Dave Jones kicks off with his own range

[Bigmet]

Chris Leigh explains the code 83 as his own layout being used for the test: he has a great interest in Canadian railways, so doubtless the track choice reflects that. None of this should matter; it's HO, which is the same standard as 'OO track', which is in fact HO standard.

The O2 is built with a split chassis, and relatively small casting, moulding, and aseembly errors will tend to make the wheelsets over gauge. This is all well known from the experience of the Bachmann split chassis steamers, and the fixes are easy. So too is detection of the problem, so it shouldn't be seen by the customer, cough, cough.

(I don't buy the 'professional' reviewer as 'better', as opposed to multiple inputs by owners on a forum. When I returned to the hobby in earnest one of the things that quickly turned me off the comics was the poor standard of reviews. When you find a problem - like derailing - the thing to do is work out why and see if it can be readily rectified.

This internet contributors do this superbly - yes, you have to wade through the hot-air and mindless dogpilers - but in among the dross are the gems of knowledge. That's where you find out that this model has a physically weak component, that one has wheelsets to no recognised standard, yet others have binding bearings, overheating motors, inadequate space for decoders, lock ups in the gear trains, etc.. Arising from this are suggestions for solutions that quickly get tested, and fixes are found. And it gets better because it isn't just point of release reviewing but extended life testing by a group of users so that issues that emerge with mazak degradation and wear and tear are covered too. Way superior information.)

[Xerces Fobe]

Chris Leigh explains the code 83 as his own layout being used for the test: he has a great interest in Canadian railways, so doubtless the track choice reflects that. None of this should matter; it's HO, which is the same standard as 'OO track', which is in fact HO standard.

The O2 is built with a split chassis, and relatively small casting, moulding, and aseembly errors will tend to make the wheelsets over gauge. This is all well known from the experience of the Bachmann split chassis steamers, and the fixes are easy. So too is detection of the problem, so it shouldn't be seen by the customer, cough, cough.

(I don't buy the 'professional' reviewer as 'better', as opposed to multiple inputs by owners on a forum. When I returned to the hobby in earnest one of the things that quickly turned me off the comics was the poor standard of reviews. When you find a problem - like derailing - the thing to do is work out why and see if it can be readily rectified.

This internet contributors do this superbly - yes, you have to wade through the hot-air and mindless dogpilers - but in among the dross are the gems of knowledge. That's where you find out that this model has a physically weak component, that one has wheelsets to no recognised standard, yet others have binding bearings, overheating motors, inadequate space for decoders, lock ups in the gear trains, etc.. Arising from this are suggestions for solutions that quickly get tested, and fixes are found. And it gets better because it isn't just point of release reviewing but extended life testing by a group of users so that issues that emerge with mazak degradation and wear and tear are covered too. Way superior information.)

I agree with however in some are of the on-line there are people that have set themselves ip unjustifiably as near Gods when it comes model railways, add into that vested interests and you have recipe for biased reviews. I can think of one individual that will take action to shutdown anyone that disagrees with his biased reviews or highlights any issues. The model railway mags have tight rope to walk which to balance the their income from manufacturers and contributors against there reviews of products etc and to be fair in most cases they do good job on the whole and of course most models are reviewed in more than than one magazine so this does give a balance too.

[Pennine MC]

Open to correction, but I seem to recall some play being made of the point that Dave Jones was going to check all of these models individually and personally. Does anyone know if that happened, and if so, what the check consisted of?

[Bigmet]

One of those commitments that I somewhat doubt was fully thought through. You'll do more damage unboxing and reboxing in the UK than problems that were originally present in China ex-factory. Make it right at factory with good in-process technique and well designed packaging to protect the goods in transit, plan to inspect only for exterior damage to packaging as evidence of severe mishandling/accident en-route before distribution in UK, deal with any after sales problems as they arise, would be my favoured approach.

... on-line there are people that have set themselves up unjustifiably as near Gods when it comes model railways, add into that vested interests and you have recipe for biased reviews. I can think of one individual that will take action to shutdown anyone that disagrees with his biased reviews or highlights any issues...

But the thing is, they are easy to spot and ignore. Eventually they have a melt down and usually take their ball away completely (hurrah!).

[JasonBz]

Open to correction, but I seem to recall some play being made of the point that Dave Jones was going to check all of these models individually and personally. Does anyone know if that happened, and if so, what the check consisted of?

That is for his own label ones, when they arrive................

[Xerces Fobe]

Hats for to Chris Leigh for sticking by his guns in the other place. i wonder if the puppet master will ban him for having for dating criticising his pal's work!

[JasonBz]

sorry there....deleted.

[Pennine MC]

Open to correction, but I seem to recall some play being made of the point that Dave Jones was going to check all of these models individually and personally. Does anyone know if that happened, and if so, what the check consisted of?

That is for his own label ones, when they arrive................

Sorry Jason:

Production should take, when authorised, around 4-6 weeks with roughly the same time to ship to Kernow's premises.

As mentioned previously on other threads, i will then personally QC each locomotive before releasing them for allocation to pre-order customers.

It seems odd to me that such a procedure is advertised, presumably with the intention to offer buyers confidence and reassurance, and then doesnt happen. All we hear about on the thread is how busy Kernow are dispatching them now they're in, so one has to ask if it was ever a realistic thing to promise?

[bradshaw]

Over on todays MRE mag a contributor is saying the DJM cl 71 prototype may be the wrong shape at the bottom corners of the front end. When you look at prototype photos he could be right.

The Hornby one doesn't seem to have the same problem.
http://www.hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-en ... /class-71/

Regards B

[Bufferstop]

Can we keep to the subject of the progress of the DJM models and leave out comments on the editorial policies of other forums
John W
aka Bufferstop

[JasonBz]

Open to correction, but I seem to recall some play being made of the point that Dave Jones was going to check all of these models individually and personally. Does anyone know if that happened, and if so, what the check consisted of?

That is for his own label ones, when they arrive................

Sorry Jason:

Production should take, when authorised, around 4-6 weeks with roughly the same time to ship to Kernow's premises.

As mentioned previously on other threads, i will then personally QC each locomotive before releasing them for allocation to pre-order customers.

It seems odd to me that such a procedure is advertised, presumably with the intention to offer buyers confidence and reassurance, and then doesnt happen. All we hear about on the thread is how busy Kernow are dispatching them now they're in, so one has to ask if it was ever a realistic thing to promise?

I haven't really followed the path of DJM, he isnt making anything .... that I would like to buy, but from what I do read there does seem to be be more promises than product.

[Jim S-W]

Some people seem to think that laser scanning guarantees a spot on end result but it's just a method of data collection so it doesn't. I don't know enough about 71s to know if the DJM one is off or not but DJ was happy to claim that there were errors in the hornby one and that was laser scanned too. I do remember him saying he didn't get a lot of data from the scan when it came to the underframe.

Comparrisons between the hornby and DJM 71s will prove to people that laser scanning is no guarantee of accuracy.

Jim

[Pennine MC]

It's another 'next big thing' really, isn't it Jim; results depend on the amount of data collected and how it's interpreted. IMO, the 71 cab corners are definitely off - too rounded all the way down whereas they should taper and sharpen towards the bottom. ISTR something similar with one of the curves on the Dapol Western

[Admin4]

i guess its more important that things look right rather then are 100% right - so taking a laser scan of something might not always give you the best end result if you take it as is.

[Bufferstop]

A laser scan has to be mathematically analysed to produce the correct 3D shape by making adjustments for the relative positions of the object and scanner. The easiest scan to use might be one taken on a rotating camera. After that it depends on the mathematical capabilities of the computer, think Cray Supercomputer rather than Intel Pentium.