Subject:
|
Re: Lego Train Factory - "preliminary wagon design"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:35:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2674 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
| |
Found it via the Eurobricks forum.
Remote baseplate sensor
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1351254
Preliminary wagon
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1351252
New track
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1351253
I do like the color schemes shown in the baseplate sensor and wagon shots.
|
Yes they don’t look too bad at all. I do hope the sensor is separate to the
basplate though, so it can be built into other places in models. And I know
they’re only design pics, but that looks much like a current train motor. I
wonder if the new motor will retain the metal wheels? Also I don’t see any
hint of the battery box, it would be nice to have a sneak peek of where
they’re going with that.
|
Is there even going to be a new motor? You could theoretically stick an
ordinary battery box in the train, power a sensor/controller unit from the
battery, then that feeds power into the top of a standard motor.
If the receiver is separate from the motor (as shown here), that suggests to
me they’re cutting costs by not providing a new motor. If there was to be a
new motor, the cheapest option would have been to integrate the IR receiver
into it as a single unit.
So, the same motor and battery box as you’re used to. Maybe a new on/off 6xAA
battery box would be more appropriate than the 1xPP3 batter box or the technic
bi-directional 6xAA boxes we have at the moment.
Disadvantage for train fans is that you couldn’t run it independantly on a
metal circuit as it would elecrify the track as it goes.
Advantage would be you could use it as an entirely indpendant remote control
unit and drive an auxiliary technic motor/lights/siren etc. instead of the
train motor - so I’d be happy.
|
Okay, thinking about this some more:
The discussion on this has already mentioned that the sensor is part of the
baseplate. Therefore it makes sense to include the battery box whilst you’re
re-designing the baseplate. My guess is that’s what the large rectangular
under-slung box is between the bogeys.
It would be nice to have a separate receiver/controller unit, but then the
instructions for connecting it up may be too much for the young target audience.
A shame though, as this means you couldn’t do a little 0-4-0 engine. Well,
maybe you could but it would have to have a big bogey ‘carriage’ right behind
it.
As for the motor, if it’s going to be separate you could save a little money
by giving it plastic wheels (it would still need tyres), but then it would cost
more to manufacture and stock two different units. Instead of this cost
juggling, why not just supply the standard motor? That way, if the owner wants
to upgrade to a powered layout then they’re already part-way there. Having to
replace all of their motors would just be an extra barrier to upgrading.
So, my guess at the moment is that the only new part (besides the track) is the
baseplate.
We get a new 28x6 baseplate with an under-slung battery box in the centre, an IR
sensor on the side (preferably both sides) and it has a standard 9V power clip
or lead to power a standard motor.
The IR control only needs forward/reverse/stop buttons. It may have throttle
control or it may not.
I was thinking that the battery box may need a sneaky 4-wide bulge on the top to
get all the batteries in, but what if it just has 4 x AA batteries? That would
be enough to propel a motor at a reasonable speed. Have you ever tried
connecting a train motor to the full 9V from a battery box? If it was just 6V,
the remote wouldn’t need a variable throttle control.
So, in terms of hacking it we’re looking at bogey engines running around on our
layouts using standard rail-powered motors, but with a remote-control auxiliary
motor or lights. Or long wheelbase trucks with remote-control auxiliary power -
lights in a dining car or a motorised crane perhaps.
Jason Railton
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego Train Factory - "preliminary wagon design"
|
| (...) Of course, what would be a real gift to the train-heads (if it's not too late Jake?) would be to make the IR baseplate modular - make the middle bit solid with technic holes at each end, then have two identical plug-on baseplate ends to make (...) (19 years ago, 23-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
| | | Re: Lego Train Factory - "preliminary wagon design"
|
| (...) Wow, I hope they brew up a better motor unit. The current one did not have to be designed to be efficient like the technic gear motor shipped with the RIS sets. It relies on endless juice from the controller. I think if they just use the (...) (19 years ago, 24-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego Train Factory - "preliminary wagon design"
|
| (...) Is there even going to be a new motor? You could theoretically stick an ordinary battery box in the train, power a sensor/controller unit from the battery, then that feeds power into the top of a standard motor. If the receiver is separate (...) (19 years ago, 23-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
