DJM Dave

I wonder if Kickstarter (or similar web-hosted crowd-funding tool) could be a possible source of funding to commission specific models?

 

I'm thinking of it as a twist on the pre-ordering concept, (and of course I don't mean people have to use Kickstarter specifically and there are other potential approaches like some kind of stake in the outcome for contributions that are significantly greater than say the retail price of the product). Of course there is a lot of trust implied that the project will work out well.

 

It's really putting your money where your mouth is!

Hi Michael,

I agree it's a possibility, but I just wonder if this sort of funding can find around £100k for a loco tooling (tooling mind, not the product).

Cheers

Dave

Hi Brian, noted ;-)

Exactly Alex, and the 77 at the blocks in Brighton too ;-)

Hi Dutch,

I do understand your point, truly I do.

I have a 5 year business plan of models (not those already announced) but ones I'm working on in the background, or have an idea I'd like to produce.

By unashamedly asking for thoughts here I'm not promising that I'm going to make any, merely getting a feel for modellers wants and thoughts, of which I might cherry pick a few, depending if they haven't been earmarked /stick in the ground etc by others.

As mentioned on day 1, I'm never going to be a Bachmann or Hornby but I see my business profile producing 2-4 models per year under the DJM brand and maybe 4-6 outside commissions.

I am looking at all ideas and there are a couple in there that are in my thinking and I don't think its a huge secret that I'd like to produce quad arts in OO and N, but that would be a few years yet (if the opportunity presents itself).

Hope this helps

Cheers

Dave

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for that, however I'm sorry mate, your knowledge base is somewhat lacking.

In the 1960's ( the exact date escapes me at the moment) the western region trialled nighttime runs with single class17's into the Forest of Dean, the Fairford branch, and in fact all South Wales and down to Penzance.

I'm afraid the outcome of such trials is still secret due to goverment restrictions, but I'm assured by the great railway sage is such matters Mr Aiyma Wally' that both blue and green examples were used on these lines with up to 100mph achieved through Coleford!

So I humbly suggest you re-appraise your need for one, as it would look a treat on your layout, and, as we now know, wouldn't look out of place! :-)))

Cheers

Dave

Good answer!

 

I cannot see how adding to motors would make that much difference personally.

 

Doing a (very) rough calculation using a 4mm scale drawing and an estimated mass of Tungsten @ 19600 Kg/m3 I worked out that you could get around 100g of dead weight into the engine and still have room for 2 motors. Now considering that I have used pure Tungsten and not a Tungsten/Copper Alloy which I suspect is used (like dart weights) and the fact a Dapol clas 22 weighs in @ around 76g I wouldnt think that the mass is a big an issue as you make out.

 

But then what do I know ;o)

I'd never accuse you of knowing nothing Julia and I value your comments.

Certainly from a mass production point of view a second motor would cost more and cause more problems that it would solve (if any) and there's probably a very good reason most of the OO and N gauge manufacturers go for only 1 motor.

Cheers

Dave

Ok, so I'm trying to think of the advantages in N for a short, none heavy bo-bo loco, to take a lot of weight out and replace with 2 small coreless motors and flywheels.

You would possibly get a completely empty cab but at a lack of overall weight, although I could cheese the 2mm guys off by combatting that by putting traction tyres on opposing axles but that wouldn't give the necessary adhesion fora dummy, and train (for those buying a twin pack).

Then you have the possibility of mismatched motors, and the chance that the free rolling mechanism might 'rock' due to motor lag.

And of course raise the price for a second motor, flywheel, electronics and assembly.

Or.............................I could just keep the existing motor, and put the circuit board on the bottom within the fuel tank area, but sacrifice the bottom half of the cab and keep the price as advertised?

Hmmmmmmm decisions decisions ;-)

Thats such a shame

Not really, you'd prefer 2 motors or a full cab?

Dave,

I always like the challenge of fitting the proverbial quart into a pint pot. If you can PM me the dimensions of the Clayton, I will do some thinking (although I think you are probably right).

Hi Joseph,

I've sat down and designed the mech below cab windows and the socket will easily fit in the fuel tank , yay :-)

There will be a cover over the visible chassis to hide it when you look through the cab windows.

Al, I'm working on the guide pin principle on this and also experimenting here.

Any chance you can PM me the situations you find this a problem in, and also what stock your using at the time?

Cheers

Dave

I've got a query about the numbers. Coming from North-East England, I'm interested in the higher-numbered examples (from the batch built by Beyer-Peacock) as allocated to Gateshead (52A) (and Thornaby--although I believe theirs moved to Scotland at some point, while Gateshead had examples as late as 1970-1.

 

The only higher-numbered examples you're currently offering are in the powered+dummy sets, and I *never* saw a pair of Claytons together in the NE--always single locos, and I've never seen a photograph of a pair of Claytons operating in NE En gland either.

 

Could you consider making higher-numbered examples available singly, please?

Hi,

Yes I understand your point and I will definately put NE singletons in a second production batch.

Meanwhile, if I'm not being too cheeky, I bet someone will bite your hand off for a dummy singleton if you offered it out there, so that might solve your problem quicker.

HTH

Cheers

Dave

Hi Steven,

I suspect the 17 will need all wheel drive, the 17 twin packs will include a dummy which along with a reasonable train to be hauled might be a bit much on just 2 axles, especially with gradients etc.

Cheers

Dave

Hi Steven,

I was toying with the idea, as per European models, but as the 23 will be 95 or so grammes I might delete the idea.

Cheers

Dave

Hi everyone,

I've just had through the cad/cam of the disc headcode version of the class 23 in N gauge that I can show here for the first time.

Please note this model is not announced yet, but the version here will be built into the tooling for the centre head code version by using slides to allow this model at a later date which will be announced in due course.

Comments appreciated as usual.

cheers

Dave

Hi everyone,

These are the latest Cad/Cam images arrived this morning from China.

I'm quite happy with them apart from I'd like the roof thinner and 1 or 2 little changes.

I've asked for the headcode panels to be pre-printed on clear plastic as separate items for the customer to choose their headcode, with a selection of 6 in each loco box accessory bag.

One thing that is now incorporated if a moulded separate representation of the fan ( picture 3) beneath the etched fan grill either end, and this cad/cam also has the close coupling mechanism included.

Now for the bad news. Try as I might, and in an endeavour to keep as much weight as possible and the loco evenly balanced on all 4 axles, it's currently not possible to have an empty cab as the motor will run through the bottom half of it with the PCB board on top filling most of it. I will try and get round this somehow, but its looking tight to be honest as its a split frame chassis running through the lower cab beneath the window bottom edge too.  I hope this doesn't detract from your thoughts on the model too much?

I'm thinking that the PCB board might go into the fuel tank on the chassis bottom, but this would prevent this space being used for any sound speaker area. but at least it would leave the view through the windows clear.

Anyway, please feel free to comment is you wish, as I always appreciate feedback.

Cheers

Dave

Hi Missy,

I think the title of this particular thread allows you the freedom to browse the other DJM threads without coming across any other wishes/wish lists. :-)

Please put suggestions, wish lists etc in this section rather than general posts please.

I'll answer those I can, but at least it will give you all a repository for your thoughts.

Cheers

Dave

Thanks Roy,

It's appreciated.

I'm looking at a couple of areas that comments have been passed on, just in case, then I shall pass it across the 'Baby Deltic project' desk for another quick check, but all being well it will be very close to metal cutting :-)

Cheers

Dave

Hi Stephen,

The lighting will be chassis mounted.

Cheers

Dave

Hi Dave,

Looks great and I am looking forward to its release.

One question if I may... HOLLERTON JUNCTION (my train set) has 9" curves, will the 23 be OK with these?

Many thanks

Paddy

Hi Paddy,

Yes it should go round 9inch radius, and I'll confirm once I'm happy with the finished cad/cam.

Cheers

Dave

Dave, will the couplings be guided by the pivoting bogies?

 

Reason I ask is that on a lot of modern coaches they aren't and hence they don't couple as easily (or not at all) on curves without intervention from the hand from the sky. This is never an issue with bogie mounted couplers as the coupling always remains central relative to the rails and the coupler on the other vehicle (assuming it's also central).

 

I think it's an important thing to consider.

 

Cheers,

Alan

Hi Alan, I agree totally with you, and an easy mod at this stage.

Cheers

Dave

Hello Dave.

 

 

 

What does a 'low friction mechanism' consist of?

 

M.

Hi Mssy,

A low friction mechanism is like Kato and Atlas amongst others have been using for years for the American market with great success.

Basically instead of the axles being held by the bogie causing friction, the wheel faces have pin point bearings that ride in brass cups. This frees up the axle to be loose within a loose gear tower. It allows for the whole bogie to be very free running with minimal of friction, and probably the most efficient way of powering the wheels from the motor other than direct drive.

Allied to a good motor and flywheels it gives extremely good running and because the brass cups act as pickups gives, providing wheels are clean, a good pickup and electrical transfer.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Dave

Sounds good Dave.

What is different about the European NEM CCM? Any images of those types of couplings?

 

Cheers.

Hi mate,

Before now, all UK N gauge loco's have had NEM coupling boxes fitted to the bogies. The ones for this loco (and will be a standard feature across all DJM N gauge diesels as well as OO gauge, is on a sprung 'cam' that lets out slack on corners and pulls in on the straight, to almost 'buffer to buffer' touching.

It's the same sort of system now used on some UK N gauge rolling stock.

cheers

Dave

Hi everyone,

here are the latest versions of the centre headcode version of the Baby Deltic model in N gauge.

I hope to be able to show you the updated cad/cams of the 23 with disc headcodes later this week.

C+C welcome as always.

cheers

Dave

Posted in this section will be cad/cams of the development of the N gauge class 23 'Baby Deltic' locomotive.

Both centre headcode and disc headcode will feature.

Please note this model has a coreless motor, flywheels, low friction mechanism and for the first time in UK N gauge a European style NEM close coupling mechanism, along with directional lighting, low friction mechanism, RP25.72 darkened wheel sets, DCC 6 pin decoder socket, etched fan grill with fan visible beneath.

As ever, comments etc are welcome.

We acknowledge the kind assistance of 'The Baby Deltic Project' with this model. http://www.thebabydelticproject.co.uk/

This will be Kernow's choice as it's their model and 'brand'.

I'd imagine colours along the same lines as the established Beattie well tank.