| |
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.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
|
|
| |
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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
