Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically speaking? the future of IR/RC trains
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:09:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4862 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> > I’d like to pose a question that’s been bothering me lately. Since RC trains
> > made they’re debut last year many issues have risen with the product in its
> > current form. Mainly these are control and power issues but there are many other
> > quirks as well. Since plastic track seems to be here to stay, Common sense tells
> > me Lego is eventually going to kill off the 9v line. Knowing this, we as a
> > community need to think about eventually converting to plastic rails. This also
> > means now would be a great time to tell Lego what we need for plastic rails to
> > work for us.
> >
> > This leads me to my question; given the current IR RC train line what changes
> > do you see necessary for you to convert from 9v track to plastic track and why?
> >
> >
> > Ondrew
>
> A 9V track solution...
>
> I have been wondering about the problem of the 9V track myself. As I understand
> it, putting the metal on the track is very expensive for LEGO. And for some
> other company to build metal track to this gauge, they would have a large setup
> cost. But we are a motivated bunch. LEGO has already transferred some assembly
> to the users that once was done in the factory (tires, heads, etc.), why not
> also transfer putting the rail to the ties?
>
> Specifically, select a rail stock that is commonly used by model railroaders
> (i.e., it will be around for years to come) and start producing 2x8 ties
> (sleepers) that clip on to this rail stock at the right gauge. LEGO could precut
> the rail and prebend some of the curves. But since I am proposing off-loading
> the work to us users, figuring out how to inexpensively bend rail in the factory
> might not make much sense, in which case they could provide a plastic form for
> at least the basic curve. This way, we could stick with the standard curves or
> select another radius (oh wouldn't that be great for steam engines).
>
> This solution would eliminate the current cost of putting metal on the tracks,
> would bypass the set up costs another company would encounter to get the right
> gaugue, and best of all it would be 100% LEGO.
>
> Switches and crossovers would be a little trickier, but if LEGO also worked out
> an inexpensive plastic clip to fasten a loose wire to the rail, the problem
> would be mostly solved. These sections would require their own forms and maybe a
> few special ties, and obviously the points, but nothing too complicated. Track
> sections could be connected (and isolated) in the same way that the non-LEGO
> model railroaders do.
>
> Benn
If I’m reading this right your suggesting changing the track system in it's
entirety and replacing it with something similar to HO flex track. While in
theory this is a sound idea it has 1 major flaw, children. Lego after all is a
children’s toy, which just so happens to have a large group of adults that use
it. Something like flex track would be extremely dangerous to children thus
making it unrealistic.
Now I don't want to completely burn your idea as it brings up something that
would work. Outsourcing! Imagine if a company like Atlas or Bachman got the
license to produce the 9v system. If TLC required that the track company use
TLC's mold producers it would maintain quality while not having any negative
effect on TLC. It would probably work similar to the partnership TLC has with
Hitechnic(NXT sensors). A partnership as described would also increase the
probability of seeing all the other track parts we want.
[However being realistic,]
I have come to realize TLC is going to keep the plastic track around as it’s
uber cheap to produce but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. To be honest I
have considered switching over but in order for me to do that I need both the
control and power I have with the 9v system.. How I’m going to go about this is
still up in the air even though I am looking into it but I really see benefits
to dumping the 9v system all together.
_Here are some of the positives/negatives I’ve come up with:_
[Positives]
+Track is stronger
+New track parts more likely IE double crossover, ½, ¼ straight sections, half
+curve switches, new radius exc.
+Reverse loops
+Looks better
+Track is half the price
+Trains can move independently much like DCC
+Track doesn’t rust/get dirty
[Negatives]
+Power -- motors need worm drives and or planetary gears, rubber tires would
+help too
+Control—needs to be RC not IR with a 10-digit selector like garage door openers
+Longevity –battery life
+Batteries --needs rechargeable battery packs
+Receiver needs to be free of train base---promotes MOC building
+Can’t purchase straight track separately--- this really blows IMO
Anyway that's how I see it.
Ondrew
.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hypothetically speaking? the future of IR/RC trains
|
| (...) A 9V track solution... I have been wondering about the problem of the 9V track myself. As I understand it, putting the metal on the track is very expensive for LEGO. And for some other company to build metal track to this gauge, they would (...) (18 years ago, 25-Feb-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
