| |
I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
Development:
LEGO 9V Train Communication
Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
Dear all,
Many of you are aware of the on-going discussions on the 9V train system. We
would like to thank you all for the input you provided to us directly and
through different channels. Based on critical business decisions and the
consultations and discussions with various AFOLs we have decided to focus on one
single solution in order to avoid the complexity of maintaining two systems in
parallel and in order to solve the issues we have with the actual 9V system and
the remote control City train system. We envision one upgradeable train system
for all ages in the future.
The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
profitable and competitive. The existing machines need to be replaced and
minimum order quantities at external suppliers for motors and speed regulators
are so high that the investment The LEGO Group would have to put in, would not
be rational or reasonable compared to sales figures of the existing 9V system.
The implication of this is that the 9v elements sold now are the last of the
remaining stock and subsequent production of elements for the 9V platform has
ceased.
The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009. Using the LEGO Power Functions
system the new train system will benefit from a set of electric elements that
are cross theme, widely available and not completely train specific which allows
us to amortize the development and on going cost across multiple themes. We are
at an early development stage of the new train system and several AFOLs are
already involved in the development process, to ensure that the new system will
accommodate the types of features and functions requested by the AFOL community.
This collaboration with AFOLs is very important to The LEGO Group and we strive
to involve the Adult Fan Community as much as possible.
Holger Matthes, Germany, currently member of the AFOL team which is involved in
the process of developing the new system explains the situation in this way:
“The LEGO train system has to fulfill different needs for different target
groups in a very special way. On the one hand it’s a toy for kids because it is
easy to set up and because of the playability in the kid’s room, and on the
other hand it is also for AFOLs who build huge LEGO train layouts with realistic
looking train models and functionality. The LEGO Group is aware of this and the
company tries to support both needs within the given restrictions (e.g. costs
for a niche product like the LEGO trains).”
Using the universal LEGO Power Functions system for trains will give The LEGO
Group the ability to match the demands and wishes of the AFOL Train community in
the future.
Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
“I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
He continues:
“With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
share with you before the end of the year.
Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
> Dear all,
> The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
> the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
> profitable and competitive. The existing machines need to be replaced and
> minimum order quantities at external suppliers for motors and speed regulators
> are so high that the investment The LEGO Group would have to put in, would not
> be rational or reasonable compared to sales figures of the existing 9V system.
>
> The implication of this is that the 9v elements sold now are the last of the
> remaining stock and subsequent production of elements for the 9V platform has
> ceased.
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
Okay, I accept that the LEGO Company is moving on from the 9V trains. There is
quite a history of them moving from one Train platform to another. How many of
us have 12 volt or 4.5 volt trains?
Let me put a question to the LEGO Company. Will you allow or support a thrid
party in making 9 Volt compatible track from the model train industry or will
you stand in the way?
I know the question is not an easy one. Certainly there must first be a company
out there that is willing to go to considerable expense and develop track of the
proper dimension that will work with the 9 Volt train system and have some look
and feel of the LEGO Track (studs, etc). How much track will needed by the
community is another question. How much that track will cost is certainly a
major consideration.
Supposing there is a manufacturer and market large enough to make the track,
would LEGO claim trademark infringement and go after the company for competing
in a product line that LEGO Company has now abandoned?
Just wondering.
Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
<snip announcement details>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
Are the expected changes for 2009 from the ground up (new track standards,
wheels, etc...) or is it going to be a continuation of the existing IR train
stuff with probably a new power/control system?
Jude
|
|
| |
I'm really afraid of what will become of this decision.
What to do now?
Stock up on any remaining 9volt stuff I can get?
Switch back to 6-wide trains if these new motors aren't strong enough to pull
8-wides?
Cross my fingers and hope this decision is better thought out than the color
change was?
Switch to HO trains since that is an 'open' system supported by hundreds of
manufacturers?
I can see it now, we'll be set up at a train show and people will ask where they
can buy trains like ours. "Well, gee - sorry. Lego doesn't sell these
anymore..."
fut: .trains
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> (9V train announcement)
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
In some industries (e.g., integrated circuits) they do a "final build" before
taking a product to end-of-life. They announce the final build, take orders, and
then perform that one last production run. This keeps customers happy and allows
them to acquire the products they need before it disappears.
|
|
| |
Well I posted this announcement at the http://save.9vtrains.com site...
Personally, I have to say that I have doubts that any battery powered system
will meet the needs of clubs doing shows. Even a robust, rechargable battery
system has considerable limitations.
Minimally a battery powered system would have to pull a 6 wide consist of 10-12
cars for at least an hour to even be considered viable for a show. And that
doesn't even address 8 wide (We have run both on our layouts).
Then their is cost, ease and speed of recharging, how they are controlled
(Please not IR...), etc.
Finally, I guess this means a change of direction for the whole 9vtrains.com
domain. "Save" doesn't really seem to fit anymore does it? I want to find
another way to support the community, if anyone has in idea on how I can
transform what has been built in terms of functionality for save 9vtrains into
something that has value for the community please let me know.
-Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Gerlach wrote:
> What to do now?
>
> Stock up on any remaining 9volt stuff I can get?
Good question for those, like me, without much of a train collection (yet). I
guess I could be considered "lucky" that I don't have the investment in track
and accessories but I cannot even do much more than a really big oval with what
I have.
I hope they answer your question quickly: will the new system pull 8-wide
trains? It makes a big difference in my LEGO-budgeting for the next year ie:
dump every dollar possible into acquiring 9V track and accessories or jump ship
now and start buying the cheaper plastic track (which I ASSUME will remain the
platform for L-Gauge.)
Of course I am really confused since I am about to go to NWBrickCon in the U.S.
where I get a 25-30% discount just for crossing the border and was planning on
spending several hundred dollars at the LEGO Store! Am I going to buy nothing
but track and accessories now?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
> Dear all,
>
> Many of you are aware of the on-going discussions on the 9V train system. We
> would like to thank you all for the input you provided to us directly and
> through different channels. Based on critical business decisions and the
> consultations and discussions with various AFOLs we have decided to focus on one
> single solution in order to avoid the complexity of maintaining two systems in
> parallel and in order to solve the issues we have with the actual 9V system and
> the remote control City train system. We envision one upgradeable train system
> for all ages in the future.
>
> The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
> the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
> profitable and competitive. The existing machines need to be replaced and
> minimum order quantities at external suppliers for motors and speed regulators
> are so high that the investment The LEGO Group would have to put in, would not
> be rational or reasonable compared to sales figures of the existing 9V system.
>
> The implication of this is that the 9v elements sold now are the last of the
> remaining stock and subsequent production of elements for the 9V platform has
> ceased.
The truth is finally revealed
> The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
> electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009. Using the LEGO Power Functions
> system the new train system will benefit from a set of electric elements that
> are cross theme, widely available and not completely train specific which allows
> us to amortize the development and on going cost across multiple themes. We are
> at an early development stage of the new train system and several AFOLs are
> already involved in the development process, to ensure that the new system will
> accommodate the types of features and functions requested by the AFOL community.
> This collaboration with AFOLs is very important to The LEGO Group and we strive
> to involve the Adult Fan Community as much as possible.
No matter how much 'AFOL input' there is, it will be the decision of the company
in the end (of course)
> Holger Matthes, Germany, currently member of the AFOL team which is involved in
> the process of developing the new system explains the situation in this way:
>
> “The LEGO train system has to fulfill different needs for different target
> groups in a very special way. On the one hand it’s a toy for kids because it is
> easy to set up and because of the playability in the kid’s room, and on the
> other hand it is also for AFOLs who build huge LEGO train layouts with realistic
> looking train models and functionality. The LEGO Group is aware of this and the
> company tries to support both needs within the given restrictions (e.g. costs
> for a niche product like the LEGO trains).”
>
> Using the universal LEGO Power Functions system for trains will give The LEGO
> Group the ability to match the demands and wishes of the AFOL Train community in
> the future.
>
> Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
>
> “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
>
> He continues:
>
> “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
Exclusively plastic track means reliance on batteries, there is no other way
around it. And the motors are guaranteed to be underpowered (similar to the R/C
stuff). Also, battery-operated toys are not taken seriously by the vast majority
of hobbyists.
> These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
> future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
> Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
> share with you before the end of the year.
I forsee something akin to the earlier DUPLO Smart bricks which were inserted in
between the rails.
A very successful system indeed.
>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
I'm willing to wait and see how this newfangled system turns out, but I'm afraid
that my recent return to the hobby was premature. No wonder I was so angry a
couple years ago -- it's almost as if I foresaw this announcement.
Until further developments are posted, I'm on hiatus.
Sincerely,
Harvey Henkelman (LUGNET member #400)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jude Beaudin wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> > I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> > Development:
> >
> > LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> <snip announcement details>
>
> > Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
>
> Are the expected changes for 2009 from the ground up (new track standards,
> wheels, etc...) or is it going to be a continuation of the existing IR train
> stuff with probably a new power/control system?
>
> Jude
good question. while working on the new system its going to be very important
that it be as backwards compatible as possible. L-gauge will not go away. the
new system will be able to incorporate track from 9v and plastic rails into it.
we'll be communicating soon more specifically on more attributes of the system,
but it won't be an entirely "from the ground up" situation like the switch from
12v to 9v. There will be a lot of compatibility between the two systems.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
> electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009.
I wonder if this means a hiatus in selling trains this year and next or whether
Lego will continue to sell the IR trains during the next two Christmas seasons
(trains seem to be featured most at this time).
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@charter.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Thomas Main wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
>
> > The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
> > electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009.
>
> I wonder if this means a hiatus in selling trains this year and next or whether
> Lego will continue to sell the IR trains during the next two Christmas seasons
> (trains seem to be featured most at this time).
>
> --
> Thomas Main
> thomasmain@charter.net
The current IR trains will remain in the assortment for the time being. They
will eventually be replaced by the new Power Function System as well.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
> Dear all,
>
> Many of you are aware of the on-going discussions on the 9V train system. We
> would like to thank you all for the input you provided to us directly and
> through different channels. Based on critical business decisions and the
> consultations and discussions with various AFOLs we have decided to focus on one
> single solution in order to avoid the complexity of maintaining two systems in
> parallel and in order to solve the issues we have with the actual 9V system and
> the remote control City train system. We envision one upgradeable train system
> for all ages in the future.
>
> The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
> the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
> profitable and competitive. The existing machines need to be replaced and
> minimum order quantities at external suppliers for motors and speed regulators
> are so high that the investment The LEGO Group would have to put in, would not
> be rational or reasonable compared to sales figures of the existing 9V system.
>
> The implication of this is that the 9v elements sold now are the last of the
> remaining stock and subsequent production of elements for the 9V platform has
> ceased.
>
> The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
> electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009. Using the LEGO Power Functions
> system the new train system will benefit from a set of electric elements that
> are cross theme, widely available and not completely train specific which allows
> us to amortize the development and on going cost across multiple themes. We are
> at an early development stage of the new train system and several AFOLs are
> already involved in the development process, to ensure that the new system will
> accommodate the types of features and functions requested by the AFOL community.
> This collaboration with AFOLs is very important to The LEGO Group and we strive
> to involve the Adult Fan Community as much as possible.
>
> Holger Matthes, Germany, currently member of the AFOL team which is involved in
> the process of developing the new system explains the situation in this way:
>
> “The LEGO train system has to fulfill different needs for different target
> groups in a very special way. On the one hand it’s a toy for kids because it is
> easy to set up and because of the playability in the kid’s room, and on the
> other hand it is also for AFOLs who build huge LEGO train layouts with realistic
> looking train models and functionality. The LEGO Group is aware of this and the
> company tries to support both needs within the given restrictions (e.g. costs
> for a niche product like the LEGO trains).”
>
> Using the universal LEGO Power Functions system for trains will give The LEGO
> Group the ability to match the demands and wishes of the AFOL Train community in
> the future.
>
> Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
>
> “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
>
> He continues:
>
> “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
>
> These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
> future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
> Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
> share with you before the end of the year.
>
>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
It does not make sense in strictly monetary terms for TLG to continue to produce
a line that is not directly profitable. However, we have raised the point
before that numerous intangible benefits arise from the 9V Train line.
Community outreach, fan involvement, and substantial advertising of LEGO
products occur because of the 9V LEGO Train line, and the consequent benefits to
TLG and the LEGO community are significant even if not directly monetary.
I urge LEGO to consider these benefits brought by 9V Trains and to attempt to
capture these aspects in the new train line where feasible. Even with TLG's
recent changes in production, distribution, and management, it is my hope that
LEGO still focuses on producing a unique, high-quality product and not merely a
profitable one.
I appreciate the LEGO Company creating a great hobby for many of us through the
16 years of LEGO 9V Trains. I hope that the new train line meets and exceeds
the great potential for creativity demonstrated by the 9V Train line, even given
the magnitude of this challenge.
-Jordan Schwarz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jordan Schwarz wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> > I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> > Development:
> >
> > LEGO 9V Train Communication
> >
> > Holger Matthes, Germany, currently member of the AFOL team which is involved in
> > the process of developing the new system explains the situation in this way:
> >
> > “The LEGO train system has to fulfill different needs for different target
> > groups in a very special way. On the one hand it’s a toy for kids because it is
> > easy to set up and because of the playability in the kid’s room, and on the
> > other hand it is also for AFOLs who build huge LEGO train layouts with realistic
> > looking train models and functionality. The LEGO Group is aware of this and the
> > company tries to support both needs within the given restrictions (e.g. costs
> > for a niche product like the LEGO trains).”
> >
> > Using the universal LEGO Power Functions system for trains will give The LEGO
> > Group the ability to match the demands and wishes of the AFOL Train community in
> > the future.
> >
> > Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> > Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
> >
> > “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> > accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
> >
> > He continues:
> >
> > “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> > has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> > innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
> >
> > These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
> > future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
> > Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
> > share with you before the end of the year.
While this is a disappointment due to the significant investment in the 9V
system I made over the past few years...I am very excited to see what direction
TLG is going to take with the Power Function trains. I am very excited that
they are working within the AFOL community to try and serve our needs and ensure
backwards compatibility. That's a lot more than many companies would do. If
the Hobby Train box was any indication of what TLG can produce using the input
of AFOL's, I think we will be pleasantly surprised when the new trains come out
in 2009.
I see a possible incorporation of a NXT type program with the Power Functions.
TLG will certainly have to address the battery life and the motor power issues,
but I believe that these will be taken into account especially given the
collective experience of the AFOL's involved in this project.
Ultimately, TLG has to ensure their profitability. At the same time, I'm sure
they see the AFOL community as a market with significantly more disposable
income than the average kid. I'm confident they will do everything in their
power (and within their financial constraints) to ensure that they do not
alienate us.
I'm sure there will be some AFOL's who will resist the change. However, I am
(for once) taking an optimistic attitude and placing my chips on the new system
being an improvement in many ways over the old 9V system. There is so much
amazing technology available today (blue tooth, micro stepper motors, Li-Ion,
etc.) and I'm sure TLG can come up with something that will satisfy the
majority of the AFOL community.
-Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Gerlach wrote:
> I'm really afraid of what will become of this decision.
>
> What to do now?
I believe this to be a very bad decision, to discontinue the 9volt system at
this time. Perhaps the new electrical system will be better, but at this time,
it is still in the planning stage and is curently scheduled to be out in 2009.
What do we do until then?
Do we continue doing our train shows and tell visitors that the line is
discontinued but in a couple of years another train system may be ready? We are
continued being asked "where can we buy the trains?'. Had TLG made the LEGO
Trains, both 9volt and RC available to Train Hobby Shops along with their
accessories such as track, motors, and controllers, they may have sold more, or
is it that this was not done to prove their point that the 9volt trains were not
selling, therefore, not profitable. If a product is not seen by the buying
public, they are not apt to buy...
And all the money invested into the 9volt system, will we be able to convert our
present engines to the new system? Is the track going to be of the same scale
so that the current RC and 9volt trains will run on them?
As it is now, I will spend less for LEGO to 'house' my layout and I will
continue to do train shows until my motors burn out. After that...
Another question... When the new electrical train system comes out and those who
invest in it climb onboard, will TLG continue it or develope another system and
discontinue it in a few years?
We are finally accepted into the Train Hobby, please don't mess it up!!!
With deep concerns,
Don Cox GtwLUG Lugnet#1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
|
|
| |
At last we now know why our concerns over 9v trains were never on the original
LEGO Ambassadors’ Official “Issues” List.
I've known the writing was on the wall for a long time now, but even with that
knowledge the blow wasn't any less hard to me. As someone who just got into
building 9v trains, and ABSOLUTELY DEPENDS on the ability to pull current from
the track and not batteries, I don't know what I'll do now. Most steam engines,
especially the smaller ones, have no ability to hide a battery box or worse yet
some travesty of an IR base.
I would feel very betrayed by LEGO right now, but I've already felt that way
over the color change, which I'm just now coming to terms with. So I feel
mostly disappointed in LEGO's decision than anything else, and I do understand
the need to go forward with profitable lines, even if LEGO hasn't given 9v train
fans anything worth buying in 6 months.
But I am very surprised, pleasantly so, at the replies thus far, and how most
are willing to give this new system the benefit of the doubt. And because of
that I've decided to do the same. I'll wait and see, just don't look for a
smile on my face.
--Tony
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
> Dear all,
>
> Many of you are aware of the on-going discussions on the 9V train system. We
> would like to thank you all for the input you provided to us directly and
> through different channels. Based on critical business decisions and the
> consultations and discussions with various AFOLs we have decided to focus on one
> single solution in order to avoid the complexity of maintaining two systems in
> parallel and in order to solve the issues we have with the actual 9V system and
> the remote control City train system. We envision one upgradeable train system
> for all ages in the future.
>
> The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
> the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
> profitable and competitive. The existing machines need to be replaced and
> minimum order quantities at external suppliers for motors and speed regulators
> are so high that the investment The LEGO Group would have to put in, would not
> be rational or reasonable compared to sales figures of the existing 9V system.
>
> The implication of this is that the 9v elements sold now are the last of the
> remaining stock and subsequent production of elements for the 9V platform has
> ceased.
>
> The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
> electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009. Using the LEGO Power Functions
> system the new train system will benefit from a set of electric elements that
> are cross theme, widely available and not completely train specific which allows
> us to amortize the development and on going cost across multiple themes. We are
> at an early development stage of the new train system and several AFOLs are
> already involved in the development process, to ensure that the new system will
> accommodate the types of features and functions requested by the AFOL community.
> This collaboration with AFOLs is very important to The LEGO Group and we strive
> to involve the Adult Fan Community as much as possible.
>
> Holger Matthes, Germany, currently member of the AFOL team which is involved in
> the process of developing the new system explains the situation in this way:
>
> “The LEGO train system has to fulfill different needs for different target
> groups in a very special way. On the one hand it’s a toy for kids because it is
> easy to set up and because of the playability in the kid’s room, and on the
> other hand it is also for AFOLs who build huge LEGO train layouts with realistic
> looking train models and functionality. The LEGO Group is aware of this and the
> company tries to support both needs within the given restrictions (e.g. costs
> for a niche product like the LEGO trains).”
>
> Using the universal LEGO Power Functions system for trains will give The LEGO
> Group the ability to match the demands and wishes of the AFOL Train community in
> the future.
>
> Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
>
> “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
>
> He continues:
>
> “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
>
> These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
> future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
> Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
> share with you before the end of the year.
>
>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
Well, this is something of a blow to the LTC's doing shows. If the decision has
been made to discontinue the line and work on a replacment, let us be proactive,
and indicate the positives of the 9V system that should be worked into a new
product. I'll start:
Key needs for a new LEGO Train system:
-High torque with an ability to pull long/heavy loads.
-Ability to run long distances without significant power loss
(This should be a key factor for any LTC's that do a lot of shows)
-Perhaps work an ability to build a semi-DCC control into the new train line,
allowing a train to slow around corners and work higher speed on straightaways.
Please feel free to add FORWARD THINKING comments and ideas here. Let's not
bash the decision, but do what we can to work a viable replacment...
Scott
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> > I'm really afraid of what will become of this decision.
> >
> > What to do now?
>
>
> I believe this to be a very bad decision, to discontinue the 9volt system at
> this time. Perhaps the new electrical system will be better, but at this time,
> it is still in the planning stage and is currently scheduled to be out in 2009.
> What do we do until then?
I know how you feel, my recent re-involvement in the hobby has come to a
screeching halt.
>
> Do we continue doing our train shows and tell visitors that the line is
> discontinued but in a couple of years another train system may be ready? We are
> continued being asked "where can we buy the trains?'. Had TLG made the LEGO
> Trains, both 9volt and RC available to Train Hobby Shops along with their
> accessories such as track, motors, and controllers, they may have sold more, or
> is it that this was not done to prove their point that the 9volt trains were not
> selling, therefore, not profitable. If a product is not seen by the buying
> public, they are not apt to buy...
Be sure to tell those interested that the 9V system is discontinued. After all,
this is the calamity of the LEGO Group -- they brought this upon themselves.
> And all the money invested into the 9volt system, will we be able to convert our
> present engines to the new system? Is the track going to be of the same scale
> so that the current RC and 9volt trains will run on them?
I suspect not, concerning converting present MOCs to use the new system, there
are too many variables.
The self-contained, truck-mounted electric motor drawing track current is the
most low-profile design available. Any deviation from this will serve as a crimp
on creative possibilities. Again witness the R/C system.
> As it is now, I will spend less for LEGO to 'house' my layout and I will
> continue to do train shows until my motors burn out. After that...
After your motors burn out, you'll have expensive push toys <G>
LEGO are truly the Nintendo of toy train makers. As they introduce new product
lines, they orphan previous generations of their train system.
> Another question... When the new electrical train system comes out and those who
> invest in it climb onboard, will TLG continue it or develope another system and
> discontinue it in a few years?
I don't think LEGO would break this pattern after 30+ years. Of course something
else will come along. That is the nature of Big Business -- keeping the profits
coming.
> We are finally accepted into the Train Hobby, please don't mess it up!!!
They already have, just as LEGO was beginning to draw some serious attention
from train hobbyists, TLG has to screw it up.
> With deep concerns,
>
> Don Cox GtwLUG Lugnet#1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
Deep concerns is only the beginning, more like misgivings and mistrust.
-HRH
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
> Well, this is something of a blow to the LTC's doing shows. If the decision has
> been made to discontinue the line and work on a replacment, let us be proactive,
> and indicate the positives of the 9V system that should be worked into a new
> product. I'll start:
>
> Key needs for a new LEGO Train system:
>
> -High torque with an ability to pull long/heavy loads.
> -Ability to run long distances without significant power loss
> (This should be a key factor for any LTC's that do a lot of shows)
>
> -Perhaps work an ability to build a semi-DCC control into the new train line,
> allowing a train to slow around corners and work higher speed on straightaways.
>
> Please feel free to add FORWARD THINKING comments and ideas here. Let's not
> bash the decision, but do what we can to work a viable replacement...
>
> Scott
Something that doesn't require *dozens* of batteries to have a display with a
few operating trains for a weekend. (/cry/)
Small size motors, for smaller MOCs. The existing 9volt train motor is a good
size.
Ability to have more than one motor on a train.
Ability to 'set and forget', so the trains can run unattended for a period of
time.
Able to integrate with the RCX or NXT.
Power take-off to power headlights and other 9volt accessories we might put on a
train.
This yet-unnamed system will need to be a big improvement over the existing
battery operated remote control trains...
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
> Well, this is something of a blow to the LTC's doing shows. If the decision has
> been made to discontinue the line and work on a replacment, let us be proactive,
> and indicate the positives of the 9V system that should be worked into a new
> product. I'll start:
>
> Key needs for a new LEGO Train system:
>
> -High torque with an ability to pull long/heavy loads.
> -Ability to run long distances without significant power loss
> (This should be a key factor for any LTC's that do a lot of shows)
>
> -Perhaps work an ability to build a semi-DCC control into the new train line,
> allowing a train to slow around corners and work higher speed on straightaways.
>
> Please feel free to add FORWARD THINKING comments and ideas here. Let's not
> bash the decision, but do what we can to work a viable replacment...
>
> Scott
Let see key needs for a new system. The ability to plug it in. No seriously,
they should use the new wireless power transfer technology that is starting to
get some serious attention in Popular Mechanics and other such publications.
Frankly if the system relies on batteries its already sunk for most AFOL train
show purposes. Wireless power however could do some seriously wonderful things.
Of course I can't imagine how bleeding edge technology would be cheaper than
maintaining the 9v standard so were back to batteries. Ugh.
I find the whole thing rather disgusting as I was just informing a co-worker
about Lego trains. He has a 4 year old and wants to get a starter train that he
can expand and grow with his kid. I told him Lego makes trains and he told me
he wants a "real train" not a battery powered one. I told him about the 9v
Holiday Train and Lego Factory and he was seriously considering going that
route. (he really liked the complete customization Lego offers) Now I have to
go tell him tomorrow to ignore my recommendation because the Lego company is
discontinuning their electric trains. Flipping lovely.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
| |
Well, since it is Oct. 1, 2007 today. I have decided to write-off 2008 as a
DEAD year for LEGO trains. The question now is when in 2009 is the 'new' system
gonna be released or when will 'we' AFOL's see pictures, set numbers and prices
etc.
I have to say around Oct. 1, 2008 or sooner we will see images 'leaks' from
sites like 'Eurobricks' showing the 2009 LEGO line.
If I was the CEO of LEGO or the Head of LEGO Marketing dept. or head set
designer in charge of the LEGO Train system. I would try to RELEASE the line in
mid OCT/NOV 2008 as a NEW 2009 product line. Why?
Simple answer ...2008 $$$ Holiday shopping...money, show me the money!
One other thing LEGO should make a LEGO TV AD for LEGO trains and a lot of PR.
My 'ONLY' wish for the NEW POWER LEGO TRAIN System... I 'hope', that I will be
able to run my old LEGO train cars. Such as 4.5v line, 12v, 9v. on the new
system.
-Abner
|
|
| |
As a Senior Engineering Analyst, I understand facts, figures, and numbers. If a
department reports low sales on something, that may indicate that a product of
that department should be cut in order for the company as a whole to be
profitable. However, a good Analyst knows that numbers don't tell you
everything.
In the case of 9V Trains, the numbers indicate that sales have been down for
years. The reason why hasn't been a lack of interest from customers though. It
is due to lack of new product releases, lack of public availability, and lack of
advertisement.
In comparison, the Firefighter product line has numbers indicating that sales
are up, but how many of us have purchased the new fire station every year?
Sales are good for this product line for the same reasons that 9V is down. The
fire fighter line gets new products each year in several price ranges. It also
gets the best store availability and good advertising.
The numbers alone don't mean anything, but if numbers are what TLG cares about
try these numbers:
LUGNET Trains is the third most posted to theme: (over 31,000 posts)
The 9V Train theme has the largest number of fan organizations (at least 21
officially recognized worldwide)
Browsing through Brickshelf, 9V Train fans seem to be one of the biggest
purchasers of LEGO (sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars per club)
It is the only theme (to my knowledge) that has a website dedicated to its own
preservation (the one and only)
The Train theme now has its own online magazine (one of a very few)
No other theme, has brought together as many people (though Space, Robotics, and
Castle are very high)
The bottom line is that numbers don't mean anything without the details
surrounding them. We can probably all agree that a company must design new
products that customers want, advertise those products, and make them available
in order to sell them.
What I can't understand is why TLG would stop designing new 9V sets, not put
them in stores, and then wonder why they are not selling?
Please, will someone say that TLG will re-evaluate their research for facts and
figures that were not seen before?
Most sincerely,
Scott Wardlaw
|
|
| |
Alright, I think that most of us could buy into a new system of trains, if the
right conditions were met.
Absolutely must have conditions:
1) Enough torque in each motor to pull at least 10 cars
2) Compact component(s) that do not inhibit creativity
3) Power source that will last at least 4 hours
4) Variable speed control from at least 20 meters away
5) Control signal that is not limited to direct line of sight
6) Control system allowing for at least 4 different trains to operate at once
Conditions that would cause me to 'upgrade':
1) Power source is the track
2) Controlled by Radio Frequency (RF) or through the track as DCC packets
3) Three axles per truck motor
4) Ability to add a separately controlled device on a momentary switch such as:
a steam generator, or train horn
5) Ability to add a separately controlled device on an on/off switch such as a
headlight or electro-magnetic coupler
Some other considerations:
Batteries are harmful to the environment, can be costly, and contribute to waist
If you absolutely have to go with batteries, consider purchasing a modern
technology battery from A123Systems. Also consider giving the trains charging
points that either contact the track, or on the bottom of each motorized truck.
This would enable batteries to be re-charged through 9V track rails or at an
isolated charging station like an engine shed or roundhouse.
Lastly, if you must have a battery powered system, consider hiding the battery
in the fuel tank. It would need to be a system where the aesthetic face could
be removed and exchanged for different fuel tank 'faces'; such as the current 9V
motor has aesthetic side pieces in black or gray.
Infrared (IR) technology is cheap and most people are getting smarter about its
line of sight needs. Please don't cheap out on your valued customers. IR
controllers are fine for some things, but not for this. If you have to go
wireless, please go with something robust like RF. It will certainly be worth
the pennies more that you will spend making them.
With the greatest of sincerity,
Scott Wardlaw
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
> Dear all,
>
> Many of you are aware of the on-going discussions on the 9V train system. We
> would like to thank you all for the input you provided to us directly and
> through different channels. Based on critical business decisions and the
> consultations and discussions with various AFOLs we have decided to focus on one
> single solution in order to avoid the complexity of maintaining two systems in
> parallel and in order to solve the issues we have with the actual 9V system and
> the remote control City train system. We envision one upgradeable train system
> for all ages in the future.
>
> The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
> the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
> profitable and competitive. The existing machines need to be replaced and
> minimum order quantities at external suppliers for motors and speed regulators
> are so high that the investment The LEGO Group would have to put in, would not
> be rational or reasonable compared to sales figures of the existing 9V system.
>
> The implication of this is that the 9v elements sold now are the last of the
> remaining stock and subsequent production of elements for the 9V platform has
> ceased.
>
> The LEGO Group will launch elements for a new train system based on the new
> electric LEGO Power Functions system in 2009. Using the LEGO Power Functions
> system the new train system will benefit from a set of electric elements that
> are cross theme, widely available and not completely train specific which allows
> us to amortize the development and on going cost across multiple themes. We are
> at an early development stage of the new train system and several AFOLs are
> already involved in the development process, to ensure that the new system will
> accommodate the types of features and functions requested by the AFOL community.
> This collaboration with AFOLs is very important to The LEGO Group and we strive
> to involve the Adult Fan Community as much as possible.
>
> Holger Matthes, Germany, currently member of the AFOL team which is involved in
> the process of developing the new system explains the situation in this way:
>
> “The LEGO train system has to fulfill different needs for different target
> groups in a very special way. On the one hand it’s a toy for kids because it is
> easy to set up and because of the playability in the kid’s room, and on the
> other hand it is also for AFOLs who build huge LEGO train layouts with realistic
> looking train models and functionality. The LEGO Group is aware of this and the
> company tries to support both needs within the given restrictions (e.g. costs
> for a niche product like the LEGO trains).”
>
> Using the universal LEGO Power Functions system for trains will give The LEGO
> Group the ability to match the demands and wishes of the AFOL Train community in
> the future.
>
> Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
>
> “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
>
> He continues:
>
> “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
>
> These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
> future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
> Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
> share with you before the end of the year.
>
>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
Well thank you Lego. This is the final nail in the coffin. Changing the grey's
and brown colours, killing the 9v trains. The least you could have done was keep
up with the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar. No excuses like "There may be
many variables including taxes, exchange rates and country laws which can affect
the market value.Suggested retail prices for our product assortment are
determined well in advance. We rely on professional studies of the dollar
fluctuations over a multi year horizon to determine the suggested retail price
which will not change during the product assortment year. The suggested retail
price of our products has historically not fluctuated every time the value of
the dollar rises or falls to maintain an annual harmonized price." *Taken from
an email I got from Lego about the difference in the US and Canadian dollar*
Another failure by Lego to determine the desire for the 9v trains. As mentioned
before the lack of sales in the train line has nothing to do with the power
source, but the lack of marketing and availability.
I'm out. I'm done. See ya Lego. I wonder what Mega Bloks is coming out with next
year?
|
|
| |
I have probably said this before but here goes again. I can think of few other
sub-cultures that are as educated, creative (in an engineering way), and
passionate as the LEGO sub-culture. I have constantly been amazed at the
incredibly creative solutions that y'all come up with to solve almost any
problem with bricks and programming. I mean, heck, when there was not a 3d
graphical design solution--y'all simply wrote one. Well, I do not mean it was
simple, just that is was just done. There was not a sculpture program, so
someone wrote one. There was not a mosaic program, so someone wrote one. Y'all
write OPERATING SYSTEMS, for heavens sake. How much trouble can it be to come up
with an alternative track and alternative motor? Many of you are incredible
mechanical engineers--electrical engineers--software engineers-some are even
probably civil engineers.
My background is in product design and I know there are always plenty of viable
solutions out there if someone or group will just do it.
I mean--y'all are really smarter and more creative in many ways than TLG--
I just seem to find it funny that y'all cannot come up with a "standard"
alternative to the problem. You already have the specification list and that is
30% of the solution.
Am I missing something? I might be. Now I do not want to criticize anyone--and
this is not meant to be critical--but how difficult would it be to get a group
to come together, create a specification, and then get it manufactured? If y'all
really have the numbers that you think you have, it has to be worth the effort
for some small nimble company to fill the niche.
Tommy Armstrong
|
|
| |
The simple fact is that no matter what products are on the shelf or how
good (or crap) the design is, trains that get their power from the track
(ala 9V) will ALWAYS be more expensive than a matching train that takes
battery power (rechargeable or throwaway). TLC has said as much many times.
No matter how many people would buy a 9V train set, there will always be
more people who would buy the battery train (because its cheaper and/or has
more parts for the same cost)
|
|
| |
In order for any replacement for 9V to be acceptable to me (and to get my
money) it must meet the following conditions:
1.Track must be 100% compatible with 9V track (as in, same size, same
shape, same studs, same connections between track pieces etc). Also, all
trains in the new system must be able to be run over existing 9V and RC
track (such as the recently released RC track crossing piece). The current
RC train track fits this requirement and likely unless they are going for
track powered trains, LEGO will continue to use this same track for the new
trains.
2.The battery box must be very compact. The small battery box that takes a
9V battery is close but still a little big. This is important for people
(like myself) that build steam locomotives and other small vehicles which
are too small to fit current battery boxes like the power functions battery
box or the technic battery box.
3.It must support extra connections (at a minimum it must support either
current 9V light bricks or a replacement with the same form factor that can
shine through the various front headlight prisms LEGO have made for 9V). If
it can support a small sound module (similar to the sort of thing used in
the dinosaur set or the motorbike set) which could make appropriate train
sound effects, even better.
4.If the track is not used for power and control, control (i.e. speed,
direction) must NOT require line of sight. I have no idea what technology
it uses but I believe whatever fisher-price are using for the GeoTrax does
not require line of sight (nor is it expensive as far as I can see plus it
allows multiple vehicles at once without problems). Being able to send a
seperate signal to trigger the sound effects (such as a horn or whistle)
would be great but not essential.
5.The motor must be the same form factor as the current 9V and RC train
motor units with studs in the same place (so it can drop into existing
designs and ways of building)
6.The parts for the system including the motor, battery box, remote
control, track, cables, light and sound units (if any) and other specialist
parts must be available as seperate items (from shop @ home if not from retail)
These conditions are based on the assumption that any new system will not
be powered via track power (LEGO have said many times in the past that
metal track is a lot more expensive than plastic track so I seriously doubt
any new system will be track powered)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> 4.If the track is not used for power and control, control (i.e. speed,
> direction) must NOT require line of sight.
It would also be great if "on-track charging" was possible, like the racer track
or the strips used to re-charge cars at Legolands
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> > Steve Barile, USA – President of ILTCO (International LEGO Train Club
> > Organization) and one of the involved AFOLs says about the new train system:
> > “I am excited that the new universal Power Functions system can make track side
> > accessories viable and potentially automated and interactive.”
> >
> > He continues:
> >
> > “With the track being exclusively plastic the LEGO Power Functions Train system
> > has the potential for new and innovative track geometries and continued
> > innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs.”
Well, automated/interactive track-side accessories and innovative track
geometries are kind of pointless if I can't pull an actual train.
> Well, this is something of a blow to the LTC's doing shows. If the decision has
> been made to discontinue the line and work on a replacment, let us be proactive,
> and indicate the positives of the 9V system that should be worked into a new
> product. I'll start:
>
> Key needs for a new LEGO Train system:
For me, the ability to pull long (10+ cars) heavy trains for at least 6 hours at
a time with little to no attention to keeping them running is necessary. I can
do it now, I'd like to be able to continue to do so.
If new motors are going to be of the Power Functions variety, they need to be
small enough to fit inside a locomotive, and have connection points that don't
require Technic pins. I don't have any of the Power Functions bits, but a quick
browse this morning seems to indicate that everything has studless connections.
Keeping the number of batteries to a minimum would be nice as well. Batteries
are heavy, and need to be replaced, which is 90% of the reason that I don't use
my RCX, NXT, and R/C parts more often, and the #1 reason why I didn't purchase
an RC Cargo Train.
-Elroy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Eric Kingsley wrote:
> Even a robust, rechargable battery
> system has considerable limitations.
Absolutely. So does powering the system through the rails, actually - in order
to control multiple trains you need carefully isolated sections of track (which
LEGO never made in the first place) and rigorous control, as well as booster
stations along the line to account for the voltage drop, etc. Heck, if there's a
rechargable system based on the PF, I could see the possibility of an NXT using
the Hitechnic IRLink to automate engine switching as the batteries flag... and
if you add custom metal wheels and a single piece of old 9V track or similar,
and automated recharging station. Here the biggest limitation would be the
number of channels (8 channels in the current PF system would imply only 8
motors under independant control before conflicts). Heck, picture a PF-driven
train with one motor controling the motion (forward back, but perhaps not with
speed control... another drawback), and a second powering a power pick-up off
the side of a car to drive loading or unloading stations, trip points, etc. Or
you might be able to use the two PW motor sugnals to drive an IC to have true
PWM control of the train motor power level.
> I guess this means a change of direction for the whole 9vtrains.com
> domain. "Save" doesn't really seem to fit anymore does it? I want to find
> another way to support the community, if anyone has in idea on how I can
> transform what has been built in terms of functionality for save 9vtrains
> into something that has value for the community please let me know.
Note that when the robotics folks really wanted new sensors, well... they made
them. And some folks got so good at making them that not only did they start
small buisnesses, but that later those buisnesses were recognized by LEGO and
asked to participate in the next round of design for the robotics platform.
Understand that I think custom designing stuff to try to get into the LEGO
development process is foolish... but developing the system you want, with the
features you feel you need, and cladding it in LEGO might be an ideal use for
the energy swirling around the 9V stuff.
If you want RF control - do it. Same for high-capacity batteries, power-pickups
to continuously recharge trains on a siding, automation of accessories, etc. You
do it for wheels now (Ben), and lots of folks have hacked digital control into
the train motors and controled them with the RCX... where do you want to go? Go
there.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Elroy Davis wrote:
> If new motors are going to be of the Power Functions variety,
> they need to be small enough to fit inside a locomotive, and
> have connection points that don't require Technic pins.
The Medium PF motors is 4 studs wide by 6 studs long, and has a 6x2 plate
portion on the bottom (no studs on top). The other motor is called the "XL PF
Motor", which would hopefully imply that somebody within LEGO might have been
*thinking* about a "small" version as well, but if so I've not seen it yet.
Torque-wise, these are fairly powerful (and current-hungry) motors - the "XL"
variety is very similar to the NXT motors in terms of total power, but I'm not
sure I've seen a good measure on the medium one yet (it "feels strong"). The
"XL" motor is studless (and wider), while the PF receiver is 4x4 (and somewhat
tall) with a plate bottom and some studs on top. The battery box however is
currently studless, and big (although you could hide it in a boxcar I think).
> Batteries are heavy, and need to be replaced, which
> is 90% of the reason that I don't use my RCX, NXT,
> and R/C parts more often...
Agreed that weight is a problem. The NXT Li-ion pack is nice weight and
power-wise, but Li-ions (like any battery, but perhaps more so) do age.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Harvey Henkelman wrote:
> No matter how much 'AFOL input' there is, it will be
> the decision of the company in the end (of course)
Actually... that's kind of a good buisness model I'm told.
> And the motors are guaranteed to be underpowered (similar
> to the R/C stuff). Also, battery-operated toys are not
> taken seriously by the vast majority of hobbyists.
I did want to mention two points here. First, battery-powered motors don't have
to be "underpowered". As an example, the PF XL motor or the NXT motors (several
of us have twisted axles with these under stall or near-stall conditions...
short axles, even). And as to "not taken seriously", well... first, is the goal
to be taken seriously, or to have fun in a hobby? And second, I always have to
giggle a little when somebody says that over in a robitcs forum, until somebody
liek Steve Hassenplug (or others of us) kick robot butt with a "cute little
plastic toy":
http://www.robotroom.com/Jet.html
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
<snip>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
Thank you for making a decision on this. Those 'in the know' have known this
was a decision that needed to be made for a while now and I'm pleased that a
decision and a course of direction are now set.
Over the years I've done a lot with the 9v metal rails. I know it's advantages
and disadvantages. Personally, I'm excited to see LEGO go in a new direction
and in a way that will hopefully be more profitable for them. I see it this
way, if LEGO were to continue the old system of metal rails there would never be
any reinvestment in it since it doesn't make any money. Now you could argue
that it doesn't make a profit because they don't invest in it. Perhaps so. But
the way I see it, LEGO is a plastic company - they are very good at making
things in plastic and outsource all electro-mechanical and metal components.
Thus it makes sense to me that they should keep as much as they can in house -
hence all plastic track. And the more profitable any line is the more support
there will be into the product line (example: Bionicle gets lots of new pieces
because it is a profitable product line)
The current 9v metal rails have many advantages and disadvantages. I feel that
the advantages of pursuing a new train system offers opportunities far beyond
sticking with the old.
A good many of us will be left speculating on what it will be while a select
number of AFOL train heads will contribute to LEGO on what the new system will
be. I don't know who they are, but I do expect they will be under a non
disclosure agreement and won't even be able to contribute to this dialog.
However, I do know the depth of talent and passion that exist with AFOL train
heads and whomever contributes will do their best to make the new system the
best that it can be.
I'm looking forward to the opportunities ahead.
Kind regards,
Ben Fleskes
Big Ben Bricks LLC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Adam Murtha wrote:
> Well thank you Lego. This is the final nail in the coffin. Changing the grey's
> and brown colours, killing the 9v trains. The least you could have done was keep
> up with the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar. No excuses like "There may be
> many variables including taxes, exchange rates and country laws which can affect
> the market value.Suggested retail prices for our product assortment are
> determined well in advance. We rely on professional studies of the dollar
> fluctuations over a multi year horizon to determine the suggested retail price
> which will not change during the product assortment year. The suggested retail
> price of our products has historically not fluctuated every time the value of
> the dollar rises or falls to maintain an annual harmonized price." *Taken from
> an email I got from Lego about the difference in the US and Canadian dollar*
> Another failure by Lego to determine the desire for the 9v trains. As mentioned
> before the lack of sales in the train line has nothing to do with the power
> source, but the lack of marketing and availability.
>
> I'm out. I'm done. See ya Lego. I wonder what Mega Bloks is coming out with next
> year?
Being also a Canadian, I have many of the same gripes as you do towards LEGO. I
remember a time not so long ago when the prices for Canadian Shop@Home were
given in US$. When the CDN$ started going up, they changed their prices to CDN$
for our "convenience" with an exchange rate that was anythig but.
Maybe we should approach MEGA-BLOKS to come up with their own train line. If
some other manufacturer shows interest in trains, at the very least, it would
force LEGO to take interest and stop considering us as a captive audience. At
least their headquarters are on the North American continent (Montreal), they
might be more receptive to our needs. We could finally get those large redius
curves we've always wanted plus new geometry switches. Personally, I'd like to
get a (more or less) accurate North American freight truck. They have never
been afraid to take on LEGO and their products are a lot better than some of you
guys seem to think. (I personnally like the ProBuilder line but I don't care
much for Dragons or Pyrates).
If anyone else is interested, maybe we could put together something and present
our case to MEGA-BLOKS. I live about an hour's drive from their headquarters
and I could probably arrange to meet them. If anyone wants to contribute, drop
me an email.
Daniel Aubin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> I have probably said this before but here goes again. I can think of few other
> sub-cultures that are as educated, creative (in an engineering way), and
> passionate as the LEGO sub-culture. I have constantly been amazed at the
> incredibly creative solutions that y'all come up with to solve almost any
> problem with bricks and programming. I mean, heck, when there was not a 3d
> graphical design solution--y'all simply wrote one. Well, I do not mean it was
> simple, just that is was just done. There was not a sculpture program, so
> someone wrote one. There was not a mosaic program, so someone wrote one. Y'all
> write OPERATING SYSTEMS, for heavens sake. How much trouble can it be to come up
> with an alternative track and alternative motor? Many of you are incredible
> mechanical engineers--electrical engineers--software engineers-some are even
> probably civil engineers.
>
> My background is in product design and I know there are always plenty of viable
> solutions out there if someone or group will just do it.
>
> I mean--y'all are really smarter and more creative in many ways than TLG--
>
> I just seem to find it funny that y'all cannot come up with a "standard"
> alternative to the problem. You already have the specification list and that is
> 30% of the solution.
>
> Am I missing something? I might be. Now I do not want to criticize anyone--and
> this is not meant to be critical--but how difficult would it be to get a group
> to come together, create a specification, and then get it manufactured? If y'all
> really have the numbers that you think you have, it has to be worth the effort
> for some small nimble company to fill the niche.
>
>
> Tommy Armstrong
I have to throw something in here...
Tommy probably doesn't realize this (and I'm probably breaking some rule by
telling him), but those of us up heah yonder Nawth sometimes use words like
"y'all" in a condescending, rednecky way. But for those of you reading this, I
want you to know that Tommy really does sound like he types. He actually talks
like that. It's not a redneck kinda sound, though, it's the Southern Gentleman
sound. More Andy Griffith or Jed Clampett, not so much Jeff Foxworthy or Boss
Hog.
He ain't all that bad.... for a Rebel.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ben Fleskes wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> <SNIPPY>
>
> A good many of us will be left speculating on what it will be while a select
> number of AFOL train heads will contribute to LEGO on what the new system will
> be. I don't know who they are, but I do expect they will be under a non
> disclosure agreement and won't even be able to contribute to this dialog.
> However, I do know the depth of talent and passion that exist with AFOL train
> heads and whomever contributes will do their best to make the new system the
> best that it can be.
>
> I'm looking forward to the opportunities ahead.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ben Fleskes
> Big Ben Bricks LLC
Ben,
I couldn't agree more. We have to look at this not as the end of an era, but as
a new beginning and a chance to embrace new technology. I am thoroughly excited
about the possibilities that lie ahead for LEGO Trains. As you stated, this is
a decision that needed to be made and I'm glad we finally have an answer. Now
we can all move forward and help to make the new platform the best it can
possibly be. It's a brave new world...
-Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
the way I see it, LEGO is a plastic company - they are very good at making
things in plastic and outsource all electro-mechanical and metal components.
|
I’m going to take this comment and take the idea one step further (and use you
as an example to boot:-)
I agree with you, Ben, and more importantly, I believe that is how TLG sees
themselves as well. Further, I believe TLG believes itself to be a toy company
that makes toys for children. Yes, I believe they see and understand that
adults can and do use them too, but for whatever reason, they cannot seem to
grasp the concept of marketing directly to them. I believe they will never
pursue a LEGO hobby train market.
Sure, they released the 10183 Hobby Train
Set, but with all due respect, that set is basically a train parts pack. There
seems to be this idea that TLG cannot make money by pursuing such a limited
market as adult LEGO trainheads. What’s funny is that there are all kinds of
companies that produce all kinds of things for small train markets: Z (Z!), N,
HO, S (S!!), O, G (G!!!). Don’t they all know that that can’t be done??
Ahem, and so my point: This is a seminal moment for me in my status as a LEGO
hobby train enthusiast. TLG has refused to cater to me and to those like me,
and if they won’t, somebody else will. And it’s already happened. Ben, you
took it upon yourself to produce your own driver wheels. Bully! The LEGO train
hobby is better for your efforts, as it will be better for the future efforts of
others as well-- and for the current efforts of others.
What I mean by that is that from now on, I will be using parts produced by
companies OTHER than TLG for my LEGO trains. The idea of “purity” is toast to
me. Sure, I’ll still have some personal guidelines, but really, hasn’t it
always been thusly? Stickers, BBB wheels, souped-up controllers, LEDs, metal
rods, a cut here and there-- those are just some of my “impurities”.
But now, the canard of purity has finally been dashed for good. Because it’s
either accepting that reality, or leave the hobby (with purity intact)
altogether. Some have already stated their intentions to do just that, and
that’s fine. Personally, I believe it will be liberating. So, I’ll find train
parts, electronics, etc, made by companies who were willing to produce them, and
not ask or rely on TLG to make versions which need to double as a child’s toy,
too.
It sounds heretical, I know, but one day we will all laugh. I’m laughing
already:-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
> > I mean--y'all are really smarter and more creative in many ways than
> > TLG--
> >
> > Tommy Armstrong
>
> I have to throw something in here...
>
> Tommy probably doesn't realize this (and I'm probably breaking some rule
> by
> telling him), but those of us up heah yonder Nawth sometimes use words
> like
> "y'all" in a condescending, rednecky way. But for those of you reading
> this, I
> want you to know that Tommy really does sound like he types. He actually
> talks
> like that. It's not a redneck kinda sound, though, it's the Southern
> Gentleman
> sound. More Andy Griffith or Jed Clampett, not so much Jeff Foxworthy or
> Boss
> Hog.
>
> He ain't all that bad.... for a Rebel.
Are ya'll makin fun of us purebread (not imbred as you may suspect) good
ole' country boys? Don't make me call up Roy D. Murcer to come whoop your
...
:P
-Rob
FUT - o-t.fun
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> Agreed that weight is a problem. The NXT Li-ion pack is nice weight and
> power-wise, but Li-ions (like any battery, but perhaps more so) do age.
More accurately, Li-Ion batteries, _unlike_ most other battery types, do age.
NiCads wear out through use, or through improper partial charging, and have a
moderate shelf discharge (depleting the charge while just sitting unused).
NiMHs wear out through use and have a high shelf discharge, but are not prone to
memory effects from partial charging. Newer NiMHs even get around the big shelf
discharge problem and claims are that they can hold up to 80% of a charge for a
full year while waiting to be put to use (this type will actually ship
pre-charged unlike the old ones). Li-Ion batteries, however, begin to corrode
internally from the moment of manufacture, and age, more than use, is the most
common cause of death. It is possible to wear them out through use, but you'd
have to use it a lot more regularly than most train systems would be likely to
be used. And considering that for a show you'd have to have several sets
available to keep up with the recharging process, they'd be even less likely to
wear out through use, but they do offer one of the best power-to-weight ratios
of any rechargable battery. They can also be killed by deep discharge, but
that's a mandatory safety feature because recharging them at that point could
result in the battery exploding.
Now, the only battery type that's clearly even better for use in a system like
this than Li-Ion is Lithium Ion Polymer, which has no need for a metal casing,
thus boosting the power-to-weight ratio. LiPo cells, however, max out at 4.23v,
which means two will run slightly less than 9v and three will run much higher.
Incidentally, this is the type of battery used for the NXT rechargable pack,
which would explain why people find it runs a bit underpowered compared to six
fresh 1.5v alkalines (which generally ship at slightly higher than 1.5v). I
don't know if LiPo batteries corrode in the same manner as Li-Ion, but I do know
that for long runs, a rechargable pack that's almost 9v can actually run better
than alkalines, which will slowly drop in voltage as their charge is depleted.
A few hours into a heavy draw discharge, the alkalines could end up running less
voltage than the LiPo/Li-Ion/NiMH/NiCad rechargables would, which is the reason
battery manufacturers market batteries other than standard alkalines for
high-draw devices like digital cameras.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Steve Witt wrote:
> but it won't be an entirely "from the ground up" situation like the switch >from
> 12v to 9v. There will be a lot of compatibility between the two systems.
>
> Steve
Steve,
Pardon me for saying so, but your statement above is a little confusing. How was
the conversion from 12v to 9v a "ground up" switch. The 12v trains I have run on
the 9v track. The 9v trains I have run on the 12v track I have (well they would
if I had one of those European to US power conversion things).
Other than the track rails carrying the voltage and the regulators changing,
there seems to be little else that is different.
It does give some support to the assertion that there will be backward
compatibility. If the 12v to 9v was a "ground up" situation, then I welcome the
small changes the new system will bring.
Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> No other theme, has brought together as many people (though Space, Robotics,
> and Castle are very high)
*coughBIONICLEcough* Ok, granted, it rarely involves face-to-face interaction
on the same level as more AFOL-friendly themes, but it still counts.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Harvey Henkelman wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> The self-contained, truck-mounted electric motor drawing track current is the
> most low-profile design available. Any deviation from this will serve as a crimp
> on creative possibilities. Again witness the R/C system.
>
> > As it is now, I will spend less for LEGO to 'house' my layout and I will
> > continue to do train shows until my motors burn out. After that...
>
>
>
> After your motors burn out, you'll have expensive push toys <G>
> -HRH
Hey Harvey,
I think you missed the point in the original post by Steve. The next "Train"
will have motors as well. What we do not know is if the motors will fit in
existing locomotive designs allowing the trains to look realistic.
If the new motors are based upon the new Power Functions sets, like Monster
Dino, Ferris Wheel, or the Bulldozer, then perhaps this will work. I do not
know. There are many questions left unanswered that hopefully LEGO will reveal
soon.
Todd
|
|
| |
Eric,
I am considering buying stock in battery manufacturing. How about you?
I have probably already spent a considerable sum of money on powering my
Mindstorms robots.
Maybe someone will design a butane based fuel cell that will work. Or perhaps a
solar power solution will work.
Not funny, I know, but my glass is half-full.
Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> Let see key needs for a new system. The ability to plug it in. No seriously,
> they should use the new wireless power transfer technology that is starting to
> get some serious attention in Popular Mechanics and other such publications.
> Frankly if the system relies on batteries its already sunk for most AFOL train
> show purposes. Wireless power however could do some seriously wonderful things.
> Of course I can't imagine how bleeding edge technology would be cheaper than
> maintaining the 9v standard so were back to batteries. Ugh.
> -Mike Petrucelli
Mike,
Excellent idea! I have read similar stories in tech magazines about how we might
never need to plug a cell phone in to power again. Laying it on the surface of
counter top with the power sending device mounted inside or underneath could
charge a phone.
I doubt that LEGO has that in the works for 2009, but that woul make an
excellent modification.
For those that do not know, the technology uses radiowaves transmitted to an
internal component in the receiver. The oscillation set up by the receiver is
able to charge an internal battery. I wonder what the lab benches have discerned
about longevity and recharge requirements. A motor seems like it would need a
lot more power than a cell phone though.
Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> Am I missing something? I might be. Now I do not want to criticize anyone--
> and this is not meant to be critical--but how difficult would it be to get a
> group to come together, create a specification, and then get it
> manufactured? If y'all really have the numbers that you think you have, it
> has to be worth the effort for some small nimble company to fill the niche.
Writing programs or operating systems requires only three things. Knowledge,
creativity, and time. The creativity clearly isn't an issue for the AFOL
community, and any true hobbyist will find time when and where possible.
Knowledge is the only major catching point, which is why not _every_ NXT user is
crafting operating systems and not every digital builder is writing their own
modeling programs. Now, a handful of people have also proven that designing
custom parts and getting them manufactured is also not impossible, but generally
only for small stuff (I think the largest I've seen so far are the new cows that
BrickForge recently posted for sale). Unfortunately, the larger and more
complex the part is, the more expensive the moldmaking process will be, and many
of the track geometries that people would be really interested in seeing
produced are much more complex than anything that's been released so far for the
9v system (such as the double-crossover from the RC Train line).
Rapid prototyping works for one-off designs, though every RP I've ever seen has
visible terracing on curved surfaces. Getting clean curvy parts requires
labor-intensive cleanup, though since all the existing train track pieces are
flat, that shouldn't be nearly as much of a problem as it would for parts with
complex curves. They would still probably show evidence of the RP process, but
not as much. On the plus side, RP parts would be cheaper for small runs, since
there would be no physical molds required. However, if demand is high enough,
molded parts will soak the cost of the molds. Unless you can get people to pony
up cash in advance (not likely after a certain magazine fiasco), you'll never
for sure which route will be most cost effective.
Now, add to this the fact that most current custom part manufacturers are making
parts that are small enough that they can save production costs by setting up
multi-part molds, whereas the only track geometries that I can see being able to
take advantage of that capability are stubbies (center of one tie to the next,
either curved or straight). And of course you have people who wouldn't buy them
no matter how well they're made for the simple reason that they aren't
_official_ LEGO, or because they wouldn't even be aware that custom track
designs were even being made (essentially, anyone who isn't aware of ILTCO).
It's definitely possible, but the costs would be prohibitively high for most
people to even consider, and that's just for all-plastic track, not even getting
into the application of sheet metal rail coverings (which require both custom
cutting dies and machines to attach them to the plastic bases). Fans will
probably love the idea of being able to buy new 9v track geometries, but many
will balk at the idea of paying even twice what The LEGO Company would have
likely charged for the same part, and that's assuming a custom manufacturer
could even keep costs that low (I doubt it's possible without intentionally
taking a loss on the project).
|
|
| |
Snip
> Now, add to this the fact that most current custom part manufacturers are
> making
> parts that are small enough that they can save production costs by setting
> up
> multi-part molds, whereas the only track geometries that I can see being
> able to
> take advantage of that capability are stubbies (center of one tie to the
> next,
> either curved or straight). And of course you have people who wouldn't
> buy them
> no matter how well they're made for the simple reason that they aren't
> _official_ LEGO, or because they wouldn't even be aware that custom track
> designs were even being made (essentially, anyone who isn't aware of
> ILTCO).
> It's definitely possible, but the costs would be prohibitively high for
> most
> people to even consider, and that's just for all-plastic track, not even
> getting
> into the application of sheet metal rail coverings (which require both
> custom
> cutting dies and machines to attach them to the plastic bases). Fans will
> probably love the idea of being able to buy new 9v track geometries, but
> many
> will balk at the idea of paying even twice what The LEGO Company would
> have
> likely charged for the same part, and that's assuming a custom
> manufacturer
> could even keep costs that low (I doubt it's possible without
> intentionally
> taking a loss on the project).
So, what about taking another route and simply approach one of the many
model railroad companies to see their interest in making something more like
what THEY already make that *could* suit our needs? I'd love to see some
unofficial brass L-Guage track. Heck, I might even be inclined to make that
garden railway I always wanted. (hi John!)...
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
www.lifelites.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Todd Thuma wrote:
| |
Maybe someone will design a butane based fuel cell that will work. Or perhaps
a solar power solution will work.
|
This reminds me - has anyone built a fully functioning overhead rail electric
train layout where the power is provided by the overhead wires like this:
This would alleviate the need for powered rails and do away with the battery
issue. True, it would only work for prototypical electrified trains like seen
on the Northeast Corridor, but it would be neat to see if more people could
adapt the newer trains to this configuration. Too bad no freight trains that I
can think of use electric like this - it seems only passenger trains use
overhead wires?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Todd Thuma wrote:
| |
Maybe someone will design a butane based fuel cell that will work. Or
perhaps a solar power solution will work.
|
This reminds me - has anyone built a fully functioning overhead rail electric
train layout where the power is provided by the overhead wires like this:
This would alleviate the need for powered rails and do away with the battery
issue. True, it would only work for prototypical electrified trains like
seen on the Northeast Corridor, but it would be neat to see if more people
could adapt the newer trains to this configuration. Too bad no freight
trains that I can think of use electric like this - it seems only passenger
trains use overhead wires?
|
The only issue with this is that standard catenary has a single wire to deliver
current, and metal rails act as the “ground” for the circuit. One could instead
adopt a setup like that used for electric buses in cities such as San Francisco,
where there are two overhead wires and two contacts. The link has a picture:
http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2001/_more02/US-CA-San-Francisco-by-bus-001-electric-trolley-bus-power-cables-overhead-bus-has-orange-red-white-livery-DHD.jpg
This is very doable, if a bit less than prototypical. And it is an idea that
can be tested and improved even with current hardware - one just needs some
motors (9V or otherwise) and a 9V speed regulator to supply current to the
overhead lines.
-Jordan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> The simple fact is that no matter what products are on the shelf or how
> good (or crap) the design is, trains that get their power from the track
> (ala 9V) will ALWAYS be more expensive than a matching train that takes
> battery power (rechargeable or throwaway). TLC has said as much many times.
> No matter how many people would buy a 9V train set, there will always be
> more people who would buy the battery train (because its cheaper and/or has
> more parts for the same cost)
Also, Add Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) rules that anything using
AC power means minimum age 7 on the box, and with Duplo going around age 5, that
means a gap in trains from age 5 to 7. The new battery train has a lower age
range of 6 years old on the box.
A lot of engineers buy LEGO product, but not everyone who buys LEGO product is
an engineer. Thus, a lot of moms buying products for their children will not
check on what is going to be a better system, due to their own background. (I
know of a mother that purchases a lot of LEGO trains for her daughter, and the
mother is an electrical engineer...guess what type of trains she's buying for
her daughter? yep... 9V, and they even got a hobby train to expand her trains).
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
This reminds me - has anyone built a fully functioning overhead rail electric
train layout where the power is provided by the overhead wires like this:
This would alleviate the need for powered rails and do away with the battery
issue. True, it would only work for prototypical electrified trains like
seen on the Northeast Corridor, but it would be neat to see if more people
could adapt the newer trains to this configuration. Too bad no freight
trains that I can think of use electric like this - it seems only passenger
trains use overhead wires?
|
Two-pole contact is needed. But most of the electrified railways use only one
overhead wire (like the ex-Soviet loco in the photo). The only examples of
more-wire systems I know about, are deep in the history:
--Siemens’ experimental high-speed train, 1903 (3-wire, 3-phase AC)
--Tabor-Bechyne railway in southern Bohemia, 1903 (2-wire, DC, for safety
reasons = lower voltage between wire and ground), 1930s rebuilt
to single wire
--some mountain railways in the Alps (2-wire, 3-phase???)
The freight/passenger question: I don’t know much about U.S. trains, but in
Europe there are electric locos that pull freight trains as well as passenger
trains.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Adam Murtha wrote:
>
> Well thank you Lego. This is the final nail in the coffin. Changing the grey's
> and brown colours, killing the 9v trains. The least you could have done was keep
> up with the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar. No excuses like "There may be
> many variables including taxes, exchange rates and country laws which can affect
> the market value.Suggested retail prices for our product assortment are
> determined well in advance. We rely on professional studies of the dollar
> fluctuations over a multi year horizon to determine the suggested retail price
> which will not change during the product assortment year. The suggested retail
> price of our products has historically not fluctuated every time the value of
> the dollar rises or falls to maintain an annual harmonized price." *Taken from
> an email I got from Lego about the difference in the US and Canadian dollar*
> Another failure by Lego to determine the desire for the 9v trains. As mentioned
> before the lack of sales in the train line has nothing to do with the power
> source, but the lack of marketing and availability.
>
> I'm out. I'm done. See ya Lego. I wonder what Mega Bloks is coming out with next
> year?
Hey Adam,
Will you sell me you 9v stuff?
Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Now, add to this the fact that most current custom part manufacturers are
making parts that are small enough that they can save production costs by
setting up multi-part molds, whereas the only track geometries that I can see
being able to take advantage of that capability are stubbies (center of one
tie to the next, either curved or straight). And of course you have people
who wouldn’t buy them no matter how well they’re made for the simple reason
that they aren’t official LEGO, or because they wouldn’t even be aware that
custom track designs were even being made (essentially, anyone who isn’t aware
of ILTCO). It’s definitely possible, but the costs would be prohibitively high
for most people to even consider, and that’s just for all-plastic track, not
even getting into the application of sheet metal rail coverings (which require
both custom cutting dies and machines to attach them to the plastic bases).
Fans will probably love the idea of being able to buy new 9v track geometries,
but many will balk at the idea of paying even twice what The LEGO Company
would have likely charged for the same part, and that’s assuming a custom
manufacturer could even keep costs that low (I doubt it’s possible without
intentionally taking a loss on the project).
|
Funny how we as AFOLs have a hard time thinking “outside the box”. We
automatically assume that new track geometry necessarily requires large
sectional track pieces. The old 4.5-volt/12-volt system had separate ties
(sleepers in Europe), track and power sections (12-volt). Personally, I liked
this way better, even if it required quite a bit of time to set up. When the
9-volt system initially came out, I saw the track as a “juniorization” of the
train system.
It would probably be rather easy to make moulded ties with the proper studs in
which we could slip in standard model railway track (just the metal part) of the
appropriate size. This track is sold in bulk. Special tools called rail
benders allow you to curve it to whatever radius you want, bringing about those
large-radius curves everyone has been waiting for for so long. Where it gets a
bit complicated is for the switches and crossovers. These would probably have
to be hand-crafted. However, there are several talented people that modify
LEGO’s standard track that would be up to the challenge. Heck, they could even
make transition pieces to match up this track with standard 9-volt track.
As for power trucks, check out what’s available for standard model train
hobbyists; http://nwsl.com/Catalog/pg025-cat4-06c-v0605.pdf I’m sure that
they would be more than happy to make a modified version for us if there’s
sufficient interest.
So the future isn’t as bleak as it would seem. If we want, we can continue with
our hobby for a long time. Hell, some people (mostly in Europe) still continue
on with their 12-volt trains almost 20 years after it was discontinued. It will
probably mean cutting a few strings with the LEGO company but that could help
the hobby grow.
DA
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Todd Thuma wrote:
> Okay, I accept that the LEGO Company is moving on from the 9V trains. There is
> quite a history of them moving from one Train platform to another. How many of
> us have 12 volt or 4.5 volt trains?
Well I do.
The last 5 years I have build up a huge collection of blue track (both 12 volt
and 4.5 volt), as well as trains from that era (1966-1979) and many parts, like
motors, train bases, etc. All long after the last production run by TLC around
1979. And my collection is still growing.
And I do trainshows, too. I love the reactions of the public that remember the
blue track and buildings and vehicles they played with when they were young.
Even the reactions from young children recognizing this old stuff from their
grandparents toybox.
Since I started to do trainshows in 2004 (LegoWorld Zwolle, Netherlands), I see
that more and more people start to display blue track layouts. So there is
nothing wrong with displaying abandoned trainstuff. The audience will still like
it.
Personally I like the blue track era (both 4.5 and 12 volt) the most, but the
gray track era (again both 4.5 and 12 volt) had nice trains, too.
I am not so fond of the 9V trains. Actually I only like the Santa Fe train. The
9V track might need less maintenance to keep the trains running, but I call the
track Jack-Stone track, because of the large pieces. I like the building part of
the track with seperate sleepers and track, that's pure Lego :-)
The IR trains added the possibility to run new trains on the old tracks again.
The freight train 7898 is a superb set, a good selection of small parts and nice
designed train and cars and a lot of playability.
The all in one piece trainbase with battery box is a drawback, I agree. But in
the message at the start of this thread I read that the current IR train is also
abandoned in 2009. With a multi theme system, I think about a separate
batterybox that can be build anywhere, in trains, in space ships, in windmills,
in whatever one wants to build.
Yes, I am looking forward for the new train system in 2009. Since L scale will
still be used, I think about getting some of that new train stuff and combine it
with my large collection of blue track. Even if the track don't connect to the
blue track (as the current 9V and IR track don't), I don't mind, I have enough
blue track that I don't need the blay Jack-Stone track :-P
Before I got back to Lego and trains, I had H0 scale and N scale modeltrains.
Since the prices went way up I quit that hobby and started with Lego trains.
Second hand Lego trains can also be quite expensive (especially the 12V from the
gray track era), but I found many older trains for reasonable prices. I know
some very rare sets can get very pricy, but my goal is not to get set-complete,
but just have fun with those old Lego trains.
Niels
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ben Fleskes wrote:
> Over the years I've done a lot with the 9v metal rails. I know it's advantages
> and disadvantages. Personally, I'm excited to see LEGO go in a new direction
> and in a way that will hopefully be more profitable for them. I see it this
> way, if LEGO were to continue the old system of metal rails there would never be
> any reinvestment in it since it doesn't make any money. Now you could argue
> that it doesn't make a profit because they don't invest in it. Perhaps so. But
> the way I see it, LEGO is a plastic company - they are very good at making
> things in plastic and outsource all electro-mechanical and metal components.
> Thus it makes sense to me that they should keep as much as they can in house -
> hence all plastic track. And the more profitable any line is the more support
> there will be into the product line (example: Bionicle gets lots of new pieces
> because it is a profitable product line)
>
> The current 9v metal rails have many advantages and disadvantages. I feel that
> the advantages of pursuing a new train system offers opportunities far beyond
> sticking with the old.
>
> A good many of us will be left speculating on what it will be while a select
> number of AFOL train heads will contribute to LEGO on what the new system will
> be. I don't know who they are, but I do expect they will be under a non
> disclosure agreement and won't even be able to contribute to this dialog.
> However, I do know the depth of talent and passion that exist with AFOL train
> heads and whomever contributes will do their best to make the new system the
> best that it can be.
>
> I'm looking forward to the opportunities ahead.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ben Fleskes
> Big Ben Bricks LLC
Ben,
Well said! I couldn't have stated it any better. I too will wait, impatiently I
might add, for the reveal on the new system. I trust that if I lack the
creativity to make it work, I will do what I always do... Copy from the rest of
you.
This is not the end, but the growth and expansion of the train product line. If
TLG is right, and it sells, there will be plenty of garage sales in my future to
find train product. There will be plenty of growth in LEGO elements to keep the
trains going for years. It may mean thrid party track and motors, but it will go
on.
After all, essentially what is the train product line? A motor, a means of
supplying power to that motor, track, and finally bricks to hide the motor and
the power supply. As long as I don't spend more money on batteries than on the
bricks, and I can keep the train going around in circles for more than a few
mintues, and I can hide the motor and power with other elements, I am good to
go!
Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Daniel Aubin wrote:
| |
Funny how we as AFOLs have a hard time thinking “outside the box”. We
automatically assume that new track geometry necessarily requires large
sectional track pieces. The old 4.5-volt/12-volt system had separate ties
(sleepers in Europe), track and power sections (12-volt). Personally, I
liked this way better, even if it required quite a bit of time to set up.
When the 9-volt system initially came out, I saw the track as a
“juniorization” of the train system.
|
Hehe, so I’m not alone on that one :-)
| |
It would probably be rather easy to make moulded ties with the proper studs
in which we could slip in standard model railway track (just the metal part)
of the appropriate size. This track is sold in bulk. Special tools called
rail benders allow you to curve it to whatever radius you want, bringing
about those large-radius curves everyone has been waiting for for so long.
Where it gets a bit complicated is for the switches and crossovers. These
would probably have to be hand-crafted. However, there are several talented
people that modify LEGO’s standard track that would be up to the challenge.
Heck, they could even make transition pieces to match up this track with
standard 9-volt track.
|
A guy in the Netherlands is just trying this, even before this message of
discontinuation of the 9V line appeared.
| |
So the future isn’t as bleak as it would seem. If we want, we can continue
with our hobby for a long time. Hell, some people (mostly in Europe) still
continue on with their 12-volt trains almost 20 years after it was
discontinued. It will probably mean cutting a few strings with the LEGO
company but that could help the hobby grow.
|
About 5 years ago, I even started with Lego trains that were discontinued
23 years before. And I will be using them for a long time in the future.
Niels
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
> Snip
>
> > Now, add to this the fact that most current custom part manufacturers are
> > making
> > parts that are small enough that they can save production costs by setting
> > up
> > multi-part molds, whereas the only track geometries that I can see being
> > able to
> > take advantage of that capability are stubbies (center of one tie to the
> > next,
> > either curved or straight). And of course you have people who wouldn't
> > buy them
> > no matter how well they're made for the simple reason that they aren't
> > _official_ LEGO, or because they wouldn't even be aware that custom track
> > designs were even being made (essentially, anyone who isn't aware of
> > ILTCO).
> > It's definitely possible, but the costs would be prohibitively high for
> > most
> > people to even consider, and that's just for all-plastic track, not even
> > getting
> > into the application of sheet metal rail coverings (which require both
> > custom
> > cutting dies and machines to attach them to the plastic bases). Fans will
> > probably love the idea of being able to buy new 9v track geometries, but
> > many
> > will balk at the idea of paying even twice what The LEGO Company would
> > have
> > likely charged for the same part, and that's assuming a custom
> > manufacturer
> > could even keep costs that low (I doubt it's possible without
> > intentionally
> > taking a loss on the project).
>
> So, what about taking another route and simply approach one of the many
> model railroad companies to see their interest in making something more like
> what THEY already make that *could* suit our needs? I'd love to see some
> unofficial brass L-Guage track. Heck, I might even be inclined to make that
> garden railway I always wanted. (hi John!)...
>
> -Rob
> www.brickmodder.net
> www.lifelites.com
Hm, I wonder if TLG would fight them on a patent/design methodology? That would
be the first issue I see. However, on that note, what I would really like to
see is some way to get just metal tracks that would fit over the plastic track.
That way, TLG would benefit from the sale of track (granted, it's not exactly
showing TLG that we're not happy with discontiuation of 9V, but there are some
other price/cost factors there). I know it would also physically raise the
track, so there would be something of a gap between the 9V track and "new"
cladding over the plastic track..but that's all still a dream at this point).
That said, I was working on building a list of metal rail train manufacturers:
-Ahearn
-Lionel
-Bachmann
-Marklin (I believe this company does a lot in Europe, and we should make sure
our colleagues outside North America can use 9V trains too...
I'm trying to remember what other companies there are.
Hm.. how much to make metal rails, and then have LEGO-compatible pieces that can
snap onto the bottom of the rail?
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Martin Srb wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bob Parker wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The freight/passenger question: I don’t know much about U.S. trains, but in
Europe there are electric locos that pull freight trains as well as passenger
trains.
|
In France nowadays (and most part of Europe), almost all freight engines are
electric. (thank to a highly available hydroelectricity and nuclear
electricity). It remains of course some diesel engines but they are replaced for
electric ones as they are discontinued.
In fact, in Europe, we are in an opposite situation compared to north america.
Europe has lot of passenger train and lack of freight train, europe use
electricity mainly where US/Canada use oil. This situation seems to be the
consequence of geographic facts (distance, population density) - In many ways ,
europe looks like US north east corridor.
To answer the initial question, I have never seen lego train powered by aerial
wires, nor listen about such a project.
Didier
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Todd Thuma wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Let see key needs for a new system. The ability to plug it in. No
seriously, they should use the new wireless power transfer technology that is
starting to get some serious attention in Popular Mechanics and other such
publications. Frankly if the system relies on batteries its already sunk for
most AFOL train show purposes. Wireless power however could do some
seriously wonderful things. Of course I can’t imagine how bleeding edge
technology would be cheaper than maintaining the 9v standard so were back to
batteries. Ugh.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
Mike,
Excellent idea! I have read similar stories in tech magazines about how we
might never need to plug a cell phone in to power again. Laying it on the
surface of counter top with the power sending device mounted inside or
underneath could charge a phone.
I doubt that LEGO has that in the works for 2009, but that woul make an
excellent modification.
For those that do not know, the technology uses radiowaves transmitted to an
internal component in the receiver. The oscillation set up by the receiver is
able to charge an internal battery. I wonder what the lab benches have
discerned about longevity and recharge requirements. A motor seems like it
would need a lot more power than a cell phone though.
Todd
|
Well the versions I have seen most recently are directly powering lamps and
light fixtures and such. I don’t know if that would be enough for a train
motor. I doubt LEGO has that in the works too, but it would be nice. Reliance
on batteries is a serious negative aspect to me.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
| |
> parts that are small enough that they can save production costs by setting
> up
> multi-part molds, whereas the only track geometries that I can see being
> able to
> take advantage of that capability are stubbies (center of one tie to the
> next,
If this were to be done, and the target market was AFOLs, then it would make
far more sense to not bother at all with the curved and straight track
sections of different sizes, but just produce flextrack. Then you have a
single small gang-able moulded plastic part (a section of ties) and the
metal rails. No large moulds, no multiple geometries, no application of
metal strips to plastic rails (whoever thought that one up?!?). An existing
flextrack manufacturer - and there are many out there, large and small -
ought to be able to produce these easily. Save the mould expense for
switches and other special sections, which wouldn't be cheap, but then
neither are the existing ones! And you have the option of building your own
switches from scratch (been there, done that, many years ago for OO gauge.)
Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Custom LEGO building instructions and models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
The Guild of Bricksmiths(TM): http://www.bricksmiths.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Martin Srb wrote:
SNIP
| |
--some mountain railways in the Alps (2-wire, 3-phase???)
|
The Gornergratbahn
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
SNIP
| |
In France nowadays (and most part of Europe), almost all freight engines are
electric. (thank to a highly available hydroelectricity and nuclear
electricity). It remains of course some diesel engines but they are replaced
for electric ones as they are discontinued.
|
Ironically, in the UK, when the (US) Winsconsin Central took over the main
freight operator, EWS, they reduced the use of electric locos, presumably
because they couldn’t get their heads round using electricity to haul trains!
Luckily now that Railion (the freight arm of the German railways there might be
a move the other way.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Eric Kingsley wrote:
| |
Minimally a battery powered system would have to pull a 6 wide consist of
10-12 cars for at least an hour to even be considered viable for a show. And
that doesn’t even address 8 wide (We have run both on our layouts).
|
The topic of battery life and pulling power came up today -
click here for that
thread. Hopefully it can address some of your concerns.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Todd Thuma wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Steve Witt wrote:
> > but it won't be an entirely "from the ground up" situation like the switch >from
> > 12v to 9v. There will be a lot of compatibility between the two systems.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Steve,
>
> Pardon me for saying so, but your statement above is a little confusing. How was
> the conversion from 12v to 9v a "ground up" switch. The 12v trains I have run on
> the 9v track. The 9v trains I have run on the 12v track I have (well they would
> if I had one of those European to US power conversion things).
>
> Other than the track rails carrying the voltage and the regulators changing,
> there seems to be little else that is different.
>
> It does give some support to the assertion that there will be backward
> compatibility. If the 12v to 9v was a "ground up" situation, then I welcome the
> small changes the new system will bring.
>
> Todd
ah, forgive me. I've never actually seen any 12v stuff :( I was just trying to
throw out an example so, whoops.
The track will all work together still like the current plastic track works
still with metal track. the main difference is where the power comes from.
Steve
|
|
| |
>
> I have to throw something in here...
>
> Tommy probably doesn't realize this (and I'm probably breaking some rule by
> telling him), but those of us up heah yonder Nawth sometimes use words like
> "y'all" in a condescending, rednecky way. But for those of you reading this, I
> want you to know that Tommy really does sound like he types. He actually talks
> like that. It's not a redneck kinda sound, though, it's the Southern Gentleman
> sound. More Andy Griffith or Jed Clampett, not so much Jeff Foxworthy or Boss
> Hog.
>
> He ain't all that bad.... for a Rebel.
Yes, I am aware that "y'all" does have some connotations--but have decided that
it is really the only politically correct, all encompassing, non-gender,
non-racial, non-religious specfic pronoun that is available in the English
language-at least American English. "You guys" is unacceptable as gender
specific, simply using "you" does not work because it takes context to determine
whether singlular or plural, "you people" sounds like preaching and I really do
not like to be preached to unless I request a sermon. "Y'all" works for
everything--but you do have to be careful how you use it since it is a "global
variable" and refers to anyone (or thing-it can include animals also--at least
dogs--not sure about cats). It is all inclusive and therefore is a "communal"
pro-noun in the the best sense of the word. So be careful how you use it as it
excludes no one--and sometimes that might not be your intention.
The abandonment of the the word "thou" as a second person singular pronoun
necessitated the use of y'all to a certain extent to make certain you were
referring to second person plural and not singular. Many languages do not have
that problem as they have separate words for second person singular and second
person plural. We actually have one "ye" but that has gone the way of thee and
thou also. "Ye of little faith--there is always a technological solution for a
technological problem." And "ye" has a preachy connotation which is to be
avoided at all costs.
So y'all get on the bandwagon and start using more politcally correct language.
This is the era of diversity, afterall.
Tommy Armstrong
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> "You guys" is unacceptable as gender specific
If you go far enough north it isn't!
They also use the other variant, youse guyses, as in, "You got da deep snow over
to youse guyses place, eh?" to which the response would be, "Ya, sure, but we
cleared da path to da sauna!"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Daniel Aubin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Now, add to this the fact that most current custom part manufacturers are
making parts that are small enough that they can save production costs by
setting up multi-part molds, whereas the only track geometries that I can
see being able to take advantage of that capability are stubbies (center of
one tie to the next, either curved or straight). And of course you have
people who wouldn’t buy them no matter how well they’re made for the simple
reason that they aren’t official LEGO, or because they wouldn’t even be
aware that custom track designs were even being made (essentially, anyone
who isn’t aware of ILTCO). It’s definitely possible, but the costs would be
prohibitively high for most people to even consider, and that’s just for
all-plastic track, not even getting into the application of sheet metal rail
coverings (which require both custom cutting dies and machines to attach
them to the plastic bases). Fans will probably love the idea of being able
to buy new 9v track geometries, but many will balk at the idea of paying
even twice what The LEGO Company would have likely charged for the same
part, and that’s assuming a custom manufacturer could even keep costs that
low (I doubt it’s possible without intentionally taking a loss on the
project).
|
Funny how we as AFOLs have a hard time thinking “outside the box”. We
automatically assume that new track geometry necessarily requires large
sectional track pieces. The old 4.5-volt/12-volt system had separate ties
(sleepers in Europe), track and power sections (12-volt). Personally, I
liked this way better, even if it required quite a bit of time to set up.
When the 9-volt system initially came out, I saw the track as a
“juniorization” of the train system.
It would probably be rather easy to make moulded ties with the proper studs
in which we could slip in standard model railway track (just the metal part)
of the appropriate size. This track is sold in bulk. Special tools called
rail benders allow you to curve it to whatever radius you want, bringing
about those large-radius curves everyone has been waiting for for so long.
Where it gets a bit complicated is for the switches and crossovers. These
would probably have to be hand-crafted. However, there are several talented
people that modify LEGO’s standard track that would be up to the challenge.
Heck, they could even make transition pieces to match up this track with
standard 9-volt track.
As for power trucks, check out what’s available for standard model train
hobbyists; http://nwsl.com/Catalog/pg025-cat4-06c-v0605.pdf I’m sure that
they would be more than happy to make a modified version for us if there’s
sufficient interest.
So the future isn’t as bleak as it would seem. If we want, we can continue
with our hobby for a long time. Hell, some people (mostly in Europe) still
continue on with their 12-volt trains almost 20 years after it was
discontinued. It will probably mean cutting a few strings with the LEGO
company but that could help the hobby grow.
DA
|
Now that is kind of what I was advocating in my post.
The whole LEGO system is a modular system--why not come up with modular way of
creating tracks and motor housings or whatever using perhaps the system as the
glue and outside parts as part of the solution. Now I am not advocating using
MEGA Blocks--that is a sacrilege--lol. As many of y’all know, I am not really a
builder, but I do try to think out of the box --it is more fun. Most of my ideas
end up in the trash can--but every now and again--even I can come up with a good
feasible one.
This solution to me as an outsider seems like a good one to at least explore.
All the track stuff, transformers, and tools, etc. has been done by the “real”
model railroading people--just need the right interface between LEGO and the
“outside world”.And then the “outside world” becomes the inside world, and
inside world the outside one. Because it is obviously a lot more fun for the
average person to play with LEGO than all that train stuff.
maybe http://www.emachineshop.com/ might be a solution
It is obvious that mastering their software and designing the parts is a “snap”
to many of y’all in the community. Create the part, push the button, pick the
production method, and get an instant quote. It might be too expensive--or it
might not. Who knows until one tries. And no cost to find out.
Now I of course might be missing the whole argument that Daniel was making, but
it seems that you just come up with few standard LEGO type custom parts that
would create the track using existing “outside” off the shelf parts. A tie, a
clip of some kind. As long as make it modular, it seems that future itereations
could then be added on for future needs. Just think it through so that in the
future there are pathways for modifications.
Again, I may be missing something--but I do not think so.
I really think John Neal’s statement is on the money:
“
But now, the canard of purity has finally been dashed for good. Because it’s
either accepting that reality, or leave the hobby (with purity intact)
altogether. Some have already stated their intentions to do just that, and
that’s fine. Personally, I believe it will be liberating. So, I’ll find train
parts, electronics, etc, made by companies who were willing to produce them, and
not ask or rely on TLG to make versions which need to double as a child’s toy,
too.
It sounds heretical, I know, but one day we will all laugh. I’m laughing
already:-)”
What puzzles me is why it was “heretical” in the first place.
lol
Tommy ARmstrong
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
| |
I really think John Neal’s statement is on the money:
“
But now, the canard of purity has finally been dashed for good. Because it’s
either accepting that reality, or leave the hobby (with purity intact)
altogether. Some have already stated their intentions to do just that, and
that’s fine. Personally, I believe it will be liberating. So, I’ll find train
parts, electronics, etc, made by companies who were willing to produce them,
and not ask or rely on TLG to make versions which need to double as a child’s
toy, too.
It sounds heretical, I know, but one day we will all laugh. I’m laughing
already:-)”
What puzzles me is why it was “heretical” in the first place.
lol
Tommy ARmstrong
|
I can only speak for myself, but part of the fun, for me at least, is the
challenge of staying within the confines of the Lego product. If I wanted to
build track, etc. from other items, or do my own molding, I’d work in N or HO
scale (actually, I do work in n-scale, but l-gauge is way more fun).
The other aspect that I’ve come to enjoy, since joining my local LUG, is being a
part of something unique at train shows. It’s fun to be able to tell visitors
that yes, the entire layout really is Lego, including the track and
transformers, and no, we’re not just covering up O-gauge track with brick.
While I’m sad to see an end to 9V, I’m glad we got a definitive answer from the
company, and I’m curious to see how the new product line will work out. It may
work out great, and I’ll be able to continue telling visitors what I tell them
now, or I may find that the product doesn’t work for me, and I’ll have to move
on. Part of the fun may be lost, but I can always find other hobbies.
-Elroy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> No large moulds, no multiple geometries, no application of metal strips to
> plastic rails (whoever thought that one up?!?).
As problematic as it is for long term track maintainence, and modifying track,
it's actually a very simple solution to an ugly problem. Have you ever noticed
how regular model railroaders link two sections of track together so power will
be transfered from one section to the other? Little metal clips. Little metal
clips that can get lost very easily, that aren't terribly kid-friendly, and that
would be needed in bucketloads for large layouts (thanks to the short length of
the prefab track sections). While the L-Gauge format is not as durable as solid
metal rails, it's a lot easier to set up and doesn't require anything to bridge
the gaps between the different sections. It's probably the only major
all-in-one rail-powered track design out there.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
> So, what about taking another route and simply approach one of the many
> model railroad companies to see their interest in making something more like
> what THEY already make that *could* suit our needs? I'd love to see some
> unofficial brass L-Guage track. Heck, I might even be inclined to make that
> garden railway I always wanted. (hi John!)...
Scott pretty much summed up my concern over this one. Get a commercial entity
involved, and you're in danger of crossing the line for patent infringement. I
doubt they'd ever go after Ondrew for his hand-modded track (indeed, since he
uses 100% original LEGO track, and he's technically just charging for labor,
they'd have a very hard time getting a court to side with them on that one), but
if someone starts churning out a competing source of L-gauge track, especially
if it's clearly designed to be compatible with the exising 9v system (and most
especially if it involves reproducing the handful of existing track geometries),
and that would be a very different situation.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Daniel Aubin wrote:
| |
Funny how we as AFOLs have a hard time thinking “outside the box”. We
automatically assume that new track geometry necessarily requires large
sectional track pieces.
|
Well, simple straights and curves could easily be made with flexible rails and
individual ties, but many of the specialized track pieces that seem to be of
real interest to the hobby are complex crossovers and points. Those would
require complex molded bases. Also, the loose rail format would likely be much
more suitable for long-term setup, where prefab track sections make setup a
breeze for a quick show. Note that traditional model railroaders don’t ever
actually have to set up loose track at a show, as the track will be preattached
to large landscape sections, and the only thing they ever need to do to get the
track working right is to clip the gaps between each section of landscape.
Loose rail track also won’t visually match the 9v stuff, and will actually look
more mismatched than using grey and bley track together.
It is certainly an option that would help keep costs down, though. You will
likely find that there are people who would rather have one format over the
other, and I suspect it won’t be anywhere close to unanimous.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> "You guys" is unacceptable as gender specific,
Actually "guys" is a gender neutral term:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/guy definition 3 entry 3b
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Duane Collicott wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> > "You guys" is unacceptable as gender specific
>
> If you go far enough north it isn't!
>
> They also use the other variant, youse guyses, as in, "You got da deep snow over
> to youse guyses place, eh?" to which the response would be, "Ya, sure, but we
> cleared da path to da sauna!"
:)
And don't forget, 'sauna' is a three-syllable word. The 'u' is not silent!
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bob Parker wrote:
> > Minimally a battery powered system would have to pull a 6 wide
> > consist of 10-12 cars for at least an hour to even be considered
> > viable for a show. And that doesn't even address 8 wide (We have
> > run both on our layouts).
>
> The topic of battery life and pulling power came up today -
> http://www.stajinaria.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=166
> ...Hopefully it can address some of your concerns.
Well, it surprises me... but then again, I've just heard folks debate it, not
actually test it or try it out. Thanks! I use 2500 mAh NiMH in my NXTs and RCXs,
and I've been happy with them, but an 8 hour run time pulling 20 cars is...
well, significantly more than my inital guess.
Dang, now I may need to get a Hobby train as well :-).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
>
> LEGO 9V Train Communication
>
> Billund, Oct. 1st ’07
> Dear all,
>
> Many of you are aware of the on-going discussions on the 9V train system. We
> would like to thank you all for the input you provided to us directly and
> through different channels. Based on critical business decisions and the
> consultations and discussions with various AFOLs we have decided to focus on one
> single solution in order to avoid the complexity of maintaining two systems in
> parallel and in order to solve the issues we have with the actual 9V system and
> the remote control City train system. We envision one upgradeable train system
> for all ages in the future.
[...]
> These AFOL quotes give you an impression of what will be possible with the
> future system and we will keep you up to date on the development of the new LEGO
> Power Functions train system. We expect to have more information and details to
> share with you before the end of the year.
>
>
> Richard Stollery, Head of LEGO Community Development
Well, I guess at least we now don't have to worry about if or when the
9v line will be discontinued. Like some of you, I am upset. I am upset
that LEGO marketed the 9v line so poorly, but I also suspect that in the
current atmosphere (both corporate and children's play habits) 9v trains
were never going to generate enough of a profit.
I have been a huge supporter of 9v trains. Before 9v, I had the only two
battery powered trains that were available in the US. I also bought all
of the accessories (all two or three of them) that were available at the
time. When I was given a European 12v train by an executive from LEGO
Systems Inc. I asked my parents to buy 12v track for me when they went
to Ireland. I had a K3 of plastic 4.5v rails and eight boxes of 12v
rails, but when the 9v system came out, I didn't care about the loss of
the Classic train stuff (actually, they're not lost, they're all tucked
away in their boxes); 9v trains were simply too cool. I mean... come
on... metal rails. No more batteries. If 9v trains had not been released
by LEGO, I doubt that there would be an adult LEGO train community.
Certainly, the 4.5v battery system wasn't going to get me into the
"hobby". The unanswerable question, though, is, "Would I have reacted
the same way to a super-cool, battery-powered train system?"
What do I, the metal-railed 9v dinosaur, do now? Certainly, I'll buy
some track. I've got a ton, but not enough to do a home layout... well
not the one I imagine in my mind's eye at least. Should I pick up a
couple of spare motors, maybe, but then what?
Some suggest building LEGO trains atop non-LEGO components; like a cross
between O-gauge and L-gauge. It sounds like a good idea, and it'll make
for some great creations especially in the hands of Ross Neal and his
dad... what's his name? :) And even though I'm not a purist--I run Big
Ben Bricks drivers, and I've been known to do bad things to good
bricks--that just isn't for me.
Will I slowly switch over to the new system? Part of me wonders about
the pulling power. You see, I've got a secret. I bought one of the
IR-controlled trains. Here's what I discovered. An IR-controlled,
battery-powered train running around an oval is just as boring as a
metal-rail powered train running around an oval. The IR-controlled,
battery-powered freight engine might go faster than my 1 kg, 8-stud
wide, 59-stud long EMD SD 40-2, but in a tug of war well... let's just
say that the dash-2 goes where it wants to go. But here is what I've
also discovered. Playing trains with my son using two independently
controlled trains (metal rail and IR) is a gas! Rail powered tains
aren't perfect either... my super sized Super Chief is too big for the
three motors that are needed to pull it.
So battery powered trains that can be controlled independently can be
fun (though independent control is possible with powered rails using
non-LEGO equipment). The power of a multi unit lash-up will not be
limited by the ability of the regulator to send power to the track. Will
that be enough to overcome the fact that I'll need batteries, lots of
batteries. Who knows, but if someone wanted to know what might pique my
interest...
A conveniently shaped battery box. I realize that it won't be small, but
I need to be able to build around it. I can imagine a day where I might
want to have two battery boxes in one massive engine.
The battery box should be able to do more than control the speed and
direction of the train. It should be able to send power out over two
other lines with control of the amount of energy going out, and maybe
the polarity too.
Track side charging sounds cool, but an easily changed battery box is a
necessity.
The remote control must work fantastically... forget IR, forget "regular
RF", why not BlueTooth? Heck, isn't everything BlueTooth these days? It
couldn't be that hard to create a simple BlueTooth remote to control the
train could it? LEGO's already got a lot of experience with BlueTooth
and Mindstorms-NXT, no? Why BlueTooth? Maybe people outside of LEGO
could develop software to control trains directly from BlueTooth
equipped computers (I don't know, could you guys do that?) That would be
cool.
I need to be able to buy the motors, battery boxes, and controllers
separately. I'll probably buy sets, but I'll need to be able to convert
my old running gear to the new stuff.
Well, I can't be as upbeat as some of the people who have posted, but
I'm in a good position collection-wise so this change won't be a big
problem for me. If the new system is interesting enough, and if it looks
like it'll work with the big trains I like to build, then I'll start
converting some of my stuff to the new system. I don't see myself buying
much track. The idea of mixing metal rails with plastic makes my nose
wriggle...
LEGO trains are dead... Long live LEGO trains.
Chris
--
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Todd Thuma wrote:
>
> Not funny, I know, but my glass is half-full.
>
> Todd
I just wanted to make sure folks know that my glass is also half full at the
moment dispite some skepticism about pulling power and battery life.
I also agree with Ben Fleskes in terms of AFOL insiders working very hard for
the masses.
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=3719
The big problem is that because of NDAs AFOL insiders can't discuss/brainstorm
with the rest of us. I just don't think that sitting and waiting and trusting
that the insiders will express all our needs is the right way to go.
I think that all of us need to express our needs in terms of the hobby and it
needs to be an ever evolving discussion until the next press release. At that
time we take the news and start a new discussion based on that press release, so
on and so forth.
In that way, our AFOL insider freinds can have some help from the greater
community. Sure we might discuss some things that the insiders will laugh at
but at other times we might, just might, come up with something they had not
thought of. Then they can make sure that information is brought to light within
LEGO.
So while our AFOL insiders can't discuss things with us, they can listen to the
rest of us. So I just hope we don't sit by quietly waiting for product to
appear in 2009. We should all be trying to help make the new product meet our
needs by providing information through public channels to those who cannot speak
publicly.
My 2 cents,
-Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Elroy Davis wrote:
> The Medium PF motors is 4 studs wide by 6 studs long, and has a 6x2 plate
> portion on the bottom (no studs on top). The other motor is called the "XL PF
> Motor", which would hopefully imply that somebody within LEGO might have been
> *thinking* about a "small" version as well, but if so I've not seen it yet.
And presumably a "large" one too...
Tim
|
|
| |
It sounds like a survey is in order... Take all the feature wish lists from
individuals and clubs, boil them down and prioritize them.
I'm sure LEGO and the AFOL insiders have their own set of lists based on the
tons of feedback from lugnet.trains, shows, the various train summits, etc.
But I don't think a formalized list has been drawn up within the confines of
lugnet.trains. Anytime we get a dribble of train information from LEGO, the
discussion ends up with being a long tread of ideas for the future.
Would a formalized list (or set of lists) be valuable? Or are the wish lists
played out? Do we start a new thread for this? Five distinct feature
requests per post? Any marketing/stats people know how to process this type
of data?
Personally, I see a new system being very exciting. The LEGO company has a
strong push going right now for modular electronics. While I don't have
first hand experience, it looks like Mindstorms 2.0 and the Creator line
have very similar components. If these are expanded to trains, the return
could be huge.
Trains are not dead (whew)! LEGO stated they are making a new system.
And Eric is right - Now is the time to get the input flowing to LEGO.
-- Bryan
(needs time to think of his list)
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message
news:JpCDIu.AxK@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Todd Thuma wrote:
>
> >
> > Not funny, I know, but my glass is half-full.
> >
> > Todd
>
> I just wanted to make sure folks know that my glass is also half full at
> the
> moment dispite some skepticism about pulling power and battery life.
>
> I also agree with Ben Fleskes in terms of AFOL insiders working very hard
> for
> the masses.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=3719
>
> The big problem is that because of NDAs AFOL insiders can't
> discuss/brainstorm
> with the rest of us. I just don't think that sitting and waiting and
> trusting
> that the insiders will express all our needs is the right way to go.
>
> I think that all of us need to express our needs in terms of the hobby and
> it
> needs to be an ever evolving discussion until the next press release. At
> that
> time we take the news and start a new discussion based on that press
> release, so
> on and so forth.
>
> In that way, our AFOL insider freinds can have some help from the greater
> community. Sure we might discuss some things that the insiders will laugh
> at
> but at other times we might, just might, come up with something they had
> not
> thought of. Then they can make sure that information is brought to light
> within
> LEGO.
>
> So while our AFOL insiders can't discuss things with us, they can listen
> to the
> rest of us. So I just hope we don't sit by quietly waiting for product to
> appear in 2009. We should all be trying to help make the new product meet
> our
> needs by providing information through public channels to those who cannot
> speak
> publicly.
>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
>
> -Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Eric Kingsley wrote:
| |
Minimally a battery powered system would have to pull a 6 wide consist of
10-12 cars for at least an hour to even be considered viable for a show.
And that doesn’t even address 8 wide (We have run both on our layouts).
|
The topic of battery life and pulling power came up today -
click here for that
thread. Hopefully it can address some of your concerns.
|
Any idea how much weight was being pulled? 20 flatcars could be lighter than 20
boxcars. That amount of run time with that many cars does sound promising
though.
-Elroy
|
|
| |
On the positive side of things, the new battery trains run fine on my old blue
track, and the new plastic-only track is a whole lot cheaper than the old
electrified track. I also like that useful 4-way switch they introduced.
Electrified track gives you a very blunt control mechanism when you have more
than one train running. You can do a lot more fun stuff with several remote
controlled trains on the same track: make them stop and go individually, even
run two trains head on into each other if you're into Lego train wrecks.
Self-powered trains will mean a lot more room for experimentation and control.
So, call me a heretic if you like, but I actually like the new battery trains. I
have invested a considerable amount of money in the 9V line, but I never thought
that product would last forever. Taking into consideration that I had a much
smaller Lego budget in the 1970's, I actually invested a small fortune in 4.5V
blue track as well, but I don't regret that, those parts are still both useful
and fun. My existing 9V trains will also be useful for many years to come, and
the new battery trains will run on all my old tracks, including the 4.5V and 12V
track.
I'm quite happy, really. The new trains are going to be a lot of fun, too.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Todd Thuma wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Adam Murtha wrote:
> >
> > Well thank you Lego. This is the final nail in the coffin. Changing the grey's
> > and brown colours, killing the 9v trains. The least you could have done was keep
> > up with the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar. No excuses like "There may be
> > many variables including taxes, exchange rates and country laws which can affect
> > the market value.Suggested retail prices for our product assortment are
> > determined well in advance. We rely on professional studies of the dollar
> > fluctuations over a multi year horizon to determine the suggested retail price
> > which will not change during the product assortment year. The suggested retail
> > price of our products has historically not fluctuated every time the value of
> > the dollar rises or falls to maintain an annual harmonized price." *Taken from
> > an email I got from Lego about the difference in the US and Canadian dollar*
> > Another failure by Lego to determine the desire for the 9v trains. As mentioned
> > before the lack of sales in the train line has nothing to do with the power
> > source, but the lack of marketing and availability.
> >
> > I'm out. I'm done. See ya Lego. I wonder what Mega Bloks is coming out with next
> > year?
>
> Hey Adam,
>
> Will you sell me you 9v stuff?
>
> Todd
Ok well I'm not really OUT out. But out in terms of not buying new stuff,
like the battery stuff, I passed on, since I had no interest in those kind
of sets. If the new power system they are talking about is as bad as the
battery system then I won't be buying any of that stuff either.
|
|
| |
Hi Eric,
Hi Bryan,
Hi all,
you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
positive or negative about the train announcement.
We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
others are new for us.
It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts. This was and will
be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
elements.
Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
Holger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
An AFOL already made some headway on that one, way back in ‘05..
http://users.erols.com/kennrice/flextrack.htm
|
Whoa, I never saw that. Brilliant! My only suggestion would be to somehow use
1x8s instead of 2x8s, and spaced every other-- more prototypical that way.
In any event, well done, Kenn!
JOHN
|
|
| |
Holger,
Thanks for your reply. I am glad to hear from an insider even if you can't say
anything. I do realize you are only a conduit for information and can't
actually make the decisions.
I would personally be happy to setup something as a repository for suggestions
and then setup periodic polls to try and figure out what the desires of the
majority are and what might not be quite as critical.
I have been talking with a lot of folks about this and I do think it is
important to get everyone in the community talking in a public forum about their
needs so that those of you on the inside can take some direction from the
community at large.
In this way maybe we can influance a few aspects of the design in a way that
helps everyone.
-Eric
|
|
| |
Chris brings home a good point. 9V is what it is, probably because of the
powered rails. No other LEGO Train system has that. However, I do beleive that
one day very soon (if not already) battery technology will allow more power than
can be safely delivered through AC or DC, and it will last much longer than you
would ever expect:
http://www.dewalt.com/36v/ (please look for the comparison and faqs)
Chris's Bluetooth suggestion is a good one. It got me to thinking about another
possible problem with wireless control. At larger Train Shows, if the wireless
waves travel too far they could effect the wireless trains on surrounding
exhibits.
Perhaps the coded and encrypted Bluetooth technology would be better than RF in
more than just computer control. Bluetooth requires a manual synchronization
between the controller and receiver. This synchronization tells the Bluetooth
transmitter which receiver that you want to communicate with.
Does anyone know how many receivers can be synch'd to one Bluetooth transmitter?
Thanks,
Scott W.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Hi Bryan,
> Hi all,
>
> you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> positive or negative about the train announcement.
>
> We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> others are new for us.
>
> It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
>
> All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts.
Point of view? I enjoy working with my LEGO trains. I put out a lot of work in
'abusing' my trains to do a show, both for the visitor and mine own pleasure.
The model Railroad Hobby is the largest Hobby in the world. It is done almost in
every country and by trainheads of every walk of life. Do we, as model train
operators consider that we are 'abusing', even in a positive way,the trains we
run? Do we consider that we are 'abusing the manufacture of our model trains
when we purchase large amounts of scenery and building material to give our
layouts a life-like appearance? Do we 'abuse' the manufacture when we do shows
for the public to enjoy?
The challenge for the future of trains is to have a place in this world wide
Hobby. Plastic, battery powered trains IS considered a 'toy' by the model
railroad clubs. It took us many years of 'abuse' and hard work to get into and
be recognized by Model Railroading. Has all this been for nought? I thought we
had made our case about this, it seems it fell on deft ears. The profit on the
train componants is small compared to the other themes done by TLG, however, the
profit in the large amounts of LEGO purchased to build our layouts and man them
with minifigs and vehicles and customized trains should have brought up the
profit over all.
We have told TLG many times about the lack of advertizing the 9volt system. We
have asked that tha Railroad Hobby Shops be allowed to carry just the train sets
and accessories to place them in the buying public's view. None of this has
been done.
At our train shows we have consistenly been asked 'where can we get the trains'.
Now, officially, we can tell the viewing public that LEGO trains are no longer
available for another couple of years and at this time we do not know what will
be presented. We can watch person after person walk away to look at buying
other manufacture's products instead of starting many more home and public
layouts of LEGO trains. Keep in mind this also includes mass purchasing of LEGO
products to add to their layouts. I would be willing to bet other manufactures
are pleased with this announcement. They will enjoy the profits TLG is giving
away.
And finally, I feel that it would have been in TLG's best interest to continue
supporting the 9volt system to keep up this interest in LEGO trains until the
new system is in production and has a good track record to at least compare to
the 9volt system. Leaving a two year+ gap will probably cost TLG a lot in
non-sales and it will mean starting all over to build up the trust in LEGO
Trains, both with AFOL's and the public.
These are my concerns, about one of my favorite hobbies and my favorite
company...
Don Cox GtwLUG Lugnet#1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
> This was and will
> be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
> elements.
>
> Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
> know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
> then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
>
> Holger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
An AFOL already made some headway on that one, way back in ‘05..
http://users.erols.com/kennrice/flextrack.htm
|
Whoa, I never saw that. Brilliant! My only suggestion would be to somehow
use 1x8s instead of 2x8s, and spaced every other-- more prototypical that
way.
|
Doesn’t look like it would work out as nicely. The connectors have two metal
tabs on the bottom that appear to line up nicely with the studs that were cut
off the 2x8 plate. Switch to a 1x8 plate and you’d have to cut away part of the
base and wrap the tabs around from the sides, which might not hold as nicely.
Additionally, for most people, it would mean they wouldn’t be able to mix and
match the flex track with their existing track collection. Now, if someone was
to switch over completely, and didn’t have a problem with the fact that they’d
need to be much more careful with the ties, there are actually some interesting
possibilities that could be explored. Like using brown plates instead of some
shade of grey.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> Point of view? I enjoy working with my LEGO trains. I put out a lot of work in
> 'abusing' my trains to do a show, both for the visitor and mine own pleasure.
> The model Railroad Hobby is the largest Hobby in the world. It is done almost in
> every country and by trainheads of every walk of life. Do we, as model train
> operators consider that we are 'abusing', even in a positive way,the trains we
> run? Do we consider that we are 'abusing the manufacture of our model trains
> when we purchase large amounts of scenery and building material to give our
> layouts a life-like appearance? Do we 'abuse' the manufacture when we do shows
> for the public to enjoy?
>
> The challenge for the future of trains is to have a place in this world wide
> Hobby. Plastic, battery powered trains IS considered a 'toy' by the model
> railroad clubs. It took us many years of 'abuse' and hard work to get into and
> be recognized by Model Railroading. Has all this been for nought? I thought we
> had made our case about this, it seems it fell on deft ears. The profit on the
> train componants is small compared to the other themes done by TLG, however, the
> profit in the large amounts of LEGO purchased to build our layouts and man them
> with minifigs and vehicles and customized trains should have brought up the
> profit over all.
>
> We have told TLG many times about the lack of advertizing the 9volt system. We
> have asked that tha Railroad Hobby Shops be allowed to carry just the train sets
> and accessories to place them in the buying public's view. None of this has
> been done.
>
> At our train shows we have consistenly been asked 'where can we get the trains'.
> Now, officially, we can tell the viewing public that LEGO trains are no longer
> available for another couple of years and at this time we do not know what will
> be presented. We can watch person after person walk away to look at buying
> other manufacture's products instead of starting many more home and public
> layouts of LEGO trains. Keep in mind this also includes mass purchasing of LEGO
> products to add to their layouts. I would be willing to bet other manufactures
> are pleased with this announcement. They will enjoy the profits TLG is giving
> away.
>
> And finally, I feel that it would have been in TLG's best interest to continue
> supporting the 9volt system to keep up this interest in LEGO trains until the
> new system is in production and has a good track record to at least compare to
> the 9volt system. Leaving a two year+ gap will probably cost TLG a lot in
> non-sales and it will mean starting all over to build up the trust in LEGO
> Trains, both with AFOL's and the public.
>
> These are my concerns, about one of my favorite hobbies and my favorite
> company...
Well put Don. Better than I could have done. Every time I started to write
something up I had trouble containing my anger and writing something
constructive.
Right now my hope lies not with the LEGO company, but with fans, finding ways to
repair the 9v motors when they break down, how to add metal rails to plastic
track. This will work for me and my club, but we'll be left telling the public
that LEGO doesn't care about the model railroading hobby. Go somewhere else, buy
some other product, or be prepared for a lot of custom non-lego building work.
Jason Spears MichLUG Lugnet#478 St. Joseph, MI. USA
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
> > Hm.. how much to make metal rails, and then have LEGO-compatible pieces
> > that can
> > snap onto the bottom of the rail?
> >
> > Scott
>
> An AFOL already made some headway on that one, way back in '05..
> http://users.erols.com/kennrice/flextrack.htm
Wow. Now, if LEGO did decide to throw 9V a bone, they could manufacture a
sleeper like Ken's modified 2x8 plate, bundle it with the 3rd party connectors
and rail stock, and voila - hobbyist track kits!
All things considered, this won't happen, for a lot of reasons. But an AFOL can
dream...
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > Hi Bryan,
> > Hi all,
> >
> > you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> > positive or negative about the train announcement.
> >
> > We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> > into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> > others are new for us.
> >
> > It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> > system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> > poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
> >
> > All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> > positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts.
>
> Point of view? I enjoy working with my LEGO trains. I put out a lot of work in
> 'abusing' my trains to do a show, both for the visitor and mine own pleasure.
> The model Railroad Hobby is the largest Hobby in the world. It is done almost in
> every country and by trainheads of every walk of life. Do we, as model train
> operators consider that we are 'abusing', even in a positive way,the trains we
> run? Do we consider that we are 'abusing the manufacture of our model trains
> when we purchase large amounts of scenery and building material to give our
> layouts a life-like appearance? Do we 'abuse' the manufacture when we do shows
> for the public to enjoy?
Yes you do 'abuse' the system in the sense that Holger means. LEGO trains are
designed for children, not hobby use. As much as this may be frustrating and
there may be good reasons for TLG to support the 'abuse' of their system they
are not a niche manufacturer and cannot do it when it is underprofitable.
I understand that a lot of us have a lot of emotional and physical capital
invested in 9V trains and the hobby aspects of them. This does not mean we
should forget what TLG's primary purpose is: selling *toys* to children.
> The challenge for the future of trains is to have a place in this world wide
> Hobby. Plastic, battery powered trains IS considered a 'toy' by the model
> railroad clubs. It took us many years of 'abuse' and hard work to get into and
> be recognized by Model Railroading. Has all this been for nought?
--snip--
> Don Cox GtwLUG Lugnet#1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
From my understanding there are plenty of people running 'antiquated' systems in
Model Railroading. With LEGO you are still getting new options from the rest of
the range, just not directly for the motors and track (which haven't been
developed for many, many years anyway). Undoubtadely running 9V trains will
become harder as motors need to be replaced and other electrical components
require maintenence but the quality of LEGO products is typically high enough
that this maintenence should be minimal.
We can sling mud all we like or, far preferably, we can try to work out how we
can move forward. The decision has been made and no amount of complaining or
sideline justiification is going to change it. It is now time to look to the
future.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote: • (SNIP)
All things considered, this won’t happen, for a lot of reasons. But an AFOL
can dream...
|
Hi Steve
I even would guess that a special sleeper plate with flat bottom (to float on
studs beneath), with 242 studs on top and a kind of retaining clips to fix the
metal rail would be an option for any “third-party producer”. BBB? Little
Armory? We would surly need hundreds of these. On the other hand we would not
like to pay 3 bucks per piece, but only 10% of this...
I would not care about another 3rd party piece. If lego cuts the support I do
not mind to throw my purism over board.
Leg Godt,
See more pictures of my models at www.brickshelf.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
If lego cuts the support I do
not mind to throw my purism over board.
|
Amen, Bruder! You and I are so in our thinking, Ben; as if only 1 stud
apart;-D
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
snip
| |
I even would guess that a special sleeper plate with flat bottom (to float on
studs beneath), with 242 studs on top and a kind of retaining clips to fix
the metal rail would be an option for any “third-party producer”. BBB? Little
Armory? We would surly need hundreds of these. On the other hand we would not
like to pay 3 bucks per piece, but only 10% of this...
I would not care about another 3rd party piece. If lego cuts the support I do
not mind to throw my purism over board.
Leg Godt,
|
I’ve looked at this and a few similar options. Wether or not BBB could achieve
it at the $0.30 per piece range (preferably less) is a matter of quantity. I’d
much prefer to be closer to $0.10 per piece. But in order to get that low, I’m
thinking of production runs up to 100,000 parts and I don’t know if the demand
would be there. Especially not knowing what LEGO will do.
The other aspect to this is that you are basically talking about a new ‘system’
of track and I don’t think you could just make the sleepers (ie ties) without
making the other necessary parts - switches, crossings etc. and there in lies
the crux of the problem. You can’t just engineer one part of a track system,
you need to work out a whole system of track that will ‘play well’ together.
And investing in a whole system of track would require a lot of upfront cost
which may be made entirely obsolete by what LEGO will release in 2009. It just
doesn’t seem feasible to do the necessary R&D, release a product and make the
investment back.
Cheers,
Ben Fleskes
Big Ben Bricks LLC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
<snip>
>
> Chris's Bluetooth suggestion is a good one. It got me to thinking about another
> possible problem with wireless control. At larger Train Shows, if the wireless
> waves travel too far they could effect the wireless trains on surrounding
> exhibits.
<snip>
Has anyone adapted two NXT units to drive a train yet? One NXT as a controller
talks bluetooth to the other NXT that drives the train. The NXT that drives the
train could be either attached to the track or onboard the train.
I've been itching to try it but I only have one NXT and I'm not that familiar
with the programming interface. Of course the NXT is a bit big, but it might
just fit in boxcar or some sort and then run a wire up to the engine.
Cheers,
Ben Fleskes
Big Ben Bricks LLC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ben Fleskes wrote:
> Has anyone adapted two NXT units to drive a train yet?
Not exactly, that I know of, *yet*...
The biggest problem in running a train would be hiding the NXT - I saw only one
good solution to hiding the RCX in a boxcar, and the NXT is bigger, as are the
motors. You could use an old motor (or even a 9V train motor) with a legacy
converter cable, but if what you're looking for is a migration pathway to
actively produced electronics, you need to do without. Besides, the NXT motors
would give you very good speed control.
Two other options exist. One, power the truck with a PF motor (they are rather
powerful) run from the NXT by a converter cable (this solves the bulky motor
problem but you still have the bulky NXT on-board). Or two, command the Hobby
train or PF drive system via IR from an NXT using the Hitechnic IRLink. Yes,
this gets back to the problem of IR (and range), but it might have some very
interesting possibilities so I wanted to mention it.
> One NXT as a controller talks bluetooth to the other
> NXT that drives the train.
Note that you could network several NXT together this way, and run a slew of
automated accessories as well as sensor, points, etc. Especially with the
ability of the NXT with the IRLink to command the PF motors, that implies the
possibility of one NXT commanding 11 motors: 3 NXT motors with positional
feedback, and 8 PF motors (two on each of four channels). Could be interesting.
> I've been itching to try it but I only have one NXT
> and I'm not that familiar with the programming interface.
Where are you located? I know a number of folks (on either side of the Atlantic)
who have more than one NXT, and some idea of how to program them for BT. For
that matter, what do you want to do? In NXT-G, I could likely whip up some
simple coding for you, or you can take a look at my remote control example up on
Steve Hassenplug's webpage, near the bottom:
http://www.teamhassenplug.org/NXT/
To just look, you could look at the BTRC.png and Remote.png images in my
Brickshelf gallery:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=191310
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> Two other options exist...
Oh, for shame, Brian. Letting me think up an option that you passed right over
(and a really cool one at that). With the legacy converter cables, you could
power the _track_ with an NXT. Hook the track up as if it was a motor, using
the standard leads connected to the legacy cable, run the NXT off the Li-Poly
pack with an AC adapter hooked up, and then you can sit anywhere in the layout
with a remote unit that'll let you start and stop the trains at whim. Now, if
you can get _one_ NXT to slave multiple NXTs, you could run as many as three
loops off a single remote, using the three motor leads to give you three
different throttles. Now, granted, you might not be able to run large loops
without slaving multiple NXTs to a single throttle and spacing them around the
track to provide boosted power, but I don't have the necessary parts or
experience to tinker around with this idea to see what really is possible beyond
spending ~$600 to produce the equivalent of an IR train without the
line-of-sight restriction.
But being able to incorporate some portion of this concept into the next
generation of trains would go a long ways towards getting the trainheads to
support the changeover, if grudgingly.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
>
> > Two other options exist...
>
> Oh, for shame, Brian. Letting me think up an option that you passed right over
> (and a really cool one at that). With the legacy converter cables, you could
> power the _track_ with an NXT.
I believe the options being discussed were in relation to the use of non-metal
track, which is all that will be produced by LEGO in the foreseeable future.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> Letting me think up an option that you passed right over...
As Ross mentioned, I was focused more on the "future" of trains, and if it's
going to be done in LEGO, it looks like it will be done without conductive
track.
> With the legacy converter cables, you could power the
> _track_ with an NXT.
Absolutely, but you could do better. Run a single loop off a single output, and
either pulse the power to it (this is how Steve and I do the GBC trains on
standard 9V now, emulating PWM at a software level), or hook up a NXT motor to
it as well, unloaded (that would require special split power cables I think) to
function as a rotation sensor for feedback. You also *might* be able to run it
as a "normal" motor in an unregulated mode - to be honest, I've not played with
this. Now each NXT can run *three* loops; NXT ports can pour out current. So
with three slave NXTs under the command of a single NXT master, you could
selectively power at least nine loops or track segments. Very cool!
...but it depends on conductive track, which is going away.
> run the NXT off the Li-Poly pack with an AC adapter
> hooked up
There may be a problem here, in that the AC power supplied through the Li-ion
limits the motor ports (in other words, you can draw more current from the three
ports together than the wall transformer can supply in a steady-state
situation).
> But being able to incorporate some portion of this concept into the next
> generation of trains would go a long ways towards getting the trainheads to
> support the changeover, if grudgingly.
Well, like I said, the NXT can talk to both the IR Hobby train and the PF system
(which it looks like will be in the future trains) via the IRLink, so the
communication and control is already availible, just via IR.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
Well I get back from a relaxing break and I am greeted with this announcement.
I am sad of course, but I am not surprised. I have been slowly purchasing
track, motors, and regulators in anticipation of this day and I know of many
others who have done the same thing themselves. I plan on continuing to build up
my layout and sharing it with friends and family, but I am sad that they will
not be able to join this community and build a layout of their own.
Even though LEGO has discontinued them, trains will be around for many years to
come. Just look at monorail!
Trains may be dead to LEGO, but they are not to the fans. Keep sharing your
MOCs, keep bringing your creations to shows! Keep sharing your love of the
brick with others! Long live Trains!
-Matt Forcum
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
| |
Hm.. how much to make metal rails, and then have LEGO-compatible pieces
that can
snap onto the bottom of the rail?
Scott
|
An AFOL already made some headway on that one, way back in ‘05..
http://users.erols.com/kennrice/flextrack.htm
|
Wow. Now, if LEGO did decide to throw 9V a bone, they could manufacture a
sleeper like Ken’s modified 2x8 plate, bundle it with the 3rd party connectors
and rail stock, and voila - hobbyist track kits!
All things considered, this won’t happen, for a lot of reasons. But an AFOL
can dream...
Steve
|
I am sorry to hear the news, but I am not surprised. There are two things Lego
can do to help the transition on those of us with a large investment in the 9v
system.
1) the most consumable element in the 9v system is the train motor. But in many
cases I suspect it is the electric motor inside that burns out. And the actual
electric motor is likely a standard model produced by a third party vendor. So
provide us with information on the third party vendor and the motor model so
that we can crack open the lego case and replace the motor unit when it burns
out.
2) produce a single specialized lego element that would enable flex-track at the
right gauge. Like many of the other posters, originally, I had thought of it
being a tie or sleeper, similar to:
with the tabs being formed such that it would slip on one of the standard stock
of model rail available from hobby suppliers. It would allow us unlimited
straight and curve tracks, supporting the 9v line at the cost of producing a
single new part (no, I do not envision lego supplying the rail, just that they
make the clips compatible with something we could find on our own). With all of
the ballasting that clubs do, I suspect it would be relatively easy to build up
semi-permanent assemblies for shows.
Thinking further, if we were going to have a single part, it might be nicer to
have a 2x2 plate or tile with the clips, and thus, require a conventional 2x8
plate to connect it all together. The logic for 2x2 is that with turntables, we
might be able to cobble together complex switches using the stock part.
(Alternative sizes might be 1x2 aligned with the rail, 1x3 perpendicular to the
rail, or 2x3 perpendicular to the rail)
Back at NMRA 2006, I walked around and spoke with a few of the model railroad
track manufacturers. All expressed hesitation to setting up new molds for a new
gauge (they would have to make all track geometries). I think it makes more
sense for the lego community to provide the sleepers, and the conventional model
community to provide the rail. Let each side do what it does best. I think lego
could more than break even on the part if sold for $0.10ea (on the order of Ben
Fleskes’s estimates). The profit margin on such pieces might not be huge, but
they will go far to keeping those customers with a large investment in 9v trains
happy and buying more lego. The parts could even be used as detailing on
non-train sets.
If the lego group does not want to pursue such specialized parts, they should
bring in the top third party producers (such as Ben Fleskes) and coordinate so
that the third parties can decide whether or not to proceed without fear that a
year later lego will come out with a similar part.
Benn
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Hi Bryan,
> Hi all,
>
> you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> positive or negative about the train announcement.
>
> We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> others are new for us.
>
> It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
>
> All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts. This was and will
> be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
> elements.
>
> Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
> know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
> then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
>
> Holger
Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new
train system.
Benn
On the batteries:
-I am concerned that the weight of batteries could limit long trains. So the
battery weight will be just as important as it's lifespan.
-For buildability (especially in 6 wide) Battery size will be important, ideally
2xNx4 so that it could be built inside a 4 wide hood on a locomotive. Failing
that, 4xNx4 so that we could at least fit it in a 6 wide car or locomotive.
-Ease of charging is important, should be able to charge the batteries without
taking the model apart.
On the motors:
-The ability to add as many motors as one likes to a train (provided one also
has sufficient batteries, etc.) and start and start all of the motors as a
single unit.
On control:
-The ability to set stop-and-continue, stop-and-reverse, sound-your-horn, and
other functions triggered by trackside markers.
-The ability to set trackside objects that are triggered by the train (e.g.,
small motors and lights for grade crossings)
-If the line is successful (i.e., not on day 1, but maybe in year 3) the ability
to add real block signals that respond to the trains and actually control
movement (a dynamic "stop-and-continue" controlled by a trackside object that
responds to the train)
-The ability to add remotely controlled functionality on-board the train, e.g.,
a secondary motor powered by the controller to decouple cars.
-Motorized switches with remote control
-RF communication from controller to train (not IR) with at least 40 channels or
motor id's.
On the track:
If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with the
metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-piece
track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface with the
9v and IR train track)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> with the 9v and IR train track)
Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Benn Coifman wrote:
| |
1) the most consumable element in the 9v system is the train motor. But in
many cases I suspect it is the electric motor inside that burns out. And the
actual electric motor is likely a standard model produced by a third party
vendor. So provide us with information on the third party vendor and the
motor model so that we can crack open the lego case and replace the motor
unit when it burns out.
|
Talk to Ondrew Hartigan. He’s already tracked down a company that can provide
an replacement, even if they’re not the company that manufactured the original
units.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> As Ross mentioned, I was focused more on the "future" of trains, and if it's
> going to be done in LEGO, it looks like it will be done without conductive
> track.
Fair enough, but clearly the idea has sparked some interest, so I'm sure I'll
see it get put into use at some point.
> Absolutely, but you could do better. Run a single loop off a single output,
> and either pulse the power to it (this is how Steve and I do the GBC trains
> on standard 9V now, emulating PWM at a software level), or hook up a NXT
> motor to it as well, unloaded (that would require special split power cables
> I think) to function as a rotation sensor for feedback. You also *might* be
> able to run it as a "normal" motor in an unregulated mode - to be honest,
> I've not played with this. Now each NXT can run *three* loops; NXT ports can
> pour out current. So with three slave NXTs under the command of a single NXT
> master, you could selectively power at least nine loops or track segments.
> Very cool!
The ports may be able to pour out power, as you say, but I'd say it's equally
well established that large trains with heavy cars will suck it like water in a
desert. I'd be leary of running more than one loop off a single NXT's output,
and I'm not sure a 1:3 pulse of power would be enough to sustain a desirable
speed on many AFOL trains. While it might be possible to pull off nine loops, I
think your first problem would be in setting up independant control of all nine
through a single control NXT. All it has is three inputs, each of which would
accept one motor. Each motor can only have one setting, so unless you want to
slave three loops to a single throttle, that puts a strict 3-loop limit on each
control NXT to begin with. The second problem would be that unless you limit
yourself to short trains, I'd be concerned that this setup would be more likely
to burn out train motors. Slaving one loop per NXT allows each loop to draw
full current from a single NXT (though you might find that you have to slave a
second NXT to the same throttle to provide boosted power on a large loop).
> ...but it depends on conductive track, which is going away.
Yeah, but I don't expect the train clubs to start dumping it outright.
> There may be a problem here, in that the AC power supplied through the Li-ion
> limits the motor ports (in other words, you can draw more current from the
> three ports together than the wall transformer can supply in a steady-state
> situation).
Again getting back to a reason for limiting this to one loop per slave unit, and
three loops per control unit. You've got three basic choices for how to provide
current. Use alkalines to get higher voltage than a rechargable, though they'll
get expensive over time _and_ they drop voltage as they're used. Use the
Li-Poly pack with an AC adapter so that if you can limit the draw you can run it
indefinitely, or if you can't you'll at least be able to supplement the initial
charge. Use rechargable AAs to get the worst of both worlds. I mean, I suppose
you could go all-out on this and use regular Lithium AAs, but those are way more
expensive than alkalines, though they do also last a lot longer (not sure they
last long enough to spend $10 per pair, though...). Remember, this is a system
where train clubs will turn the trains on in the morning and let them run for
maybe eight hours straight in a single day, with the only breaks being to swap
out trains or to recover from a derailment. I don't think a battery-only
solution is going to cut it, and I also don't think most LTC's have much need to
actually power more than three regular lines. I think MichLTC set a club record
at NMRA when we had a grand total of seven loops running in a single show (three
regular, two elevated, and two underground).
> Well, like I said, the NXT can talk to both the IR Hobby train and the PF
> system (which it looks like will be in the future trains) via the IRLink, so
> the communication and control is already availible, just via IR.
Yeah, they'll never get the LTC's to switch over to a system that requires
constant line-of-sight to keep a train moving. Have you ever seen Jim Garret's
buildings? The Fisher Building has a large enough footprint that a train will
travel about 11' from the time it passes behind one end of the building to the
time it emerges from the other side. And in a normal layout, you could only
count on about 1' of clearance before it passes behind another building. Add in
the trigonometric problems (a single IR control unit cannot have a direct shot
down every street on a large layout unless you've conned someone into chasing it
around for the entire show), and you will have _very_ brief moments of control
over a very long run. Now, if the motor stays switched on until the IR control
specifically switches it off, that's less of an issue as all it means is you'd
have very brief moments during which you could adjust the speed up or down
(unless you did so from the outside), but if it requires a constant signal to
stay powered up, every building it passes behind will cause it to stall out a
bit, and large ones will stop it completely.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
snip
| |
I even would guess that a special sleeper plate with flat bottom (to float
on studs beneath), with 242 studs on top and a kind of retaining clips to
fix the metal rail would be an option for any “third-party producer”. BBB?
Little Armory? We would surly need hundreds of these. On the other hand we
would not like to pay 3 bucks per piece, but only 10% of this...
I would not care about another 3rd party piece. If lego cuts the support I
do not mind to throw my purism over board.
Leg Godt,
|
I’ve looked at this and a few similar options. Wether or not BBB could
achieve it at the $0.30 per piece range (preferably less) is a matter of
quantity. I’d much prefer to be closer to $0.10 per piece. But in order to
get that low, I’m thinking of production runs up to 100,000 parts and I don’t
know if the demand would be there. Especially not knowing what LEGO will do.
The other aspect to this is that you are basically talking about a new
‘system’ of track and I don’t think you could just make the sleepers (ie
ties) without making the other necessary parts - switches, crossings etc.
and there in lies the crux of the problem. You can’t just engineer one part
of a track system, you need to work out a whole system of track that will
‘play well’ together.
And investing in a whole system of track would require a lot of upfront cost
which may be made entirely obsolete by what LEGO will release in 2009. It
just doesn’t seem feasible to do the necessary R&D, release a product and
make the investment back.
Cheers,
Ben Fleskes
Big Ben Bricks LLC
|
Hi Ben,
I do not see so much need for a full system: the biggest need is for straight
track and possibly new curve radius.
The aftermarket will offer used 9V switches for the next 20 years. Some people
will switch to the new battery trains. Kids will give up their small train
systems anyway.... But clubs and hard core users will allways have the need for
a new curve radius and more straight track.
But of course this limits the mass of sleepers, which can be marketed.
The only “extra” part, which might be needed in fact, is a connection between
standard 9V track and the mentioned sleeper+rail track.
But to be honest: I am not a strong potential custumer of such sleepers anyway.
At the very same moment when the first pictures of the actual battery trains
came up, I have begun to enlarge my pile of track and spare 9V motors. Unluckily
these are made in a rather poor quality in copmparison to 90ies motors (LEGO has
reduced the specification for the guaranteed operation time to 33% of the
original value). Nevertheless I will never ever in my life need any more 9V
equipment. My track is enough to put 2 ovals around the house and even if I burn
2 motors per year, I will be 70+ of age before my spares are used up....
This is the reason, why I am not personally hit by the demise of 9V trains. Of
course it is sad, to make a public show and display classic sets of a glorious
LEGO past.
9V leg godt!
See more pictures of my models at www.brickshelf.com
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> > On the track:
> > If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> > the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> > piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> > with the 9v and IR train track)
>
> Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
> based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
> couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
I've got a number of 4.5v/12v sleeper that have lost their clips (the
little vertical pieces that click into the track), so Im' not wild about
going back to that kind of track. If the design could be fixed, so the
part that holds onto the track strongly isn't prone to snapping off then
that would be a reasonable alternative. Nevertheless, I've got so much
9v rail, and don't see myself running out and buying a bunch of plastic
rail regardless of it's design.
Chris
--
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
Again I may be missing something, and perhaps the future of LEGO’s solution, as
yet unknown looms as a possible roadblock--but why for example could not the
various train clubs come up with a standard piece--get together--gurantee a
certain number of sales for the ties, and get them produced. If the track
specification was an existing one that the rest of the hobby supported, you are
pretty much guranteed that you will be safe for the forseeable future.
One could prototype the suggested part pretty easily. Heck even my little
engraving machine would be capable of stripping the studs and cleaning up the
bottom, if that is what I understand that needs to be done at a reasonable
price. Removing stuff from existing part is pretty darn easy. I strip studs all
the time from plates to make “smooth tiles” so I can veneer over them. Now
inserting those clips would be a different matter and would require a lot of
labor--unless of course there is a simple machine that could be modified to do
it automatically.
Of course an injection molded part would be the best solution--maybe--if the
numbers are there. But if one could use existing LEGO parts and simply machine
off some excess--that could be easily done, and would not necessitate the mold
process and the high dollar injection machine (or renting of one). And
understand, I am not trying to get into that business, as I have about all I can
do at the present, and have some pretty big plans that I am working on with my
brickengraving stuff, but I do know model railroaders who are machinists that
create all kinds of things for their hobby. And that is out of brass.
One solution would be to simply create the requisite file and send it to
http://www.emachineshop.com/ push the button and get a quote for injection
molding or 3d machining. That would at least give on a starting reference point
for figuring how much they would cost.Although Ben could probably do that also.
I will not ever believe that there is not a solution for something as simple as
this appears to be. Especially since metal track is already being produced. And
if anyone wants my help in say perhaps stripping some studs off some plates or
grooving some part--let me know and will try and help out. Creating a single
little plastic part cannot be that difficult--it might be at a price
point--maybe.
Tommy ARmstrong
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> The ports may be able to pour out power, as you say, but I'd
> say it's equally well established that large trains with heavy
> cars will suck it like water in a desert.
Stalled, the train motor pulls 950 mA, while the stall current of the NXT motor
is a whopping 2 Amps. So a single NXT motor output should easily handle a
twin-engine train loaded to the point where it stalls the engine(s)... there's
the matter of what the peak voltage is, which for a system driven by the NXT
will be slightly lower than what I *think* the peak voltage is from a train
controler, but not by much.
> I'm not sure a 1:3 pulse of power would be enough to sustain
> a desirable speed on many AFOL trains.
You lost me here. I was proposing pulsing the power ("pulse width modulation")
on a motor output, to simulate a more standard PWM scheme. With an NXT motor
attached, you might actually get away without a bunch of rapid "on off" command
in the software, because by watching the motor encoders for feedback the
firmware on the NXt would do it for you. The neat thing about this second is
that when the train hits a hill and tries to draw more power, the amount of
power to the NXT motor on the circuit with it will drop, and it will slow down
just like the train... until the NXT firmware detects this, and increase the
power out to maintain a constant speed on the motor. I've not tested this, but
it's a possibility that might be very interesting for NXT-driven trains.
> While it might be possible to pull off nine loops, I think
> your first problem would be in setting up independant control
> of all nine through a single control NXT.
Use an on-screen menu and the on-brick buttons to select which bank of loops to
control, and then use the three motors as three inputs to "set the throttle".
No, you wouldn't have a console of nine analog-appearing throttles sitting in
front of you, but it would certainly work. Start small is good, and I agree...
but I'm pointing out the level of flexibility inherent in the system.
> > the AC power supplied through the Li-ion limits the motor
> > ports (in other words, you can draw more current from the
> > three ports together than the wall transformer can supply
> > in a steady-state situation).
>
> Again getting back to a reason for limiting this to one loop
> per slave unit, and three loops per control unit.
And this is a good reason, but it would need more testing to see what the limits
are. Conservative is good, but very few of us have 4 NXTs to try this out with
as yet (yeah, I do know a few folks who could, but theytend to be hyperactively
busy with their HW).
> Remember, this is a system where train clubs will turn
> the trains on in the morning and let them run for maybe
> eight hours straight in a single day, with the only
> breaks being to swap out trains or to recover from a
> derailment. I don't think a battery-only solution is
> going to cut it...
I agree... but if you are using conductive tracks, use good old analog train
controlers. If you want automation, you could control the train controler with
an NXT motor (if you've got the hardware, this gets around a number of
problems). And since folks have run their trains using LDCC off an RCX, running
a similar set-up off an NXT using the Li-ion battery and a wall wart should be
easy in terms of power (the transformer is the limit in the system, and if it
could power 1.5 amps out of the RCX under LDCC, it should certainly handle
something similar for the NXT).
> they'll never get the LTC's to switch over to a system
> that requires constant line-of-sight to keep a train
> moving.
I agree, but it's not large buildings that worry me, but tunnels and multi-level
layouts. If the Hobby train IR remote is anything like the PF remote, just point
it at the ceiling. I can control my PF Bulldozer from the other side of a island
counter just by pointing it up at the ceiling and bouncing the IR. But no way
will it work for tunnels. Yes, a system that allows the reciever to enter a
"latched on" state would be ideal... and while you're at it, if the PF receiver
(in the new yet-to-be-seen trains, for instance) could do PWM, then other than
battery life a lot of the problems have been solved: you could use IR to "talk"
to a receiver on a train going by, and set it's speed. The train then holds its
speed until the next communication window.
--
Brian "not actually a train-head" Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new train system.
>
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with the
> metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-piece
> track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface with the
> 9v and IR train track)
My point is that TLG should continue with the 9volt system until a new system is
developed and available. Showing off our train layouts at train shows and
telling visitors that it is discontinued for 2+ years will turn off the buying
public and they will go to other manufactures for their trains and accessories.
In 2+ years, they will have invested enough in their train layouts at whatever
guage, that when they visit our shows, they will enjoy the display, but go and
buy from other manufactures the items they need to expand or 'abuse' their
existing layouts. TLG will lose out in train purchases and all the LEGO people
would have bought to decorate their layouts.
My questions are: If the new system is electrical as stated in the announcment,
how will this operate an electric train on plastic non-metal track? Will the
new track, plastic or metal-capped, be of the same dimension as 9volt and the
current RC track? Will we be able to convert existing 9volt engines to the new
'electric' system and run our trains on both plastic and the Metalized track we
currently own?
If you look on page 6 of the Holiday 2006 catalog, there is a sample 9volt oval
that is advertized as 27"x33" and is made up of 8 curved track pieces per end.
In that same issue, on page 11, there is a oval of the RC plastic track that is
28"x37.5"... where is the 1" difference? Is the curved pieces a different
radius? Not having any of the plastic track, I am not able to tell. So, again,
my question is, will the track for the new system be compatable? And to which
system?
My 2¢ worth...
Don GtwLUG Lugnet #1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> Stalled, the train motor pulls 950 mA, while the stall current of the NXT
> motor is a whopping 2 Amps. So a single NXT motor output should easily
> handle a twin-engine train loaded to the point where it stalls the
> engine(s)...there's the matter of what the peak voltage is, which for a
> system driven by the NXT will be slightly lower than what I *think* the peak
> voltage is from a train controler, but not by much.
So it sounds like a single loop should be no problem under most situations,
since I'm not sure I've heard of anyone running three motors on a single train
(there's the same issue with how much amperage a power regulator can push).
> > I'm not sure a 1:3 pulse of power would be enough to sustain
> > a desirable speed on many AFOL trains.
>
> You lost me here. I was proposing pulsing the power ("pulse width
> modulation") on a motor output, to simulate a more standard PWM scheme. With
> an NXT motor attached, you might actually get away without a bunch of
> rapid "on off" command in the software, because by watching the motor
> encoders for feedback the firmware on the NXt would do it for you.
It sounds like what you'd want to do is run three loops where only one loop is
receiving power at any given moment. Based on that, what I was saying is that
I'm not sure a train will run nicely if it's only getting power 1/3rd of the
time. It seems like if you're giving it full power for one second and no power
for two seconds, it's roughly equivalent to giving it a steady 33% power.
> Use an on-screen menu and the on-brick buttons to select which bank of loops
> to control, and then use the three motors as three inputs to "set the
> throttle". No, you wouldn't have a console of nine analog-appearing
> throttles sitting in front of you, but it would certainly work. Start small
> is good, and I agree... but I'm pointing out the level of flexibility
> inherent in the system.
Well, if you don't mind the fact that many people would have difficulty
operating it under emergency circumstances (such as one train derailing over the
tracks of another approaching train). And don't ever hand it to anyone whose
VCR still flashes "12:00". Actually, if you include the use of buttons in the
control scheme, you could control four single-loop NXTs by using three motors as
analog throttle controls, and the left/right arrow buttons as a fourth digital
throttle.
> And this is a good reason, but it would need more testing to see what the
> limits are. Conservative is good, but very few of us have 4 NXTs to try this
> out with as yet (yeah, I do know a few folks who could, but theytend to be
> hyperactively busy with their HW).
No one person should need to own all involved NXT bricks. Since this is
something that would ultimately likely appeal more to an LTC than a robotics
group, having a few members donate NXT bricks for any shows would allow one
person to do all of the programming without having to drop a bunch of extra cash
on the project. For instance, in our club, Steve Ringe does a lot of work with
the older Mindstorms, but I doubt he'd have bought four NXT sets (I'm not sure
he's even bought one), but all told I believe our club has at least six within
the greater Detroit area (more if you include all of our far-flung members).
> I agree, but it's not large buildings that worry me, but tunnels and multi-
> level layouts. If the Hobby train IR remote is anything like the PF remote,
> just point it at the ceiling. I can control my PF Bulldozer from the other
> side of a island counter just by pointing it up at the ceiling and bouncing
> the IR. But no way will it work for tunnels.
Heh. So I guess that wouldn't work at all for one of Ringe's more devious
systems...
|
|
| |
> Stalled, the train motor pulls 950 mA, while the stall current of the NXT motor
> is a whopping 2 Amps. So a single NXT motor output should easily handle a
Some precisions here:
- NXT stall current is 2A but only for a short time: internal thermal protection
will trip at a current much lower than that (exact value depends on temperature
and overload duration). A practical value is about 1A
- NXT motor driver itself limits the current around 1A too.
Philo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> A practical value is about 1A - NXT motor driver itself
> limits the current around 1A too.
Ah, thank you - so running two stalled train motors would exceed the NXT output,
but running one train motor up to a stall conditions should be fine. Out of
curiosity, along with the output limitations on the NXT (1 A) and RCX (500 mA),
does anyone have the output limitations (voltage and current) on the train
transformer?
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> So it sounds like a single loop should be no problem under
> most situations... there's the same issue with how much
> amperage a power regulator can push.
Philo kindly corrected me, pointing out that the NXT outputs are regulated down
to 1 A, so you couldn't run a dual-truck train all the way to stall. You could
still get a good bit of the way there, however. Does anyone know what the peak
voltage and current a train regulator can put out is?
While somebody is at it, the next time a large train is run up an incline that
is going around a bend at the same time, what is the train regulator actually
putting out? Do you ever see a train regulator running "full on" and the train
is just making it (i.e., near the limits of the system)? We had this issue with
the RCX powering the GBC trains, in that if we ever do go to "full power" (and
from the RCX, that's 500 mA, max), we get instant train wreck (usually with
impressive colateral damage, but that's a different thread).
> It sounds like what you'd want to do is run three loops
> where only one loop is receiving power at any given moment.
Ah, I see. What I was talking about was running three loops in parallel, pulsing
the power to each of them, not rapidly switching between the three from a single
port. PWM under software control isn't as smooth as you'd like, particularly at
low powers, but it might actually be good enough using the NXT motor encoder
feedback trick. It needs to be tried.
> Well, if you don't mind the fact that many people would
> have difficulty operating it under emergency circumstances
> (such as one train derailing over the tracks of another
> approaching train).
Program in a global kill switch: if the touch sensor is pushed, stop *all*
trains on *all* slave NXTs. Ideal? No... but if what you want is handling an
emergency, that will do it. My primary point is that if you are using a series
of true computers, there's a lot of possibilities.
As an example, let's say a slave NXT is running three loops under steady-state
conditions, and suddenly notices either its internal battery voltage jump up
(I'm not sure how much that would happen if it's plugged in), or one of the
loops suddenly starts running under a "no load" or "light load" condition. The
slave can correctly assume that something has happened to that train, and if
that loop crosses any others, can shut down not just that loop, but the
intersecting ones as well, "safing" that section of the layout (possibly an
out-of-sight section) before sending a message back to the master NXT for user
display. Incidently, since the master NXT isn't doing anything power-intensive
like running the motors, you could wear it on your belt like a big pager,
controling the layout from anywhere you happen to be. Your control center is
mobile.
> Actually, if you include the use of buttons in the
> control scheme...
There are four sensor inputs as well... any one of which could read an old-style
rotation sensor. If you are OK with different style throttles, you could easily
run seven (three motors, four rotation sensors) or more (gang touch sensors,
using pairs of touch sensors for throttle up / throttle down. You can probably
stack three or four touch sensors off every sensor input port, leading to
perhaps 6 up/down throttles from just touch sensors on sensor ports alone).
> No one person should need to own all involved NXT bricks.
No, but to learn how to program this stuff you really need at least two. I find
BT messaging between NXTs to be fairly easy, and very simple under NXT-G... but
that's because I've had the experience. You really need at least two to work out
the kinks on such a remote control scheme, and probably more (response times
change as you add more NXTs into the system).
> So I guess that wouldn't work at all for one of Ringe's
> more devious systems...
Really, if the PF system is going to be embedded into trains, having a "latch
on" mode would be ideal, and solve many problems. It doesn't even have to be an
"exposed" mode to kids, just a behavior that the IR receiver can produce when
properly commanded (like by an IRLink from a NXT, or a special "train remote").
OK, I'd also love non-line-of-sight solutions like compact BT between the train
and the remote, or just good old RC... but I don't know if those are in the
pipe. I'm pretty sure IR is already in the system :-).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
>
> My point is that TLG should continue with the 9volt system until a new system is
> developed and available.
Maybe (big 'maybe' of course) there is 2 years or so of stock left of current
track and motors and all. They are still selling track in old dark grey
afterall - quite a while after the color change has happened. This doesn't
appear to help the whole situation in the long run of course. (AFTER the two
years)
> If you look on page 6 of the Holiday 2006 catalog, there is a sample 9volt oval
> that is advertized as 27"x33" and is made up of 8 curved track pieces per end.
> In that same issue, on page 11, there is a oval of the RC plastic track that is
> 28"x37.5"... where is the 1" difference? Is the curved pieces a different
> radius? Not having any of the plastic track, I am not able to tell.
I'd bet this is just lousy editing in the Lego catalog.
Jonathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
>
> > A practical value is about 1A - NXT motor driver itself
> > limits the current around 1A too.
>
> Ah, thank you - so running two stalled train motors would exceed the NXT output,
> but running one train motor up to a stall conditions should be fine. Out of
> curiosity, along with the output limitations on the NXT (1 A) and RCX (500 mA),
> does anyone have the output limitations (voltage and current) on the train
> transformer?
The linear regulator inside is a 1.5A version if I remember well, but I may be
wrong. Cross posted to lugnet.trains trying to get train guru opinion...
Philo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> >
> > > A practical value is about 1A - NXT motor driver itself
> > > limits the current around 1A too.
> >
> > Ah, thank you - so running two stalled train motors would exceed the NXT output,
> > but running one train motor up to a stall conditions should be fine. Out of
> > curiosity, along with the output limitations on the NXT (1 A) and RCX (500 mA),
> > does anyone have the output limitations (voltage and current) on the train
> > transformer?
>
> The linear regulator inside is a 1.5A version if I remember well, but I may be
> wrong. Cross posted to lugnet.trains trying to get train guru opinion...
>
> Philo
At BayLTC we usually run four train motors on one loop using stock Controller
with a 1.2 amp wall wart.
Bruce
|
|
| |
I apologize for the inability (both in time and mental stamina) to read this
entire thread. But I feel the need to offer an easily-backwards compatible
alternative to the power supplies thus far mentioned...
No need to recharge underpowered batteries.
Fits on L-gauge (I think).
Fits easily into the space of a 9V motor.
And no need for metal rails...
http://media.peeron.com/pics/inv/custpics/x384c01.jpg
:-D
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Benn Coifman wrote:
| |
I am sorry to hear the news, but I am not surprised. There are two things
Lego can do to help the transition on those of us with a large investment in
the 9v system.
1) the most consumable element in the 9v system is the train motor. But in
many cases I suspect it is the electric motor inside that burns out. And the
actual electric motor is likely a standard model produced by a third party
vendor. So provide us with information on the third party vendor and the
motor model so that we can crack open the lego case and replace the motor
unit when it burns out.
2) produce a single specialized lego element that would enable flex-track at
the right gauge. Like many of the other posters, originally, I had thought of
it being a tie or sleeper, similar to:
with the tabs being formed such that it would slip on one of the standard
stock of model rail available from hobby suppliers. It would allow us
unlimited straight and curve tracks, supporting the 9v line at the cost of
producing a single new part (no, I do not envision lego supplying the rail,
just that they make the clips compatible with something we could find on our
own). With all of the ballasting that clubs do, I suspect it would be
relatively easy to build up semi-permanent assemblies for shows.
Thinking further, if we were going to have a single part, it might be nicer
to have a 2x2 plate or tile with the clips, and thus, require a conventional
2x8 plate to connect it all together. The logic for 2x2 is that with
turntables, we might be able to cobble together complex switches using the
stock part. (Alternative sizes might be 1x2 aligned with the rail, 1x3
perpendicular to the rail, or 2x3 perpendicular to the rail)
Back at NMRA 2006, I walked around and spoke with a few of the model railroad
track manufacturers. All expressed hesitation to setting up new molds for a
new gauge (they would have to make all track geometries). I think it makes
more sense for the lego community to provide the sleepers, and the
conventional model community to provide the rail. Let each side do what it
does best. I think lego could more than break even on the part if sold for
$0.10ea (on the order of Ben Fleskes’s estimates). The profit margin on such
pieces might not be huge, but they will go far to keeping those customers
with a large investment in 9v trains happy and buying more lego. The parts
could even be used as detailing on non-train sets.
If the lego group does not want to pursue such specialized parts, they should
bring in the top third party producers (such as Ben Fleskes) and coordinate
so that the third parties can decide whether or not to proceed without fear
that a year later lego will come out with a similar part.
Benn
|
I did some research on this several years ago. At the time it was to pursue the
idea of wider radii curves. But now it’s of even more interest with the 9v track
going away.
I drew up several different ideas, and even contacted someone in a plastics
injection shop. Getting the price down on the indiviual ties is not a problem,
assuming a reasonable volume.
It’s the cost of the metal rail itself that’s an issue. Code 250 (1/4” tall)
nickle silver rail is ~$2.60 a linear foot at retail prices. That comes out to
a little over $2 for the rail needed in a single 16 stud long section of track.
This could be reduced I’m sure by buying in a large enough quanity, but not
much. Or by going to aluminum, it’s ~$.50 a foot, but that material isn’t ideal.
Aluminum builds up a nasty oxide, and can’t be solderd.
Atlas uses a code 240 NS rail for thier O-gauge track system. Based on thier
reatil price for track, the rail would be afforadable if it could be pruchased
seperatly.
Then there’s the cost/effort of bending and cutting the rails the the correct
size and length. And designing and building switches is an even greater task.
Plastic tie, single:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2758909
Plastic Tie, double:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2758910
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> >
> > > A practical value is about 1A - NXT motor driver itself
> > > limits the current around 1A too.
> >
> > Ah, thank you - so running two stalled train motors would exceed the NXT output,
> > but running one train motor up to a stall conditions should be fine. Out of
> > curiosity, along with the output limitations on the NXT (1 A) and RCX (500 mA),
> > does anyone have the output limitations (voltage and current) on the train
> > transformer?
>
> The linear regulator inside is a 1.5A version if I remember well, but I may be
> wrong. Cross posted to lugnet.trains trying to get train guru opinion...
The Australian LEGO wall wart is marked 10V @ 7VA on the secondary. I don't
recall all the stuff I learnt about the relationship between VA and W, but that
seems to me to indicate about 0.7A. I believe this generally reduces as load
increases, but again I don't recall all that stuff... Philo?
M>ltc uses a home-built 3A transformer for our displays.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
> The Australian LEGO wall wart is marked 10V @ 7VA on the secondary. I don't
> recall all the stuff I learnt about the relationship between VA and W, but that
> seems to me to indicate about 0.7A. I believe this generally reduces as load
> increases, but again I don't recall all that stuff... Philo?
You are right, the main limitation probably comes from wall wart... You are
essentially right for the 0.7A current (though it is not hard limit, rather a
safety one).
Philo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Steve Witt wrote:
> I'm posting this on behalf of Richard Stollery, head of LEGO Community
> Development:
<snip>
> The LEGO Group has considered the future of the 9v at length, and has come to
> the conclusion that there is not sufficient demand for the product line to be
> profitable and competitive.
One evening, way back in 1991, I was pushing a baby stroller thru Toys R Us. My
son, Graham, 2 years old, in the stroller. We went over to the toy train area -
because I was looking forward to the day in the futrure when we could play with
trains together. We turned down the ailse and there it was - a plexiglass
display with the Lego 9V Metroliner and the yellow Central Station. We did not
make any purchases that day...
Here we are 16 years later - my son in college - (taking an Electrical
engineering class where they are building a Lego robot) - our house filled with
Lego trains and city buildings. Bags and bags of spare Lego bricks.
For some reason - something possesses me to log into Lugnet on Oct 1 - just a
couple hours after the announcement. I delayed posting until today.
It has been quite an adventure. With this little stroll down memory lane, I am
thinking of the past and the future. I am certain of several things:
-the 9V trainheads will continue on. I am already planning a 9V motor rebuild
service. DON'T throw away any dead motors! We will continue to build and
innovate.
-TLG will get some things right and somethings wrong. They always fluctuate
between really cool sets and really bogus ones. Just when we thought the world
had completely gone Town Jr - they came out with really good train and town
buldings.
So after 16 years TLG is ready to go a different way, I can live with that. I
will continue to buy sets with good parts and skip the others.
What will the 2009 train system look like? Not sure - I hope it will allow the
easy creation of Moc engines.
What will we tell the always astonished public at train shows? Not much
different than we are now. "most of this stuff, you have to get online..." now
we add that TLG is not currently producing any of it and something new will come
in 2009.
What about 2008? While I am not too worried about the long term future, I am a
little bummed by the short term. They could throw us a bone with a new rolling
stock set. Maybe a Rolling Stock Hoby Train set?
Summary? I have some amount of faith in TLG - but an immense amount of faith in
the AFOL community - we will keep it rolling for a LONG time.
-Kirk Houser
North East Texas Lego Train Club
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Benn Coifman wrote:
| |
1) the most consumable element in the 9v system is the train motor. But in
many cases I suspect it is the electric motor inside that burns out.
|
Benn-
In my experience keeping SCLTC trains running for the last 6 years (including a
10 week, 6 day a week show every year), what kills the train motors is erosion
of metal contacts that pick up electricity from the rails. The contacts wear
down and then break first creating a shrill sound and eventually not making
contact at all. From examining dozens and dozens of dead train motors, I have
only ever found one (!) bad electric motor (and even that was not a burnout, but
rather a shift of the armature windings on the axle).While it might be nice to
have better motors, it’s imperative to have better electrical pickups. In fact,
if I could guarantee a supply of the contacts, I could probably guarantee to
keep our trains up and running for a long, long time.
-Ted Michon
SCLTC
|
|
| |
Hi Bryan,
A survey based on wish lists could help Holger and Steve communicate with TLC
especially if the results of the survey not only show products which will make
the Lego train fan happier but also products which will be profitable for TLC.
Only then will all the energy be worthwhile. In making TLC happy one should keep
in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
list with keeping profit in mind.
Power source:
Mains electricity AND battery powered trains should be possible. Batteries for
the sole reason that it can be sold to the 4-7 age group. Other than that they
have a limited “play” time, are heavy, take up space and are environmentally
unfriendly (more and more people in Europe stay away from battery operated
toys!). If the current power supply is too expensive for TLC to produce I would
advise them to lose the speed control function and just produce a power supply
with a constant DC voltage output. As we all know speed can be controlled by
decoders and since these decoders can limit voltage output, TLC could even
approach Märklin, Fleischmann etc. And ask them to supply a Lego “approved”
power supply. Another advantage of using for example 12V DC and reducing this
via decoders is that you will have less problems with voltage drop around bigger
circuits. By the way, any battery box should be a separate 2xnxn or 4xnxn so
that it can be build in narrow style locomotives or if necessary in a passenger
wagon. None of that special RC base plate stuff...which probably costs a bomb to
produce.
Track:
Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce costs
by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm
height difference was the problem. Attention needs to be given to special track
components like switches, crossovers and crossings etc. i.e. if it is too
expensive to even produce a clip-on version then I would not mind
non-electrified ones as long as they come up with wheelbases that can pick up
electricity. It would allow me to make longer trains which can pick up
electricity over a longer track distance bypassing a switch or crossover.
Another solution will be a combination of battery power and track power i.e.
when the train is on electrified track the battery is being charged and when the
train is on non-electrified track the battery will supply power. Also if TLC
decides to completely abandon the current track style then I have to agree with
some others that I really like my old 4,5 blue track with 2x8 sleepers. Of
course the sleepers should be brown and not have those clips and the track could
be made more looking like real track. Also going back to separating sleepers and
rails should be cheaper to produce and open op the option of introducing other
curve radius in the future. However, everything needs to stay downwards
compatible for me to buy into the new stuff. BTW, I am not a fan of the separate
conductive strip which looks unrealistic and surely makes (in total) the track
more expensive to produce.
(BTW: I actually already run trains with two connected motors which easily
bypass the new crossover without the need to electrify it with conductive tape.
Also I have modified a 9V engine by separating the electricity pick-up and the
motor. I route the power from the motor to the RC-unit and then back to the
motor(s)=great fun)
Motor:
Motor which can run on track AND battery power. Here again I do not understand
why lego came up with a new RC motor. Ideally I’d like to see a motor which
looks like the current 9V motor but with the following changes: the metal wheels
should not be directly connected to the motor but transport the electricity to a
cable which exits the motor and ends in a 2x2 conductive plate. This plate could
then either supply the motor or go inside the train and be attached to a brick
which holds a decoder or a remote control receiver etc. Since the metal wheels
do not supply the motor anymore, this motor can instead be powered by batteries.
Furthermore, I would like the motor to have a separate bogie plate which can be
removed to give access to the motor module which can be replaced easily. The
motor should be a small power functions motor and also be able to operate
special track components or track side accessories. Of course, if Lego could
produce a separate modified wheelbase that can pick up electricity then they
could lose the metal wheels on the motor.
Picking up electricity:
A wheelbase with metal wheels connected to a conductive brick. Spread them
around a slightly longer train and you can cross over non electrified track
components. Also it opens the option to have lights in passenger carriages etc.
Control of the train(s) and switches:
Different universal control bricks. I am thinking of a UCB which is 2x4xn and
holds either a decoder, a remote control receiver, sound, etc. And can be
connected to each other. The remote control should not have a line of sight
problem. Also one should be able to control enough channels (trains, switches
etc). These UCB’s could then be attached to a universal servo motor which
operate a switch remotely. The UCB could draw power from the track.
Other:
A remote coupling device would be icing on the cake. Well, I could draw up a lot
more wishes but the above are my most basic Lego train needs.
At least I have shared my thoughts with the Lego community. Now let’s hope TLC
will really listen like they say they do. To be honest, it really worries me
when Steve is (quoted) saying “track being exclusively plastic, the LEGO Power
Functions Train system has the potential for new and innovative track geometries
and continued innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs”
Good luck to Holger and Steve!
Remko
|
|
| |
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:42:20 GMT, you wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> A survey based on wish lists could help Holger and Steve communicate with TLC
> especially if the results of the survey not only show products which will make
> the Lego train fan happier but also products which will be profitable for TLC.
> Only then will all the energy be worthwhile. In making TLC happy one should
> keep
> in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
> the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
> list with keeping profit in mind.
>
> Power source:
> Mains electricity AND battery powered trains should be possible. Batteries for
> the sole reason that it can be sold to the 4-7 age group. Other than that they
> have a limited “play” time, are heavy, take up space and are environmentally
> unfriendly (more and more people in Europe stay away from battery operated
> toys!). If the current power supply is too expensive for TLC to produce I would
> advise them to lose the speed control function and just produce a power supply
> with a constant DC voltage output. As we all know speed can be controlled by
> decoders and since these decoders can limit voltage output, TLC could even
> approach Märklin, Fleischmann etc. And ask them to supply a Lego “approved”
> power supply. Another advantage of using for example 12V DC and reducing this
> via decoders is that you will have less problems with voltage drop around
> bigger
> circuits. By the way, any battery box should be a separate 2xnxn or 4xnxn so
> that it can be build in narrow style locomotives or if necessary in a passenger
> wagon. None of that special RC base plate stuff...which probably costs a bomb
> to
> produce.
>
> Track:
> Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
> track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
> conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce
> costs
> by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
> a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
> the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
> in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
> RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm
> height difference was the problem. Attention needs to be given to special track
> components like switches, crossovers and crossings etc. i.e. if it is too
> expensive to even produce a clip-on version then I would not mind
> non-electrified ones as long as they come up with wheelbases that can pick up
> electricity. It would allow me to make longer trains which can pick up
> electricity over a longer track distance bypassing a switch or crossover.
> Another solution will be a combination of battery power and track power i.e.
> when the train is on electrified track the battery is being charged and when
> the
> train is on non-electrified track the battery will supply power. Also if TLC
> decides to completely abandon the current track style then I have to agree with
> some others that I really like my old 4,5 blue track with 2x8 sleepers. Of
> course the sleepers should be brown and not have those clips and the track
> could
> be made more looking like real track. Also going back to separating sleepers
> and
> rails should be cheaper to produce and open op the option of introducing other
> curve radius in the future. However, everything needs to stay downwards
> compatible for me to buy into the new stuff. BTW, I am not a fan of the
> separate
> conductive strip which looks unrealistic and surely makes (in total) the track
> more expensive to produce.
>
> (BTW: I actually already run trains with two connected motors which easily
> bypass the new crossover without the need to electrify it with conductive tape.
> Also I have modified a 9V engine by separating the electricity pick-up and the
> motor. I route the power from the motor to the RC-unit and then back to the
> motor(s)=great fun)
>
> Motor:
> Motor which can run on track AND battery power. Here again I do not understand
> why lego came up with a new RC motor. Ideally I’d like to see a motor which
> looks like the current 9V motor but with the following changes: the metal
> wheels
> should not be directly connected to the motor but transport the electricity to
> a
> cable which exits the motor and ends in a 2x2 conductive plate. This plate
> could
> then either supply the motor or go inside the train and be attached to a brick
> which holds a decoder or a remote control receiver etc. Since the metal wheels
> do not supply the motor anymore, this motor can instead be powered by
> batteries.
> Furthermore, I would like the motor to have a separate bogie plate which can be
> removed to give access to the motor module which can be replaced easily. The
> motor should be a small power functions motor and also be able to operate
> special track components or track side accessories. Of course, if Lego could
> produce a separate modified wheelbase that can pick up electricity then they
> could lose the metal wheels on the motor.
>
> Picking up electricity:
> A wheelbase with metal wheels connected to a conductive brick. Spread them
> around a slightly longer train and you can cross over non electrified track
> components. Also it opens the option to have lights in passenger carriages etc.
>
> Control of the train(s) and switches:
> Different universal control bricks. I am thinking of a UCB which is 2x4xn and
> holds either a decoder, a remote control receiver, sound, etc. And can be
> connected to each other. The remote control should not have a line of sight
> problem. Also one should be able to control enough channels (trains, switches
> etc). These UCB’s could then be attached to a universal servo motor which
> operate a switch remotely. The UCB could draw power from the track.
>
> Other:
> A remote coupling device would be icing on the cake. Well, I could draw up a
> lot
> more wishes but the above are my most basic Lego train needs.
>
> At least I have shared my thoughts with the Lego community. Now let’s hope TLC
> will really listen like they say they do. To be honest, it really worries me
> when Steve is (quoted) saying “track being exclusively plastic, the LEGO Power
> Functions Train system has the potential for new and innovative track
> geometries
> and continued innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs”
>
> Good luck to Holger and Steve!
> Remko
Wow, great list, Remko.
I would like to second all of these suggestions. Together they are
relatively simple and easy to impliment, and they will work well for
kids and adults.
I really like the "assemble it yourself" metal track idea - great,
easy fix. I have built a lot of 4.5V track in my time and it works
fantastic.
Keep up the good work Holger and Steve! You are our best hope of
working for our good, and with those creative and talentated Lego
engineers all this should be possible.
-Matt :)
-----------------------------------------------------
www.auctionbrick.com - username mchiles
Matt Chiles
1006 Horseshoe Bend Rd
Centerville, WA 98613 USA
Phone: 509-773-5724
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Remko Stift wrote:
> ...In making TLC happy one should keep
> in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
> the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
> list with keeping profit in mind. • ...
> Track:
> Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
> track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
> conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce costs
> by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
> a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
> the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
> in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
> RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm
Remko had a great idea about off-loading the "attaching metal strips to the
rail" to the user. Too bad that ship has likely sailed.
First, in defense of battery power, while a few folks have pointed to the
powered rails and said, "when we had powered rails we were like the other
modelers." I believe many garden railroaders are moving toward battery power, so
at least there is president (and perhaps lessons already learned).
Unless the battery trains are to-die-for, I suspect in the long run I'll either
stick with the old 9v (at least as long as I still have working 9v motors) or
see what sort of work-arounds people come up with to power the trains from the
track. I like big, heavy trains and I am only building 6 wide (my heaviest
needed 5 motors to pull it). But I am a little curious about the possibility of
bypassing the power loss from the rail.
In addition to the points raised in this thread already, I am a little concerned
about the prospect of the batteries for two more reasons. The first is recharge
time, could the batteries be recharged in about the same amount of time it took
to discharge them? (I'm sure for some batteries yes, others no) At a show it
would be no fun to have to charge the train for 3x longer than the run time you
had from it. Obvious solution, buy more batteries... but that leads to the
second concern, cost. One year ago, if I wanted to build a powered locomotive at
retail prices, it would have cost me:
US$25 for the motor
US$15 for the train wagon base
plus whatever decoration I may come up with (e.g., another $20 for the BNSF or
Super Chief)
Two years from now, I would likely have to buy similar to the above, plus a
battery pack. If it is a high performance battery pack, it could be as much as
US$50. Doubling the base cost of a locomotive. If the entry cost were that high
when I started, I probably would never have gotten into Lego trains.
I suspect Lego will have to lean towards expensive batteries, but I hope they
balance it by trying to keep the cost of the motors down. In other words, keep
the cost of the trains close to what they were and consider the profit model
from AFOLs playing with trains to come from all of the additional lego we buy to
decorate our layouts, etc. (give away the handles and make the profits on the
razor blades... well, okay, do better than break even, but don't go expecting a
bionacle-like profit from the train heads).
Benn
|
|
|
