 | | | | | |
> 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
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
www.lifelites.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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, 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, 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, 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
| | | | | | |
