Just curious... how many track pieces do you guys own? As far as 9V stuff goes, I've got close to 250 straights, about 150 curves, two or three crossings and about 15 switches. Took me a few years to collect all of that stuff, but I have a feeling that proper model railroad track may be (a lot) more expensive.

Just curious... how many track pieces do you guys own? As far as 9V stuff goes, I've got close to 250 straights, about 150 curves, two or three crossings and about 15 switches. Took me a few years to collect all of that stuff, but I have a feeling that proper model railroad track may be (a lot) more expensive.

I have PF.

I come in at around 100 straights, 2,5 circles worth of curves and 6 switches. Just enough to set up some trackage at expo´s. If it was 9V I would certainly to expand muy collection much beyond that, but for PF what I have now is more than enough for me, unless i want to wate more time and money changing batteries.

More train running at the same time isnt really feasable either, as we already have problems with intereferrence from other IR controllers doing other things... <sigh>

Sucks!

Edited December 24, 201410 yr by Hoexbroe

The PF motor has been documented to be stronger than the 9v motor. Anyone who says 9v is stronger is factually incorrect.

Add to that 9v motors are powered linearly, meaning the more power you send through the rails the faster/stronger the motor becomes. Conversely, the PF motor is powered by pulses, meaning it reveives a full 9v at any speed setting, just not at constantly until full speef. This, then, means the 9v motor can only come close to the same amount of power as the PF at any speed level, by having a full 9v sent through the rails (and that's assuming the rails are conducting a full 9v).

And I haven't even mentioned the XL motor.

--Tony

The PF motor has been documented to be stronger than the 9v motor. Anyone who says 9v is stronger is factually incorrect.

Add to that 9v motors are powered linearly, meaning the more power you send through the rails the faster/stronger the motor becomes. Conversely, the PF motor is powered by pulses, meaning it reveives a full 9v at any speed setting, just not at constantly until full speef. This, then, means the 9v motor can only come close to the same amount of power as the PF at any speed level, by having a full 9v sent through the rails (and that's assuming the rails are conducting a full 9v).

And I haven't even mentioned the XL motor.

--Tony

I think people refer motor's strength incorrectly to its speed - of course you can make a faster 9V-powered train without the weight of the battery box and additional power function parts. But of course - PF train motor is stronger.

As I had written to the thread (was it this one? :D) I found the most useful to mix the two systems. Picking up current via 9V train motor and attaching a power functions one to the old motor gives you more then double traction, but only using one expensive 9V motor.

Edited December 24, 201410 yr by Ashi Valkoinen

I dont think the molds are THAT complicated. TLC produce many other products terribly more complicated. And as to Switzerland... TLC can EASILY move ANY production and equipment to ANY other of its production centers!!!

It was the molds... but mainly the process of adding the metal to the rails that made it much more costly than other parts. It was essentially the whole process which, from my understanding, was trouble-prone and expensive.

I dont think the molds are THAT complicated. TLC produce many other products terribly more complicated. And as to Switzerland... TLC can EASILY move ANY production and equipment to ANY other of its production centers!!!

It was the molds... but mainly the process of adding the metal to the rails that made it much more costly than other parts. It was essentially the whole process which, from my understanding, was trouble-prone and expensive.

This. My understanding is that they had to mold the track, ship it to a different facility to have the metal sheeting applied (presumably using specialized machines that couldn't be easily repurposed), then ship it back to the Lego packaging facility to be inserted into sets. It's not just the cost of the production process, but all the overhead required to move stuff around that causes problems. Each additional step adds complications that can cause additional delays and uncertainties in the manufacturing process.

As an aside, the 9V track mold is probably a lot more complicated than the PF track mold. Fundamentally, track parts are going to be pretty tricky to produce since they're fairly large, but there's also the unique tolerances associated with joining the rails together (on the 9V track, this would have been further complicated by the need to account for the thickness of the metal to be applied later). The 9V track also has holes in the side of the rail for tabs on the metal layer to lock into, which implies that the mold had additional inserts to make those holes (increasing the cost and complication of those molds).

As an aside, the 9V track mold is probably a lot more complicated than the PF track mold. Fundamentally, track parts are going to be pretty tricky to produce since they're fairly large, but there's also the unique tolerances associated with joining the rails together (on the 9V track, this would have been further complicated by the need to account for the thickness of the metal to be applied later). The 9V track also has holes in the side of the rail for tabs on the metal layer to lock into, which implies that the mold had additional inserts to make those holes (increasing the cost and complication of those molds).

All of that is of course correct, but supposedly Lego is among the best injection-molders in the world, and hundreds of model railroad companies has been doing just that for the last 60-70 years.

I dont really buy into the "tecnical difficulties" explanation, but certainly agree to that the process cost more money to do, than the all-plastic tracks. It´s a simple and typical bean-counter decision! It´s probably the perfectly right thing for Lego, seeing that they go the quantity way instead of that of excellence and quality... (running for cover )

Edited December 25, 201410 yr by Hoexbroe

It has to be said that the way the model railway industry makes track is completely different from lego. They tend to have separate sleepers through which a solid nickel silver rail is threaded. This would have made the plastic molds far less complex. It would have made sense for lego to adopt a tried and tested method that has stood the test of time. One wonders what would have happened if lego had adopted this approach?

It has to be said that the way the model railway industry makes track is completely different from lego. They tend to have separate sleepers through which a solid nickel silver rail is threaded. This would have made the plastic molds far less complex. It would have made sense for lego to adopt a tried and tested method that has stood the test of time. One wonders what would have happened if lego had adopted this approach?

Märklin K and C track is extremely complicated and expensive to produce. Yet the asking price is very reasonable when compared to Legos all-plastic PF track.

ME tracks shows a VERY simple way to do it...

There´s nothing wrong with a complicated and expensive product, if you can make the clients pay for it, and/or use it to peddle off other products (like rolling stock and motors). Actually I think most "real" model-railroading companies works like that.

As far as I know, there wasnt really any alternative to 9V Lego tracks, until TCL themselves stopped the production.

The PF-track, on the other hand, is already copied by various chinese and corean producers. TLC basically handed them the clientelle by utterly simplifying their product...

Anyway this thread is of course going no-where. -But I am happy to have been able to let stea offm. Hopefully somebody form TLC follow the thread, and one day (also hopefully) somebody will again evaluate if the company should carry a "real" working train-system.

Edited December 25, 201410 yr by Hoexbroe

So I have been following this thread but haven't read all of it so I don't know if this question/suggestion has been asked/made: Why not combine PF and the old 9V system together?

My suggestion would be to make metal rails as the power supply. TLC would release a power pick-ups as a new PF element (either metal wheels that pick up electricity or something else, they can be creative there ) which kinda replaces the battery box. As a result you'd have the advantages of PF and 9V combined: you don't have to use the standard pf bogies, but can use the power pick-ups with any pf motor which makes it easier to power any kind of engine: from small shunters to steam engines. Of course you could still use the conventional PF motor bogie, but not necessarily. You could also still interconnect the IR receiver and therefore run multiple trains on one 9V setup without the need of isolated track sections.

That was just my thought, but what do you think? Is that too much variety for one train system?

So I have been following this thread but haven't read all of it so I don't know if this question/suggestion has been asked/made: Why not combine PF and the old 9V system together?

My suggestion would be to make metal rails as the power supply. TLC would release a power pick-ups as a new PF element (either metal wheels that pick up electricity or something else, they can be creative there ) which kinda replaces the battery box. As a result you'd have the advantages of PF and 9V combined: you don't have to use the standard pf bogies, but can use the power pick-ups with any pf motor which makes it easier to power any kind of engine: from small shunters to steam engines. Of course you could still use the conventional PF motor bogie, but not necessarily. You could also still interconnect the IR receiver and therefore run multiple trains on one 9V setup without the need of isolated track sections.

That was just my thought, but what do you think? Is that too much variety for one train system?

YES WE NEED THAT OMG

Trouble is that whilst getting rid of the battery box, you may well find yourself combining the disadvantages of both systems too, which would be a backwards step. If you were going to that amount of trouble, it would be worthwhile going for a dcc chip module to replace the ir receiver and you can control multiple trains irrespective of range, interference or tunnels, and even have extra functions for lights and other motors - just like the model railway guys do, if making lego more like a model railway is what you want?

As posted right above me, it would be fine for us, train modellers, but people always keep forgetting that LEGO trains are sold for kids, and all the train modellers mean still a fragment of buyers compared to the kids. Re-releasing metal rails and 230V adapters will mean that - according to many european countries' regulations - these train sets could be only sold 14+ or 16+. Keeping PF and introducing the new power pick up element only for the train modeller community will be buisness suicide for TLC.

And don't forget, that if you put current into the rails, but you want to keep moving more trains on it with your PF speed regulator, it means that without changing the voltage in the rails for better performance (more train running) you need more current, with L-scale trains obviously far more dangerous than H0 or TT scales (even if it is only 9V). I accidentally met an electric shock from an LGB-layout, I don't wish it for anyone :D )

I think for the LEGO-purists train fan it would be the best to have original LEGO metal tracks, DCC-system and increased current limitation of adapters and receivers, but practically a third-party company will make it, if ever.

So I have been following this thread but haven't read all of it so I don't know if this question/suggestion has been asked/made: Why not combine PF and the old 9V system together? My suggestion would be to make metal rails as the power supply. TLC would release a power pick-ups as a new PF element (either metal wheels that pick up electricity or something else, they can be creative there ) which kinda replaces the battery box. As a result you'd have the advantages of PF and 9V combined: you don't have to use the standard pf bogies, but can use the power pick-ups with any pf motor which makes it easier to power any kind of engine: from small shunters to steam engines. Of course you could still use the conventional PF motor bogie, but not necessarily. You could also still interconnect the IR receiver and therefore run multiple trains on one 9V setup without the need of isolated track sections.That was just my thought, but what do you think? Is that too much variety for one train system?

Edited December 25, 201410 yr by Ashi Valkoinen

I found a page with intersting numbers for all Lego electric motor :

http://www.philohome...s/motorcomp.htm

It can be usefull.

This has been one of my favorite sites for researching motors for all of my PF projects. Wonderful resource.

So I have been following this thread but haven't read all of it so I don't know if this question/suggestion has been asked/made: Why not combine PF and the old 9V system together?

My suggestion would be to make metal rails as the power supply. TLC would release a power pick-ups as a new PF element (either metal wheels that pick up electricity or something else, they can be creative there ) which kinda replaces the battery box. As a result you'd have the advantages of PF and 9V combined: you don't have to use the standard pf bogies, but can use the power pick-ups with any pf motor which makes it easier to power any kind of engine: from small shunters to steam engines. Of course you could still use the conventional PF motor bogie, but not necessarily. You could also still interconnect the IR receiver and therefore run multiple trains on one 9V setup without the need of isolated track sections.

That was just my thought, but what do you think? Is that too much variety for one train system?

I sure hope ME Models is watching this thread. It would be great if they created something like this next.

You could even electrify only a small portion of track and use a battery that recharges as the train rolls over that section. The rest of the layout could be cheaper plastic track. Maybe that's why ME chose to limit the types of metal track they produce...

As someone who got started with 9v, I find it rather enjoyable to use. But it is not without its flaws (such as no steam loco drive wheels); one of the most important to watch out for is the fact that the insulation on the wires for things like the track power clips is vulnerable to dry rot. Mine were stored in dry conditions, out of the light, but have still succumbed. And without the insulation, the wires have started to unravel and made the clips useless. I don't own any Power Functions equipment so I can't speak for that; has anyone had this happen to their PF cables?

This (the rot) won't happen to PF cables as they're not made from the same material. There are two different type of 9V cables btw, the 'rubber' ones (that rot) and the shinier type made of harder plastic. Last type seems to age well but are somewhat rarer

I'm looking into replacing the wire on my 9V cables as I like to have custom lengths/plugs anyway. When I find the right substitute I'll spread the word

I'm looking into replacing the wire on my 9V cables as I like to have custom lengths/plugs anyway. When I find the right substitute I'll spread the word

Please do!

Okay I guess I'll jump into this conversation...

PF Pros:

• Stronger Motors
  
• Simple SetUp
  
• Easy for all Ages
  
• High quality Lighting
  
• Can run up to 8 trains from one controller
  

PF Cons:

• Bulky battery Box and Reciever
  
• Extremely hard to build shunters and other small locomotives.
  
• Have to change batteries (Sometimes have to tear some of your loco apart to do so)
  

9v Pros:

• Easy to use
  
• One transformer can be used for the whole layout
  
• Easy to build shunters and other small locomotives
  
• no batteries to charge or change.
  
• Easy setup
  

9v Cons:

• Poor light quality (Only is bright on 4+ speeds)
  
• Brittle wires
  
• Track gets dirty
  
• 1-2 train can run at once on one transformer without crashing
  

Honestly they kind of level out. I wish 9v wasn't gone I prefer it just because of that sound the motor makes and also no batteries.

PF's got a few more pros, though - namely the ability to have reverse loops without worrying about power shortages (Yes there are ways to get this with 9V - but not easy ones), which also opens up much more complicated track layouts. You can have multiple locomotives share track while still being able to control them independently, and while it is harder to make a fully self contained PF shunter you can have vastly superior aesthetics with it due to multiple driver sizes and the ability to have running gear. It may be a matter of preference, but personally I'd rather have an engine that looks proper from the drivers up than have a good looking engine on the wrong wheel base (such as a Class 08 shunter having only 4 tiny 9v motor wheels), even if I had to have a permanently coupled car behind it for the battery.

Edited January 1, 201510 yr by Daedalus304