| |
In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Hi Bryan,
> Hi all,
>
> you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> positive or negative about the train announcement.
>
> We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> others are new for us.
>
> It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
>
> All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts. This was and will
> be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
> elements.
>
> Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
> know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
> then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
>
> Holger
Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new
train system.
Benn
On the batteries:
-I am concerned that the weight of batteries could limit long trains. So the
battery weight will be just as important as it's lifespan.
-For buildability (especially in 6 wide) Battery size will be important, ideally
2xNx4 so that it could be built inside a 4 wide hood on a locomotive. Failing
that, 4xNx4 so that we could at least fit it in a 6 wide car or locomotive.
-Ease of charging is important, should be able to charge the batteries without
taking the model apart.
On the motors:
-The ability to add as many motors as one likes to a train (provided one also
has sufficient batteries, etc.) and start and start all of the motors as a
single unit.
On control:
-The ability to set stop-and-continue, stop-and-reverse, sound-your-horn, and
other functions triggered by trackside markers.
-The ability to set trackside objects that are triggered by the train (e.g.,
small motors and lights for grade crossings)
-If the line is successful (i.e., not on day 1, but maybe in year 3) the ability
to add real block signals that respond to the trains and actually control
movement (a dynamic "stop-and-continue" controlled by a trackside object that
responds to the train)
-The ability to add remotely controlled functionality on-board the train, e.g.,
a secondary motor powered by the controller to decouple cars.
-Motorized switches with remote control
-RF communication from controller to train (not IR) with at least 40 channels or
motor id's.
On the track:
If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with the
metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-piece
track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface with the
9v and IR train track)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> with the 9v and IR train track)
Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> > On the track:
> > If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> > the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> > piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> > with the 9v and IR train track)
>
> Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
> based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
> couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
I've got a number of 4.5v/12v sleeper that have lost their clips (the
little vertical pieces that click into the track), so Im' not wild about
going back to that kind of track. If the design could be fixed, so the
part that holds onto the track strongly isn't prone to snapping off then
that would be a reasonable alternative. Nevertheless, I've got so much
9v rail, and don't see myself running out and buying a bunch of plastic
rail regardless of it's design.
Chris
--
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new train system.
>
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with the
> metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-piece
> track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface with the
> 9v and IR train track)
My point is that TLG should continue with the 9volt system until a new system is
developed and available. Showing off our train layouts at train shows and
telling visitors that it is discontinued for 2+ years will turn off the buying
public and they will go to other manufactures for their trains and accessories.
In 2+ years, they will have invested enough in their train layouts at whatever
guage, that when they visit our shows, they will enjoy the display, but go and
buy from other manufactures the items they need to expand or 'abuse' their
existing layouts. TLG will lose out in train purchases and all the LEGO people
would have bought to decorate their layouts.
My questions are: If the new system is electrical as stated in the announcment,
how will this operate an electric train on plastic non-metal track? Will the
new track, plastic or metal-capped, be of the same dimension as 9volt and the
current RC track? Will we be able to convert existing 9volt engines to the new
'electric' system and run our trains on both plastic and the Metalized track we
currently own?
If you look on page 6 of the Holiday 2006 catalog, there is a sample 9volt oval
that is advertized as 27"x33" and is made up of 8 curved track pieces per end.
In that same issue, on page 11, there is a oval of the RC plastic track that is
28"x37.5"... where is the 1" difference? Is the curved pieces a different
radius? Not having any of the plastic track, I am not able to tell. So, again,
my question is, will the track for the new system be compatable? And to which
system?
My 2¢ worth...
Don GtwLUG Lugnet #1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
>
> My point is that TLG should continue with the 9volt system until a new system is
> developed and available.
Maybe (big 'maybe' of course) there is 2 years or so of stock left of current
track and motors and all. They are still selling track in old dark grey
afterall - quite a while after the color change has happened. This doesn't
appear to help the whole situation in the long run of course. (AFTER the two
years)
> If you look on page 6 of the Holiday 2006 catalog, there is a sample 9volt oval
> that is advertized as 27"x33" and is made up of 8 curved track pieces per end.
> In that same issue, on page 11, there is a oval of the RC plastic track that is
> 28"x37.5"... where is the 1" difference? Is the curved pieces a different
> radius? Not having any of the plastic track, I am not able to tell.
I'd bet this is just lousy editing in the Lego catalog.
Jonathan
|
|
|
