| |
OK, so 9V is dead. Not a happy thought.
Still, the engineer in me can't help but think about ways to work within the new
regime. After 40 years of off-and-on model rail and toy train activity, the
first thought that comes to mind is that anyone who thinks batteries will be
sufficient in a display situation is delusional. On the other hand, a train
system based on the new power function motors looks like it has some real
opportunities for interesting loco models. Think big wheels, techic parts...
So the real question is how to deliver power to the motors in a way that is
upward compatible with plastic R/C track. A thought that comes to mind is a
"power tile". A power tile would be one stud wide, and have two conductors, one
running along each edge. It would be placed directly on either row of studs
that is next to the (between studs) track center line. There would need to be a
power pick up brick with three brushes, one brush picking up the power rail
closest to track center, and two other brushes placed so that they pick up the
"outside" power rail, one brush on each side of center so that it doesn't matter
which side of center the power tile is on. (Only one of these outside brushes
would be active at a time.)
A simple track cross section, where | is rail, ^ is power tile:
_|__^_|_
(Forgive the ASCII art, I'm too lazy tonight to make fancy drawings.)
Note that all reverse loop problems magically disappear, since the conductor
closest to center is always the same polarity. It would also be easy to splice
a DCC decoder in between the brush brick and the motor. This is upward
compatible with plastic R/C track, since the power tile is simply an optional
extra part.
Issues:
1. Would need two sets of pick up brushes per loco to cross gaps reliably. Pick
up brushes might be built into axle holder bricks.
2. Crossings and turnouts will need special power tiles with gaps. Or better
yet, a new powered turnout that matches power tile standards.
This is easy to prototype in a crude fashion. Of the many codes of H0 and N
scale rail, there must be one that is about one tile tall. With epoxy, one
could glue one rail down the center line, and glue on another rail one stud
over. With a few snippets of phosphor bronze sheet metal you have pick-up
brushes. Or, it could be prototyped by modding 1x8 tiles by adding strips of
copper tape on each side, although copper tape may not last long. Maybe some
brass L stock glued to a tile would work better.
The profile of a 1 stud wide tile might not be the best profile for a power
tile, something more trapezoidal might allow better brush tracking. In any case
the tile can't get too tall without causing clearance problems with existing
equipment.
Anyway, just some random thoughts tossed into the public domain for discussion.
-dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> OK, so 9V is dead. Not a happy thought.
>
> Still, the engineer in me can't help but think about ways to work within the new
> regime. After 40 years of off-and-on model rail and toy train activity, the
> first thought that comes to mind is that anyone who thinks batteries will be
> sufficient in a display situation is delusional. On the other hand, a train
> system based on the new power function motors looks like it has some real
> opportunities for interesting loco models. Think big wheels, techic parts...
>
> So the real question is how to deliver power to the motors in a way that is
> upward compatible with plastic R/C track. A thought that comes to mind is a
> "power tile". A power tile would be one stud wide, and have two conductors, one
> running along each edge. It would be placed directly on either row of studs
> that is next to the (between studs) track center line. There would need to be a
> power pick up brick with three brushes, one brush picking up the power rail
> closest to track center, and two other brushes placed so that they pick up the
> "outside" power rail, one brush on each side of center so that it doesn't matter
> which side of center the power tile is on. (Only one of these outside brushes
> would be active at a time.)
>
> A simple track cross section, where | is rail, ^ is power tile:
>
> _|__^_|_
>
> (Forgive the ASCII art, I'm too lazy tonight to make fancy drawings.)
>
> Note that all reverse loop problems magically disappear, since the conductor
> closest to center is always the same polarity. It would also be easy to splice
> a DCC decoder in between the brush brick and the motor. This is upward
> compatible with plastic R/C track, since the power tile is simply an optional
> extra part.
>
> Issues:
> 1. Would need two sets of pick up brushes per loco to cross gaps reliably. Pick
> up brushes might be built into axle holder bricks.
> 2. Crossings and turnouts will need special power tiles with gaps. Or better
> yet, a new powered turnout that matches power tile standards.
>
> This is easy to prototype in a crude fashion. Of the many codes of H0 and N
> scale rail, there must be one that is about one tile tall. With epoxy, one
> could glue one rail down the center line, and glue on another rail one stud
> over. With a few snippets of phosphor bronze sheet metal you have pick-up
> brushes. Or, it could be prototyped by modding 1x8 tiles by adding strips of
> copper tape on each side, although copper tape may not last long. Maybe some
> brass L stock glued to a tile would work better.
>
> The profile of a 1 stud wide tile might not be the best profile for a power
> tile, something more trapezoidal might allow better brush tracking. In any case
> the tile can't get too tall without causing clearance problems with existing
> equipment.
>
> Anyway, just some random thoughts tossed into the public domain for discussion.
>
> -dave
Sounds like a new and improved 12-volt system. It does eliminate one of the
three problems that I felt the 12-volt system had; reverse polarity in
turn-abouts. The biggest problem the 12-volt system had was that it was never
avalable here in North America!! The other problem was that the power rails in
the center were not very realistic, but we're talking about LEGO so its not that
big a deal...
I've been wondering if center power rails would be cheaper and/or easier to
produce than metal tracks. If it is a worthwhile path, the next question would
be whether to make it to the old 12-volt standard or to the improved design.
New 12-volt compatible power components nearly 20 years after their demise, I'm
sure some of our Europeen freinds that still run that system would be thrilled.
Either way, I could press into service all that 4.5-volt track I still have
lying around!!
DA
|
|
| |
With all the advances in battery (rechargeable and otherwise) technology these
days, you might be a little shortsighted in your estimation of the feasibility
of battery trains.
But assuming you are correct, my biggest concern about this idea is the fact
that it would no longer look like a real train. That's always been my objection
to the 12V system and 3-rail systems like Lionel, since real train tracks only
have two rails.
If we're going to work on ways to make LEGO trains take power from the track, I
think adding conductors to plastic rails, with wheels picking up the power, is
the way to go. Otherwise your trains will not look at all realistic.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, William R. Ward wrote:
> With all the advances in battery (rechargeable and otherwise) technology these
> days, you might be a little shortsighted in your estimation of the feasibility
> of battery trains.
When I see somebody set up a public exhibition and run trains from 10 AM to 6 PM
using batteries, and not give more than passing thought to battery management,
then batteries will have arrived.
(:holds breath:)......
.......
.......
*pshewwww*
> But assuming you are correct, my biggest concern about this idea is the fact
> that it would no longer look like a real train.
Yup. It's visually ugly.
> That's always been my objection
> to the 12V system and 3-rail systems like Lionel, since real train tracks only
> have two rails.
I'm with you there. But hey, it's Lego, I can bend a little. If I wanted
fine-scale modeling, I'd be doing 0 scale.
The whole genesis of this idea was trying to make the best play possible with
the cards that were dealt. Assumption #1: plastic R/C track. Assumption #2:
TLG might consider power distribution accessories compatible with plastic R/C
track, as long as the basic system stayed cheap and simple for kids.
Once you resign yourself to the ugliness that is three-rail trains, you might as
well avail yourself of the one benefit that three-rail can deliver: elimiation
of polarity reversal issues.
-dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> OK, so 9V is dead. Not a happy thought.
>
> Still, the engineer in me can't help but think about ways to work within the new
> regime. After 40 years of off-and-on model rail and toy train activity, the
> first thought that comes to mind is that anyone who thinks batteries will be
> sufficient in a display situation is delusional. On the other hand, a train
> system based on the new power function motors looks like it has some real
> opportunities for interesting loco models. Think big wheels, techic parts...
>
> So the real question is how to deliver power to the motors in a way that is
> upward compatible with plastic R/C track. A thought that comes to mind is a
> "power tile". A power tile would be one stud wide, and have two conductors, one
> running along each edge. It would be placed directly on either row of studs
> that is next to the (between studs) track center line. There would need to be a
> power pick up brick with three brushes, one brush picking up the power rail
> closest to track center, and two other brushes placed so that they pick up the
> "outside" power rail, one brush on each side of center so that it doesn't matter
> which side of center the power tile is on. (Only one of these outside brushes
> would be active at a time.)
>
> A simple track cross section, where | is rail, ^ is power tile:
>
> _|__^_|_
>
> (Forgive the ASCII art, I'm too lazy tonight to make fancy drawings.)
>
> Note that all reverse loop problems magically disappear, since the conductor
> closest to center is always the same polarity. It would also be easy to splice
> a DCC decoder in between the brush brick and the motor. This is upward
> compatible with plastic R/C track, since the power tile is simply an optional
> extra part.
>
> Issues:
> 1. Would need two sets of pick up brushes per loco to cross gaps reliably. Pick
> up brushes might be built into axle holder bricks.
> 2. Crossings and turnouts will need special power tiles with gaps. Or better
> yet, a new powered turnout that matches power tile standards.
>
> This is easy to prototype in a crude fashion. Of the many codes of H0 and N
> scale rail, there must be one that is about one tile tall. With epoxy, one
> could glue one rail down the center line, and glue on another rail one stud
> over. With a few snippets of phosphor bronze sheet metal you have pick-up
> brushes. Or, it could be prototyped by modding 1x8 tiles by adding strips of
> copper tape on each side, although copper tape may not last long. Maybe some
> brass L stock glued to a tile would work better.
>
> The profile of a 1 stud wide tile might not be the best profile for a power
> tile, something more trapezoidal might allow better brush tracking. In any case
> the tile can't get too tall without causing clearance problems with existing
> equipment.
>
> Anyway, just some random thoughts tossed into the public domain for discussion.
>
> -dave
Not a bad idea. However, I used to have a decent layout in the 70's (my Dark
Ages) using the 12V system, which is not too far from what you are proposing. It
would require Lego to come up with new parts, including a complicated switch.
Also, I remember the brushes and metal center track would erode over time after
extensive use, removing the protective tin top coat causing sometimes even some
localized corrosion. Though it worked fine as a toy for a kid, the reliability
was not up to snuff for serious display work...
As for batteries: I fully agree that a 6*"AA" based train would probably be the
least usefull Lego could come up with to replace the 9V system. One suggestion I
was thinking of is using high-quality Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries. A
Power functions XL motor should be able to run for at least 5 hours continously
(loaded) on a 3000 mAh battery (easily doable in the formfactor of current Lego
battery boxes). To charge these batteries, Lego could come up with a "charging
rail" (similar to what they did
in the 8364 Racers Multitrack Challenge). Every train has to stop sooner or
later; might as well use this stop to recharge. I know this is by far not as
good as ye olde 9V system, but it certainly beats swapping AA's every 3 hours.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> So the real question is how to deliver power to the motors in a way that is
> upward compatible with plastic R/C track. A thought that comes to mind is a
> "power tile". A power tile would be one stud wide, and have two conductors,
A not quite as eloquent but easier to realize-on-a-small-scale solution would be
using n-gauge track for power conduction up the middle of the all plastic
L-gauge track (yes, with even more of the unsightly drawbacks and eliminating
the polarity benefits).
Benn
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Dave Curtis wrote:
> > So the real question is how to deliver power to the motors in a way that is
> > upward compatible with plastic R/C track. A thought that comes to mind is a
> > "power tile". A power tile would be one stud wide, and have two conductors,
>
> A not quite as eloquent but easier to realize-on-a-small-scale solution would be
> using n-gauge track for power conduction up the middle of the all plastic
> L-gauge track (yes, with even more of the unsightly drawbacks and eliminating
> the polarity benefits).
>
> Benn
Actually, you'll see I more-or-less suggested that as a method for prototyping
the functionality. Or as a last resort if we get desperate in the future. But
you can get "polarity immunity" by offsetting the N (or H0, or whatever size
works) rail so that one rail runs up dead center, and the other rail one stud
over.
After all, once you've shrugged and decided to add a third (fourth?) rail and
given up on appearance, who cares where it gets put?
-dave
|
|
|
