| |
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
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
> > 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, 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.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, 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
|
|
| |
> 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
|
|
| |
>
> 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.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
|
|
| |
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.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.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, 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.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, 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
|
|
| |
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, 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, 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
|
|
|
