| |
Can “new trains” ever be a bad thing? Doubtful, but here are some
observations based on the pic below that explore this question:
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
- Battery box is large and comes in white and black (so far) I don’t know what that side thingie is on them, but might complicate attempts to build 8 wide trains.
- The passenger train appears to be legitimately lighted; the Croc’s lighting seems to be a croc, unless they have developed lights to fit in headlight bricks and jumper plates.
- And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool, is a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It’s very existence mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true builder of LEGO trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated the design team at TLG?
- I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is like this element rather than this element. That would be cool, especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I’ll file it into the “missed opportunity” bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
- All town vehicles appear to 6 wide now, threatening to dwarf the train line. I am reminded of an 18” Stonehenge...;-)
That’s it based on observation. RC has a lot of potential, but my fear is that
it won’t nearly be powerful enough to exploit beyond stock LEGO sets, and
certainly not to pull any 8 wide lash. I bet we get printed missives like we
got with the 4.5 volt battery trains: “motor only designed to pull 3 cars” or
something to that effect. Lashing motors together? Will this even be possible?
Doubtful, thus condemning the trains to being short, toyish, and unimaginative.
But that is all speculation at this point.
As I mentioned previously, I probably won’t run these trains, however tempting
the prospect of RC control might be. The problem is that I don’t “play” with my
trains; I turn them on and let them run, period. Nor have I any desire to do
so. The whole concept is lost on me.
So I can only hope that TLG continues to produce the 9 volt motor. Actually, I
don’t trust them in this regard and I will probably do what Ben will be doing
and that is to stock up on about 50 motors in order to be ready when the death
knell finally sounds. I will join the ranks of the sad clingers-on-to-the-past
12 volt fellers and become a dinosaur myself.
JOHN
|
|
| |
--SOMEWHAY SNIPPED THROUGHOUT--
| |
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
|
Maybe it is the old motor, or a slightly modified version. In some ways it
wouldn’t surprise me if they reused the existing manufacturing line.
| |
- Battery box is large and comes in white and black (so far) I don’t know what that side thingie is on them, but might complicate attempts to build 8 wide trains.
|
This is what puts me off. At least with eight wide you can pad one plate at each
side. With seven-wide (which I use for my Soviet stock) I have to add a half
plate to the sides which is a challenge to say the least.
| |
- And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool, is a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It’s very existence mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true builder of LEGO trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated the design team at TLG?
|
I wouldn’t expect to get a brickbuilt nose to be honest. It would add a lot to
the price and would detract from the look in the eyes of most kids. We live in a
slick age and bricks just aren’t going to cut it, no matter how clever. My
preference is for brick builds but I’m not ten years old.
| |
- I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is like this element rather than this element. That would be cool, especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I’ll file it into the “missed opportunity” bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
|
I’m doing a wait and see on this.
| |
- All town vehicles appear to 6 wide now, threatening to dwarf the train line. I am reminded of an 18” Stonehenge...;-)
|
Well no worries for you there ;) I’ve been stocking up on four-wide wheelsets
from BL and the little racers sets to keep my vehicles in ‘scale’ to my trains.
| |
So I can only hope that TLG continues to produce the 9 volt motor. Actually,
I don’t trust them in this regard and I will probably do what Ben will be
doing and that is to stock up on about 50 motors in order to be ready when
the death knell finally sounds. I will join the ranks of the sad
clingers-on-to-the-past 12 volt fellers and become a dinosaur myself.
JOHN
|
I’m still waiting to find out if the motor is the same, or close enough.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--SOMEWHAY SNIPPED THROUGHOUT--
| |
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
|
Maybe it is the old motor, or a slightly modified version. In some ways it
wouldn’t surprise me if they reused the existing manufacturing line.
|
I am hoping it will be a modified version of the 9v motor. If it is the same
motor, then if it runs onto metal track, it’s battery will find itself powering
the track out through the wheels instead of getting power in through them. (The
modification would be to simply delete the wipers which connect to the power
from the wheel flanges.)
Of course, this would not be an issue on plastic track, but I believe I recall,
at BrickFest 2005, Jake saying that the battery and earlier 9v systems would
interoperate. So battery trains (which have the capability to be independently
controlled on the same stretch of track) would short to each other on a metal
clad track which would not be compatible.
JB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Barnes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--SOMEWHAY SNIPPED THROUGHOUT--
| |
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
|
Maybe it is the old motor, or a slightly modified version. In some ways it
wouldn’t surprise me if they reused the existing manufacturing line.
|
I am hoping it will be a modified version of the 9v motor. If it is the same
motor, then if it runs onto metal track, it’s battery will find itself
powering the track out through the wheels instead of getting power in through
them. (The modification would be to simply delete the wipers which connect to
the power from the wheel flanges.)
|
I’m not really hoping, but it would be awesome if they modified the existing
motor to allow it to be powered by either battery or off the rails.
The very best (IMO) would be like the trainmodders have done -- the power picked
up from the rails is fed to an output on top of the motor unit, and the actual
power to run the motor is fed in through an input on top of the unit.
| |
Of course, this would not be an issue on plastic track, but I believe I
recall, at BrickFest 2005, Jake saying that the battery and earlier 9v
systems would interoperate. So battery trains (which have the capability to
be independently controlled on the same stretch of track) would short to each
other on a metal clad track which would not be compatible.
|
As long as it’s compatible with NXT...
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Barnes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--SOMEWHAY SNIPPED THROUGHOUT--
| |
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
|
Maybe it is the old motor, or a slightly modified version. In some ways it
wouldn’t surprise me if they reused the existing manufacturing line.
|
I am hoping it will be a modified version of the 9v motor. If it is the same
motor, then if it runs onto metal track, it’s battery will find itself
powering the track out through the wheels instead of getting power in
through them. (The modification would be to simply delete the wipers which
connect to the power from the wheel flanges.)
|
I’m not really hoping, but it would be awesome if they modified the existing
motor to allow it to be powered by either battery or off the rails.
|
The current 9v motor can be powered by rails or a battery box. Just plug a
battery box where the light brick would normally connect and turn it on. The
only thing is it will go backwards compared to normal power by the wheels.
However a polarity switch (or even turning the plug around the other way) will
fix that. While I am not a die hard train fan I still like the whole 9v
standard and hope that they are simply using the same motor with a new battery
box controller. (Turn off the battery box and stick the train on 9v track and
away you go.) This would actually make sense if, as TLC stated, they do not
intend to discontiune the 9v train system but have both, so that kids can
“graduate” to the the 9v trains. What better way than to have the cheaper
battery train sets you “already own” work on the more expensive 9v as well.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
| |
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:IsoCFq.1t2F@lugnet.com...
> Can "new trains" ever be a {bad thing}? Doubtful, but here are some
> observations based on the pic below that explore this question:
>
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/lrlego/Schep/02-train_2006.jpg
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/lrlego/Schep/thumb/02-train_2006.jpg_thumb.jpg>>
>
> * It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt
> motor.
> Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
>
> * Battery box is large and comes in white and black (so far) I don't know
> what
> that side thingie is on them, but might complicate attempts to build 8
> wide
> trains.
>
> * The passenger train appears to be [legitimately] lighted; the Croc's
> lighting
> seems to be a croc, unless they have developed lights to fit in headlight
> bricks and jumper plates.
That looks like an optical illusion to me. It appears the light is coming
from a nx4 brick between the 2 headlight bricks and under the jumper plate.
-Rob
www.brickmodder.net
|
|
| |
| |
| |
- I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is like this element rather than this element. That would be cool, especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I’ll file it into the “missed opportunity” bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
|
I’m doing a wait and see on this.
|
It would look to be the curved elements used on the Millenium Falcon escape pod,
judging from the ends. Sadly, this means they are nigh useless for anyone
making 8-wides, but for 6-wides, they should prove quite nice, and lighter than
all those 2x3’s (though I dare say having a ton of those in white would prove
interesting).
-Stefan-
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
Can “new trains” ever be a bad thing? Doubtful, but here are some
observations based on the pic below that explore this question:
|
| |
- All town vehicles appear to 6 wide now, threatening to dwarf the train line. I am reminded of an 18” Stonehenge...;-)
|
| |
As I mentioned previously, I probably won’t run these trains, however
tempting the prospect of RC control might be. The problem is that I don’t
“play” with my trains; I turn them on and let them run, period. Nor have I
any desire to do so. The whole concept is lost on me.
|
I share the same POV. I just wish I got into trains a lot earlier and had more
train elements at this point.
| |
So I can only hope that TLG continues to produce the 9 volt motor. Actually,
I don’t trust them in this regard
|
Same here, unfortunately. I plan on getting more track now as well. What I am
wondering is if one of the trains is RC and the other is reg 9V. I guess maybe
they’d conflict with each other regarding sales.
I’d love to talk more but I really have to get down to the lobby to sit and wait
for the limo.*
Jonathan
- another Spinal Tarp reference for those unfamiliar with the classic spoof.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
Can “new trains” ever be a bad thing? Doubtful, but here are some
observations based on the pic below that explore this question:
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
- Battery box is large and comes in white and black (so far) I don’t know what that side thingie is on them, but might complicate attempts to build 8 wide trains.
- The passenger train appears to be legitimately lighted; the Croc’s lighting seems to be a croc, unless they have developed lights to fit in headlight bricks and jumper plates.
- And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool, is a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It’s very existence mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true builder of LEGO trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated the design team at TLG?
- I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is like this element rather than this element. That would be cool, especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I’ll file it into the “missed opportunity” bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
- All town vehicles appear to 6 wide now, threatening to dwarf the train line. I am reminded of an 18” Stonehenge...;-)
That’s it based on observation. RC has a lot of potential, but my fear is
that it won’t nearly be powerful enough to exploit beyond stock LEGO sets,
and certainly not to pull any 8 wide lash. I bet we get printed missives
like we got with the 4.5 volt battery trains: “motor only designed to pull 3
cars” or something to that effect. Lashing motors together? Will this even
be possible? Doubtful, thus condemning the trains to being short, toyish, and
unimaginative. But that is all speculation at this point.
As I mentioned previously, I probably won’t run these trains, however
tempting the prospect of RC control might be. The problem is that I don’t
“play” with my trains; I turn them on and let them run, period. Nor have I
any desire to do so. The whole concept is lost on me.
So I can only hope that TLG continues to produce the 9 volt motor. Actually,
I don’t trust them in this regard and I will probably do what Ben will be
doing and that is to stock up on about 50 motors in order to be ready when
the death knell finally sounds. I will join the ranks of the sad
clingers-on-to-the-past 12 volt fellers and become a dinosaur myself.
JOHN
|
The white one looks like the train version of the
new airliners - i.e. like a Playmobil set. It
wouldn’t bother me (as much) if these were 4+/Jack Stone sets. But the airliner
has almost the same age recommendation (5-12) as something like
4892 (6-12).
I don’t get it.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
That looks like an optical illusion to me. It appears the light is coming
from a nx4 brick between the 2 headlight bricks and under the jumper plate.
|
Hey, you’re correct, Rob. I thought it was just fancy Photoshopping, but the
lights do seem to appear from a green one of
these
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
| |
I’d love to talk more but I really have to get down to the lobby to sit and
wait for the limo.*
|
Are you playing at the Enormodome?
| |
- another Spinal Tarp reference for those unfamiliar with the classic spoof.
|
“Tarp”:-) Jonathan, you truly are a kindred spirit! I just “introduced” my kids
to Tap this Christmas break. Top Ten greatest film without a doubt.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
--SOMEWHAY SNIPPED THROUGHOUT--
| |
- It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor. Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
|
Maybe it is the old motor, or a slightly modified version. In some ways it
wouldn’t surprise me if they reused the existing manufacturing line.
| |
- Battery box is large and comes in white and black (so far) I don’t know what that side thingie is on them, but might complicate attempts to build 8 wide trains.
|
This is what puts me off. At least with eight wide you can pad one plate at
each side. With seven-wide (which I use for my Soviet stock) I have to add a
half plate to the sides which is a challenge to say the least.
| |
- And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool, is a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It’s very existence mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true builder of LEGO trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated the design team at TLG?
|
I wouldn’t expect to get a brickbuilt nose to be honest. It would add a lot
to the price and would detract from the look in the eyes of most kids. We
live in a slick age and bricks just aren’t going to cut it, no matter how
clever. My preference is for brick builds but I’m not ten years old.
|
I don’t buy this argument. The Super Chief proved that brick-built designs can
be both aesthetically pleasing and popular.
And how could a brick-built design be any more expensive than that Playmobil
wanna-be? 20-30 small bricks made from existing molds would have to be cheaper
than designing an entirely new mold for a piece that will only ever show up in
one or two sets. How much use did TLC get out of this
monstrosity?
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Stefan Garcia wrote:
| |
| |
| |
- I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is like this element rather than this element. That would be cool, especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I’ll file it into the “missed opportunity” bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
|
I’m doing a wait and see on this.
|
It would look to be the curved elements used on the Millenium Falcon escape
pod, judging from the ends. Sadly, this means they are nigh useless for
anyone making 8-wides, but for 6-wides, they should prove quite nice, and
lighter than all those 2x3’s (though I dare say having a ton of those in
white would prove interesting).
-Stefan-
|
No need to wait or hope for an 8-wide curved roof element.
Take a look at the new airliners:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=7893-1
Particularly this piece:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=54095
Now to just hope they produce it in black, dark bley, and light bley.
-Jeramy
|
|
| |
John wrote:
> Can "new trains" ever be a {bad thing}? Doubtful, but here are some
> observations based on the pic below that explore this question:
>
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/lrlego/Schep/02-train_2006.jpg
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/lrlego/Schep/thumb/02-train_2006.jpg_thumb.jpg>>
>
> * It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor.
> Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
Having metal wheels has its ups and downs. One down is that you won't be
able to run it on a 9v line independent of the 9v train. We probably
won't be able to run to IR controled trains independently of each other
(one remote will likely contol any IR train that the remote is pointed
at) but it would be cool to control one train using a 9v regulator and
a second train using the IR remote. If the new system uses the old 9v
motors, then we (OK I) won't be able to do this.
[...]
> * The passenger train appears to be [legitimately] lighted; the Croc's lighting
> seems to be a croc, unless they have developed lights to fit in headlight
> bricks and jumper plates.
This close up is a good view of the croc
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1560532
It looks like the artist hasn't made an effort to light embelish the
trans-white 1x1 round plates on the 1x1 headlight bricks or the 1x2
tile-with-center-stud, but the artist has clearly embelished the two
lights on the 1x4 at the front-bottom of the hood. Lights in this
location are totally reasonable. That brick would just be a green
version of the black 1x4 headlight brick in
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4565 and the red 1x4 headlight brick in
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4563
> * And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool, is
> a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It's very existence
> mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true {builder} of LEGO
> trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated the design team at
> TLG?
>
> * I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is
> like <http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/6005 this element> rather than
> <http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/32083 this element>. That would be cool,
> especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I'll file it into the
> "missed opportunity" bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
I suspect that these will have to go into your missed opportunity bin.
> * All town vehicles appear to 6 wide now, threatening to dwarf the train line.
> I am reminded of an 18" Stonehenge...;-)
>
> That's it based on observation. RC has a lot of potential, but my fear is that
> it won't nearly be powerful enough to exploit beyond stock LEGO sets, and
> certainly not to pull any 8 wide lash. [...] Lashing motors together? Will this even be possible?
Maybe... unless the remotes are more sophisticated than a TV remote,
which for some reason I doubt. I think it is likely that one remote will
contol any number of LEGO trains. Kinda like on Hitachi remote will
control any Hitachi TV. So, if a few engines are lashed togther, one
remote should tell them all to go and all to stop.
[...]
> As I mentioned previously, I probably won't run these trains, however tempting
> the prospect of RC control might be.
I'd love to use IR control to run a trolley on the same line as my
trains, but I don't think this will be possible. No doubt, I'll buy at
least one for my son, so I'll get to try it out that way.
[...]
> So I can only hope that TLG continues to produce the 9 volt motor. [...]
Hmm... I wonder how the proposed LEGO Train Factory or the proposed LEGO
Train Bucket fits into the life or death of the traditional 9v line...
> [JOHN]
Chris
--
http://users.rcn.com/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
| |
| |
I wouldn’t expect to get a brickbuilt nose to be honest. It would add a lot
to the price and would detract from the look in the eyes of most kids. We
live in a slick age and bricks just aren’t going to cut it, no matter how
clever. My preference is for brick builds but I’m not ten years old.
|
I don’t buy this argument. The Super Chief proved that brick-built designs
can be both aesthetically pleasing and popular.
|
I’ll take your “I don’t buy this argument” and raise it. We know that the Super
Chief proved popular amongst AFOLs, but not neccesarily amonst the population at
large.
| |
And how could a brick-built design be any more expensive than that Playmobil
wanna-be? 20-30 small bricks made from existing molds would have to be
cheaper than designing an entirely new mold for a piece that will only ever
show up in one or two sets. How much use did TLC get out of this
monstrosity?
|
Fortunately we don’t need to think about this one, the prices are there for us
to see on Shop@Home. Taking the UK price, the Super Chief engine sold for £27
whilst the High-Speed Train engine sold for £20 making it 35% more expensive. I
know that this difference isn’t just the nose but it’s quite a lot.
I prefer the Super Chief by a long run, both for its look and its piece use but
I am not the target market. Nor are you or anyone who frequents this newsgroup.
Tim
|
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
I wouldn’t expect to get a brickbuilt nose to be honest. It would add a lot
to the price and would detract from the look in the eyes of most kids. We
live in a slick age and bricks just aren’t going to cut it, no matter how
clever. My preference is for brick builds but I’m not ten years old.
|
I don’t buy this argument. The Super Chief proved that brick-built designs
can be both aesthetically pleasing and popular.
|
I’ll take your “I don’t buy this argument” and raise it. We know that the
Super Chief proved popular amongst AFOLs, but not neccesarily amonst the
population at large.
| |
And how could a brick-built design be any more expensive than that Playmobil
wanna-be? 20-30 small bricks made from existing molds would have to be
cheaper than designing an entirely new mold for a piece that will only ever
show up in one or two sets. How much use did TLC get out of this
monstrosity?
|
Fortunately we don’t need to think about this one, the prices are there for
us to see on Shop@Home. Taking the UK price, the Super Chief engine sold for
£27 whilst the High-Speed Train engine sold for £20 making it 35% more
expensive. I know that this difference isn’t just the nose but it’s quite a
lot.
I prefer the Super Chief by a long run, both for its look and its piece use
but I am not the target market. Nor are you or anyone who frequents this
newsgroup.
Tim
|
Yeah, but the Super Chief had 3x more pieces than the 10157. Per piece, the
Super Chief comes in at 9.17 cents per piece, while the High Speed Locomotive
comes in at 17.73. Beyond the savings in not designing a new mold for every new
engine, using normal bricks makes it much more likely that those pieces are
already in production for use in other sets - just run off a few thousand more.
And according to TLC, the target market for the Super Chief is “10+”, while the
10157 is “7+”.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
--SNIP--
| |
Yeah, but the Super Chief had 3x more pieces than the 10157.
|
Which I would think helps my argument, not yours.
| |
Per piece, the
Super Chief comes in at 9.17 cents per piece, while the High Speed Locomotive
comes in at 17.73.
|
Which might represent a higher profit margin for Lego. Either way I doubt your
typical kid (or their parents) looks at the price per piece.
| |
Beyond the savings in not designing a new mold for every
new engine, using normal bricks makes it much more likely that those pieces
are already in production for use in other sets - just run off a few thousand
more.
|
Well the prodction doesn’t quite work like that from what I’ve gathered but the
moulding would be an added cost I agree.
| |
And according to TLC, the target market for the Super Chief is “10+”, while
the 10157 is “7+”.
|
And considering that children start leaving toys for gadgets at about 13
represents twice the time to sell to people.
Tim
|
|
| |
Tim Gould wrote:
> --SOMEWHAY SNIPPED THROUGHOUT--
>
>
>
> > * It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor.
> > Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
>
>
> Maybe it is the old motor, or a slightly modified version. In some ways it
> wouldn't surprise me if they reused the existing manufacturing line.
>
>
> > * Battery box is large and comes in white and black (so far) I don't know
> > what that side thingie is on them, but might complicate attempts to build 8
> > wide trains.
>
>
> This is what puts me off. At least with eight wide you can pad one plate at each
> side. With seven-wide (which I use for my Soviet stock) I have to add a half
> plate to the sides which is a challenge to say the least.
>
>
> > * And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool,
> > is a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It's very
> > existence mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true
> > {builder} of LEGO trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated
> > the design team at TLG?
>
>
> I wouldn't expect to get a brickbuilt nose to be honest. It would add a lot to
> the price and would detract from the look in the eyes of most kids. We live in a
> slick age and bricks just aren't going to cut it, no matter how clever. My
> preference is for brick builds but I'm not ten years old.
The nose is not really that different to that on sets like the Metroliner,
4511 passenger train and 4561 passenger train. The main difference appears
to be that instead of having a lower nose piece and an upper nose
piece/windscreen, its now a single piece (same as how there is a single
piece nose on the new airplanes)
|
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
--SNIP--
| |
Yeah, but the Super Chief had 3x more pieces than the 10157.
|
Which I would think helps my argument, not yours.
|
Only if the Super Chief was three times as expensive, which it wasn’t. Real
bricks mean more value for the dollar than molded super-pieces.
| |
| |
Per piece, the
Super Chief comes in at 9.17 cents per piece, while the High Speed
Locomotive comes in at 17.73.
|
Which might represent a higher profit margin for Lego. Either way I doubt
your typical kid (or their parents) looks at the price per piece.
|
I have no idea what effect price per piece means for TLC’s bottom line. They
seem to go to either extreme, with sets being dominated by a few huge pieces, or
(the kind I like) packed with a lot of bits and bobs.
Of course, you have to actually sell the thing to make a profit, and kids and
parents do look at piece count, even if they don’t exactly calculate price per
piece like we AFOLs. Plenty of times, I’ve been standing in the LEGO aisle and
heard a parent say “This one has more pieces”, or something to that effect.
| |
| |
Beyond the savings in not designing a new mold for every
new engine, using normal bricks makes it much more likely that those pieces
are already in production for use in other sets - just run off a few
thousand more.
|
Well the prodction doesn’t quite work like that from what I’ve gathered but
the moulding would be an added cost I agree.
|
One of the cost-cutting measures TLC has taken recently is limiting the number
of parts in production. It was mentioned in that in the recent
Wired article about
Mindstorms:
Cleaning up meant ditching the software division, halving development
times, and slashing product lines to reduce the number of unique pieces
being manufactured in Billund from 12,400 to around 7,000.
A part that will only be in one set that year (possibly ever) isn’t going to
help in that regard. I’ve also heard Jake McKee talk about part choices for a
set being dictated by current production, most recently with the
TTX car. Of
course, the conventional wisdom on that one was that TLC was right to try and
save money on production by using the same parts in multiple sets, instead of
producing more unique pieces.
| |
| |
And according to TLC, the target market for the Super Chief is “10+”, while
the 10157 is “7+”.
|
And considering that children start leaving toys for gadgets at about 13
represents twice the time to sell to people.
|
I was just pointing out that the Santa Fe was indeed targeted at children.
According to Jake, no sets are targeted
at AFOLs:
In truth, there are actually no “AFOL products” in our assortment. Sure,
there are products that better keep in mind the AFOL needs/desires more
than others. But there is not one product (yet) that was created solely
for AFOLs.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
| |
I was just pointing out that the Santa Fe was indeed targeted at children.
According to Jake, no sets are
targeted at AFOLs:
In truth, there are actually no “AFOL products” in our assortment. Sure,
there are products that better keep in mind the AFOL needs/desires more
than others. But there is not one product (yet) that was created solely
for AFOLs.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
The whole point of this exercise is to bring down the entry point of a starting
train set. The Super Chief cost more than the My-Own-Train, so it doesn’t help
one bit. The price-per-piece is irrelevant - if that was the only engine
available it would be too high a price for a first train set. That’s why it was
only sold through LEGO channels, not regular toy shops.
This isn’t about the target age range; it’s about the target volume of sales.
If a complete battery train set can be sold for significantly less than the
current complete 9V setups then it will bring more people into LEGO trains.
The Super Chief wouldn’t warrant custom mouldings because it was a smaller
production run. Something that is intended to sell in large numbers will recoup
the extra tooling cost of a new piece, and then it will have been worth it.
I’ve held the view (and expressed it here and to Jake) that LEGO trains are
missing out by not having the lower price entry point that used to be provided
by the continuation of battery trains into the 12V era, and I’m glad to see this
coming along.
My only concern is that LEGO have been very bad at the
joined-up-thinking-as-a-whole-company ideal, so while the new sets may come with
the reassurance from Jake and/or ambassadors that 9V will continue to be
supported (though maybe more through Shop@Home than through toy shops), there’s
a definite possibility that Shop@Home will at some point completely fail to keep
up the supply.
Jason R
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
(snip)
| |
My only concern is that LEGO have been very bad at the
joined-up-thinking-as-a-whole-company ideal, so while the new sets may come
with the reassurance from Jake and/or ambassadors that 9V will continue to be
supported (though maybe more through Shop@Home than through toy shops),
there’s a definite possibility that Shop@Home will at some point completely
fail to keep up the supply.
Jason R
|
This is exactly how I feel about the new trains. Whilst I welcome the realistic
Euro designs and the entry-level pitching, the assurance that ‘metal track will
continue to be available’ is not the same as saying ‘the rail powered 9v system
will continue’
Jon.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
I’ve held the view (and expressed it here and to Jake) that LEGO trains are
missing out by not having the lower price entry point that used to be
provided by the continuation of battery trains into the 12V era, and I’m glad
to see this coming along.
My only concern is that LEGO have been very bad at the
joined-up-thinking-as-a-whole-company ideal, so while the new sets may come
with the reassurance from Jake and/or ambassadors that 9V will continue to be
supported (though maybe more through Shop@Home than through toy shops),
there’s a definite possibility that Shop@Home will at some point completely
fail to keep up the supply.
|
I agree with you here, Jason. When considering the new battery system, we are,
in theory, talking about a line that will provide easier access to LEGO trains
for the GP. There is something non-threatening about devices which only require
just batteries as opposed to something that plugs into the wall. Batteries are
ubiquitious and relatively safe. I believe it is a much easier sell than
current-off-of-the-track systems (no matter how simple and reliable TLG made
theirs out to be).
So, it terms of marketing, the decision to create this new line is brilliant.
The key will be for TLG, down the road, to resist the temptation to “streamline”
and cut the old 9 volt line. As long as they hold to the idea that batteries
progress to electrical, all will be fine.
So all of this talk about switching is sort of academic. I mean, when TLG came
out with new Duplo trains, nobody switched from 9 volt to that, simply because
it was new. “New” doesn’t have to mean “better”. The new system in my mind
is akin to Jack Stone figs. Not that there is anything wrong with Jack Stone
figs, it’s just another system that happens to be compatible with the town
system (but not necessarily compatible with minifigs). As I mentioned
previously, the types of features that a battery system can provide do not meet
my personal needs as an adult and a LEGO train club exhibitor.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
The current 9v motor can be powered by rails or a battery box. Just plug a
battery box where the light brick would normally connect and turn it on. The
only thing is it will go backwards compared to normal power by the wheels.
However a polarity switch (or even turning the plug around the other way)
will fix that. While I am not a die hard train fan I still like the whole 9v
standard and hope that they are simply using the same motor with a new
battery box controller. (Turn off the battery box and stick the train on 9v
track and away you go.) This would actually make sense if, as TLC stated,
they do not intend to discontiune the 9v train system but have both, so that
kids can “graduate” to the the 9v trains. What better way than to have the
cheaper battery train sets you “already own” work on the more expensive 9v as
well.
|
Eureka, Mike! I think you have nailed it! The spy pics show metal wheels,
suggesting that they are indeed still utilizing the 9 volt train motor. That
side thingie I was concerned about now appears to be the sensor that gets the
signal from the remote unit. It would be nice if the battery box contained a
quick recharging battery that could easily be swapped out.
If this system IS the way you suggest, it would be quite elegant indeed! And if
this all is true, then I would not necessarily consider this a new system, but
rather a clever augment to an already good one!
Though it makes me think that the death knell for metal rail track cannot be
far off. And I seem to remember that that manufacturing process was the one
that TLG wanted to get rid of.
Hold off on buying all of those 9 volt motors, Ben! :-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
The current 9v motor can be powered by rails or a battery box. Just plug a
battery box where the light brick would normally connect and turn it on. The
only thing is it will go backwards compared to normal power by the wheels.
However a polarity switch (or even turning the plug around the other way)
will fix that. While I am not a die hard train fan I still like the whole
9v standard and hope that they are simply using the same motor with a new
battery box controller. (Turn off the battery box and stick the train on 9v
track and away you go.) This would actually make sense if, as TLC stated,
they do not intend to discontiune the 9v train system but have both, so that
kids can “graduate” to the the 9v trains. What better way than to have the
cheaper battery train sets you “already own” work on the more expensive 9v
as well.
|
Eureka, Mike! I think you have nailed it! The spy pics show metal wheels,
suggesting that they are indeed still utilizing the 9 volt train motor. That
side thingie I was concerned about now appears to be the sensor that gets the
signal from the remote unit. It would be nice if the battery box contained a
quick recharging battery that could easily be swapped out.
If this system IS the way you suggest, it would be quite elegant indeed! And
if this all is true, then I would not necessarily consider this a new
system, but rather a clever augment to an already good one!
Though it makes me think that the death knell for metal rail track cannot
be far off. And I seem to remember that that manufacturing process was the
one that TLG wanted to get rid of.
Hold off on buying all of those 9 volt motors, Ben! :-)
JOHN
|
I’d just assumed that most train-heads knew that already. John, you need to
open up and talk to the six-wide builders more... ;-) But what does happen if
you connect a 9V battery box to a train motor is that you get not so much a
train-powering device as a train-launching device. The full 9V propels the
motor at very high speed. That’s why I wondered if it doesn’t need six 1.5V
batteries, and just propels the motor at a lower voltage.
If it does take six AA batteries (and they could just fit in 6-wide - lots of
things do, you know ;) , it could obviously regulate the voltage going to the
motor. It could mean the lights (if powered independently - and fingers crossed
they’re on the remote) are much brighter than on 9V trains, and you could use
flashing ones effectively too.
If it doesn’t regulate the voltage, you get a train base that goes ridiculously
fast on its own, but may slow to a crawl under even a small load. I just hope
they’ve resolved the wheel-wear problem.
I’m not sure why Mike thinks the motor goes backwards - surely you can say that
about any of the 9V devices if you turn the connector round? If you just mean
that putting the motor, cable and battery box in a straight line with the
battery box switch towards the tail end makes it go tail first, that’s not
really much of a problem.
Mr Reynolds actually built a battery powered train and snuck it into an
otherwise professionally designed and run layout (note that the following smiley
is for the benefit of the general readership, not Mr Reynolds himself... ;-) and
it caused some near-misses by continuing to electrify the track it was on, even
after it was told to stop. It was heavy enough that it didn’t immediately
launch itself off the track under its own power, but it did use a single 9V
battery in a small box rather than six AAs.
Jason R
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
The current 9v motor can be powered by rails or a battery box. Just plug a
battery box where the light brick would normally connect and turn it on.
The only thing is it will go backwards compared to normal power by the
wheels. However a polarity switch (or even turning the plug around the
other way) will fix that. While I am not a die hard train fan I still like
the whole 9v standard and hope that they are simply using the same motor
with a new battery box controller. (Turn off the battery box and stick the
train on 9v track and away you go.) This would actually make sense if, as
TLC stated, they do not intend to discontiune the 9v train system but have
both, so that kids can “graduate” to the the 9v trains. What better way
than to have the cheaper battery train sets you “already own” work on the
more expensive 9v as well.
|
Eureka, Mike! I think you have nailed it! The spy pics show metal wheels,
suggesting that they are indeed still utilizing the 9 volt train motor.
That side thingie I was concerned about now appears to be the sensor that
gets the signal from the remote unit. It would be nice if the battery box
contained a quick recharging battery that could easily be swapped out.
If this system IS the way you suggest, it would be quite elegant indeed!
And if this all is true, then I would not necessarily consider this a new
system, but rather a clever augment to an already good one!
Though it makes me think that the death knell for metal rail track cannot
be far off. And I seem to remember that that manufacturing process was
the one that TLG wanted to get rid of.
Hold off on buying all of those 9 volt motors, Ben! :-)
JOHN
|
I’d just assumed that most train-heads knew that already. John, you need to
open up and talk to the six-wide builders more... ;-) But what does happen
if you connect a 9V battery box to a train motor is that you get not so much
a train-powering device as a train-launching device. The full 9V propels the
motor at very high speed. That’s why I wondered if it doesn’t need six 1.5V
batteries, and just propels the motor at a lower voltage.
If it does take six AA batteries (and they could just fit in 6-wide - lots of
things do, you know ;) , it could obviously regulate the voltage going to the
motor. It could mean the lights (if powered independently - and fingers
crossed they’re on the remote) are much brighter than on 9V trains, and you
could use flashing ones effectively too.
If it doesn’t regulate the voltage, you get a train base that goes
ridiculously fast on its own, but may slow to a crawl under even a small
load. I just hope they’ve resolved the wheel-wear problem.
I’m not sure why Mike thinks the motor goes backwards - surely you can say
that about any of the 9V devices if you turn the connector round? If you
just mean that putting the motor, cable and battery box in a straight line
with the battery box switch towards the tail end makes it go tail first,
that’s not really much of a problem.
Mr Reynolds actually built a battery powered train and snuck it into an
otherwise professionally designed and run layout (note that the following
smiley is for the benefit of the general readership, not Mr Reynolds
himself... ;-) and it caused some near-misses by continuing to electrify the
track it was on, even after it was told to stop. It was heavy enough that it
didn’t immediately launch itself off the track under its own power, but it
did use a single 9V battery in a small box rather than six AAs.
Jason R
|
Ah...another reference to my enthusiastic pioneering approach by Jason. The loco
in question is a replica of a real loco called a Motor Luggage Van made as a
single unit for the Southern Region (ex British Rail). As the name suggests, it
was a motorised luggage van - but it featured an ingenious power system.
Under normal use it would pick up 630v DC current through the 3rd rail. Where
the third rail was not present, such as in yards or obscure branch lines, it
could also operate on it’s own internal batteries for a while. The lego model
accurately replicates this system and is switched between rail power and battery
power by a technic switch mounted under the chassis. Of course, as my great
friend Mr Railton pointed out, in ‘battery’ mode the wheels are still carrying
the current and feed power to the whole track with spectacular results.
The model actually contains the larger 9v battery box (6 x AA) which was
deliberate to enable some of the cells to be blanked off to reduce the voltage.
I short circuited the battery terminals and was running the train on 3v I think
- enough to move it at a reasonable speed by itself but a second motor elsewhere
on the layout would bring it to a crawl. This was a great advantage as nobody
noticed the other train(s) crawling away at first!
I still have the loco but will have to dig around for photos. It;s absolute
proof that the new battery trains will cause havoc on traditional 9v layouts.
Jon.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
I’d just assumed that most train-heads knew that already. John, you need to
open up and talk to the six-wide builders more... ;-)
|
Eeoow. That’s akin to kissing one’s sister:-p
| |
But what does happen
if you connect a 9V battery box to a train motor is that you get not so much
a train-powering device as a train-launching device. The full 9V propels the
motor at very high speed. That’s why I wondered if it doesn’t need six 1.5V
batteries, and just propels the motor at a lower voltage.
|
Well, I was imagining a sort of regulator as a part of the battery pack that a
remote control could simply activate. A long time ago my son Ross rigged up an
old 12 volt motor that ran off of a 9 volt motor that was controlled by the
speed regulator. Now I’m no electrical engineer, so I just figured that the
various components would able to be moved around to achieve the desired results.
| |
If it does take six AA batteries (and they could just fit in 6-wide - lots of
things do, you know ;) , it could obviously regulate the voltage going to the
motor. It could mean the lights (if powered independently - and fingers
crossed they’re on the remote) are much brighter than on 9V trains, and you
could use flashing ones effectively too.
If it doesn’t regulate the voltage, you get a train base that goes
ridiculously fast on its own, but may slow to a crawl under even a small
load. I just hope they’ve resolved the wheel-wear problem.
I’m not sure why Mike thinks the motor goes backwards - surely you can say
that about any of the 9V devices if you turn the connector round? If you
just mean that putting the motor, cable and battery box in a straight line
with the battery box switch towards the tail end makes it go tail first,
that’s not really much of a problem.
Mr Reynolds actually built a battery powered train and snuck it into an
otherwise professionally designed and run layout (note that the following
smiley is for the benefit of the general readership, not Mr Reynolds
himself... ;-) and it caused some near-misses by continuing to electrify the
track it was on, even after it was told to stop. It was heavy enough that it
didn’t immediately launch itself off the track under its own power, but it
did use a single 9V battery in a small box rather than six AAs.
|
Ross is working on a top secret battery powered train project that I had hoped
he would have finished by now-- it is pretty cool. Christmas break is now over,
however, so I don’t know how much time he’ll have for it now...
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jonathan Reynolds wrote:
| |
Ah...another reference to my enthusiastic pioneering approach by Jason. The
loco in question is a replica of a real loco called a Motor Luggage Van made
as a single unit for the Southern Region (ex British Rail). As the name
suggests, it was a motorised luggage van - but it featured an ingenious power
system.
|
Similar to our trams, which all carry emergency battery power for if it stops at
an isolated section.
| |
I still have the loco but will have to dig around for photos. It;s absolute
proof that the new battery trains will cause havoc on traditional 9v layouts.
|
It seems the wheels are plastic, so
maybe not total havoc.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
Yep, a totally new train motor too. So now I need even more convincing that Lego
will continue with the traditional 9v track-powered range.
Jon
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
> John wrote:
> > Can "new trains" ever be a {bad thing}? Doubtful, but here are some
> > observations based on the pic below that explore this question:
> >
> > <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/lrlego/Schep/02-train_2006.jpg
> > <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/lrlego/Schep/thumb/02-train_2006.jpg_thumb.jpg>>
> >
> > * It appears that the battery motor has metal flanges like the 9 volt motor.
> > Probably good; will last longer than mere plastic.
>
> Having metal wheels has its ups and downs. One down is that you won't be
> able to run it on a 9v line independent of the 9v train. We probably
> won't be able to run to IR controled trains independently of each other
> (one remote will likely contol any IR train that the remote is pointed
> at) but it would be cool to control one train using a 9v regulator and
> a second train using the IR remote. If the new system uses the old 9v
> motors, then we (OK I) won't be able to do this.
The motors are new, the wheels are plastic.
Thus the IR train can run independently on 9V track among 9V trains.
> > * And speaking of the passenger train, it appears that the nose, while cool, is
> > a 1 piece mold, thus rendering it useless for 8 widers. It's very existence
> > mocks the effects of James Mathis over the years, a true {builder} of LEGO
> > trains. Has an agent of Playmobil secretly infiltrated the design team at
> > TLG?
> >
> > * I might be less critical if the new roof piece (apparently 8 studs long) is
> > like <http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/6005 this element> rather than
> > <http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/32083 this element>. That would be cool,
> > especially WRT the smoke window section. If not, I'll file it into the
> > "missed opportunity" bin, which is badly overflowing;-)
>
> I suspect that these will have to go into your missed opportunity bin.
The roof of the high speed train seems to be this part:¬
<http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/45411>¬
This can be seen at the middle car on the poster.
> > As I mentioned previously, I probably won't run these trains, however tempting
> > the prospect of RC control might be.
>
> I'd love to use IR control to run a trolley on the same line as my
> trains, but I don't think this will be possible. No doubt, I'll buy at
> least one for my son, so I'll get to try it out that way.
It is possible, you can even run up to 3 IR trains independently plus
a 9V train on 9V track.
As the IR trains has it's on power supply, I'm planning to let one run
on my 12V track together with a 4.5V battery train and a 12V train.
I can regulate the 12V train with the speed regulator and I can regulate
the IR train with the remote. The 4.5V train has no remote control, so
I have to control the 12V and IR trains to avoid collisions.
> > So I can only hope that TLG continues to produce the 9 volt motor. [...]
>
> Hmm... I wonder how the proposed LEGO Train Factory or the proposed LEGO
> Train Bucket fits into the life or death of the traditional 9v line...
The new IR battery trains were announced as an additive train system for
a younger audience (thus also less and larger pieces in the high speed
train, the younger audience seems to like playing above building.....).
Spokesmen of TLC stated that the current 9V train remains available,
although they couldn't tell for how long. But no company is able to look
so far into the future and promise future availability.
Niels
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Niels Karsdorp wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi wrote:
> > I'd love to use IR control to run a trolley on the same line as my
> > trains, but I don't think this will be possible. No doubt, I'll buy at
> > least one for my son, so I'll get to try it out that way.
>
> It is possible, you can even run up to 3 IR trains independently plus
> a 9V train on 9V track.
I'm hoping these aren't using the same signal encoding as the Manas- they've
already reused those on some IR cars as well. I'd really like to be able to
control Mana-powered devices on a layout independently from the trains.
And as long as the signal can be duplicated easily with a Mindstorms unit (like
the Mana signals), you should be able to bring trains into a station and control
them independently. Of course you need the RCX to be there at each station, and
it would only control trains with line of sight. Yikes- that would mean using
the inputs and outputs for communication between bricks and using the IR
transceiver as an output!
Oh yeah- the new one has bluetooth for comms. But did they remove the IR
transceiver?
--
Tony Hafner
www.hafhead.com
|
|
| |
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:IsqHwF.1CFA@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
> >
> >
> I agree with you here, Jason. When considering the new battery system, we
> are,
> in theory, talking about a line that will provide easier access to LEGO
> trains
> for the GP. There is something non-threatening about devices which only
> require
> just batteries as opposed to something that plugs into the wall.
> Batteries are
> ubiquitious and relatively safe. I believe it is a much easier sell than
> current-off-of-the-track systems (no matter how simple and reliable TLG
> made
> theirs out to be).
In the US, a battery operated toy can be labeled for a much younger age than
one which plugs into an AC outlet. I believe the minimum age for something
AC powered is 8. By going with batteries, LEGO can label their new train
products as 6+ or maybe even 4+ as opposed to 8+. Doing so allows them to
target a younger demographic.
[ ... snipped ... ]
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
|
|
|
