 | | | | | |
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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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.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.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.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.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.trains, Martin Srb wrote:
SNIP
| |
--some mountain railways in the Alps (2-wire, 3-phase???)
|
The Gornergratbahn
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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.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.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.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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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.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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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.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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | |
