Bob Reid

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.

It's not looking good, maybe come back at 10?

First published for Awdry in 1945 apparently...

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Bob

 

ER EMU information is nigh on impossible to find. My first post of RMweb many many moons ago was about the under gubbins on a class 308 and did anyone have a drawing. Never had a reply, how ever with the aid of photos and a plan view of the underframe of a class 302 which had very similar equipment I was able to do my own drawing, as you say "accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling".

 

 

Do shout up directly if in the future if it is related to the Mk1 based derivatives Clive.  I might have the right or nearest drawing that could help you.  Amongst the several hundred I have there are the odd EMU one's though usually for the SR based stock....

Bob

36 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Bob

 

Isn't this true of all research. The more sources the better and if you can do some original as well that helps. Having said that the number of "reliable" sources that repeat other peoples mistakes can be shocking. 

Yes it is Clive, but no doubt you (with ER EMU's  ) or like myself with Mk1 carriages, have to decide where all the research and achieving that higher level of accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling.  For some that's not an easy decision, for me its not the end of the world.

Bob

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyway, what is history? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

In simple terms, study of the past surely.  Where however that can go wrong in railway modelling is the reliance on single sources whether it's a published work, engineering drawings, photo's, including these days those from the Internet or even going direct to the NRM or the archives at Kew.  Without multiple sources and reference to original records, it is difficult to put a lot of what you think you see into context and apply it to your modelling.  Sometimes that's impossible perhaps due to the length of time that's elapsed or the plain fact that the why's and wherefore's were just never recorded.  Relying on so-called experts in their field even the renowned one's and those that were around at the time isn't a guarantee of accuracy, but at least it's a good place to start.  Just how far you want to take and use the information provided is entirely a matter of personal choice.  One man's inaccurate steam collector / dome is another's accurate enough representation. We all have to decide where those details sit in our modelling.

Bob.

Capping plates or iron's were (as opposed to a brickies 'coping') to cover welded or in the case of carriages, screwed joints - more a decorative thing to hide exposed edges they were often used though to better seal a plate joint.

Bob.

9 minutes ago, Daddyman said:

I don't half admire your patience, Bob... 

Patience? what patience - my god not another age infliction I'll have to go the Doc about

The old colour perception thing of course comes in to play - what it really was 40 years ago doesn't always square with what we think we remember 40 years on, but you have to add in the problem of the original source.  This was a then newish Olympus OM10 and using Kodak 100ASA film which in reality wasn't really suitable for an early evening shot in the p'ing rain with an overcast sky.  Still, with good old Photoshop (cc) you can make a decent stab at correcting it.   This is what the scanner gave me from a print ; 
 

which is as dark and dank looking as it was....

Scanning from a negative with no deterioration is usually better but doesn't always work for some odd reason and on this one gave me nothing but noise with the amount of lightening and cleaning up that was needed.

p.s. The ghostly black shadow across the buffer beam is some of the ash that was quickly doing its level best to burn the door....

Bob.

It's not brown at all... There's no varnish, it was modern synthetic Black enamel even in the late 70s when first painted.  Any tinge no matter where you think it is, is down purely to the 40 year old photo it was scanned from.

Bob

Required listening for me as a child was Radio's Light Programme (well  that's what it said on mum & dad's Bush -  no sniggering in the back there) the somewhat RTR programme,  The Clitheroe Kid.  Ironically I can still do that now and then courtesy of a (DAB) Bush Radio that looks the same and plays Radio 4 extra.  Great for when I do take time to actually do some modelling.

Bob

And here's the tender the previous night - and it's still err..... Black

Carlisle Upperby 1980 - © Bob Reid

Bob

[Edit] p.s. that's not a brown tinge, but just my poor 40 year-old photo and post-processing after it was scanned.

It was black (not grey/blue/pink with yellow spots, orange etc.) The whole lot was painted with T&R Williamson's Black enamel - about as black as black is - it is a bit of a fantasy to think otherwise.  The whole lot  inc the smokebox, and the Tender was painted with the same paint.  What does make the difference in appearance is the level of gloss (which is where I'd have preferred the model to have been better) Maude was relatively freshly painted and was cleaned after every outing so changed little over that first few years of its restoration.  Every time it was taken out on the main line especially it would come back with soot deposits on the top of the smokebox and boiler - typical of any soot lining the tubes getting carried out with the blast from the chimney when the regulator was opened up.

Anyway, how much more or less black do you want? Hornby did a fine job of the model and certainly fits with my first hand experience of it, albeit 40 years on.

Carlisle Upperby 1980 - © Bob Reid 

I really should have got that dustcoat taken up a bit

Bob.

48 minutes ago, DavidLong said:

 

Interesting information about the removal of the periscopes. Were the actual projections on the roof removed as well as the associated equipment in the guard's compartment? If so, would there be any sign of removal on the roof such as patching?

 

David

Everything got removed David - the two holes in the roof left behind on the outside were plated over - some just butted on and welded and some fitted flush with the rest of the roof panel and the welds ground flush so you could barely see them.  The inside got that section of roof panel replaced.

Bob. 

You can do a direct comparison Mike as that was the drawing for a BSK (that said all of those with the separate Guards Compartment were that arrangement anyway) - Unless they've been removed, the most likely think to still exist, are the small shelf just above the floor and/or the two small commode handles up near the roof - a lot of the time despite successive overhauls, they just got quietly forgotten about.

Bob

It was the traditional way to represent glass in an illustrative drawing - we were still doing it when I started in the early 70s (I'm not quite as old as that drawing though - it's got seven years on me)

Bob.

16 hours ago, spikey said:

Cheers chaps.  So I guess the rearmost one looked astern and t'other looked ahead.  Admittedly my Google-fu is not strong, but as I've got nowhere searching for a piccy, I have to ask - what was the setup like inside?  Mrs Spikey has visions of something like the U-boat periscope, with the guard (complete with trimmed beard and hat on back of head) resting his arms on the folding handles as he anxiously scans the horizon ... 

Here you go Spikey - two part drawings that'll let you see what the arrangement was on all Mark 1's - basically two pivoting exposed mirrors with an (Arens) mechanism in between that allowed you to adjust the mirror angles slightly.  The top mirror, like the bottom, was exposed so in. theory the guard could clean them - hence the two handles for him to hang onto up near the roof - but what he couldn't do was clean the outside protective glass on the top housing - and that's where more of the problems lay - especially when running behind steam.  I've tried to highlight in red, the main components.  Once they persuaded the Guards Union's that they were not needed it all got removed. 

Captain Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock....

8 hours ago, 60159 said:

 

Hmm, just completed a guard turn today on SRPS's  Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway on Mk1BCK 21241 subbing for our usual Mk1 BSK 35405 - never noticed periscope (on either)

Next time you are on a Guard turn in a Mk1 Brake, have a look on the partitions either side of you - they often left the narrow boards behind that the periscope mirror mechanism was screwed to that ran from about the height of the pie heater (nee' Food Warmer) rather than removing it (they had once been painted matt black to avoid light reflections on the mirror above).  Failing that a lot of them have steel patches butted onto the outside of the roof panels covering the holes where the mirror housings once were.

All of the Mk1 Brake Vehicles had them fitted originally but after the constant problems they had with them - Jamming, keeping them clean etc. they were removed from all but those allocated to the Southern Region, and had been completed over December '63 and January '64.  The Southern never quite had the same problems and some were still noted as being operational in the late 80s...

Bob

20 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Yes, but if you are using Relco’s or similar devices, the chip gets fried (so it won’t then work).

You can hardly blame Hornby for you buying a DCC fitted loco for use on a DC layout with a Relco or similar attached, especially when you know what it does to them!  Buy the DCC Ready version or replace the decoder with a blanking plate as I suggested.