 | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | |
