Fx Bricks (Michael Gale) announces Fx Track system

[McWaffel]

20 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Yes! At least as long as the pickup wheel comes with a DCC controller and a PF connector...

Or you can just use any old DCC decoder and normal cables. They don’t cost much and having a proprietary connector always sucks, because then you can’t use components by other manufacturers to suit your needs. Ideally the power pickup wheels is just that, a power pickup wheel. Put two to four axles of power pickups in a locomotive tender and run cables to the locomotive, where a DCC decoder and motor sits. Benefit of that is that the pickup wheel can be fully made of metal (not just the flange) and you don’t need to worry about traction on the locomotive 

[zephyr1934]

17 hours ago, Tcm0 said:

Do you mean motorized switch points etc? I think that there are very good brick built alternatives to them with the current switches.

 

5 hours ago, Tcm0 said:

There are still lights in the PF and PUP systems. You can build your own signals. I really don't understand this point because you can literally replace everything from the 12V system with current hardware I think. Except for the metalic rails.

 

Yes, the 12v gray era was a complete system, with amazing accessories that never came to be in the 9v era. Yes we can brick build all of them and bring in automation, and that is why I say Fx9v could take the crown. It has all of the virtues of 9v and has already surpassed them with the wide radius curves (well, okay, no motors and no controllers yet, so maybe 9v+Fx9v right now). Way back when he first announced the system at BW 2019 Michael spoke vaguely about bringing back some of the 12v functionality in later rounds of his system. As a 9v fan I hope there is enough demand to get there.

 

 

[Tcm0]

3 hours ago, McWaffel said:

Or you can just use any old DCC decoder and normal cables. They don’t cost much and having a proprietary connector always sucks, because then you can’t use components by other manufacturers to suit your needs. Ideally the power pickup wheels is just that, a power pickup wheel. Put two to four axles of power pickups in a locomotive tender and run cables to the locomotive, where a DCC decoder and motor sits. Benefit of that is that the pickup wheel can be fully made of metal (not just the flange) and you don’t need to worry about traction on the locomotive 

+1 for a general power pick up. I'd stay with PF/PUP.

[Black Knight]

10 minutes ago, Tcm0 said:

+1 for a general power pick up. I'd stay with PF/PUP.

The thing is, that w/o DCC, you can only control one train per track at a time, making it inferior (in this regard) to basically all other L-gauge systems (be it TLG or 3rd party). You would have to power a control system like PFx/TLG IR/MK/etc. that are subpar in that they must use another medium of communication than your metal rails. I am thinking more about putting a separate power pickup in every passenger wagon to have working lights in there w/o having a wire run from wagon to wagon. And then of course control them individually via DCC along all the other accessorizes from signals to switch points. I'd expect Michael to make the pickup wheel more like his motor in such that it has an optional DCC controller on board that you can disable via dip switch or something.

[Tcm0]

1 hour ago, Black Knight said:

The thing is, that w/o DCC, you can only control one train per track at a time, making it inferior (in this regard) to basically all other L-gauge systems (be it TLG or 3rd party). You would have to power a control system like PFx/TLG IR/MK/etc. that are subpar in that they must use another medium of communication than your metal rails. I am thinking more about putting a separate power pickup in every passenger wagon to have working lights in there w/o having a wire run from wagon to wagon. And then of course control them individually via DCC along all the other accessorizes from signals to switch points. I'd expect Michael to make the pickup wheel more like his motor in such that it has an optional DCC controller on board that you can disable via dip switch or something.

I mean to power PF IR receivers or PUP hubs. A DCC would make it larger and more expensive.

[legoboy3998]

2 hours ago, Black Knight said:

The thing is, that w/o DCC, you can only control one train per track at a time, making it inferior (in this regard) to basically all other L-gauge systems (be it TLG or 3rd party). You would have to power a control system like PFx/TLG IR/MK/etc. that are subpar in that they must use another medium of communication than your metal rails. I am thinking more about putting a separate power pickup in every passenger wagon to have working lights in there w/o having a wire run from wagon to wagon. And then of course control them individually via DCC along all the other accessorizes from signals to switch points. I'd expect Michael to make the pickup wheel more like his motor in such that it has an optional DCC controller on board that you can disable via dip switch or something.

Having a built in DCC decoder in every power pickup would be a bit excessive, and drive up the size and cost dramatically.  Most DCC manufacturers, and even different decoders by the same manufacturer have different features.  A decoder for controlling a locomotive has far more functions than one for just freight or passenger cars. There is also usually a lot more room in the carbody itself for the DCC decoder and wiring and speaker.  Having just the power pickup, separate from any DCC decoder would be much simpler, cheaper, and far more versatile.

Sal

WFB, WI

[Vilhelm22]

1 hour ago, legoboy3998 said:

Having a built in DCC decoder in every power pickup would be a bit excessive, and drive up the size and cost dramatically.  Most DCC manufacturers, and even different decoders by the same manufacturer have different features.  A decoder for controlling a locomotive has far more functions than one for just freight or passenger cars. There is also usually a lot more room in the carbody itself for the DCC decoder and wiring and speaker.  Having just the power pickup, separate from any DCC decoder would be much simpler, cheaper, and far more versatile.

Sal

WFB, WI

I agree.  Motors would be good if they could have an easily connectable option for DCC.  Being British, my first port of call for different DCC decoder types after seeing your comment was the Hornby website.  They have 22 different decoders, with special sounds specific to certain locomotives.  Enclosing a decoder would make this more difficult - sound wouldn’t be a given feature, as a diesel, an electric, and a steam locomotive very obviously sound completely different.

[McWaffel]

I’ve been using DCC on a friends g-scale layout and I can say from experience that it doesn’t really matter what DCC controller you buy, as long as it has the feature you want.

Ideally, a power pickup wheel is just a single axle with either cables sticking out, or metal connector to attach cables to. You can then use those as leading wheels/trailing wheels on larger locomotives, use them as wheels on tenders with 2 fixed axles, 3 fixed axles, 2x2 bogied axles… you can also use them to light up the interior of passenger cars. And you don’t need to have a DCC controller in the passenger cars either. Just run the cable from the power pickup to your lights directly. This is what larger model railways do. Lights are just directly powered by the track, picked up by the wheels on that car. 
This flexibility is only achieved if the pickup wheel is a single axle and only has cables on it. It will also make the power pickup relatively inexpensive because it’s just metal wheels and „brushes“ in a plastic housing. You could also use those pickups to improve connectivity on your track for new Fx bricks motors that have their own pickups, by connecting them up

[michaelgale]

Without going into too much detail, our product plans for electrical accessories and control is based on this simple idea:  it's not the technology that makes it special, it's the form factor.  That is what made the 12V system of accessories special--simple technology (obviously)--the appeal was the modular LEGO-like way it all worked together.  The 9V system's appeal was the genius and versatility of the 2x2 plate connector.  

 

[McWaffel]

18 minutes ago, michaelgale said:

The 9V system's appeal was the genius and versatility of the 2x2 plate connector.  

Oh absolutely, agreed 100%. That’s pretty much what I was thinking of when I said metal connectors on the power pickups 

[Andrew Harvey]

My order from JBS was shipped today! :D

[Black Knight]

My order just arrived today! We drove an R72 round with a V100 and some wagons and had a ball. Thank you @michaelgale! W00t! :D

[HoMa]

... my full loop of R88 curves (four packs of FxTrack 8888) also arrived today. Thanks to @michaelgale and European distributor JB Spielwaren. From the first quick look the R88s come in the same high quality as the R72s and S32s I already got. Looking forward for more great FxTrack stuff! 

[emm]

For me i love what is being done here.

 

As my layout already uses a-lot of Trixbrix product due to the way i have my layout setup - Signals / Switchs the one area that lets me down is those sodding batteries.

@michaelgale will you be releasing a product that enables the PF to be charged from one of your motors?

I ask because then i can buy a load of 9V track and just park my trains as they charge. Like the fuller car system.

[Sunil766]

Even though my R88 track hasn't arrived yet, I built my first layout with the R72s I ordered to bridge the waiting time... as a casual lego trainhead I am happy to be able to build a layout every few months.

I must say that is a great addition to the 9V line and is so much more fun than being limited to R40 curves.

Quality is great, however they do seem quite tense and lift in the inside bend. If anyone has a solution (or workaround but I can't really put trackside buildings to an inner curve...) - sharing would be highly appreciated.

The elevation on the inside bend can be seen in the following video I shot with snippets from saturday's action. (NB this is an unlisted video and I am just sharing as I'd equally like to see other casual 9V layouts)

 

Edit: I did decide to put the vid public - share the love :-)  (I initially wanted to avoid the impression of "promoting my channel" ... Then again this doesn't apply since I don't have anything to promote) 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Sunil766

[M_slug357]

@Sunil766 Good to know that trains can still derail on R72 curves!

[Black Knight]

23 hours ago, Sunil766 said:

Quality is great, however they do seem quite tense and lift in the inside bend. If anyone has a solution (or workaround but I can't really put trackside buildings to an inner curve...) - sharing would be highly appreciated.

Ballasting improves the situation quite a bit, but does not resolve the problem entirely: I have ballasted my R72 and put them on MILS, so they are fixated to the ground every 90 degree. You can see the track going down a little bit when a train passes over, but you must look closely at the shadow of the track to realize it.

What would be great is a calculation for additional fix points: Where do the (ballasted) track's knobs match those of the underlying base plate, so we can put some additional jumper plates or plates or turn-tables on the ground to fixate the track between the "quarter circle endpoints".

[Sunil766]

15 hours ago, M_slug357 said:

@Sunil766 Good to know that trains can still derail on R72 curves!

To be fair, that were around 13 to 14V... Regular 9V easily goes full speed through the curve - great fun. For any higher voltage, will try again with R88, but 18V would require something around r150 + elevated outside curves I guess. 

@Black Knightthanks for your recommendation. that's what I suspected. I build too casually to do any ballasting, also I want to pack everything up neatly afterwards. 

[zephyr1934]

On 9/20/2021 at 3:13 AM, Sunil766 said:

Quality is great, however they do seem quite tense and lift in the inside bend. If anyone has a solution (or workaround but I can't really put trackside buildings to an inner curve...) - sharing would be highly appreciated.

I discussed that issue of the inside lift in my review and my bending the track to remove it (see part V in the first post). I don't know if the bending lasted or not since my permanent layout is on carpet and most of the curves are tight corners.

[M_slug357]

About the tracks bending, I think it might help if they're warmed up a bit (ie a heat gun?) and then compressed between two flat & thick surfaces-- I recommend plywood/scrapwood, but would personally use some old hardback textbooks from school.

[michaelgale]

Hi Folks,

Sorry to hear about the R72 tracks bending slightly--it seems to be an issue confined to the R72 tracks--and not all of them.

TLDR:  Its easy to fix by either:

1. Gentle twisting back-and-forth of an individual track section.

2. Or let the track settle out with usage.  The lift does settle out over time.

Long Explanation:

We suspect there are 3 factors which contribute to this phenomenon:

1.  Settling of the product from the climate differences in China/Hong Kong vs. North America/Europe can manifest itself as very slight warping due to the different thermal coefficients of expansion of ABS plastic vs. metal rail.

2.  Variances in metal crimp points along the length of the rail can result in slight mechanical stresses which produce this vertical lift.

3.  The rail joint connections are designed to be tight and secure.  This ensures excellent electrical performance and secure track connections.  However, the tight joint introduces mechanical elastic forces in the plastic rail which have to be absorbed by the rest of the track assembly.  This can manifest itself as a vertical lift to relieve this elastic tension.

Vertical lift due to factors 1 and 2 will be observable with a single track element after it is removed from the box and placed on a flat surface.  In our experience, most of the R72 elements will rest flat; however, in some cases we have observed very slight vertical lift, but within mechanical tolerances.

Vertical lift due to factor 3 is more common, not only for the R72, but also other L-Gauge track elements.  The mechanical forces which cause the vertical lift can be relieved with slight twisting back and forth along the long-axis of the track.  This disperses accumulated tension along the entire length of connected track elements and reduces the vertical lift.  These forces will also disperse naturally with repeatedly running a train over the track.  The forces applied by a passing train will gradually disperse accumulated mechanical tension.

Brand new track elements, especially hybrid ABS plastic / metal track, have tight crimps and do not have enough elastic performance to resist the forces applied by rail joints.  Over time, the crimp joints loosen slightly, and the track element is becomes more elastic and therefore able to resist these forces and stay flat.  It is analogous to "breaking in" a brand new car.  Car manufactures specify a "break in" period to allow mechanical stresses to disperse and settle to a nominal equilibrium.  Similarly, our track elements will settle to a nominal elastic equilibrium with normal use and handling.  This should reduce the probability of observing this vertical lift.  
 

p.s. I don't recommend using a heat gun!  You might end up with an R72 shaped puddle of plastic!  

[Sunil766]

Good morning, thanks all for your replies and especially @michaelgale for the excellent explanation and demonstration of how much thought you put into those products. The way I described it may have sounded bigger of an issue than it is for me, it was rather an observation than a limitation in any way.

Still can't wait for my r88 to arrive and for any further products to be released (thinking about motors/pick-ups). 

Best

[Duq]

On 9/21/2021 at 8:23 AM, Black Knight said:

What would be great is a calculation for additional fix points: Where do the (ballasted) track's knobs match those of the underlying base plate, so we can put some additional jumper plates or plates or turn-tables on the ground to fixate the track between the "quarter circle endpoints".

I've just played with that a bit in Google Sheets and from what I can see there's not much to go on... I've only looked at the track itself, not ballasting. With a tolerance of 1% I can see 1 possible connection; at 44.5/61 studs from the centre you should be able to connect the 11th tie.

If you can show me the ballasting you use I can expand the calculation.

Anyone know if 1% is realistic for tolerance?

[cptkent]

On 9/25/2021 at 9:26 AM, Duq said:

I've just played with that a bit in Google Sheets and from what I can see there's not much to go on... I've only looked at the track itself, not ballasting. With a tolerance of 1% I can see 1 possible connection; at 44.5/61 studs from the centre you should be able to connect the 11th tie.

If you can show me the ballasting you use I can expand the calculation.

Anyone know if 1% is realistic for tolerance?

POST REMOVED DUE TO GENERAL INCORECTNESS !!! OOPS !

Edited September 27, 2021 by cptkent
Was wrong

[Black Knight]

On 9/25/2021 at 3:28 AM, cptkent said:

Not sure if this helps, but....

I have drawn most tracks in the CAD program that I use (AutoCAD) I can overlay R72 sleepers onto a LEGO grid.

...

EDIT:

I found two additional points.

Again, these are not direct stud matches, but mid-points, and are for 'sleeper studs' not 'ballast studs'.

Unfortunately this does not coincide with my reality here: The 45 degree knob is not feasable "plain" nor with @michaelgale's ballasting (due to the curves remaining separate entities). I tried your second point (the "northern" one) but this is off by maybe 1 mm eastwards and least 2 mm northwards. The southern one is more symmetrically off, like 1.5 mm to the north and 1.5 mm to the west. I'd guess that this is due to the track connectors which are pushing the tracks north and east.

Take all that with a grain of salt as I did not use any high tech measurement equipment but only bricks and eye balls. Maybe @michaelgale can enlighten us about the "true" geometry of his tracks? Then I could at least rule out that I made some stupid mistake. =)
On the other hand, maybe @michaelgale should rather work on his switches and motors. ;)