DavidH

Because Dave seemed to present it as such, and people were discussing his claim. The limitations that you highlight have also been raised many times.

He hasn't failed to deliver the product. He's just made himself look, I think it is fair to say, a tad foolish, but as far as any announcements from the manufacturer (that I've seen) are concerned the projects are still live.

It will have confirmed his worst fears ... infamy infamy ...

If Dave has deep pockets it would be quite nice for them to be used producing the Shark brakevan, class 17, etc. (especially that class 74 in 00) rather than legal battles that can only split the hobby. The former would benefit the hobby rather more than the latter. I do hope he hasn't listened to a no-win-no-fee IP copyright lawyer who's promised him all his woes can be sorted this way. Unlikely given the general interpretation of what he's actually protected against what he stated he's protected. But if the worse does happen, we all now know who to frown disapprovingly at.

Please let's not go there again! All the discussion anyone could ever need with the information currently in the public domain can be found in other threads.

"Unhappy bunny" has left two reviews, but you have to open the review by clicking on "Read 1 more review about Coopercraft". There's your 10th

I can see the lip/recessed tank top on all those photos - except Boxhill, where I'm not sure. Look at the base of the tank filler, for example. You can see the skirt/lip at the bottom of it, and fixing bolts at the front, but not on the edge that coincides with the tank side - because it is below the top edge. Same with the circular plate bolted onto the tank top at the front of each - it has an obvious thickness front on but appears flush with the tank side. And with the preserved 32678, the tank side cladding (renewed?) has a longer overlap onto the tank tops, so much so that the filler cap has had to be be rebated into it. You can see the curve with its line of bolts.

So which is it?

Out of interest, have those 2nd deposit invoices now gone out?

There are plenty of versions of the model available on eBay, one currently as low as £27. There might be one that would fit the bill?

You know that to 100% certainty?

It's close to Chinese New Year, there'll be nothing happening on the model at the moment. However, that said, it's strange he's doing no marketing whatsoever.

"PLEASE PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING:- YOUR ORDER NUMBER CONTACT NAME ADDRESS CONTACT PHONE NUMBER. SEND BY E MAIL [...]" If the site had been compromised, I wouldn't have 100% faith in the email of contact details going to the person it ought to ...

It all suggests to me that the easiest way of getting the design correct is to do it yourself - that way any glaring mistakes can be corrected before you go public. Or if your skills lie elsewhere, make sure you partner with someone who can.

Does it worry you that someone you paid money to had lost your details?

Quick! Someone needs to set up a crowdfunding to pay the ransom.

It is possible, a Google search found one potential candidate amongst that 1000: https://ausomco.en.made-in-china.com/ Shenzhen Ausom Tooling Technology Co., Ltd., Mr. Charlie Lau, sales managerWhat did he say, Reevesthecat?

O purveyor of disbelief :-) ... I can only point you in the direction of a blog/article written by a Chinese journalist: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1521/how-chinese-people-make-western-names-for-themselves Or Google the idea of Chinese people using Western names.

Money, and I can't think of a single UK manufacturer who would do that to a fellow trader.

Thanks for looking Andy, but I'm certain that's not the post I remember, or it was edited from what Dave originally wrote. I still recall there was a post where he explicity said that the CAD had been kept, along with his money. Possibly he may have had second thoughts on this and edited it, or another moderator did it for him.

I too remember Dave's astonishing allegation that the Chinese factory had kept both his CAD and money. I also can't find it on here - was it moderated out, maybe in order to protect the site from any libel/defamation issues? Anyone else remember Dave's posting? It might have been on the class 17 thread, but it was also I think a reason for the set-back in class 92 production. (Unless my memory is wrong, and I know that memory is not as infallible as we might hope)

I never thought I'd see the day that Russian bots targetted RMWeb for Putin's misinformation The weather is also heavily (and more and more) influenced by human-made emissions, regardless of the solar and lunar cycles driving the weather patterns. We are warming the planet, and the weather around the globe is getting more extreme as a result. And you know it.

If it did, we'd all stop buying so many new Chinese-made railway models, because of the destruction Chinese industry is wreaking on the country's environment and the damage to its people, not to mention the emissions caused by global trade ... until that happens, worrying about the size of the box something comes in from Liverpool is simply empty virtue-signalling. IMO.

Looked at from the other side, there would have to be a compelling reason for a society to bail out a commercial manufacturer, and members might legitimately ask why society funds were being used that way.

Just when I was coming round to thinking that, yes, I'll give DCC a go ...