Power Functions vs. 9 volt

[Hoexbroe]

That´s simple to answer; The only right thing is 9V, or rather better phrased; Metal Rails!

Because metal rails allows the incorporation of stadard DCC equipment, and opens the door to the "real" model railroading world.

PF system and plastic rails are a disgrace -at least when realated to model railroading.

(For a small kids toy the PF system is very nice, though!)

The CEO of TLC should be hunted down and forced to re-introduce a decent railroad system.

[Stefaneris]

I would say that it depends on how you use the PF or 9V system. 9V has several advantages but for me, one disadvantage is very important: you only have one boogie type. When you try to build detailed boogies as I do, the normal train motor is quit useless, especially when working with SNOT because there are few studs to attach something.

[Inzane]

PF system and plastic rails are a disgrace -at least when realated to model railroading.

The CEO of TLC should be hunted down and forced to re-introduce a decent railroad system.

I know the subject has been beaten to death. My recollection was it was totally a cost-based decision by the company. Their equipment used to produce the metal rails was falling into disarray and was deemed too expensive and/or impractical to replace hence the decision to totally abandon it.

That said, we all know how financially successful TLG has become over the last 5-10 years. They have been making like bandits, and surely could afford the capital investment for new tooling for rail components. However corporate bean counters would probably still frame it as not enough of a business case for the investment. Oh poo. :(

[Hoexbroe]

I know the subject has been beaten to death. My recollection was it was totally a cost-based decision by the company. Their equipment used to produce the metal rails was falling into disarray and was deemed too expensive and/or impractical to replace hence the decision to totally abandon it.

That said, we all know how financially successful TLG has become over the last 5-10 years. They have been making like bandits, and surely could afford the capital investment for new tooling for rail components. However corporate bean counters would probably still frame it as not enough of a business case for the investment. Oh poo. :(

I agree.

That, and the hm.. "change" in product quality is fast turning me into a Lego-basher... <sigh>

[fred67]

That´s simple to answer; The only right thing is 9V, or rather better phrased; Metal Rails!

Because metal rails allows the incorporation of stadard DCC equipment, and opens the door to the "real" model railroading world.

While I've long since stopped whining about 9V being tossed aside, I agree with this. I came back to LEGO as an adult ultimately as a replacement for my traditional trains. At first it was for my kids, because I didn't want them messing up my "real" model trains, but I got into it to, and ultimately switched completely to LEGO... at which point they dumped 9V.

I understand that TLG isn't a model train company, and that model train aficionados are not their target audience, but it is largely how I see it - they finally made trains in the traditional model railroading style, and then dumped them. Had I looked back through history, it should have been obvious that they were going to change - as they seem to do every so often, but I didn't know that when I got involved in LEGO trains.

I'm good, though; I don't have as much time (or space) for my LEGO Train hobby anyway, and with ME helping keep 9V alive, I'm good for now. I've also gone ahead and powered a few things with PF, and while I don't like not having the really smooth operation I seem to get from 9V compared to PF, it's okay-enough.

I know the subject has been beaten to death. My recollection was it was totally a cost-based decision by the company. Their equipment used to produce the metal rails was falling into disarray and was deemed too expensive and/or impractical to replace hence the decision to totally abandon it.

That said, we all know how financially successful TLG has become over the last 5-10 years. They have been making like bandits, and surely could afford the capital investment for new tooling for rail components. However corporate bean counters would probably still frame it as not enough of a business case for the investment. Oh poo. :(

Somewhat... it simply wasn't cost effective; the molds for the plastic part of the track were more complicated and the machines that added the metal railing were more complicated. They also made the mistake of making a mold that made an equal number of straight and curves... so ended up with way too many curves. Sure, the sets themselves were mostly curves, but people mostly only wanted to buy straights separately. As a result, when they went on final clearance, I got like 4 packs of straights... and like 10 packs of curves.

But the fact doesn't change... they didn't sell enough of that style of train to, at least in their own minds, justify the costs. That's it. That's the bottom line. They're the ones that lived it - there's nothing we can do now to convince them otherwise because they already tried it and (apparently) lost money. If you lost money investing in a product, would you invest in it again later just because you had more money now?

It's really not coming back... I've gotten over it, I use PF for a lot of trains now (although I have not, and have no intention of, abandoning 9V, especially thanks to ME Models).

Look at it this way - there's positive and negative arguments for both sides, neither side - limited to trains - is that much more compelling that it's a clear winner. But it's not limited to trains... PF can be amortized across several product lines, so it's a clear win from the perspective of TLG. 9V is NOT coming back.

[Barduck]

What I don't (and never will) understand is why LEGO never thinked of joining forces with a modelrailway compagny to make their rails, curves and switches. Quality would have been so much better, not to say that the curves and switches would have been more authentic to the real world (as in modelrailways). Maybe the LEGO ambassadors can make the hint towards LEGO

[fred67]

Yeah... well... TLG has "borrowed" ideas from third parties before; in the train world, Big Ben Bricks had large wheels years before Emerald Night. Even now BBB has many more options than available with TLG. Would be cool to see ME be wildly successful in their 9V/Metal Rail offerings. It's unfortunate how long it's taking, but if they can keep up production, on the backer page I voted for a new motor. You can conceivably already hook up a different speed regulator (something I've thought of many times, as I don't like the "stepped" operation of LEGO speed regulator... something that's even worse with PF, IMO).

If I were going to build a "real" full train layout (as it is now I only set up for Christmas), if ME doesn't come through, I'll go with the LEGO/O-Gauge modification.

[9v system]

Yes another pf vs 9v topic

[peterab]

What I don't (and never will) understand is why LEGO never thinked of joining forces with a modelrailway compagny to make their rails, curves and switches. Quality would have been so much better, not to say that the curves and switches would have been more authentic to the real world (as in modelrailways). Maybe the LEGO ambassadors can make the hint towards LEGO

Not many companies would be able to deliver the sort of service TLG needs. They are now the biggest toy maker in the world, the sort of volume, precision and price they require would be a unique combination. Most model railway companies would be overwhelmed by the demands of such a job. They are a tiny niche compared to LEGO.

[Exa]

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

http://www.philohome.com/motors/motorcomp.htm

It can be usefull.

[Heppeng]

Not many companies would be able to deliver the sort of service TLG needs. They are now the biggest toy maker in the world, the sort of volume, precision and price they require would be a unique combination. Most model railway companies would be overwhelmed by the demands of such a job. They are a tiny niche compared to LEGO.

I wonder.... What if lego changed to G-gauge and perhaps 8 wide as a standard? It is only slightly wider, you could still use the existing PF motor, but with maybe a half bush behind the wheels, the only other change would be a new wheel holder and longer axle. Lego could still make their own plastic track for the train set market, but it may open up new markets - there are many G-gauge garden railways out there and if only lego could be run on them directly... And then no problems with expanding your set with third party tracks ever again...

[Hoexbroe]

I wonder.... What if lego changed to G-gauge and perhaps 8 wide as a standard? It is only slightly wider, you could still use the existing PF motor, but with maybe a half bush behind the wheels, the only other change would be a new wheel holder and longer axle. Lego could still make their own plastic track for the train set market, but it may open up new markets - there are many G-gauge garden railways out there and if only lego could be run on them directly... And then no problems with expanding your set with third party tracks ever again...

I absolutly agree; If they could do that with almost no modifications, they should. I know that Playmobil teamed up with LGB for the track, until they too began to do their own all-plastic tracks.

I would say that there IS a huge market for the in-between totally toy train and "real" model railroading to exact scale; One is dirt-cheap -but useless for anything serious, and the other is extremely expensive and complicated.

[Paperballpark]

I very much doubt that would happen. The one thing that has been consistent over the four different train systems is the track gauge. I really can't see them changing it. Furthermore, can you imagine how much every train-owning afol would complain if they did?!

[funkdis]

7x 9v motors keep me happy but seriously toying with the idea of getting one PF motor in order to run two trains on the same circuit with options to start and stop either one.

I will continue to purchase metal rails if needed.

I'm mostly looking forward to sbrick, and the modding community (if there is one) to introduce some nice automation applications, most likely with PF than 9v.

Edited December 22, 2014 by funkdis

[codefox421]

Yep, just have to wait it becomes available. It will give a great advantage to PF.

Or skip the wait and go open source: https://github.com/BTbricks http://www.eurobrick...showtopic=87340

[ronenson]

I'm actually very satisfied with the PF system. The fact that you can easily control multiple trains from different controllers is a big advantage. All this DCC stuff is quite difficult to set up and not out of the box at all.

[nesquik]

What I don't (and never will) understand is why LEGO never thinked of joining forces with a modelrailway compagny to make their rails, curves and switches. Quality would have been so much better, not to say that the curves and switches would have been more authentic to the real world (as in modelrailways). Maybe the LEGO ambassadors can make the hint towards LEGO

One factor yet to be mentioned is that TLG wanted to lower the suggested age group for their train sets. In hindsight this was a very positive move (We often forget that Town/City trains were targeted towards older children), but the reason it never happened earlier was precisely because of the 9V system. Safety guidelines prevented the company from marketing a metal track system towards younger children.

Another stumbling block was the tooling process. Those track pieces underwent and slow and costly production in Switzerland that, by early 2000's, required an extraordinary amount of capital to upgrade for any future production. It would have made no sense to do so.

We should of course be thankful that companies like 'ME Models' exist as they cater for an important but niche market. 9V will always be the standard for convention-scale layouts/projects. But for consumers who are non-hobbyists or own smaller layouts (such as families), PF is just far more efficient to manufacture and purchase, and has the scope of introducing different kinds of motors for different train bodies.

Edited December 23, 2014 by nesquik

[lightningtiger]

Maybe one of the reasons for PF with plastic track is safety, no metal, no possible electrical faults that could in a worse case cause harm to a user......it would be very rare but Lego don't want any more legal battles.

There is one thing worse than any other Lego trains powering system.....2006 RC !

[dr_spock]

Maybe one of the reasons for PF with plastic track is safety, no metal, no possible electrical faults that could in a worse case cause harm to a user......it would be very rare but Lego don't want any more legal battles.

There is one thing worse than any other Lego trains powering system.....2006 RC !

There is no power transformer to plug in with PF. So kids don't get to experience 240V or 120V. 120VAC wasn't that bad when I grabbed the wall plug wrong as a kid. It kinda hurted.

I used to do HO model railroading as a youngster. I remember smoke coming out of the transformer due to wiring something wrong and causing a short.

I notice that the PF battery boxes and controllers have little screws to keep the case closed. No eating batteries either unless you know how to use a screwdriver.

I think kids today have the liability avoidance and lawyers stuff that we didn't back then. Yet most of us still live to post about it.

[Paperballpark]

I agree about the RC trains. I came across one when doing a recent show, as my co-exhibitor had brought one along. That system is utterly utterly rubbish - you're forced to use the standard base, the battery life is terrible, the speed of the train is crap, and the whole thing is just an absolute steaming pile of shite.

[Inzane]

Is the current PF train motor not compatible with those early 2006 RC train sets? I thought the old motor was the main weakness of that RC system.

[1974]

I agree about the RC trains. I came across one when doing a recent show, as my co-exhibitor had brought one along. That system is utterly utterly rubbish - you're forced to use the standard base, the battery life is terrible, the speed of the train is crap, and the whole thing is just an absolute steaming pile of shite.

I like it .. that is, I like the electronics. I yank it out and use it to power my 12V motors with rods (like the 7727) on my 9V metalrails

(Also works splendid with my monorails)

Nice way to have more than one train on the 9V metaltracks and makes it possible to avoid that steaming pile of shite that PF is ...

PF remote doesn't even go "toot toot!" .. and it's poorer in IR range to boot

Batterylife is dependent on the actual batteris and the power consumption of the motors (which is equal)

PF takes AAA = 800-1000mAH, old RC takes AA = 2500-3000mAH = 2-3 times the running for the old RC

Cheers,

Ole

Is the current PF train motor not compatible with those early 2006 RC train sets? I thought the old motor was the main weakness of that RC system.

Nope, the old RC is classic 9V (cables, light, battery boxes etc), new motors are pure PF. OYu can use adapter cables but that would be futile

[snowvictim]

As for the cost-related comments - the whole PF assembly (motor, IR receiver, battery box) costs almost the same as a 9V motor. Where the real cost difference lies is with the tracks. It makes sense if you're doing a big layout. I got a discount on straight 9V track pieces from around $3 a piece to $1.7 because I bought A LOT.

Overall, I think 9V is better.

- looks more like hobby railroad

- greater freedom in building custom trains (no battery box to conceal, etc.)

- absolutely no problem converting PF to 9V, whereas problems may arise when going the other way

- more power

- sell for more money

Plus, ME Models are releasing their 9V-compatible track. The motors can be changed. I'd say 9V is well and alive.

[Hoexbroe]

One factor yet to be mentioned is that TLG wanted to lower the suggested age group for their train sets. In hindsight this was a very positive move (We often forget that Town/City trains were targeted towards older children), but the reason it never happened earlier was precisely because of the 9V system. Safety guidelines prevented the company from marketing a metal track system towards younger children.

Yes, that must DEFINATLY be the main reason, because...

Another stumbling block was the tooling process. Those track pieces underwent and slow and costly production in Switzerland that, by early 2000's, required an extraordinary amount of capital to upgrade for any future production. It would have made no sense to do so.

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!!!

We should of course be thankful that companies like 'ME Models' exist as they cater for an important but niche market. 9V will always be the standard for convention-scale layouts/projects. But for consumers who are non-hobbyists or own smaller layouts (such as families), PF is just far more efficient to manufacture and purchase, and has the scope of introducing different kinds of motors for different train bodies.

Absolutly. I´d actually claim that the 9V system was (is) so excellent that it shoulod not have been discontinued.

ME looks promissing, but has very few products (no switches!) and is not readily available.

As to 9V being the standard for conventions; There´s not a whole lot of it around here in Spain. Some groups (LUGs) DO use it, but others simply has started too late (like is the case ofr me), and is thus equipped with PF materiel. I´ve even seen people here use cunducting copper-tape on PF-tracks to get 9V systems going at Expos. (which does not look good!)

PF is good for so many things, but precisely for TRAINS it is such a huge step backwards, that it hurts!

[snowvictim]

TLG could've at least kept on making the 9V motors...