Subject:
|
Re: The Future of Trains
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:18:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
14919 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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| 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. (...) (17 years ago, 17-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
124 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
