]

Sorry if my plain speaking offended. I may not be as eloquent as others on here. But you've given the game away, Arthur.

 

At least I now know that I should have invested before my comments could be taken seriously.

 

It does seem like a 'clique' at times! Nevertheless, I look forward to a couple of nice SR electrics in due course.

Sorry it wasn't being 'plain speaking' you were being deliberately sarcastic and offensive. By all means make the point, but don't seek to rub someone's nose in it for some perverse pleasure, which is what you tried to do and failed.

[DJM Dave]

Hi everyone,

 

Here's the promised update for the crowd funded Class 71 that's actually long overdue.

 

I sat down to think of this and collate ideas of what i'd like to say, but above all else, i don't want to 

a) Give a competitor a thought that i am incorporating things in my model to make it special and stand out, and

compare that competitors model with 'our' one and draw either positive or negative comparisons

 

As this would be unfair and very unprofessional.

 

So.....what do i say that doesn't transgress these ideals?

 

Lets talk about progress in a round about way.

Am i tooling yet? No, i am currently fine tuning the cad/cam to tweek it to make it the best i can make. There are features being added that will enhance the model accordingly, but again i wont give a competitor time to change or alter / copy these in any way if they havn't thought of them. This will probably happen after i am happy the money has already been spent on their 2nd EP tooling.

 

Chassis? Well this was an interesting one as i wasn't happy with the chassis and dynamics of it based on the design and have altered accordingly. To further test the model and the mechanics, the Chinese have used a  model from a Leicestershire company and a model from a Kent based company, and stripped them out to a chassis block and gear train plus bogies and then fitted the DJM coreless motor and new PCB board. These are still being tested but they have both gone through 300 hour continuous testing in China and i shall be getting my hands on them for further testing soon, but it looks like this has been 'cracked' and will result in a quiet, smooth and very reliable model.

 

Pantograph: no it wont be sprung. (i had with and without springing designed). 

 

Specifications: These have been upgraded since the first crowd sourcing appeal and as such there is even more value for money in the model at launch for crowd sourcers.

 

Models will be issued (where applicable and can be proven) with both spoked wheels and disc wheels as a mix with spoke on another as yet un-announced version.

 

I understand that some of you will, quite rightly, still be scratching your heads regarding what i have outlined above and the lack of real juicy details.

If i was producing the model with no competition id be extolling the virtue's and features to the maximum, but i wont do this as why should i tell a third party what i am doing so they can use any of my ideas and features on their version? Its not business sense and will not help my mission to give you all THE best class 71 electric locomotive that i can.

 

Thank you for 'keeping the faith' and it is with immense gratitude that since a competitor announced their model of this locomotive only 1 person has cancelled his locomotive order. 

 

Cheers 

Dave

 

I'll leave you with something to look at, although my paint finish wont be as bad as this one's is!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SRman]

I dunno, Dave: could you actually replicate that paint finish in 4mm scale? You could introduce a new product description: "weathered and battered"!!

[Bert Cheese]

Good luck with this, I really hope DJM will become a major player when the models start to appear.

To be honest being a SR(W) lad I'd rather see a Class 74* appear first, but can appreciate the logic in releasing the 71 beforehand although I probably won't be buying a HA from anyone.

* Built in realism including 74008 needing an engine room door repeatedly slammed for the Paxman lump to start, and 74006 bursting into flames approaching a model of Winchester with the Eastleigh driver on board receiving minor burns as he escaped through the cab droplight...

 

** On the plus side Waterloo driver Frank Matthews AKA "The Mad Monk" was at least once apparently timed doing 120 MPH+ by Basingstoke power box on a Big ED near Winchfield after learning how to doctor the primitive on board PCB's...Obviously with the shoes down.

 

Ah the good old days

 

[DJM Dave]

I dunno, Dave: could you actually replicate that paint finish in 4mm scale? You could introduce a new product description: "weathered and battered"!!

As this is a national collection loco, shouldn't it be under their banner replicated like this in OO gauge?

[Harry Lime]

I for one am happy that, having committed myself to a purchase, will be prepared to wait. Whilst other companies may be rushing to get products onto the shelves (sic), I like to think that I am pragmatic enough to understand that firstly, this is a unique way of funding and therefore, carries inherent risks, and secondly, that having seen the lead times for products like Hugh's SPA wagons, I also know that patience is a virtue. If the detail hinted at by Dave in his recent post is as good as he says, then the wait will be worthwhile (for me).

 

I am just looking forward to the day when we are able to run a class 71 or two round Loftus Road...whether that is this year or by the time of the next general election.

 

Edited to stop the website changing my bracketed listings into firking stoopid emoticons...der!!!

Edited April 19, 2015 by Harry Lime

[gardenwall]

Good luck with this, I really hope DJM will become a major player when the models start to appear.

To be honest being a SR(W) lad I'd rather see a Class 74* appear first, but can appreciate the logic in releasing the 71 beforehand although I probably won't be buying a HA from anyone.

* Built in realism including 74008 needing an engine room door repeatedly slammed for the Paxman lump to start, and 74006 bursting into flames approaching a model of Winchester with the Eastleigh driver on board receiving minor burns as he escaped through the cab droplight...

 

** On the plus side Waterloo driver Frank Matthews AKA "The Mad Monk" was at least once apparently timed doing 120 MPH+ by Basingstoke power box on a Big ED near Winchfield after learning how to doctor the primitive on board PCB's...Obviously with the shoes down.

 

Ah the good old days

 

**

 

That gives a whole new meaning to HSE, high speed electric! Quite the reverse of today's Health and Safety Exective too.