Custom 9V tracks

[coaster]

Is that just O Gauge rail?

I would think you could have more luck for production value by making something more like this:

Then produce the clips to join the rails. This way you are just bending rails into different radii for the curves but using readily available rail. The turnouts will be harder but I think instead that those could be purchased for 3D printing and then adding rails that would be cut to fit the turnouts. I know that there would be some concerns to get the track to be powered but with the cost of 9V motors rising then the need for that will be less and less overtime. I am more interested in having big turnouts for my yard and the "real" looking metal rails.

Im sure we could find someone on alibaba or similar to make a batch of a few thousand for a decent price. If people are wanting to have this system interface with the regular LEGO rails, then a base would need to be made and the rails would need to be filed so that they have tabs that are able to touch the tabs from the LEGO rails. This will transfer the power to the rails.

No, they'd be a custom extrusion, similar to O-Gauge, but made specifically for this. Extrusion tooling is dirt cheap. I can screw it up a bunch and still be ok. For me though, it's 9V or nothing. If we were just making plastic tracks I'd do it all in one solid piece and be done. That'd be easy.

Those renderings are pretty but it looks like you lose Lego compatibility.

I think a compromise of keeping the Lego compatibility which is pretty good at maintaining a tight connection to the next piece of trackage and moving to a solid rail is pretty good. A solid piece of brass for the rail like LGB removes the need for stamping. Also the solid rail is far more durable.

What is the review of the current connecting pieces that ME Models is selling?

I'll repeat myself and say that in order to make Lego compatible track be economically viable compromises need to be made and looking at LGB track and how "prototype" modeling has compromised this is doable.

Well, that's where I was going before: losing compatibility is the compromise for getting 9V track in different configurations without spending a fortune. I don't think ME has shipped any metal tracks yet, but there's a pretty good reason why nobody else (LGB, etc) is doing the handshake connections like that: they're hard to do and expensive to machine. The stampings are flexible and give you spring-loaded positive contact, but with a solid extrusion, you're relying on as small of an interference fit as possible to make the connection. Too much interference, and it's too tough to put tracks together. Too little, and you could easily lose contact, and the tolerance for that middle ground is very small, which means machining becomes critical. I haven't personally used the ME metal track, but from what I've seen at shows, the few guys that had it were using either copper tape or solder at the joints, so obviously it wasn't making good contact.

I'm still trying a few things on the original design, but failing in that, I'd like to have a Plan B going. And there may be some way to make it compatible, might just take some work.

[JCForsythe]

Making an adapter piece to go from Lego brand to aftermarket brand would be so much easier. I don't see why that is such a big deal....

Everyone wants to ditch the small radius curves so then it's a case of an adapter track to use the Lego brand straights, which maintains everyone's investment as much as they were going to maintain it. Let's face it, new radius curves and switches the Lego brand will hit the used market.

[JCForsythe]

Why didnt ME-Model's metal straight rails stay on the market....I found this link http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks/en/me-metal-rails.php which clearly says the rails were commercially available. What was the price?

[fred67]

ME's rails were actually pretty good for the most part, but sometimes suffered from conductivity problems if not lined up really well. They ameliorated the problem by including some metal tape, but that's not a good solution for those of us with temporary layouts.

They eventually did a kickstarter project that collected enough for them to make new plastic (PF) and metal (9V) track, which was supposed to be better than their initial offering. The kickstarter project suffered some setbacks in that a large percentage of people reneged on their commitments, but ME trooped on anyway, and to date have various track pieces in plastic that started shipping earlier this year. They are still working on the metal (which is what I donated for), and it's taken a disappointingly long time, as they've had other problems they are working through - they want it to be better than the track they used to offer.

To sum it up, their newer version of the metal track should be better than the older version, but it's currently still a work in progress.

Edited August 25, 2015 by fred67

[coaster]

Making an adapter piece to go from Lego brand to aftermarket brand would be so much easier. I don't see why that is such a big deal....

It's not a big deal, but it sounded like it was from your earlier comment about the extruded design not being compatible. As for the ME metal rails, no idea. I think they had issues with their supplier and with the connections. Don't know what the price is/was.

As a separate issue, there is a tiny problem with the R120 curve: it doesn't fit nicely for a switch. I think it's generally agreed that the centerline spacing between tracks is 16 studs, which is why ME adopted the 40, 56, 72, etc. sequence for radii. However, maintaining that for switches, such that the siding is 16 studs offset while also ending on the full length of track grid (i.e., we can't have a siding that can't then reconnect to the main) doesn't work. That falls on a different pattern of 40, 104, 200. Even if we allow half length straights on the siding, our R120 still doesn't match. But, as you may have noticed, the 104 & 200 do, so do we adopt 104, 200, or both? Open for discussion.

So, the short list of things that should be available:

• Track adapter
  
• Standard 16-stud length straight (for those that don't want to bother with the adapter and want everything the same)
  
• Half length (8-stud) straight
  
• Wide radius curve
  
• Wide radius left switch
  
• Wide radius right switch
  

Long-term wish list:

• Flexible track segments
  
• 2x and 4x straights
  
• 3-way switch
  
• wye switch
  
• 90° cross
  
• 45° cross
  
• double cross-over switch
  

What about standard radius curves and switches? My thought is to have the switches arranged a little differently, maintaining the curve to 37° (there's some funny math behind this number, but it makes sense), and then have an 8° and 37° curve segment to go with it. Would these be useful for sidings and yards, or skip it and just stick with new tracks?

I'd like as many opinions as possible, so please comment if we're going in the right or wrong direction.

[supertruper1988]

I will be running power functions but if I can get all metal rail then I may modify the motors to get the power from the rails using this track.

I think for now we should add these things:

• Shorty Switch (same as TLG switch but modified for use in yards)
  
• Half R40 curve
  

[Phoxtane]

They eventually did a kickstarter project that collected enough for them to make new plastic (PF) and metal (9V) track, which was supposed to be better than their initial offering. The kickstarter project suffered some setbacks in that a large percentage of people reneged on their commitments, but ME trooped on anyway, and to date have various track pieces in plastic that started shipping earlier this year. They are still working on the metal (which is what I donated for), and it's taken a disappointingly long time, as they've had other problems they are working through - they want it to be better than the track they used to offer.

If memory serves, 'other problems' means that the manufacturer who was going to be doing their metal track initially ended up not doing metal-stamping work of that small a size right as they were about to finalize the deal.

[zephyr1934]

I agree; I don't think it's that bad. The problem is, because of the complexity of duplicating the Lego rails (thin-gauge stamping), most of the stamping places that are capable of working with material that thin want progressive tooling, the cost of which is, frankly, soul-crushing. At Lego's volumes, I doubt they'd bat an eye at it, but in our terms, at $180 for a half-loop, we'd have to produce over 8000 curve pieces to break even. Possibly doable for the curves, but I doubt that's realistic for the turnouts. I don't think I'd have much luck pitching $2k for a left-hand switch.

...

In other news, I drew this:

Base is a single solid piece, end rail connectors lock into the base and are crimped to the rails, holding the assembly together (much like your typical O-gauge track). Tracks are 16 studs long like standard, however, the rails overhang by a 1/2 stud on each end, that way we get the correct crosstie spacing on assembly, like this:

I had heard that it was the rail fabrication that was the death nail for 9v. Lego would manufacture the track, ship it out to a third party to add the metal, and ship it back. It was quite expensive compared to most parts.

As for the track layout, looking good. I think that was roughly the same direction that BBB was heading towards with their track design. I had heard that the way the rails attached to the ties proved to be a weak point. Looking at this design I don't think you would have that problem but I could see getting rails into the ties to be a major pain (though 9v fans would eagerly accept it). You would have to slip one rail in to all of the ties from the right, then slip the other rail in from the left. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that is why BBB went with plates that clipped the rail to the ties, but there was not enough clutch to keep the rails in. Now if you could click the rails in then slide the connector into a lock that could be the best of both worlds. The conventional model railroad crimp connector on the end is certainly a nice improvement.

Anyway, clicking straight rails might be one thing, but switches would be very demanding to assemble correctly, and then wire across for plug and play (likely need to solder, etc). Certainly non-trivial, which will either greatly increase your costs if you sell them preassembled or reduce the market if the customer has to assemble them.

Why didnt ME-Model's metal straight rails stay on the market....I found this link http://www.holgermat...metal-rails.php which clearly says the rails were commercially available. What was the price?

ME started with metal rails back around 2011. They made straights and promised wide radius curves. The straights came out and initially were supposed to be "drop in" replacements. The connectivity was hit and miss. I believe later versions had copper jumpers to adhere to the bottom for connectivity. I didn't have any problems, but I only bought half length rails and put them between normal 9v segments which still have the slight "spring" to the metal tabs.

The project dried up without any wide radius curves. Then ME returned with the kickstarter and that has brought the great PF tracks. Still waiting on the metal but I applaud anyone who is working in that direction.

...

But, as you may have noticed, the 104 & 200 do, so do we adopt 104, 200, or both? Open for discussion.

So, the short list of things that should be available:

• Track adapter
  
• Standard 16-stud length straight (for those that don't want to bother with the adapter and want everything the same)
  
• Half length (8-stud) straight
  
• Wide radius curve
  
• Wide radius left switch
  
• Wide radius right switch
  

Long-term wish list:

• Flexible track segments
  
• 2x and 4x straights
  
• 3-way switch
  
• wye switch
  
• 90° cross
  
• 45° cross
  
• double cross-over switch
  

Heh heh heh, I really like the idea of 200 radius curves but I doubt there would be enough takers at least at first. Start with one or two geometries and then grow from there. You do not want to overextend attempting a complete system from day one. I'd suggest modest a kickstarter to do just straight track and work out the kinks or discover that they are insurmountable, and then only if successful do a larger kickstarter with stretch goals for additional geometries.

As for a wish list, I personally prefer single crossovers, but that would require two more molds... unless you got creative and made a universal "switch" that then had a range of attachments to either turn back to a parallel track, turn further out to give a continuous curve, or connect one switch to another for a single crossover (I think ondrew had implemented some or all of these in the past using hand modified 9v track).

[coaster]

Got straights and curves modeled, getting quotes. Have had to make a few small changes along the way, but we should be in good shape. For the rails though, they're apparently too small for most extruders to do in brass or similar non-ferrous, non-aluminum metals, so I'm seeing if I can get it cold drawn to shape. Failing in that, we'll have to go Aluminum, but there are things we can do to improve conductivity.

[coaster]

Need some input on switches!

After many up-till-2-in-the-morning nights, I have the switch design mostly finished, and boy was it time consuming. There's still some detail work to do, but it's more or less there. I need some input though as I've redesigned the switch mechanism. I don't care for the Lego version, as it has a tendency to jam on me, and isn't particularly conducive to automating. Anyway, here's the new one:

The new mechanism is a quarter-turn of this 2x2 barrel section, and it turns in the direction of the train, i.e., turn it left to take the left branch, right to go straight:

Some additional notes:

• Mechanism is spring-loaded to lock left or right; there is no in between settings and no clicky-sections.
  
• Points are still spring-loaded, so trains running in the opposite direction can still pass through.
  
• Note the two moving points instead of one.
  
• Track is wired the same way as the standard Lego track. Power is to whichever track is active.
  
• Switch mechanism extends out the same length as the standard switch. Height is 1 brick.
  
• Barrel section has axle slot 1L deep.
  

Thoughts on the mechanism change? Keep it, change it, or go back to Lego's version?

Next step is to finish detail work, and then prototype switches, straights, curves, and to-Lego adapters. Hopefully will have something up and running by mid-October.

[Q3671]

the mechanisme in the center of the track.

[garethjellis]

This is done excellent work. I am excited to see the finished product.

[CrispyBassist]

The whole thing looks fantastic! I think the redesigned mechanism is an improvement, especially for automating. Many hand-thrown siding switches operate the same way on the real railroad too.

I'm excited to see the finished product as well!

[legoman666]

Looks awesome. Can't wait to see these made.

[dr_spock]

Keep the turn mechanism. It is much more servo motor friendly.

[pirzyk]

Keep the turn mechanism. It is much more servo motor friendly.

+1

[michaelgale]

Wow! These track component concepts are just fantastic! That switch looks absolutely gorgeous! I love the idea of using standard flat bottom rail extrusions threaded into rail chairs/clips moulded on to the sleepers/ties. The use of fishplates as rail joiners is also excellent. I bought a bunch of code 250 flat bottom Aluminum rail sections a while ago with the intention of scratch building some track (maybe switches) but haven't gotten around to it. I think any future metal rail product for L-Gauge is best off using off-the-shelf rail extrusions, either code 250 G-gauge or code 200, 124 O-Gauge. The magic is then the design of the plastic sleeper/tie components so that a variety of track elements can be assembled.

Great work!

[coaster]

Thanks guys! I'll move forward with the new mechanism then. As for the rails, I got a quote on custom rails that was pretty reasonable, and at production quantities will end up being cheaper than just buying stock rails. The best part about new rails is I can make them exactly the same height and width as the standard Lego rails, so no playing games trying to hold the gauge and allow for the power connector or other brick connections. Of course, I have a buy a mill run as a minimum, which is about 1000 lbs, but as small as the rails are, that translates to about 3.7km, however, that's realistically not that much if we go production. I will probably have to buy more than that even. I'll figure it out. Let's make some tracks!

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

Keep the turn mechanism. It is much more servo motor friendly.

I agree!

[baard]

Really love this concept

As I am waiting for my ME metal tracks, this looks very promising!

Keep up the good work and let us know when we can order

[zephyr1934]

Now that is a thing of beauty. I am definitely interested in these.

Thanks guys! I'll move forward with the new mechanism then. As for the rails, I got a quote on custom rails that was pretty reasonable, and at production quantities will end up being cheaper than just buying stock rails. The best part about new rails is I can make them exactly the same height and width as the standard Lego rails, so no playing games trying to hold the gauge and allow for the power connector or other brick connections. Of course, I have a buy a mill run as a minimum, which is about 1000 lbs, but as small as the rails are, that translates to about 3.7km, however, that's realistically not that much if we go production. I will probably have to buy more than that even. I'll figure it out. Let's make some tracks!

You could also benefit by designing a specific adapter piece to transition between standard 9v lego track and this new rail standard. I'd suggest making it 16 long to facilitate conventional lego geometries.

Is the geometry such that you can do a single crossover within a lateral of 16 studs?

While it is certainly not a deal breaker for me, it would be nice to have the option for lego style ties too (I'm not going to replace my existing 9v track stock). Maybe keep that as a possible future addition if the demand proves viable.

I would still suggest doing a kickstarter campaign to cover your up front costs. That way you'll know for sure that the demand is more than just those of us responding to this thread and that they will sell at your target price without risking your upfront investment. Oh, and do not underestimate the fulfillment demands (look at the ME delays... which is NOT a slam against ME, rather, I am just pointing out the non-trivial task to pack and ship)

[coaster]

Now that is a thing of beauty. I am definitely interested in these.

You could also benefit by designing a specific adapter piece to transition between standard 9v lego track and this new rail standard. I'd suggest making it 16 long to facilitate conventional lego geometries.

Is the geometry such that you can do a single crossover within a lateral of 16 studs?

While it is certainly not a deal breaker for me, it would be nice to have the option for lego style ties too (I'm not going to replace my existing 9v track stock). Maybe keep that as a possible future addition if the demand proves viable.

I would still suggest doing a kickstarter campaign to cover your up front costs. That way you'll know for sure that the demand is more than just those of us responding to this thread and that they will sell at your target price without risking your upfront investment. Oh, and do not underestimate the fulfillment demands (look at the ME delays... which is NOT a slam against ME, rather, I am just pointing out the non-trivial task to pack and ship)

A 16-long track adapter is in the works, yes.

Yes, the switch will allow for a single crossover to a 16-stud centerline, while keeping the studs horizontally in line as well.

Some notes on the curve segments and switches though:

In order to do the crossover (or a parallel siding for that matter) properly, the switch needs to terminate at an angle of 22.62° (standard R40 curves are 22.5°). While normally 0.12° is pretty trivial, at this radius, it translates to a .435 stud length gap (a little more than the thickness of a tile, or 3.5mm / 9/64"). As such, the switch will indeed be 22.62°, but will also need to include 2 special angle curve segments, 22.62° and 7.38°. The normal curves will be 15°, so the special curves will be easily identifiable.

As for the kickstarter, it is the plan, but I don't want to go there just yet. I want to make sure I know what my costs are going to be and have all the design issues buttoned up first. Are issues going to crop up? Of course, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do my best to mitigate them on the front end.

Based on my current rate of work (which, sorry, I have 2 little kids at home, so I only get to work on this after they go to bed), my very rough timetable looks like this:

Finalize designs and models - Nov. 1

Get quotes and prototype units built - Dec.1

Initiate kickstarter (assuming minimal changes to prototypes required) - Dec. 12

Second round of prototypes (if necessary) - mid-January

Complete kickstarter campaign (1 month) - Jan. 12

Tooling & approval units- 10 weeks

Initial Production & Assembly - 4 weeks

Shipping of kickstarter units - End of April

Shipping of all other order - Mid May

There's naturally a lot that can slip between here and there. I've spent the last 10 years in product development, so I have no delusions of it going that smoothly, but I think May 2016 is a realistic timeframe of when I could be in full-tilt production.

[codefox421]

I'm seriously interested in what you're doing here. That switch looks amazing.

I'll work on curves next, but they take a bit longer to model, so wanted to get these out there first.

Thoughts?

My 2¢: you need to work on curves sooner than you think. You will find they influence your straights.

Your current geometry centers the rail join directly above a stud and centers the length of the track on a gap (between studs). Let's suppose you have curves with 40+16n radius. This means, for a quarter circle, we go down 40+16n studs and to the right 40+16n studs. Therefore, we are still at a stud/gap intersection, but the track has rotated 90 degrees, so the ties no longer align with the grid of studs. The rail join is now directly above a gap, and the track is centered on a row of studs.

Instead of writing 907 more words, here's a diagram:

If you were to center the rail join directly above a gap, achieved by centering the ties between studs, the geometry continues to work around curves. This has the added benefit of making an adapter track easier to design, since the rail join will be in the same place as LEGO's.

[coaster]

Don't worry; way ahead of you on that. Curves have been done for a while now, and I have a sandbox layout to make sure everything fits like it should (here's your crossover, zephyr):

But you are absolutely correct, with the 1x8 crossties, we do have to have them in between studs in order for this to work, unless you'd rather have a 2x8 crosstie at every connection, which, frankly, looks terrible. I'd start investing heavily in the 1x2 plates with 1 stud.

[JCForsythe]

Coaster,

Those renderings look great. Why not metal wing rails for the switches? How durable will the tabs be longterm for holding the rail?

I cant PM but I have a few CAD drawings myself. I'd like to show you my idea...

John