To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trainsOpen lugnet.trains in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / 29646
     
   
Subject: 
Re: The Future of Trains
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:42:20 GMT
Viewed: 
14702 times
  

Hi Bryan,

A survey based on wish lists could help Holger and Steve communicate with TLC
especially if the results of the survey not only show products which will make
the Lego train fan happier but also products which will be profitable for TLC.
Only then will all the energy be worthwhile. In making TLC happy one should keep
in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
list with keeping profit in mind.

Power source:
Mains electricity AND battery powered trains should be possible. Batteries for
the sole reason that it can be sold to the 4-7 age group. Other than that they
have a limited “play” time, are heavy, take up space and are environmentally
unfriendly (more and more people in Europe stay away from battery operated
toys!). If the current power supply is too expensive for TLC to produce I would
advise them to lose the speed control function and just produce a power supply
with a constant DC voltage output. As we all know speed can be controlled by
decoders and since these decoders can limit voltage output, TLC could even
approach Märklin, Fleischmann etc. And ask them to supply a Lego “approved”
power supply. Another advantage of using for example 12V DC and reducing this
via decoders is that you will have less problems with voltage drop around bigger
circuits. By the way, any battery box should be a separate 2xnxn or 4xnxn so
that it can be build in narrow style locomotives or if necessary in a passenger
wagon. None of that special RC base plate stuff...which probably costs a bomb to
produce.

Track:
Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce costs
by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm
height difference was the problem. Attention needs to be given to special track
components like switches, crossovers and crossings etc. i.e. if it is too
expensive to even produce a clip-on version then I would not mind
non-electrified ones as long as they come up with wheelbases that can pick up
electricity. It would allow me to make longer trains which can pick up
electricity over a longer track distance bypassing a switch or crossover.
Another solution will be a combination of battery power and track power i.e.
when the train is on electrified track the battery is being charged and when the
train is on non-electrified track the battery will supply power. Also if TLC
decides to completely abandon the current track style then I have to agree with
some others that I really like my old 4,5 blue track with 2x8 sleepers. Of
course the sleepers should be brown and not have those clips and the track could
be made more looking like real track. Also going back to separating sleepers and
rails should be cheaper to produce and open op the option of introducing other
curve radius in the future. However, everything needs to stay downwards
compatible for me to buy into the new stuff. BTW, I am not a fan of the separate
conductive strip which looks unrealistic and surely makes (in total) the track
more expensive to produce.

(BTW: I actually already run trains with two connected motors which easily
bypass the new crossover without the need to electrify it with conductive tape.
Also I have modified a 9V engine by separating the electricity pick-up and the
motor. I route the power from the motor to the RC-unit and then back to the
motor(s)=great fun)

Motor:
Motor which can run on track AND battery power. Here again I do not understand
why lego came up with a new RC motor. Ideally I’d like to see a motor which
looks like the current 9V motor but with the following changes: the metal wheels
should not be directly connected to the motor but transport the electricity to a
cable which exits the motor and ends in a 2x2 conductive plate. This plate could
then either supply the motor or go inside the train and be attached to a brick
which holds a decoder or a remote control receiver etc. Since the metal wheels
do not supply the motor anymore, this motor can instead be powered by batteries.
Furthermore, I would like the motor to have a separate bogie plate which can be
removed to give access to the motor module which can be replaced easily. The
motor should be a small power functions motor and also be able to operate
special track components or track side accessories. Of course, if Lego could
produce a separate modified wheelbase that can pick up electricity then they
could lose the metal wheels on the motor.

Picking up electricity:
A wheelbase with metal wheels connected to a conductive brick. Spread them
around a slightly longer train and you can cross over non electrified track
components. Also it opens the option to have lights in passenger carriages etc.

Control of the train(s) and switches:
Different universal control bricks. I am thinking of a UCB which is 2x4xn and
holds either a decoder, a remote control receiver, sound, etc. And can be
connected to each other. The remote control should not have a line of sight
problem. Also one should be able to control enough channels (trains, switches
etc). These UCB’s  could then be attached to a universal servo motor which
operate a switch remotely. The UCB could draw power from the track.

Other:
A remote coupling device would be icing on the cake. Well, I could draw up a lot
more wishes but the above are my most basic Lego train needs.

At least I have shared my thoughts with the Lego community. Now let’s hope TLC
will really listen like they say they do. To be honest, it really worries me
when Steve is (quoted) saying “track being exclusively plastic, the LEGO Power
Functions Train system has the potential for new and innovative track geometries
and continued innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs”

Good luck to Holger and Steve!
Remko

   
         
     
Subject: 
Re: The Future of Trains
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:18:19 GMT
Viewed: 
15081 times
  

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:42:20 GMT, you wrote:

Hi Bryan,

A survey based on wish lists could help Holger and Steve communicate with TLC
especially if the results of the survey not only show products which will make
the Lego train fan happier but also products which will be profitable for TLC.
Only then will all the energy be worthwhile. In making TLC happy one should
keep
in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
list with keeping profit in mind.

Power source:
Mains electricity AND battery powered trains should be possible. Batteries for
the sole reason that it can be sold to the 4-7 age group. Other than that they
have a limited “play” time, are heavy, take up space and are environmentally
unfriendly (more and more people in Europe stay away from battery operated
toys!). If the current power supply is too expensive for TLC to produce I would
advise them to lose the speed control function and just produce a power supply
with a constant DC voltage output. As we all know speed can be controlled by
decoders and since these decoders can limit voltage output, TLC could even
approach Märklin, Fleischmann etc. And ask them to supply a Lego “approved”
power supply. Another advantage of using for example 12V DC and reducing this
via decoders is that you will have less problems with voltage drop around
bigger
circuits. By the way, any battery box should be a separate 2xnxn or 4xnxn so
that it can be build in narrow style locomotives or if necessary in a passenger
wagon. None of that special RC base plate stuff...which probably costs a bomb
to
produce.

Track:
Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce
costs
by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm
height difference was the problem. Attention needs to be given to special track
components like switches, crossovers and crossings etc. i.e. if it is too
expensive to even produce a clip-on version then I would not mind
non-electrified ones as long as they come up with wheelbases that can pick up
electricity. It would allow me to make longer trains which can pick up
electricity over a longer track distance bypassing a switch or crossover.
Another solution will be a combination of battery power and track power i.e.
when the train is on electrified track the battery is being charged and when
the
train is on non-electrified track the battery will supply power. Also if TLC
decides to completely abandon the current track style then I have to agree with
some others that I really like my old 4,5 blue track with 2x8 sleepers. Of
course the sleepers should be brown and not have those clips and the track
could
be made more looking like real track. Also going back to separating sleepers
and
rails should be cheaper to produce and open op the option of introducing other
curve radius in the future. However, everything needs to stay downwards
compatible for me to buy into the new stuff. BTW, I am not a fan of the
separate
conductive strip which looks unrealistic and surely makes (in total) the track
more expensive to produce.

(BTW: I actually already run trains with two connected motors which easily
bypass the new crossover without the need to electrify it with conductive tape.
Also I have modified a 9V engine by separating the electricity pick-up and the
motor. I route the power from the motor to the RC-unit and then back to the
motor(s)=great fun)

Motor:
Motor which can run on track AND battery power. Here again I do not understand
why lego came up with a new RC motor. Ideally I’d like to see a motor which
looks like the current 9V motor but with the following changes: the metal
wheels
should not be directly connected to the motor but transport the electricity to
a
cable which exits the motor and ends in a 2x2 conductive plate. This plate
could
then either supply the motor or go inside the train and be attached to a brick
which holds a decoder or a remote control receiver etc. Since the metal wheels
do not supply the motor anymore, this motor can instead be powered by
batteries.
Furthermore, I would like the motor to have a separate bogie plate which can be
removed to give access to the motor module which can be replaced easily. The
motor should be a small power functions motor and also be able to operate
special track components or track side accessories. Of course, if Lego could
produce a separate modified wheelbase that can pick up electricity then they
could lose the metal wheels on the motor.

Picking up electricity:
A wheelbase with metal wheels connected to a conductive brick. Spread them
around a slightly longer train and you can cross over non electrified track
components. Also it opens the option to have lights in passenger carriages etc.

Control of the train(s) and switches:
Different universal control bricks. I am thinking of a UCB which is 2x4xn and
holds either a decoder, a remote control receiver, sound, etc. And can be
connected to each other. The remote control should not have a line of sight
problem. Also one should be able to control enough channels (trains, switches
etc). These UCB’s  could then be attached to a universal servo motor which
operate a switch remotely. The UCB could draw power from the track.

Other:
A remote coupling device would be icing on the cake. Well, I could draw up a
lot
more wishes but the above are my most basic Lego train needs.

At least I have shared my thoughts with the Lego community. Now let’s hope TLC
will really listen like they say they do. To be honest, it really worries me
when Steve is (quoted) saying “track being exclusively plastic, the LEGO Power
Functions Train system has the potential for new and innovative track
geometries
and continued innovation by both The LEGO Group and the AFOLs”

Good luck to Holger and Steve!
Remko

Wow, great list, Remko.

I would like to second all of these suggestions.  Together they are
relatively simple and easy to impliment, and they will work well for
kids and adults.

I really like the "assemble it yourself" metal track idea - great,
easy fix.  I have built a lot of 4.5V track in my time and it works
fantastic.

Keep up the good work Holger and Steve!  You are our best hope of
working for our good, and with those creative and talentated Lego
engineers all this should be possible.

-Matt :)

-----------------------------------------------------
www.auctionbrick.com - username mchiles
  Matt Chiles
  1006 Horseshoe Bend Rd
  Centerville, WA  98613 USA
Phone: 509-773-5724

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: The Future of Trains
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:01:28 GMT
Viewed: 
14703 times
  

In lugnet.trains, Remko Stift wrote:
...In making TLC happy one should keep
in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
list with keeping profit in mind. • ...
Track:
Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce costs
by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm


Remko had a great idea about off-loading the "attaching metal strips to the
rail" to the user. Too bad that ship has likely sailed.

First, in defense of battery power, while a few folks have pointed to the
powered rails and said, "when we had powered rails we were like the other
modelers." I believe many garden railroaders are moving toward battery power, so
at least there is president (and perhaps lessons already learned).

Unless the battery trains are to-die-for, I suspect in the long run I'll either
stick with the old 9v (at least as long as I still have working 9v motors) or
see what sort of work-arounds people come up with to power the trains from the
track. I like big, heavy trains and I am only building 6 wide (my heaviest
needed 5 motors to pull it). But I am a little curious about the possibility of
bypassing the power loss from the rail.

In addition to the points raised in this thread already, I am a little concerned
about the prospect of the batteries for two more reasons. The first is recharge
time, could the batteries be recharged in about the same amount of time it took
to discharge them? (I'm sure for some batteries yes, others no) At a show it
would be no fun to have to charge the train for 3x longer than the run time you
had from it. Obvious solution, buy more batteries... but that leads to the
second concern, cost. One year ago, if I wanted to build a powered locomotive at
retail prices, it would have cost me:

US$25 for the motor
US$15 for the train wagon base

plus whatever decoration I may come up with (e.g., another $20 for the BNSF or
Super Chief)

Two years from now, I would likely have to buy similar to the above, plus a
battery pack. If it is a high performance battery pack, it could be as much as
US$50. Doubling the base cost of a locomotive. If the entry cost were that high
when I started, I probably would never have gotten into Lego trains.

I suspect Lego will have to lean towards expensive batteries, but I hope they
balance it by trying to keep the cost of the motors down. In other words, keep
the cost of the trains close to what they were and consider the profit model
from AFOLs playing with trains to come from all of the additional lego we buy to
decorate our layouts, etc. (give away the handles and make the profits on the
razor blades... well, okay, do better than break even, but don't go expecting a
bionacle-like profit from the train heads).

Benn

 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR