| |
(Sometimes I think that if TLC announced it was closing down, the first post on
LUGNET or elsewhere might be something like “Oh, no! That’s really terrible!
I’ve got to have 7 more 2x6 pink plates! Can’t they wait until I find some on
BrickLink?”)
Really!
For all the train folk who were reading the gloom and doom threads earlier this
month about a possible RC train, the news at BrickFest was: Sometimes the sky
really does fall. TLC announced it is going to focus on a new RC (where RC =
remote control, not Radio Control, BTW) train system to sell as a “play train”
for kids. The explanation is that electric rails are too expensive to
manufacture so TLC will switch to a battery powered, infrared controlled,
line-of-sight, all plastic rail system. They will create trains will less
detail and lower costs in order to be competitive in the kid train market.
In making the announcement, Jake pointed out that the new track will snap right
into existing track, And that for the moment, TLC will continue to sell the old
“hobby train” track via lego.com.
I was so astonished and depressed by the announcement that I didn’t ask any
questions at the end of Jake’s address. In fact, the whole audience was fairly
silent about the subject too.
Here’s some observations:
1. Just one month after L Gauge made its (splashy!) debut at NMRA, its sole
manufacturer announced the switch over to all plastic track.
2. After years of
waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being told
that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t want: All
plastic.
3. It’s been hard enough to get track at retail outlets the past few
years, now it will (probably) be impossible.
4. Most of us get our bulk LEGO
from closeouts and/or BrickLink. Since track and 9V motors and 9V systems won’t
be in retail outlets, we aren’t going to get them for anything other than full
MSRP.
5. When asked (before Jake’s presentation) about plans for other 9V
track, the TLC guy in charge said no plans at present. That was surprisingly
worse than the standard “we can’t tell you” and it became clear why when Jake
announced the all plastic track.
Makes the end of old light grey seem trite.
-Ted
SCLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
TLC announced it is going to focus on a new RC
(where RC = remote control, not Radio Control, BTW) train system to sell as a
“play train” for kids. The explanation is that electric rails are too
expensive to manufacture so TLC will switch to a battery powered, infrared
controlled, line-of-sight, all plastic rail system. They will create
trains will less detail and lower costs in order to be competitive in the kid
train market.
|
Ted, I think you’ve read into this incorrectly.
From my understanding, TLC’s goal is to have TWO train lines - one for “adults”,
and one for “young kids” (to bridge the gap between DUPLO trains and 9V). TLC
has (hopefully) learned from its mistakes and killing off the 9V train line
would NOT be very smart (especially after recognizing the importance of AFOL
“train clubs”)!
LEGO Factory is going live soon, and TLC already has the intention of extending
it to include trains in the near future - yet another reason why I highly doubt
that TLC is switching away from the 9V system.
I encourage you to read the notes for Jake’s BrickFest 2005 Keynote, at
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/brickfest2005/.
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Wong wrote:>
| |
Ted, I think you’ve read into this incorrectly.
From my understanding, TLC’s goal is to have TWO train lines - one for
“adults”, and one for “young kids” (to bridge the gap between DUPLO trains
and 9V). TLC has (hopefully) learned from its mistakes and killing off the
9V train line would NOT be very smart (especially after recognizing the
importance of AFOL “train clubs”)!
|
Bryan-
It’s difficiult to buy 9V train stuff now except from S@H. With the new play
train out, it will be impossible anywhere except S@H (Jake did say that track
would now be a lego.com item). And I definitely heard the 9V TLC train guy say,
in answer to the standard new track geometry question on Saturday morning, that
no new 9V stuff was in the works. My point is 9V is now the “hobby train” and
nothing (good) is happening with it.
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
For all the train folk who were reading the gloom and doom threads earlier
this month about a possible RC train, the news at BrickFest was: Sometimes
the sky really does fall. TLC announced it is going to focus on a new RC
(where RC = remote control, not Radio Control, BTW) train system to sell as a
“play train” for kids. The explanation is that electric rails are too
expensive to manufacture so TLC will switch to a battery powered, infrared
controlled, line-of-sight, all plastic rail system. They will create
trains will less detail and lower costs in order to be competitive in the kid
train market.
In making the announcement, Jake pointed out that the new track will snap
right into existing track, And that for the moment, TLC will continue to sell
the old “hobby train” track via lego.com.
|
I didn’t attend that talk, but I did listen to it in MP3 form, and I didn’t get
that impression at all. I heard him say that they were introducing a new “play
train” line, that would be in addition to the existing 9V and Duplo train
lines. Indeed, the point of this new line is to bridge the gap between those
two.
The speakers were in fact quite emphatic that the 9V train line is not going
away. They didn’t say the metal track was too expensive for LEGO to
manufacture; they said it was too expensive for them for the youth market where
they are trying to push.
The play train line will be a “gateway” toy: a lower-cost investment for parents
of kids who may or may not be still interested in trains six months from now.
But fully compatible with the 9V trains, so as they grow up and want to do more,
they will almost certainly start buying metal track and the more complex hobby
train sets.
I seem to recall they also mentioned that there would be some sort of “Ultimate
Train Kit” of hobby train parts, as well as a LEGO Train Designer (hobby-train
inventory for the LEGO Designer program), which should result in a lot of cool
user-contributed train designs available for sale via LEGO.com.
So, maybe we should both listen to the speech again with an ear for detail, and
take notes, since you clearly have the impression they’re ending the 9V train
line, and I have the clear impression that they are not.
Best,
Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
It’s difficiult to buy 9V train stuff now except from S@H. With the new play
train out, it will be impossible anywhere except S@H (Jake did say that track
would now be a lego.com item). And I definitely heard the 9V TLC train guy
say, in answer to the standard new track geometry question on Saturday
morning, that no new 9V stuff was in the works. My point is 9V is now the
“hobby train” and nothing (good) is happening with it.
|
Ted,
I’m sure all of us will agree that 9V train stuff is expensive. That means most
retail stores (apart from LEGO stores and independent toy store) will avoid
stocking these items except maybe during the Christmas season. So you’re right
in saying that 9V is now the hobby train, and apart from S@H, its availability
is limited.
However, I disagree with you when you say “nothing (good) is happening with it.”
Assuming LEGO Factory is a success (and I really hope/think it will be), once
LEGO Train Factory launches, a whole new door will be opened! The MOC line
aside (Sante Fe train cars, Blacksmith Shop, etc.), this will be the first time
that AFOLs (and kids) will be able to design and purchase what they want. If
you like someone else’s design, you’re entitled to buy that instead!
To me, that is a good thing (and I’m not even a big train fan)...
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Wong wrote:
| |
I’m sure all of us will agree that 9V train stuff is expensive. That means
most retail stores (apart from LEGO stores and independent toy store) will
avoid stocking these items except maybe during the Christmas season. So
you’re right in saying that 9V is now the hobby train, and apart from S@H,
its availability is limited.
|
I don’t see how that’s much different from the current situation, though. I
have never seen a LEGO train set at TRU or Target, where I frequently buy
other LEGO. For trains, I go to a LEGO store, or (around Christmas) an
independent toy store -- and in the latter case, even around Christmas, they
only carry the current train sets and not things like extra track. Maybe you’re
luckier in your area, but that’s how it is where I shop.
Best,
Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
For all the train folk who were reading the gloom and doom threads earlier
this month about a possible RC train, the news at BrickFest was: Sometimes
the sky really does fall. TLC announced it is going to focus on a new RC
(where RC = remote control, not Radio Control, BTW) train system to sell as a
“play train” for kids. The explanation is that electric rails are too
expensive to manufacture so TLC will switch to a battery powered, infrared
controlled, line-of-sight, all plastic rail system. They will create
trains will less detail and lower costs in order to be competitive in the kid
train market.
|
First, to be completely clear about a very very important distinction - we’re
not “switching”, we’re “including”. Plastic rails will not kill the metal
rails. Metal rails will continue into the future. We are working on production
process that will allow metal rails to be produced well into the future.
Secondly, both Jorgen Vig and I outlined a number of other reason, not just the
cost of the production price of the rails - although that’s certainly a part
of the discussion.
| |
In making the announcement, Jake pointed out that the new track will snap
right into existing track, And that for the moment, TLC will continue to sell
the old “hobby train” track via lego.com.
|
Ted, as we chatted about in D.C., this isn’t a “for the moment” thing. We’re
not going to simply continue selling metal rails until our stock runs out, as
you voiced concern for in D.C. We’re putting plans in place to ensure that metal
rails stay around long term. How do I know? Because I’m on the project team
that’s working on the Hobby Train.
| |
I was so astonished and depressed by the announcement that I didn’t ask any
questions at the end of Jake’s address. In fact, the whole audience was
fairly silent about the subject too.
|
That’s what LUGNET’s for, right? :)
| |
Here’s some observations:
1. Just one month after L Gauge made its (splashy!) debut at NMRA, its sole
manufacturer announced the switch over to all plastic track.
|
Again, it’s not a “switch”. In fact, the incredible work of the train clubs and
ILTCO and individual train fans is a huge reason our team has gotten solid
support from management and a committment to ensure that the Hobby Train
continues.
| |
2. After years
of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
told that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t want:
All plastic.
|
...and a committment to L Gauge (and I’m saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As I
mentioned at BF, we’re not replacing the current system (like we have in the
past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we’re “stretching” it to
include additional components.
| |
3. It’s been hard enough to get track at retail outlets the
past few years, now it will (probably) be impossible.
|
I’d like to point out that you’re making assumptions, as you yourself point out.
Personally, I’m not making that assumption, based on where things are going. The
fact that trains are getting increased support at all in retail actually opens
up possibilities.
| |
4. Most of us get our
bulk LEGO from closeouts and/or BrickLink. Since track and 9V motors and 9V
systems won’t be in retail outlets, we aren’t going to get them for anything
other than full MSRP.
|
Out of honest curiousity, are you buying 9v track and motors at a discount now?
| |
5. When asked (before Jake’s presentation) about plans
for other 9V track, the TLC guy in charge said no plans at present. That was
surprisingly worse than the standard “we can’t tell you” and it became clear
why when Jake announced the all plastic track.
|
Ted, I’m not sure who you’re referring to - there were quite a few LEGO people
there. Do you mean Jorgen Vig?Out of curiousity, was the LEGO person in question
the Trains project team (which would have only included myself, Mark Hansen, and
Tormod Askildsen)? If not, the details of the future might not be well
understood.
There is absolutely a discussion in place about track geometry and how to
achieve that in our new Hobby Train concept. There are no plans for it, yes...
meaning we’ve not put plans in place to start up the machines. But there is
absolutely an ongoing discussion about how, when, and if it would make sense
from all perspectives.
As much as I want to spill the full story on the Play Train and Hobby Train
details, I simply can’t. We’re about a year away from release of the Play Train,
and we have a ton of work to do between now and then. Some things are still
being finalized. We know competitors are able to knock off our products in 6
months or less, so revealing too many details is simply not smart.
But to be clear, just because our focus is not on adding new 9v functionality
today, that doesn’t mean that we’re not thinking about it or have ideas up our
sleeves.
Because of that, I know I sound a bit vauge and I’m very sorry for that. I
really do wish I could share more, and I will as we get closer to launch.
We’ve tried to ensure that we’re doing it right with this project. We’ve worked
closely with the group of fans we’ve been calling the Signal group (Steve
Barile, Huw Millington, Mike Walsh, Holger Matthes) to make sure all issues have
been considered.
We’re working hard to ensure that this isn’t going to be another debacle, and
in fact delivers something very positive.
Hopefully that helps makes you a bit more comfortable, Ted. If not, I’m open for
questions here or on my blog.
Also, if anyone is interested, the keynote is here:
Audio
My notes for the keynote
address
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Wong wrote:
| |
However, I disagree with you when you say “nothing (good) is happening with
it.” Assuming LEGO Factory is a success (and I really hope/think it will be),
once LEGO Train Factory launches, a whole new door will be opened! The MOC
line aside (Sante Fe train cars, Blacksmith Shop, etc.), this will be the
first time that AFOLs (and kids) will be able to design and purchase what
they want. If you like someone else’s design, you’re entitled to buy that
instead!
To me, that is a good thing (and I’m not even a big train fan)...
|
Bryan-
Ah, we are not quite communicating., I’m saying nothing good is happening with
9V train components, the stuff that handles 9VDC that makes the “hobby train”
system as opposed to the “play train” system. Specifically, I mean motors,
rails, switches, track connector wires, regulators, and power bricks. I’m sure
we can’t design our own wires, motors, lights, regulators, or power bricks with
LEGO Factory
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
I don’t see how that’s much different from the current situation, though. I
have never seen a LEGO train set at TRU or Target, where I frequently buy
other LEGO. For trains, I go to a LEGO store, or (around Christmas) an
independent toy store -- and in the latter case, even around Christmas, they
only carry the current train sets and not things like extra track. Maybe
you’re luckier in your area, but that’s how it is where I shop.
|
Joe-
Most of the train stuff we have ever bought was on close out at Target, TRU, or
the tent sale at LLCA. And the best deals we’ve gotten from BrickLink presumably
originated from retails stores, not LEGO brand stores. Our best deal ever was
$1K of train stuff for $50 at a Target. We’ve bought a number of complete trains
at Target at 50% off and even 75% off. That said, we’ve bought a lot of stuff at
MSRP from S@H and stores because it was new and cool and we had to have it (like
all our BNSFs and SuperChief stuff).
-Ted
|
|
| |
"Ted Michon" <ted@scltc.org> wrote in message news:ILC8Hw.1nKw@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
[ ... snipped ... ]
> Most of the train stuff we have ever bought was on close out at Target, • TRU, or
> the tent sale at LLCA. And the best deals we've gotten from BrickLink • presumably
> originated from retails stores, not LEGO brand stores. Our best deal ever • was
> $1K of train stuff for $50 at a Target. We've bought a number of complete • trains
> at Target at 50% off and even 75% off. That said, we've bought a lot of • stuff at
> MSRP from S@H and stores because it was new and cool and we had to have it • (like
> all our BNSFs and SuperChief stuff).
>
> -Ted
I suspect your $1k for $50 Target deal is one of the key reasons we don't
see trains at Target. It is hard for retailers like Target and Wal-Mart
stock the LEGO Train System. It is better handled by high touch small toy
shops and hobby shops. I suspect the days of finding any serious quantity
of Trains on clearance at Target or elsewhere are long gone. In general
Target seems to have tightened up their inventory management. Either that
or in my area they are doing really well and don't have a lot of stuff to
put on clearance. In general, I saw a whole lot less LEGO and other toys
that interest my kids on clearance after Christmans and during other
clearance cycles.
As for the rest of this thread, until Jake tells me otherwise, I don't
believe I am able to comment. :-)
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
The speakers were in fact quite emphatic that the 9V train line is not going
away. They didn’t say the metal track was too expensive for LEGO to
manufacture; they said it was too expensive for them for the youth market
where they are trying to push.
..
So, maybe we should both listen to the speech again with an ear for detail,
and take notes, since you clearly have the impression they’re ending the 9V
train line, and I have the clear impression that they are not.
|
Joe-
I wrote that TLC announced that it is “focusing” on a new “play train” system
that will be widely available and that the 9V “hobby train” will be relegated to
lego.com and S@H sources, My “observations” were based on what what was said
publicly as well as lots of off line discussions. I was told by multiple sources
that the metal clad rails are flat out prohibitively expensive, not simply
relatively expensive. (I don’t know why it took 15+ years to figure this out.
Perhaps it has something to do with RoHS?).
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
Ah, we are not quite communicating., I’m saying nothing good is happening
with 9V train components, the stuff that handles 9VDC that makes the “hobby
train” system as opposed to the “play train” system. Specifically, I mean
motors, rails, switches, track connector wires, regulators, and power bricks.
I’m sure we can’t design our own wires, motors, lights, regulators, or power
bricks with LEGO Factory
|
Ahhh ok I get what you’re saying. Strange thing is, I did think to myself -
what if Ted is actually referring to the individual 9V components themselves?
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
How do I know? Because I’m on the project
team that’s working on the Hobby Train.
I’m open for questions...
|
OK, here’s two I was *dying* to ask at BrickFest, but didn’t want to take
time away from the more “serious” questioners (i.e. - I’m not first & formost a
train type).
(1) What is the battery life goal?
(2) Is the IR system potential compatable with the RCX? I’m already drooling
at the idea of an RCX-controled train and stations, *without* having to fit the
RCX into the train (and to all the folks about to suggest LDCC, current versions
gut the firmware too much - it seems to be a RC system, not a computer driving a
train system).
(3) How many addressible features could such a train have (Fwd/Rev certainly,
but throttle? Lights? Horns?)
OK, that’s three. I can programm, but I can’t count. Personally, I also came
away from BrickFest with a positive view of where the 9V system is headed, not
negative. Pure and simple, more kids “gatewayed” into L-gauge means more
potential customers for “adult” L-gauge setups.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
I was told by multiple
sources that the metal clad rails are flat out prohibitively expensive, not
simply relatively expensive. (I don’t know why it took 15+ years to figure
this out. Perhaps it has something to do with RoHS?).
|
When you say “prohibitively expensive”, it’s important to put it in context. If
you’re talking about a 5 year old getting into trains for the first time, metal
rails are certainly expensive. If you’re talking about a Hobby Train, then
that’s a different discussion.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
I was told by multiple
sources that the metal clad rails are flat out prohibitively expensive, not
simply relatively expensive. (I don’t know why it took 15+ years to figure
this out. Perhaps it has something to do with RoHS?).
|
When you say “prohibitively expensive”, it’s important to put it in context.
If you’re talking about a 5 year old getting into trains for the first time,
metal rails are certainly expensive. If you’re talking about a Hobby Train,
then that’s a different discussion.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
I would think that it is the market that TLG is/was trying to target (primarily
7 year olds - think 4561 - through tweens), not Train Hobbyists. $100+ is still
a fairly large investment for some parents to make on present that potentially
will end up on the floor where they are probably gonna step on it.
I personally thought it was “prohibitively expensive” until about 1997 when I
got my first full train set, 4559 (and I was 35 at the time) when I got it on
sale at the Air Force Exchange on sale for just under $100.
All I know right now is that I’m not certain how I feel about TLG moving away
from metal rail sets.
But I don’t want to put words into Ted’s mouth.
Have Fun!
C-Ya!
(#70)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Richard W. Schamus wrote:
| |
All I know right now is that I’m not certain how I feel about TLG moving away
from metal rail sets.
|
Again, we’re not “moving away” from metal rails. Metal rails will continue on
into the future.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Wong wrote:
| |
Ahhh ok I get what you’re saying. Strange thing is, I did think to myself -
what if Ted is actually referring to the individual 9V components
themselves?
-Bryan
|
Bryan-
Right. I hope (and expect) LEGO Factory to be extremely successful. It’s looks
like a win-win for TLC and many LEGO builders (not so good for retailers and
resellers). Clearly LEGO Factory will be as useful to train builders as to any
other themes, and with a train element palette even more so.
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Richard W. Schamus wrote:
| |
All I know right now is that I’m not certain how I feel about TLG moving
away from metal rail sets.
|
Again, we’re not “moving away” from metal rails. Metal rails will continue on
into the future.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
I heard you the first time. I wish you would hear us. It “appears” that the
metal rail sets are at an end. I don’t know how I feel about that yet. I
listened very carefully when you said that the track will still be available for
many years, (anyone can hear it for themselves here
http://www.lugnet.com/jump.cgi?http://www.bricksinmypocket.org. Metal rail
train sets? - no direct talk of that.
I admit, it’s deduction from ommission. I wish I was proved wrong.
Have Fun!
C-Ya!
Rich
(#70)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Walsh wrote:
> I suspect your $1k for $50 Target deal is one of the key reasons we don't
> see trains at Target. It is hard for retailers like Target and Wal-Mart
> stock the LEGO Train System. It is better handled by high touch small toy
> shops and hobby shops. I suspect the days of finding any serious quantity
> of Trains on clearance at Target or elsewhere are long gone. In general
> Target seems to have tightened up their inventory management. Either that
> or in my area they are doing really well and don't have a lot of stuff to
> put on clearance. In general, I saw a whole lot less LEGO and other toys
> that interest my kids on clearance after Christmans and during other
> clearance cycles.
Mike-
My experience buying LEGO started only goes back 15 years.
The Target buy occurred during the transition from 4.5/12V to the 9 volt system
when I got 100 boxes of old track for $0.50 each.
I haven't found any great Target deals at all in the past 2 years, but confess
to not to looking for them as much since we buy so much from BrickLink and LEGO
stores these days. It feels to me like the hey-dey of the post-Christmas
shopping ran from 1996 to 2000 when I could find things such as boxes of green
baseplates for $1.00 per baseplate and train sets for 75% off. I think these
bargains have disappeared in recent years both because the stores have tightened
inventories to avoid these lossy situations and because buyers are networked and
relentless. I thought I was being "active" by visiting 6 stores in one evening
per season, but once I heard tell of folks who teamed up to check all stores in
their region twice daily, I gave up!
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Wong wrote:
| |
Ahhh ok I get what you’re saying. Strange thing is, I did think to myself -
what if Ted is actually referring to the individual 9V components
themselves?
-Bryan
|
Bryan-
Right. I hope (and expect) LEGO Factory to be extremely successful. It’s
looks like a win-win for TLC and many LEGO builders (not so good for
retailers and resellers). Clearly LEGO Factory will be as useful to train
builders as to any other themes, and with a train element palette even more
so.
|
Actually, this may be the best thing in years for retailers. We’re looking at
ways that they’d be able to easily get sets from consumer creators like you, if
they like your design.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Richard W. Schamus wrote:
| |
I heard you the first time. I wish you would hear us. It “appears” that the
metal rail sets are at an end. I don’t know how I feel about that yet. I
listened very carefully when you said that the track will still be available
for many years, (anyone can hear it for themselves here
http://www.lugnet.com/jump.cgi?http://www.bricksinmypocket.org. Metal rail
train sets? - no direct talk of that.
|
Sorry, not trying to be dense, I swear. :)
Now, to be sure I understand... when you say “metal rail sets”, are you
referring LEGO Train sets (the big boxes) that include the metal rails AND a
model all in one box? Sets like the High Speed or Cargo trains of recent years?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
|
| |
Jake-
I haven’t quite figured out why I am more concerned about the recent track
announcements than most other LTC types I have spoken with.
Certainly there’s not much anxiety with SCLTC (and even some enthusiasm) as I
check in with members. (That may be partly because only a small percentage of us
are heavily invested in train infrastructure. Most members own very little
“train” hardware -- if any.)
Even the rest of my family is not especially concerned. I think that may be
partly because one of my functions in our family LEGO operations is procurement.
I’m the one who places 14 BrickLink orders when we do a project and am always
proactively looking for good deals on things we can use. More likely, its
because they are all smarter than I am.
One strong reason is that I’ve been here before: The first LEGO we ever bought
the kids was the 7745 battery powered (4.5V system) train. Thomas fell in love
with pictures of the 12V TGV included in the box and we were lucky enough to
acquire a set and accessories from relatives visiting Europe. But within two
years, it it was obsolete and incompatible when 9V came out.
| |
First, to be completely clear about a very very important distinction - we’re
not “switching”, we’re “including”.
|
To be perfectly clear in return, I wrote about switching focus from metal to
plastic in the expectation and hope that TLC can sell a lot more plastic rail
trains than it has been selling metal rail trains.
| |
| |
4. Most of us get our
bulk LEGO from closeouts and/or BrickLink. Since track and 9V motors and 9V
systems won’t be in retail outlets, we aren’t going to get them for anything
other than full MSRP.
|
Out of honest curiousity, are you buying 9v track and motors at a discount
now?
|
We’re always on the lookout for 9V bargains. Most noteably was the recent S@H
closeout on motors at 50% off, the 25% off track and motors at Potomac Mills,
the 20% off at LLCA for annual pass holders last November and December, the 10%
everyday discount for annual pass holders at LLCA, the effective 6% off for
using a LEGO Loyalty card at LEGO Brand Retail stores, the 80 pieces of new
straight track we bought on BL a few months back for a bit of over $1 per piece,
the 200 pieces of new curve (yeah, we actually bought curve track, but we used
them to construct buildings) we bought last year on BL for about $0.50 each, and
others.
| |
| |
5. When asked (before Jake’s presentation) about plans
for other 9V track, the TLC guy in charge said no plans at present. That was
surprisingly worse than the standard “we can’t tell you” and it became clear
why when Jake announced the all plastic track.
|
Ted, I’m not sure who you’re referring to - there were quite a few LEGO
people there. Do you mean Jorgen Vig?Out of curiousity, was the LEGO person
in question the Trains project team (which would have only included myself,
Mark Hansen, and Tormod Askildsen)? If not, the details of the future might
not be well understood.
|
Jorgen was asked the question in the public session on Saturday morning and he
deferred it to a TLC person in the audience whom I did not see or know, but I
heard his answer. It surprised me because it wasn’t the usual “We’re considering
it, but we can’t say anything”. Instead it was the equivalent of “we are not
looking into that”. I’ll confess that I don’t like reading too much into things
like that, and there could have been language issues or other considerations,
but there was a room full of TLC folks listening and nobody corrected him.
| |
As much as I want to spill the full story on the Play Train and Hobby Train
details, I simply can’t. We’re about a year away from release of the Play
Train, and we have a ton of work to do between now and then. Some things are
still being finalized. We know competitors are able to knock off our products
in 6 months or less, so revealing too many details is simply not smart.
|
The purpose of my post was to consider the implications if the play train
initiative succeeds in recapturing a share of the young kid market. I perhaps
naively assumed that we would all agree that if that happens, that all-plastic
track and components would eclipse metal-clad track and components in quantity,
availability, profitabilty and therefore keep TLC’s “focus”. Even if it fails,
for the short term it’s already got TLC’s focus for new product development and
presumably marketing and advertising support.
I’ve been posting to LUGNET for many years (I remember receiving the beta trial
announcement from Todd) and have pretty much avoided drawing conclusions before
the facts were in. Even with the grays switch (which I strongly disapprove of) I
only wrote a few posts in which I simply explained why I thought it was a Bad
Idea. I probably should have waited a week to respond to the play train
announcements, like everyone else has had the good sense to do. Clearly it will
take much longer for the facts to emerge (will plastic track outship metal track
by more or less than 100:1?)
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
(Sometimes I think that if TLC announced it was closing down, the first post
on LUGNET or elsewhere might be something like “Oh, no! That’s really
terrible! I’ve got to have 7 more 2x6 pink plates! Can’t they wait until I
find some on BrickLink?”)
Really!
For all the train folk who were reading the gloom and doom threads earlier
this month about a possible RC train, the news at BrickFest was: Sometimes
the sky really does fall. TLC announced it is going to focus on a new RC
(where RC = remote control, not Radio Control, BTW) train system to sell as a
“play train” for kids. The explanation is that electric rails are too
expensive to manufacture so TLC will switch to a battery powered, infrared
controlled, line-of-sight, all plastic rail system. They will create
trains will less detail and lower costs in order to be competitive in the kid
train market.
|
Personally I think the play train is a fantastic idea. It will be a great way to
lower cost while providing opportunities for new parts, ideas and a new younger
audience. Now some of you are worried about the death of the 9volt train set
but in reality how many of us just build the set and do nothing else with the
parts. To truly understand the effect this change will have on you look at your
collection. It’s parts not sets. In the end all sets are just big parts packs.
If you can come to this realization like I have it’s not such a big deal.
Besides in the future we will not be limited to Lego designed sets, instead we
will be able to purchase the models we our selves or others have designed. This
will really create new opportunities for us instead of limiting them as sets
have done in the past.
Now I’m not saying I like every aspect of the proposed play train. For one I
really hate Infer Red “line of sight” controls. IR will seriously limit the
usability of the system for both kids and adults alike. A good example that
comes to mind is a tunnel. Imagine a child making a tunnel under his or her bed
for the train to go through only to find out it stops as soon as the controller
looses sight of the engine. Personally my belief is radio control RC is far
more reliable, cheaper to produce and doesn’t require the so-called “bump out”
that the IR system would. The electronics also already exist and in the size
proposed. Gut any Technic RC car and you will find that the electronic board
will fit in a 6x8 stud area. Another thing that bothers me, albeit somewhat to a
lesser extent, is what they’re going to do with the train motor. Will it be RC
specific or the one already produced. I’m also worried that the motor will be
permanently attached to the RC train base instead of using the pin and power
wire connector like the current 9volt system uses. Hopefully in the next few
months we will get more details.
| |
In making the announcement, Jake pointed out that the new track will snap
right into existing track, And that for the moment, TLC will continue to sell
the old “hobby train” track via lego.com.
|
I guess this means I’ll have two types of track to modify now. LOL seriously
though I ‘m glad they made it universal. It should be interesting to see what
can be done with the new plastic track.
Ondrew
| |
I was so astonished and depressed by the announcement that I didn’t ask any
questions at the end of Jake’s address. In fact, the whole audience was
fairly silent about the subject too.
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
snip snip
| |
| |
2. After years
of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
told that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t want:
All plastic.
|
...and a committment to L Gauge (and I’m saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As I
mentioned at BF, we’re not replacing the current system (like we have in the
past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we’re “stretching” it to
include additional components.
|
Just to clarify Jake, will you be referring to both (Play and Hobby) as L gauge?
That would make sense to me as they are all the same gauge. But it might confuse
“real” train modellers - when we want to display at a train show with our L
gauge layout, they might think (when Play Trains are launched) that we mean Play
Trains, and turn up their noses (even more than they do now).
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
snip snip
| |
| |
2. After years
of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
told that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t
want: All plastic.
|
...and a committment to L Gauge (and I’m saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As
I mentioned at BF, we’re not replacing the current system (like we have in
the past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we’re “stretching” it
to include additional components.
|
Just to clarify Jake, will you be referring to both (Play and Hobby) as L
gauge? That would make sense to me as they are all the same gauge. But it
might confuse “real” train modellers - when we want to display at a train
show with our L gauge layout, they might think (when Play Trains are
launched) that we mean Play Trains, and turn up their noses (even more than
they do now).
|
Actually, that’s a very good point. I was using L Gauge to refer to anything
that uses the track gauge (distance between rails, obviously) currently used for
both the Play and Hobby trains.
But I don’t pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge -
I’d actually turn this question back on the community... what do y’all think?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
Now I’m not saying I like every aspect of the proposed play train. For one I
really hate Infer Red “line of sight” controls. IR will seriously limit
the usability of the system for both kids and adults alike. A good example
that comes to mind is a tunnel. Imagine a child making a tunnel under his or
her bed for the train to go through only to find out it stops as soon as the
controller looses sight of the engine. Personally my belief is radio control
RC is far more reliable, cheaper to produce and doesn’t require the
so-called “bump out” that the IR system would. The electronics also already
exist and in the size proposed. Gut any Technic RC car and you will find that
the electronic board will fit in a 6x8 stud area. Another thing that bothers
me, albeit somewhat to a lesser extent, is what they’re going to do with the
train motor. Will it be RC specific or the one already produced. I’m also
worried that the motor will be permanently attached to the RC train base
instead of using the pin and power wire connector like the current 9volt
system uses. Hopefully in the next few months we will get more details.
|
Not a big IR fan either but one thing to consider about controllability is that
perhaps this system will be more like a walkaround throttle than a wired one,
that is, in many IR systems, you press the go button and the vehicle goes. Take
your finger off it, or lose line of sight, and the vehicle stops. Direct
control.
Walkaround throttles (and DCC) send “change” orders. You need the throttle
plugged in, or you need to address a command packet to the DCC receiver
(respectively) to cause a change in operational state. No change desired? no
communication required. So with a walkaround, you set the speed and direction
(and whistle/bell/light status) and unjack, walk to another place, jack in, and
then change things if you want...
If the IR is like that, losing line of sight might not be so bad. It means the
loco would continue doing whatever it was doing till you regained contact,
rather than come to an instant stop. So it would continue through a tunnel at
present course and speed, so to speak.
I have no inside info, I’m not one of the big 4 “SIGNAL” guys under NDA, I’m
just guessing, but if I were designing an IR system, that’s how I would do it.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
I was told by multiple
sources that the metal clad rails are flat out prohibitively expensive, not
simply relatively expensive. (I don’t know why it took 15+ years to figure
this out. Perhaps it has something to do with RoHS?).
|
When you say “prohibitively expensive”, it’s important to put it in context.
If you’re talking about a 5 year old getting into trains for the first time,
metal rails are certainly expensive. If you’re talking about a Hobby Train,
then that’s a different discussion.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
Hey, they’re expensive for me, £12 ish a pack!
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
snip snip
| |
| |
2. After years
of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
told that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t
want: All plastic.
|
...and a committment to L Gauge (and I’m saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As
I mentioned at BF, we’re not replacing the current system (like we have in
the past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we’re “stretching” it
to include additional components.
|
Just to clarify Jake, will you be referring to both (Play and Hobby) as L
gauge? That would make sense to me as they are all the same gauge. But it
might confuse “real” train modellers - when we want to display at a train
show with our L gauge layout, they might think (when Play Trains are
launched) that we mean Play Trains, and turn up their noses (even more than
they do now).
|
Actually, that’s a very good point. I was using L Gauge to refer to anything
that uses the track gauge (distance between rails, obviously) currently used
for both the Play and Hobby trains.
But I don’t pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge -
I’d actually turn this question back on the community... what do y’all think?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
How about Finescale L and Coarsescale L gauges :)
Seriously tho I think L-gauge would be suitable for both, it only refers the
track gauge, not the scale, and as they are the same...
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Bryan Wong wrote: • <snip>
> > Right. I hope (and expect) LEGO Factory to be extremely successful. It's
> > looks like a win-win for TLC and many LEGO builders (not so good for
> > retailers and resellers). Clearly LEGO Factory will be as useful to train
> > builders as to any other themes, and with a train element palette even more
> > so.
>
> Actually, this may be the best thing in years for retailers. We're looking at
> ways that they'd be able to easily get sets from consumer creators like you,
> if they like your design.
Really? Lots of questions for you about this:
Are you saying that big buyers like Target and Wal*mart might be able to stock
fan-created designs?
Would TLG present them with a selection of fan-created sets from which to
choose, or would they have to wade through hundreds of choices?
Could different stores choose different sets? Or would every Target, for
example, stock the same sets?
Would the retail versions have printed instructions inside?
How many fan-created versus Lego designed sets could they stock?
Would this be open to small toy shops as well as big retailers?
Would the boxes for these have the same appearance as regular Lego boxes?
(This is a point I was confused about during the keynote too -- to me, it
sounded like a plain, generic box with an "insert" for different designs that
would be put into a sleeve for whichever set was inside -- is this correct?)
In any case, even if it is limited to just online ordering, I think the LDD
fan-designed set idea is fantastic and I hope it is as revolutionary ass it
sounds and I hope it is successful.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@myrealbox.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
If the IR is like that, losing line of sight might not be so bad. It means
the loco would continue doing whatever it was doing till you regained
contact, rather than come to an instant stop. So it would continue through a
tunnel at present course and speed, so to speak.
|
I think Larry summed it up nicely. Little kids want to follow the train where
ever it goes, so line-of-sight and very short range would be just fine. Remote
control from one spot is more of an adult appeal thing and only becomes
necessary when there’s a substantial (or fragile) layout (and more than one
train).
-Ted
|
|
| |
Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ted Michon wrote:
>
> > I was told by multiple
> > sources that the metal clad rails are flat out prohibitively expensive,
> > not simply relatively expensive. (I don't know why it took 15+ years to
> > figure this out. Perhaps it has something to do with RoHS?).
>
> When you say "prohibitively expensive", it's important to put it in
> context. If you're talking about a 5 year old getting into trains for the
> first time, metal rails are certainly expensive. If you're talking about a
> Hobby Train, then that's a different discussion.
Ehmm to put things into perspective :
LEGO track : 21 Euro/meter
Peco code 75 h0 track : 6 Euro/meter (about as "finescale" as it gets in
Europe in h0 wrt factory track)
Roco Line track with bedding : 9 Euro/meter
So even for model railroaders, LEGO track is on the expensive side... dunno
about LGB/Marklin 1 (given the space in my appartment, h0 is already nearly
impossible to do next to LEGO, let alone LGB)
OTOH, rolling stock nicely balances things out :D
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
snip snip
| |
| |
2. After years
of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
told that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t
want: All plastic.
|
...and a committment to L Gauge (and I’m saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As
I mentioned at BF, we’re not replacing the current system (like we have in
the past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we’re “stretching” it
to include additional components.
|
Just to clarify Jake, will you be referring to both (Play and Hobby) as L
gauge? That would make sense to me as they are all the same gauge. But it
might confuse “real” train modellers - when we want to display at a train
show with our L gauge layout, they might think (when Play Trains are
launched) that we mean Play Trains, and turn up their noses (even more than
they do now).
|
Actually, that’s a very good point. I was using L Gauge to refer to anything
that uses the track gauge (distance between rails, obviously) currently used
for both the Play and Hobby trains.
But I don’t pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge -
I’d actually turn this question back on the community... what do y’all think?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
For the public exhibitions with model railway clubs that I’ve done over the last
four years I haven’t referred to “L-gauge” because no-one outside the Lego
community has heard of it! Instead I have used “8mm:1ft scale” because that is
the scale of my trains, which corresponds to 1 stud to the foot and also 4ft
8.5ins to the 37.66mm gauge of standard 9V metal track.
I have some questions too:
Q1. When you say the new plastic track will be compatible with the continuing
metal track, will it be exactly the same gauge (to the inner gauge corners),
such that if an existing 9V train were given a battery box it would run happily
in the new plastic track or a combination of track pieces? Bear in mind that
12V track is not exactly the same gauge as 9V track, even though the rail
centres are still 40mm apart. If the plastic track will be exactly the same
gauge, I think it can also be called “L-gauge”.
Q2. When you say there is a commitment to “L-gauge rather than 9V”, is there
also a commitment to 9V smooth power for the continuing metal rail system?
Changing motors to another voltage would be very expensive for me! I’m
personally not so bothered about the controllers though, since they will only
drive 2 or 3 motors when I regularly use 4 or 5! I have been using a dual 3 Amp
power supply instead, since it will happily drive a load of 1 Amp (4-motor
Pendolino train) all day without the thermal cut-out operating, unlike a
standard controller. Does anyone else find controller current limits a pain?
Q3. How does the demise of the 9V light and sound system parts (including
electric plates, which I want but which don’t appear in sets any more) affect
the commitment to 9V for the future? Surely long-term viability is better with
a more substantial parts base?
Q4. Have extra types of 9V metal track (such as half straights) been ruled out?
Will any extensions to track geometry be implemented only in the new plastic
track?
Q5. Will the new plastic track be a sensible realistic colour? I think light
bley looks OK as concrete and black looks OK as if ash, coal or oil has spilled
onto the track bed. Dark bley is more difficult though.
Q6. Will the new plastic track use discrete rails or standard pieces? Discrete
rails would be better for custom track beds but I suspect standard pieces are
the way a play train is likely to go.
Please say what you can and say if anything is undecided or a “not yet” issue.
Thanks.
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
| |
OK, here’s two I was *dying* to ask at BrickFest, but didn’t want to take
time away from the more “serious” questioners (i.e. - I’m not first & formost
a train type).
(1) What is the battery life goal?
(2) Is the IR system potential compatable with the RCX? I’m already
drooling at the idea of an RCX-controled train and stations, *without* having
to fit the RCX into the train (and to all the folks about to suggest LDCC,
current versions gut the firmware too much - it seems to be a RC system, not
a computer driving a train system).
(3) How many addressible features could such a train have (Fwd/Rev
certainly, but throttle? Lights? Horns?)
OK, that’s three. I can programm, but I can’t count. Personally, I also
came away from BrickFest with a positive view of where the 9V system is
headed, not negative. Pure and simple, more kids “gatewayed” into L-gauge
means more potential customers for “adult” L-gauge setups.
|
I have some questions, too. I’m not a huge train person -- I own only two train
sets -- but I’m aware of the 9V system’s limitations.
Would a 9V train have enough momentum to pass over a single section of plastic
track? I’m thinking that the plastic track could be useful for separating
different sections of a layout as far as power goes. A really slow train
wouldn’t make it, but a really slow train with a motor at both ends would. You’d
have to make sure the track polarity is the same on either side of the plastic
track section, of course.
In that same vein, would a single plastic section be helpful in making reversing
loops? Doing this currently requires hacking the rails to insulate part of the
track. If I understand the train community’s feelings, this alone would make the
plastic tracks extremely useful.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Davis wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
How do I know? Because I’m on the project
team that’s working on the Hobby Train.
I’m open for questions...
|
OK, here’s two I was *dying* to ask at BrickFest, but didn’t want to take
time away from the more “serious” questioners (i.e. - I’m not first & formost
a train type).
(1) What is the battery life goal?
(2) Is the IR system potential compatable with the RCX? I’m already
drooling at the idea of an RCX-controled train and stations, *without* having
to fit the RCX into the train (and to all the folks about to suggest LDCC,
current versions gut the firmware too much - it seems to be a RC system, not
a computer driving a train system).
(3) How many addressible features could such a train have (Fwd/Rev
certainly, but throttle? Lights? Horns?)
OK, that’s three. I can programm, but I can’t count. Personally, I also
came away from BrickFest with a positive view of where the 9V system is
headed, not negative. Pure and simple, more kids “gatewayed” into L-gauge
means more potential customers for “adult” L-gauge setups.
|
I’d like to add a few of my own detail questions.
A) How many channels will there be? There obviously needs to be at least as many
as there are simultaneous running loco’s on tracks else locos on sidings will
keep waking up (since the switches won’t turn them off anymore).
B) Is the R/C trainbase and motor a single entity, like 6x28 studs or something?
Or can the motor bogies be moved? Are they connected by 9v type wires? (If you
are limited to a trainbase type scheme, it eliminates cute little trams or steam
train models which rely on hiding the motor under the tender.)
C) What is the battery voltage?
D) Are the motorized bogies likely to be the same wheel spacing as the current
9v motor unit?
E) What is the likely battery lifetime if the train is left switched on but not
actually running? Will the On/Off state automatically time out and turn off?
After how long? Will a running train also timeout after a while?
F) Does the remote control switch the motor state between on and off or does the
remote have to have a button pressed continually? Is there a way of controlling
the speed? Button pushed for a while til the train reaches the desired speed?
Stays at that speed til a button pushes adjusts it to another speed? Including
slowing down and going the other way?
I know the final details may yet to be worked out. Advance information is very
welcome and permits people to plan and work towards what may be coming.
I, for one, am really looking forward to this new scheme for two reasons. I can
imagine either using an RCX directly or building a simple IR gizmo to allow the
RCX or a PC to control trains. I also see a simple option via which existing 9v
train motors could operate from onboard 9v battery boxes with a simple
controller (built by us fans) to be compatible with the new IR comms standard.
Or an enhanced version of it with extra goodie funtionality. I’ll get to work as
soon as there is real information.
Thanks for the heads up Jake!!! and TLG!!!
JB
|
|
| |
| |
Would a 9V train have enough momentum to pass over a single section of
plastic track? I’m thinking that the plastic track could be useful for
separating different sections of a layout as far as power goes. A really slow
train wouldn’t make it, but a really slow train with a motor at both ends
would. You’d have to make sure the track polarity is the same on either side
of the plastic track section, of course.
|
Oooh!!! That would be nifty. Electrical blocks. Also could be used for cheap
sidings, if the price is right.
| |
In that same vein, would a single plastic section be helpful in making
reversing loops? Doing this currently requires hacking the rails to insulate
part of the track. If I understand the train community’s feelings, this alone
would make the plastic tracks extremely useful.
|
Doesn’t that not work because of the polarity switching? Like you say above.
Or would you isolate it twice, so that you have one independent section that has
a seperate controller. Ooh yes! That oughta work.
Good thinkin’ man!
/me is now excited about Play Train.
-Stefan-
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Barnes wrote:
| |
I’d like to add a few of my own detail questions.
A) How many channels will there be? There obviously needs to be at least as
many as there are simultaneous running loco’s on tracks else locos on sidings
will keep waking up (since the switches won’t turn them off anymore).
B) Is the R/C trainbase and motor a single entity, like 6x28 studs or
something? Or can the motor bogies be moved? Are they connected by 9v type
wires? (If you are limited to a trainbase type scheme, it eliminates cute
little trams or steam train models which rely on hiding the motor under the
tender.)
C) What is the battery voltage?
D) Are the motorized bogies likely to be the same wheel spacing as the
current 9v motor unit?
E) What is the likely battery lifetime if the train is left switched on but
not actually running? Will the On/Off state automatically time out and turn
off? After how long? Will a running train also timeout after a while?
F) Does the remote control switch the motor state between on and off or does
the remote have to have a button pressed continually? Is there a way of
controlling the speed? Button pushed for a while til the train reaches the
desired speed? Stays at that speed til a button pushes adjusts it to another
speed? Including slowing down and going the other way?
I know the final details may yet to be worked out. Advance information is
very welcome and permits people to plan and work towards what may be coming.
I, for one, am really looking forward to this new scheme for two reasons. I
can imagine either using an RCX directly or building a simple IR gizmo to
allow the RCX or a PC to control trains. I also see a simple option via which
existing 9v train motors could operate from onboard 9v battery boxes with a
simple controller (built by us fans) to be compatible with the new IR comms
standard. Or an enhanced version of it with extra goodie funtionality. I’ll
get to work as soon as there is real information.
Thanks for the heads up Jake!!! and TLG!!!
JB
|
I’ll second every thing John said above. I’ve already built a couple of small RC
train projects. And I can’t wait to hack the new system as well.
I also apluad the idea of cheaper train sets (plastic track), as I already have
a ton of curved track and 9v controllers.
And I can’t wait to play with the new LF train edition.
Mat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
Would a 9V train have enough momentum to pass over a single section of
plastic track? I’m thinking that the plastic track could be useful for
separating different sections of a layout as far as power goes. A really slow
train wouldn’t make it, but a really slow train with a motor at both ends
would. You’d have to make sure the track polarity is the same on either side
of the plastic track section, of course.
In that same vein, would a single plastic section be helpful in making
reversing loops? Doing this currently requires hacking the rails to insulate
part of the track. If I understand the train community’s feelings, this alone
would make the plastic tracks extremely useful.
|
Actually, hacking the rails to electrically insulate the track only requires
sandwiching a tiny slip of paper in between the two sections you want isolated
from each other. Tear away the excess, and mark the spot with a red plate (so
you can find it again when you need to).
Rick C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mathew Clayson wrote:
| |
I’ll second every thing John said above. I’ve already built a couple of small
RC train projects. And I can’t wait to hack the new system as well.
I also apluad the idea of cheaper train sets (plastic track), as I already
have a ton of curved track and 9v controllers.
And I can’t wait to play with the new LF train edition.
Mat
|
I’m eager to see it too. Being able to put a remote controlled battery train on
the same track as a 9V one sounds like fun. Though not if Jon Reynolds is doing
it...
I think best would be an IR start/stop control, so that the train keeps running
even when line-of-sight is lost. Although a timeout is probably a good idea for
a product aimed at young children, being able to extend it or de-activate it
would be a nice touch.
Another thing I’d love to see is an auxiliary 9V output from the motor under
remote control. Instead of building lights or a horn into the control unit,
have at least one as a separate 9V connector. Then those of us who want to hack
the thing can use it for automatic uncouplers, winches, opening doors...?
Jason R
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
But I don’t pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge -
I’d actually turn this question back on the community... what do y’all think?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
Here’s one idea...
Origin’L’ for metal tracked model trains
and
‘L’Cheapo for the plastic tracked play trains.
-Patrick
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Patrick S. O'Donnell wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
>
> >
> > But I don't pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge
> > - I'd actually turn this question back on the community... what do y'all
> > think?
> >
> > Jake¬
> > ---¬
> > Jake McKee¬
> > Community Liaison¬
> > LEGO Community Team¬
>
> Here's one idea...
>
> Origin'L' for metal tracked model trains
>
> and
>
> 'L'Cheapo for the plastic tracked play trains.
>
>
> -Patrick
My thoughts are since both the metal rail and plastic rail are nearly identical
other than the conducting rails that they are both deserving of being called
L-gauge. However since there could be some confusion I would suggest adding the
words hobby or play somewhere in the description.
Example
L-gauge, hobby
L-gauge, play
Or
Hobby, L-gauge
Play, L-gauge
Also just for the record. I do not believe that making the track plastic instead
of metal makes it cheap looking. I truly hope that the new lower price points
that the plastic track will provide will allow more kids the chance to play with
a building system that is truly different from any other. The truth is if the
play train idea is a success it will only help our hobby grow.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> Also just for the record. I do not believe that making the track plastic instead
> of metal makes it cheap looking.
I agree with you, and I think it will look more "classic". The vast majority of
my track is already plastic for the old battery train and this is the only one I
run at my house. Electrified track is for the girls who like to see how much
juice it takes to wreck Grandpa's trains. Also we like to see how fast a rocket
ship can go on electric rails before it takes out innocent bystanders.
Lesson:
Plastic track = Quiet, Healthful Play.
Electric track = Messy, Violent Play.
So, I greet the new track.
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
snip snip
| |
| |
2. After years
of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
told that it’s expensive and will take time, we get new track we don’t
want: All plastic.
|
...and a committment to L Gauge (and I’m saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As
I mentioned at BF, we’re not replacing the current system (like we have in
the past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we’re “stretching” it
to include additional components.
|
Just to clarify Jake, will you be referring to both (Play and Hobby) as L
gauge? That would make sense to me as they are all the same gauge. But it
might confuse “real” train modellers - when we want to display at a train
show with our L gauge layout, they might think (when Play Trains are
launched) that we mean Play Trains, and turn up their noses (even more than
they do now).
|
Actually, that’s a very good point. I was using L Gauge to refer to anything
that uses the track gauge (distance between rails, obviously) currently used
for both the Play and Hobby trains.
But I don’t pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge -
I’d actually turn this question back on the community... what do y’all think?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
I’d say ‘L-Gauge’ defines the spacing of the track. If you want to distinguish
between metal or plastic track then use some other terminology. Don’t confuse
the issue when some people have just started making headway into traditional
model railway groups.
Jason Railton
|
|
| |
Jason J Railton wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.trains, Jake McKee wrote:
> > >
> > > snip snip
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 2. After years
> > > > > of waiting patiently for new track geometry and expansion and always being
> > > > > told that it's expensive and will take time, we get new track we don't
> > > > > want: All plastic.¬
> > > >
> > > > ...and a committment to L Gauge (and I'm saying L Gauge rather than 9v). As
> > > > I mentioned at BF, we're not replacing the current system (like we have in
> > > > the past when switching from 4.5 > 12v or 12v > 9v), we're "stretching" it
> > > > to include additional components.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify Jake, will you be referring to both (Play and Hobby) as L
> > > gauge? That would make sense to me as they are all the same gauge. But it
> > > might confuse "real" train modellers - when we want to display at a train
> > > show with our L gauge layout, they might think (when Play Trains are
> > > launched) that we mean Play Trains, and turn up their noses (even more than
> > > they do now).
> >
> > Actually, that's a very good point. I was using L Gauge to refer to anything
> > that uses the track gauge (distance between rails, obviously) currently used
> > for both the Play and Hobby trains.
> >
> > But I don't pretend to think that I should be defining the usage of L Gauge -
> > I'd actually turn this question back on the community... what do y'all think?
> >
> > Jake¬
> > ---¬
> > Jake McKee¬
> > Community Liaison¬
> > LEGO Community Team¬
>
>
> I'd say 'L-Gauge' defines the spacing of the track. If you want to distinguish
> between metal or plastic track then use some other terminology. Don't confuse
> the issue when some people have just started making headway into traditional
> model railway groups.
>
> Jason Railton
What make the most sense to me is...
Conducting L-gauge track
and
non-conducting L-gauge track
Chris
|
|
|
