mdvle

Part of the problem is that there is a lack of information, in particular we don't yet know what will happen to those who have paid money for undelivered models. The outcome I suspect will depend on what interest is shown in the attempted sale of the company / assets. LLC delivered one model (Class 15, can be seen in the thread on this forum) and demonstrated working samples of the Ruston, which apparently is ready for production. 3D prints and some CAD have been shown for the Class 22. Thus I think it is fair to say the company was legitimate.

Fully agree. So last year Rapido announced a US model (Alco RS-11), and they had EP samples of the model. Go forward a couple of months, and someone online asked if the cab height was correct... Full credit to Rapido, they responded to the person they would look into it, and when they did they discovered that the cab was indeed to tall and they committed to fixing the problem. In a March newsletter (109 for anyone interested), it was revealed that it cost $15,000 to fix (I assume tool a new part) - and that was Chinese costs for an HO model - or £11,500. Thus it would not surprise me that an O scale model will have those sorts of costs, particularly given that LLC was determined to do all of it in the UK and not China.

According to the Heljan Facebook page the new issue of Model Rail has a 2 page spread on a poll to decide which livery Model Rail will have done as an exclusive release.

From the message he posted, which was copied into this thread: "the Class 22 is fully developed and ready for tooling" So no tooling but apparently CAD complete and ready for tooling to begin. As for breach of contract, that depends on what exactly the T&C's say (which I don't know), and will also depend on whether anyone picks up the existing work (in the case of the Ruston that means tooling, in the case of the 22 then the CAD work) and what obligations they commit to.

In my case, it is missing 4 wheels, as well as the UP part, given it is from the other side of the country being a N&W 2-8-8-2. Lovely model, but no where to put it. Sadly, also expect that it might frighten the cute little paniers given its size and strangeness.

But what if you don't even have a three foot plank? Alas, my not quite as big as a Big Boy articulated steam loco has to content itself to remain in its box.

You, and many on here, realize the difference between a moving train vs the platform side of a stopped train. Most others don't, and thus the appearance of someone leaning out of a window make it appear that it is an acceptable thing to do. Given relatively recent incidents it also may well be an insurance and/or legal liability issue where the nuances can quickly get lost. Thus the insurance coverage specifies that leaning out of windows is not allowed and thus should be dealt with. Or staff find it easier (and safer) to be able to honestly reply with the simple, unambiguous answer if anything does happen that they told said person that it wasn't allowed rather than trying to convince a police officer or injured person's lawyer that the distinctions between what was safe and dangerous had been explained in such a way that the injured party fully understood things.

As of January at least one station was nowhere near completion, thus fairly evident that the central London infrastructure isn't completed. For safety reasons alone I would guess everything would have to be completed so that fire alarm systems were fully functional and escape routes clear and safe to use. Even if that was all done and thus people could safely use the tunnels, without the signalling system there would be so little capacity that running a service would be counter-productive.

Well, it's all a process of sorting out what is important and not important, what works / doesn't work, etc. Space is always a major consideration, if for no other reason than it requires more money and time (not just for the space itself, but for benchwork / scenery / etc.) For example, consider just Kingswear. Hypothetically, if one wanted to accurately model Kingswear a measurement finds that it is about 1280' from the creek bridge to the end of track. Now some easy math gets us (N - 8.6' / OO - 17' / O - 30') as the space required. Somebody with a generous room size may view 17' as feasible, but consider that means moving back and forth along at least some of that 17' each time you bring a train in, move the engine around, etc. and it becomes apparent that for many that some compression will make for a more enjoyable layout (and as for O and its 30', well that would be one way to stay fit in retirement). Move from just one location to a complete layout, and the chosen scale combined with what you want to try and model leads to some decisions not just one how big the room needs to be, but how much walking you want to do... Going P4 also influences things as it needs larger curves I believe. Either way scale amounts to a trade off, more of which in a bit. It's not a dodge, it is a key part of the design process. There is nothing wrong with wanting both, and I really should have given that as an option, but it influences what choices get made and what compromises may be necessary. Wanting to operate a layout with friends is an important design consideration, will you also be hoping for help building the layout or wanting to build it alone? This helps a lot, it means that going for more of a "feeling" of those places may work for you instead of having to try and recreate them. For example, you may find the idea of extending Kingswear across the Dart to Dartmouth, where the track could disappear into the hillside acceptable where it would allow the ability to continously run trains at times, something not possible if there is an instance that Kingwear being an accurate terminus. So this then becomes your key decision point. With the obvious that we can't predict what the hobby will have available in the next 20 years, this places a bunch of restrictions on what else is feasible. A large layout, in late steam or almost any of the diesel era, is feasible (with sufficient money) given the ability to simply sit at the computer and order all the rolling stock needed. In your case the limitation is going to be on the ability to build kits, kitbash RTR, pay someone to do either of those, or luck in with RTR that is appropriate to provide sufficient rolling stock to achieve what you want. Building a model of the Kingsbridge branch in 1910, with a small amount of stock required, would be much more feasible than trying to model Paddington. Thus my advice would be to spend some time pondering a realistic goal for how much era appropriate (to your acceptable level of accuracy) rolling stock you can build or otherwise accumulate in the available time. This will then help determine just how feasible your current plans are, or may prompt some rethinking of what is most important and what can be chopped or made a maybe. This will also help to solidify your scale decision, as anything other than OO will likely require more of the kitbuiding / scratchbuilding effort as compared to modifying something RTR. The problem, other than the space something like Frome takes, is access. If you when running a train (on the assumption you are following the train and not just sitting watching) want to go onto the Devon branch every time then it isn't a problem, but if you want to stay on the Wessex then you need to either duck under the Devon branch, walk around the Devon branch, or have a lift out bridge to allow walking through, neither of which may be a best solution. Another possibility might be to put the Devon branch on a second level, using Bathampton to lead to a "hidden" helix to change levels. The other option is to focus on either the Devon side or the Wessex side.

There is also the (to many) glaring issue regarding the louvres, where to allow the toy train like working louvres resulted in them being recessed into the body too far making a very visible flaw (you can search and find many people showing how they have replaced them to make a more visually accurate model).

Does something like this layout - Mason Street (Goods) - interest you at all (note that the track plan does change with time as he builds it if the general idea does interest) https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/143331-mason-street-goods-br-blue/ You mention your a student, perhaps the answer (depending on what limits not just in budget but in time) isn't a layout at all at this point? You mention other parts of the hobby, so do you really feel you need a layout at this point or for the duration of your student time would it be sufficient just to work on the kit building part of the hobby? Related, given your interests in hand built track and kit building, do you already have the tools needed for these tasks or are they going to need to come out of your limited budget?

Certainly, like many of us, an ambitious "dream" to start with. Won't be able to help with a lot, but some questions that may help to get things started. What scale? Are you more into operations, or into having trains running around? How accurate do you want to be? (specifically, do you want accurate trains or can it be "close enough"? Do you want to try and recreate your interests in scale, or are these locations more for a "influenced by" type of design?) How set on your era are you? (my limited understanding is 1910 could be more difficult in terms of RTR rolling stock, so are you comfortable building kits?) Is there any particularly reason you want to include junctions? (they can be problematic in space terms).

It all comes down to what exactly were the terms of the agreement between DJM and the commissioners, specifically who owns the CAD and/or tooling (funding them does not necessarily result in ownership). Then there is the added complication of the factory(ies) in China, and whether they did things correctly from a UK legal perspective when in at least one case the commissioner changed the project and went to the factory directly (and also whether anyone could prove one way or another what the Chinese factory did/didn't do). About the only thing that is clear is that the "clarification" which pretty much refutes everything said less than 24 hours earlier is a good indication that Dave Jones is done as a manufacturer in this hobby as this incident has likely decimated what remained of his customer base and will have created an atmosphere that any 3rd parties (whether retailers or prospective employers) won't deal with either him or his company again.

Not a lawyer, etc, etc. The DJM registrations are (mostly) dated 9th September 2018 and thus would be in force at least from that date. Under Dave's apparent interpretation that would mean the Accurascale Class 92 would likely fall foul unless they could prove that they had CAD's prior to that date (they made their public announcement this year). Don't know where the Revolution Class 92 would fall in Dave's interpretation given that it was started well before 9th September 2018. It would all depend I guess on whether prior art invalidates what has been registered. Someone also asked about the APT, the announcement by DJM mentions that other items have been submitted and are in the pipeline - a total of 14 items including the OO APT and N scale King. At the end of the day it all comes down to whether Dave's interpretation is correct or not, and certainly I hope he is wrong.

His listings on the UK registered design website mention scale.

I think to a certain extent that is what he is hoping, that Hornby / Bachmann will view this as a positive change given the recent/ongoing issues Bachmann has had with Hattons, Hornby's annoyance at the commissioners, etc.

That is the goal - hence his comments in the announcement about bartering / trading / etc.

So this appears to be his listing (if the link works): https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/mibc2je9/92393612/designsbyowner That lists the 1361, 14xx, 02, D600, Class 92, Class 71, J94 in OO and the Class 92 in N. Note that he is registering them as a "registered design" category

My reading, by registering the CAD work for a model in a given scale DJM believes that any other companies attempting to create a model of the same prototype in that scale will infringe on the registered CAD, thus he can prevent anyone from competing with him.

And with this I won't buy anything from DJM. This cannot be good for the hobby, as it will simply allow the large players with deep pockets to register and protect everything, thus preventing new competition from entering the marketplace. It will set the hobby back by decades. edit: The only possible winners will be the lawyers.

Tangent Scale Models has announced a new model, the General American 1952-Design 8000 Gallon Welded General Service Tank Car, and it is shipping now. First run offers 3 paint schemes - GATX Diamond Chemicals 1959+, GATX DOW "Pittsburg CA 1964+", UCLX Vulcan Materials 1966+ Price is $44.95 https://www.tangentscalemodels.com/general-american-1952-design-8000-gallon-welded-general-service-tank-car/

Well, compare it then to the competition. Broadway Limited also offers a Big Boy, and is priced at $750 including DCC sound, which appears to work out to £580 (and of course you would then need to add VAT). http://www.broadway-limited.com/paragon3upbigboy4-8-8-4.aspx

Worth noting for anyone interested in the Siemens Charger that Athearn hinted, with a portion of a CAD drawing, in January that they were working on a Charger model if the people guessing at the CAD are correct. Whether Athearn continues given today's Bachmann announcement remains to be seen, but it may provide a different option.

Bachmann, from Facebook:

Doubtful, as the successor won't being using the Virgin branding so it won't really transfer. More likely this is aimed at the government, perhaps reflecting behind the scenes frustrations that with the loss of the franchise and being somewhat locked out at the moment someone has decided there is nothing to lose by letting it go public.