| |
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
|
|
|
