Bob Reid

7 hours ago, Fredo said:

Hi, heard the announcement on Wednesday, do you know which month in 1961 RB SC1658 was built, and also which months were SC1733-1738 fitted with Commonwealth bogies. Lastly do you know which month in 1960 was W1732 built. Thanks Fred

Fred, it's worth bearing in mind the best you'll get for the date built for Mk1 stock, relates to the info provided in the likes of Parkin's Mk1 Coaching Stock book and Robert Carroll's extracts of the  BR Diagram Book Index. It applies to the whole lot under which the vehicles were built. Anyhoo

RB SC1658 Lot 30628 1644-1699 Ordered 1959, Completed Nov 1961, Commonwealth Bogies.

RB SC1733-1738 Lot. 30512 1701-1738 Ordered 1958, Completed Jan 1961, BR Mk2 Heavy Duty Double Bolster Bogies.

RB W1732 details as Lot 30512.

The first Lot built (30512) were rebogied fairly early on but I've no idea when. Robert Carroll might know.

Bob.

14 minutes ago, ThaneofFife said:

And i thought we had already seen a mk1 RBR in blue and grey and executive??  Possibly under the Blue Riband branding.....

Fraid not, just the Mk1 RU up to now.

Bob

22 minutes ago, trevor7598 said:

I think the doors could do with some more work around the droplights, the corners 

are not rounded enough. To my eye Bachmann have copied the very earliest style

of ' composite ' door from 1951 which had a wooden frame, and soon caused problems.

 

The droplight aperture looks fine to me Trevor.  The majority of the doors we replaced / reskinned apart from the alloy doors, were composite anyway (wood frame / mild steel door pan) only differing in that they did not use the separate front steel panels that rotted at the joint to the wood frame below the droplight. 

Bob

47 minutes ago, Fredo said:

Thanks Bob, do you know which month in 1960 the Mark 1 RB’s 1701-1738 were built? Fred

Parkin, gives the Lot, 30512 covering 1701-1738 having been completed in January 1961 so I'd imagine the bulk would have been completed towards the end of 1960.

Robert Carroll's list back on Page 2 gives the various initial allocations.

Bob

58 minutes ago, Fredo said:

Hi, looking forward to the new Mark 1 BSO RB and FO’s, especially the RB’s with BR type 1 bogies. Were any of the above built between January and December 1960? Also do you know which months of 1961 FO’s 3101-3103 were built? Thanks Fred

Parkin lists Lot 30648 3101 to 3103 for the Scottish Region completed in June 1961.

Bob

15 hours ago, Flood said:

Strictly speaking:

 

"By comparison with the Mark 2As, the 2Bs were longer than all previous Mark 1 and Mark 2 coaches, being 64ft 0in in length over the headstocks, as compared with the previous standard of 63ft 5in. They were 66ft exactly of the body ends - previously 65ft 4.1/4in. The increased length was primarily to permit the installation of air-conditioning equipment in the roof space above the lavatories." (Ref. Modern Railways October 1969 p.469)

 

From: British Rail Mark 2 Coaches The design that launched InterCity, Michael Harris 1999

I reckon Harris got that quote a bit mixed up. Sure the Mk 2b's onwards were longer over the body ends at 66'-0" and were to be the same till the end with the 2f's however the prototype Mk 2, the production Mk 2's and 2a's were all the same length as each other at 65'-4 1/4" over the body ends. The long underframe Mk1's which were shorter at 64'-6" again over the body ends.

On 21/02/2023 at 10:06, sulzer71 said:

As this thread seems a little dead I'll try getting it going again :)

 

I've been doing a lot of research into the Skinheads that were based at Inverness to see which ones went to Kyle , so far I have evidence of 2 , 24112 and 24113 , also as D5113

 

Does anyone have evidence of any others? 

 

Tia

 

Dave

A little dead Dave :) it's been 5 years since the last posting and 13 since Chard started it. Anyway you could save yourself some time by going back to the beginning of the thread where there's a list with links to various photo's of them including on the Kyle line.....

Bob

Okay, short story time about the Mk2f FO SC 3284...

in the beginning  In 1970 When the region introduced the 2x27 Push Pull's on the E&G,  5 sets including an FK were needed to cover the daily diagram workings.  The then GM organised the cascade of stock from the LM onto the ScR following conversion to add Air/Disc Brakes & Through Control wiring.  For the daily requirement of 5 full sets, they were given 7 FK's i.e. with 2 spare FK for failures or vehicles on works. Plenty.

When the replacement new service was introduced in 1979 with the DBSO's and Mk3 sets, the number of daily working diagrams was increased to six to allow for one set with its 1 x Mk3a FO to be diagrammed out daily for maintenance / exams at Craigentinny - except they got the sums a bit wrong (from a CM&EE point of view)  they gave us 7 FO's including the "luxury" of extra for spares/repair - except they'd never factored in that inevitably within the first year there would probably be one FO needing shopping or out for an extended time, so were one short  After a bit of persuasion by Geoff Passey no doubt, another FO was cascaded in and as the LM who were not happy at having to let 34 of the oldest  Mk3a's they could find go another Mk3a was off the table the only other suitable vehicle type, and with the same passenger environment was found. Mk2f FO SC3284

SC3284 became dedicated to the E&G fleet and like the all the E&G Fleet before it was not to be used on any other service under pain of death.  Most of the time if not under maintenance sat idle at Craigentinny where it was allocated.  Even when the Glasgow-Aberdeen's were introduced its rarely ventured off the depot unless working the E&G. This was relaxed later following Polmont out of necessity and likewise when the fleet was "downgraded" by Regional Railways to Class 158 (hardly EXPRESS) via 156's in the late 1980s it was no longer needed so lost its status and could be seen anywhere on or off Region. 

In almost all the shots you'll see of it in traffic on both the E&G's and Aberdeen's it's in as a spare could have been for the day maybe later on for that week but not as one of the vehicles normally diagrammed to work the service.  It was very much an ad-hoc vehicle that led a solitary life.  

It might all seem looking back, that these internal regional squabbles but we lived in a glass half full or glass half empty era depending on who in BR you worked for never mind from what region...  As for 3284, happily it emigrated to New Zealand to live its life out there. The legend that was SC 3284 - The Unknown Soldier 
 

Bob.

4 hours ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Eh?  Is it just me???

Definitely not.  He wouldn't be on here otherwise and would be producing misshapen MTK lumps of metal....

Funnily enough, My Grandfather's occupation at least during his time with the LMS in the early 1920's is given as "Engine Stoker", his whole working life spent on the footplate until he progressed to driving.  He certainly wasn't fighting fires and I do wonder at what point "Fireman" became the more common description.

They think it's all over?

It is now....

I meant to add, If DJ took someone to court over it, he'd not only need to prove they were produced by copying or using his "appropriated" moulds but also what had made them unique to him in the first place.  A clever defence would run rings round that I've no doubt.

If you look at other design registrations you see better examples of the kind of thing it covers. Someone on the thread indicated with a image a plain old fashioned Mug.   I can't register just a plain old mug.  Everyone makes a plain mug generally the same way.  If however I design mine to be made up uniquely in five parts where they are generally made in two and registering that, illustated by the CAD drawing, it becomes one visual cue to recognise anyone else using my moulds or just plain copying.  To get redress though, having identified whose responsible for producing them, I'd need to take them to court and show that they are exactly the same as mine.    

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

 

So where does that leave DJM registering the CAD as his registered design, where the shape was actually designed by NBL?? 

 

Is this legally valid? Could DJ M register CAD generated by someone else of the Triang Caley 123 - and register that as his design  , creating a claim against Hornby Hobbies for infringement of his IP?

 

Can I register "the shape of St.Pauls cathedral" as my IP if I get hold of a CAD rendering of it and trot down to the Patents Office????

It's not the shape as such he's registering - it's the uniqueness, or "his way" that's been specified in the registration, for those particular models.  Those are generally the cues he's referring to - basically he's registered the things that make the production readily identifiable as uniquely his and anyone else using those exact same ways could be seen to be either making a copy or using tools that he owns without hi permission.  He could create another Caley 123 'his way' and register it but he could not take Hornby's 123 as it's produced and register it as his own.

Quote

Kernow have specifically told me that all computer design work in the CAD software was carried out in China by the manufacturer. DJModels doesn't actually create the CAD. It's notable that other new entrants Accurascale and Cavalex do originate the designs themselves.

I don't think Dave has tried to say otherwise.  It is commonplace for the entire design work, requiring CAD's to show the final form and CAM files for the actual cutting of the tools to produce that final form entirely in the factory.  I would doubt Accurascale or Cavalex produce the manufacturing files that create the moulds in house, but only the CAD's showing the item as collection of seperate completed parts that make up the whole.  The factory producing them will be responsible for the actual production / manufacturing files.

The problem is that we are only aware of the images that have been registered not the descriptive part.  We don't know exactly what has been described in the registration which would explain better what he's asked to be protected using those images to illustrate them.  Full access to the registered design would give us that from the IP office.  At face value he's attempting to protect the visual cues - his way of describing the unique form and features , possibly the form of the assembly of the model, created using his unique methods.  That would prevent anyone else coming along and adopting those exact same forms (therefore implying that they are copies of his design) without reference to him, the holder of the design rights.  Any other company could avoid that unique form and not fall foul of his protections.

Bob

it's perfectly legal to have IP protection of the CAD's, provided you created them.  It gives protection to your work even if the subject you created it of is not yours.

11 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It was initially advertised as a joint DToS/DJM project.

 

 

Expressions of interest were originally taken via the DToS website and passed to DJM and customers believed they would be making payments to DToS in convention with any other commissioned project. When I saw that DJM were issuing the deposit invoices (which means the contract is between the customer and DJM which DToS plays no part in) I wrote to DJ on 05 April (2018) with a series of concerns including the lack of T&Cs surrounding the project (from both sides). 

 

 

Dave subsequently went on to make amendments to posts with the caveat noted earlier. My system shows the edit dates.

 

 

I had already explained to him the differences between this and other pledge and reward crowdfunding schemes and that this was a conventional transaction which would be covered under the Consumer Rights (2015) Act, under such the customer has rights to a refund if it is within the statutory (14 day) cooling off period or after the goods have been delivered if they were ordered away from the business's premises. In between these periods any dispute would need to focus on any failure to demonstrate progress against agreed timescales. If a business chooses to not refund a customer if a request is made during the process then they may have the law on their side but should consider the impact of reputational damage if a dissatisfied customer makes their experience publicly known.

Thanks Andy for clearing that up.  I had thought of purchasing one when first announced but unfortunately was scared off by the thought of crowdfunding (a personal thing). Looking at it afresh, it come across that when you sign up it, it's 4 equal staged payments with what appears to be a guarantee of delivery at the end.  I'll have to look at it again, but the T&C's don't appear on his web site which is a bit concerning.

Bob.

I really do feel for Dave Jones.  He went into all of this voluntarily and with his own money and the best of intentions.  I suspect he's got to the point where he sees all of this "feedback" on much of the Internet 'fora' as part of the cause of where he finds himself today, and thinks that his present course of action will go some way to resolving the other "issues".  He could be proven right, none of us at the moment really know how this will pan out.   I very much doubt he'll have sufficient funds nor the ability to fight any legal cases he has to take out in defence of his IP.  It is a shame that its all come to this and I do wish him well but perhaps he should consider stepping back from this approach and trying to work better with those he no doubt sees as the enemy. As Mike Storey previously stated better than I, the loss of DJM as a manufacturer would make the industry the poorer for it.  It's never too late.  Get some half decent advice from within the trade and move on Dave.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did make it clear in his original announcement that there would be an announcement, that he'd retained the services of that well known Scottish Solicitor's, Messr's Gossip, Slander and Libel w.s. to sort out all you "nare do wells" (his words not mine)....  Whilst he must have known there would be some "feedback" on his announcement, I doubt he'd have seen this lot coming.

14 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Dave led the way (with others), but has been overtaken in a fast-moving world. He should recognise that (perhaps he has, with this declaration to recover his rights to what he believe he is owed). But he does not deserve the vitriol expressed on here - so many of us supported what he was trying to do, but now castigate him for it not having worked the way we would have liked.  I cannot think of any other matter that has attracted this level of cant? Oh, maybe I can .....

You are not kidding Mike, he was overtaken by circumstances before the first model had been produced and almost immediately began knocking other planned projects on the head, whilst at times it's been a bit over the top, just who should shoulder the blame for what's occurred but Dave.  It is a real pity, as he came along with good references, but it is no one's fault but his own and he grossly overestimated his ability as a one man band and underestimated his risks or how to mitigate them in the open market.  Other players have not had the same problems that have merited this kind of response.

Bob.

16 minutes ago, micklner said:

     So why the hype about the big announcements etc ,  a very simple statement would have done. I doubt if many people will now take much notice of it anyway.

     How would that stop anyone making the same locomotive etc , at best it protects his design , how would that stop another company from making the same locomotive etc  , it simply needs a different mechanism and a slightly different detail layout to get over this "protection" . Does he has his own money to start sueing other companies anyway . No idea either way , from what I have seen of his designs I doubt if I will ever buy anyway. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head Mick.  I fear for Dave Jones, no matter what respect I do have for him, he's been sold a pup taking this line for protection of his Designs for a classs of toy. If you read the qualifiers for IP protection of the design by registering them does not mean that it automatically becomes your IP.  Bear in mind he will have to be the one taking them to court I'm sure all the other manufacturers will just carry on, do what they always do, and await the registered letter from DJM hitting the doormat.

Bob

1 minute ago, black and decker boy said:

If his models were the best there is then it would be less of a problem but as there are better model developers now on the market, I fear that DJM may well have cast the first nail in the hobby coffin.

 

his move will certainly not see me increase my ownership of models from his stable

 

my friend is an IP lawyer so I’ll send him the PDF and ask his opinion

B&D - I'm certain your friend will come back with it as being a piece of nonsense and all down to his interpretation of what he thinks he's getting.  As the detailed "look" of a specific vehicle pre-exists , they are not his to slap IP on.  If I am wrong, and I could be, I'd fear he'll have just nailed his own coffin shut.  If he attempts to close all these doors to the other manufacturers, then he will no time to produce anything - most of his time could be spent in court whilst he tries to protect his IP.  I can imagine what Hornby / Bachmann / Dapol will make of this.   Just what makes hm think that doing this (closing off any competition) its good for the industry?

Bob.

When your father was an Engine Fitter and your grandad a Driver (65B), wasn't it inevitable that this would be bought at the station to keep me entertained on every journey at the start to end of holiday? (and of course the obligatory stamped metal name plate)...

Bob

5 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

The Lady Bird book of Pirates for me, much better than trains.

Which I'm afraid sounds like it's the kind of thing handed over the counter in a plain brown envelope!  

Bob.