Derekstuart

Try Peters Spares- he carries most of the Cambrian range. I just bought 2 Turbots from Cambrian last Sunday- opened the bag, let them fall onto the desk and they almost fell together like lego. Excellent kits. They have nothing to fear from the never appearing RTR versions.

I don't agree with that point. You've been someone thinking carefully about his commercial and legal position. The overwhelming view seems to be a high degree of respect for you. I share that view.

Quite frankly I am pretty un-impressed with some of the comments here- one specifically. At no point did Dave say that the rights to the model will be invested in the initial purchasers nor that there would be any exclusivity or so on; in that respect he has been absolutely transparent. It is very simple indeed; we are being offered the chance to purchase a model for £X. We are not being asked to invest in the means of production or buy shares in the company. If that is what you are aiming for then ask any of the manufacturers if they are seeking full investors/ partners. As for describing DJM as 'deplorable' on the basis that you do not like the transparent and open business model, perhaps such remarks are best made by PM.

Dave, firstly there is nothing in law to stop you discussing the issue. Nothing at all. Collusion only takes place if the discussion is then acted upon, without proper compliance. I see this so often in my industry where companies are frightened to talk to others- there's no need to be. A discussion can go three ways i) We have nothing in common, discussion ends. ii) we have lots in common, but our specific example falls foul of the CA, iii) we have lots in common and we can find a way to do this legally. If the law prohibited discussions then there would be absolutely no collaboration at all in this Country, which is nonsense. Certainly you are not going to go to prison for talking to 'the other lot' about it. The rule of thumb in such matters when looking at whether one of the block exemptions can be used (or even a specific exemption being applied for) is "will the general public be better off for this collaboration." See my post above. (trust me on this, I've had more involvement with the CA98 than I would have liked).

Dave Re: Market sharing; risks associated with. have you explored the possibility of using a block exemption from the chapter 1 prohibition that worries you so by looking at Ch1. S.9 a. ii) "promoting technical or economic progress," of the Competition Act 1998? If you could demonstrate that there is an overall benefit to the consumer by a working arrangement with "the other lot" then perhaps you might qualify for one or more block exemptions. My own company (service, not manufacturing) qualifies for a block exemption for what would otherwise be a chapter 1 prohibited offence (possibly a chapter 2 as well) as with several other competitors we provide an enhanced public service which we could not have done otherwise. In short "If we did not arrange this with 'the other lot' then there is a very good chance that there would be no n gauge 92 and no 00 gauge 92 from either supplier and thus the consumer would be worse off." Certainly you would need legal advice on it but it might be worth looking at.

I have little or no interest in a 92 (00), but will be putting my name down for one or more anyway because I think we need to support Dave- if we don't then who knows what future releases we might have just risked. DJM is worthy of respect; Dave has been open and honest with us right through this and other projects, never shown signs of arrogance or hubris that certain other suppliers may or may not have been guilty of. Dave, if you read this then may I urge you to carry on and see that you get the target sales figures. I find your work revolutionary. PS mine will probably end up in paint stripper and re-painted into the best livery it never carried- IC Swallow.

I don't think 'rivet counters' are fundamentally bad people. Some are either trying to demonstrate to people (who probably don't care) that they know XYZ, a few will be just plain damned nasty, some will be those who really know the subject and are trying to help. Some would say that the SLW 24 is the best (certainly one of them) loco released for British layouts, and even that had some criticisms from some people. So far I think only Rapido's APT-E has been devoid of criticism and that is because they asked the leading authority on it (Mr. Tilt) to advise, and no one else knows it well enough. Perhaps Realtrack's 143 is another one that didn't get any noticeable criticism- either because it was just right (possible) or because connoisseurs of trains still consider them to be buses on wagon chassis. These MK3s look pretty good to me, though I will probably be more enthusiastic when/if the HST variant is released.

I would like to try a ground breaking idea. I know this will seem a bit controversial with some people and as downright heresy with others, but: LET US WAIT AND SEE. If they re reviewed and found to be poor then we don't buy. If they are reviewed and found to be good then we buy. I know it is a far fetched concept, but don't forget who pioneered the idea.

Godwins law, chapter 2. ALL model railway discussions eventually end up in a debate as to whether or not Hornby is finished.

Many thanks Dunedin. I was told years back (Haymarket open day (1985?)) when getting a 'behind the scenes' tour of a 47/7 engine compartment (711 GFB IIRC) that it was FDM and it was explained at great length the difference between FDM and TDM, which I think was under development but not then in service anywhere. Over the years I have since heard people refer to TDM for the /7s and any mention of FDM is ridiculed, so thank you for confirming what I originally understood is in fact correct. You are a mine of information.

Dunedin, could we press you with some further questions that I have seen people ask previously or some have indicated a 'degree' of understanding but not to your level. We are told that the TDM (or was it FDM?) on the 47s was not the same system as the later WC and ECML system. Can I ask how different they were please? I know the DBSOs had to be re-wired for their move South, but no more idea why/how etc. Many thanks.

Dunedin, what an incredibly interesting post. I'm sure I am not the only one who will have found that incredibly informative. It certainly answered an awful lot of questions that I have seen often asked about this.

Thank you. How depressing. Sorry for the bit-Off topic.

Note that they have artist impression of the 3 window catering vehicle and samples of the 4 window- so we know they are doing both types and also they have (or will have) both roof tools, which means with the exception of the TGS and the BFO they can all be done by mixing the tools about and it is quite likely the TGS is going to be done I would have thought. All we need now is a decent WCML electric and some decent HST powercars. Hornby should take note that their PCs will look poor against these.

DJM, Rapido, Realtrack and even Dapol have pushed the boundaries recently. Now Oxford too. Hornby and Bachmann are going to really have to seriously consider their strategy- especially if these few companies are supported the way they should be (the MK3 is a winner in my book). Certainly their lead time seems very promising compared to Bachmann and if they can build and market as quickly as they designed then they will pose a real threat to the legacy companies.

Are they already under construction then? I wonder if any of the MK3 sleepers will end up in the NRM under the title "here kids, we really did build things in Britain once in the days before we became a giant offshore bingo hall."

John, I think they said HST MK3s would be released as well. It would seem odd tactics NOT to, given how minor the tooling differences would be in relation to sales potential.

Hold me back. Someone hold me back....

On the BRM facebook page. It does have to be said that they do look pretty impressive, albeit only in pre-production silver. (those coloured ones are artist impressions) EDIT: Mr. Yellow beat me to it. I think they might just have found the ultimate MK3. Even the roof vents on the catering car look to be raised up slightly as the real ones are, rather than just a solid block. Impressive indeed.

No difference at all externally.

Hexagon789 If you follow this link there are some pictures of the original DBSO cab interior (below the PCV cabs). http://www.dawlishtrains.com/cabs---uk---cab-cars.html It does say somewhere that the desk control equipment was supplied by Brush- hence the uncanny resemblance of a Brush 4/cl 47 driving desk. Whether these were specially made or just spares from the 47 build I don't know. Keefer It would have to be TDM or FDM. You can't have multiple channels running down one loop in any other way. Though I think you are right that it was not as sophisticated as the later WCLM and ECML versions. (disclaimer: That's my recollection from reading articles, not from first hand knowledge).

Baz, I really like those 08 pictures. We don't see many photographs of models from the height we normally see the real thing. A model 08 is pretty small and insignificant, but you have made it look a towering piece of heavy equipment. Nice work.

I can just about tolerate the idea that English Electric made an attempt to rival Brush. Let us not imagine that there were more pretenders to the Type 4 crown. Of course, there was also one Brush Type 2 that was an Honorary Type 4 on account of it having a substantially uprated set of mechanical and electrical equipment- we will ignore the fact that it had an English Electric diesel motor for the moment I think.

labels: TRACKPAD>>HIDE NAME LABELS Or use the END key to toggle between the two.

GWR steam loco or a spider? Give me 8 legs rather than the 8 wheels above any day. Paul, when you say type 4- can I be clear that you are referring to THE type 4, made by Brush, or the, ahem, 8 axle thing with 2 noses made by English Electric?