Subject:
|
Re: The Future of Trains
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:42:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15643 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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) 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, (...) (17 years ago, 17-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| (...) ... (...) 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, (...) (17 years ago, 18-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| It sounds like a survey is in order... Take all the feature wish lists from individuals and clubs, boil them down and prioritize them. I'm sure LEGO and the AFOL insiders have their own set of lists based on the tons of feedback from lugnet.trains, (...) (17 years ago, 3-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
