What's so good about 9v?

[brickfreak99]

I have always been wondering why 9v is so good and why people hate RC...

[Siegfried]

It's mostly because of the reduced power of the RC trains.

[Hinckley]

And replacing all of those batteries...

[Legoist]

It's also very hard for someone who has a huge collection of trains with a certain power system, to see it replaced with a new standard.

12v and 9v lasted long enough for people to build collections of each. RC lasted too short to ever gain a fanbase.

[brickfreak99]

I think the new PF idea is stupid and too technical. I would of much preferred it if they just increased the power of the RC engine and made the batteries rechargeable. I am sad to see the RC trains go, since I never got my hands on 7897 or 7898.

[Siegfried]

I am sad to see the RC trains go, since I never got my hands on 7897 or 7898.

I don't understand. If you were someone like me who bought both sets I'd see your point, but seriously, the new system is better and far more flexible. The combo reciever-battery-base idea was limited. If I was you I'd inwardly cheer and look forward to the new sets!

[djo]

9V advantages:

1.powerful and more stable.

2.simple installation and modification.

3.compact motor.

[legotrainfan]

About the advantages of 9V:

The energy needed to get your 9V trains moving comes from the wall socket. This source of energy is endless and you don't have to recharge anything. That is the main advantage. And the 9V motor was much cheaper than the whole PF stuff to motorise a PF train.

As for the RC trains, the freight train looked really good. But I didn't want to buy it anymore when I heard a new system was going to come. Concerning the PF trains, I don't want to curse them at all. I'm waiting for some reviews of the motorised version. Even though I said that the 9V motor was cheaper than the whole PF stuff, you must admit that the tracks for RC/PF trains are not as dear as 9V tracks. So there's a lot of saving on that side. And for me Emerald Night is a must-have, by the way, and it is backwards compatible. I'll run the thing on 9V tracks, either with a 9V or a PF motor; preferably the latter since 9V motors are becoming rare.

[WesternOutlaw]

While I love 9V trains mainly because of the old grey electric track, and many of the items mentioned above, the R/C system does have a huge advantage. There is no limit to the amount of track that one can run. I also own an LGB train as well as a Playmobil train that I break out during the holidays. The Playmobil train is R/C. It's great! All I have to do is insert the rechargeable battery, and it's good to go. I can sit on the couch and control the speed, reverse directions, etc. It's a lot of fun.

I didn't buy either of the Lego R/C trains because I didn't like the thought of all the batteries, as well as another system, with a third style/variation of track (Old Grey, New Bley, Non-Electric). I am looking forward to the new system (just have to get over the "track thing").

But many of us have a lot of 9V accessories (track, transformers, and motors), and I think this is why the big campaign to save 9V. The lighting potention and electrics to power trackside buildings was limited - I think being the biggest disadvantage. I still like the power of 9V and the classic idea of plugging in the transformer to a wall outlet.

Good question and good discussion.

[Lockt]

As a kid I was collecting the old grey 4.5/12Volt system, or at least I tried to. At the moment I was at the age money started to flow in, I wanted to change from the battery driven to the 12V system (with the inner rail tracks you could easily do this). Then 9V was introduced.

After some time I decided to step into the 9V system and started to slowly built up tracks, but I decended in the dark age at that time.

Now about 10 years later I return from my dark ages I see an RC system and a newly announced system. At least I will wait for the latter.

So for me the answer about your question: I don't hate RC, I just don't know it that well... wrong timing for that...

[dhaas06]

I agree with everyone above, switching costs are too frustrating, and I too am heavily invested in 9V. However, I have an even bigger reason to love it: the metal rails. Compare the look of a rail yard with metal rails to a rail yard that only has plastic ones. There is a huge difference in the coolness factor. I stocked up on 9V rails for my entire display (and then some), even if I end up running PF trains on it. Plastic rails just don't compare.

Similarly, the 9V system is a nostalgic throwback to the old classic toy train sets from half a century ago or more (like Lionel). Something about the simplicity of plugging the track into the wall and hearing the train glide down the metal rails is great and reminds an entire generation of their childhood, just like Fabuland does for many of the AFOLs here. Yes, I know Lego had several battery trains first, which technically makes them more classic as far as Lego is concerned. However, most other toy trains used the 9V style (metal rails, plug into wall), so when Lego switched to it, it was like a merging of two worlds.

[SavaTheAggie]

Let us also not forget that 9v, when available from LEGO, was cheaper than the new PF system.

The 9v system - $50 for the regulator, $26 for a loop of track, and $25 for each motor. Minimum cost $101 with $25 for every train afterward (not mentioning extra track).

The PF system: $50 for the battery, $25 for the charger for the battery, $13 for the remote control, $15 for the IR Receiver, $11 for the basic motor, $32 for a loop of track (because straights and curves aren't sold separately. Minimum cost $146 with $76 for every train after that (not mentioning extra track).

That's an increase of roughly 50% for a bare minimum startup set, not counting any bricks, and an increase of 300% for every extra train afterward.

--Tony

[Eilif]

There a couple of things that make RemoteControl complete poop, and 9v super-duper, especially in a club or exposition setting.

1) Running long or heavy trains requires multiple motors, something that is quite unwieldy in the RC trains since you have to power up or down each motor separately on it's own channel. One RC motor won't even pull some of the large ornate 8 or 10 wide engines that many AFOL's make. On a 9v system, you just pop an extra motor module on the train and you are set.

2) The bulky one piece RC engine/platform. Makes it hard to incorporate RC into alot of MOC'd steam engines.

3) The limited number of channels for an RC train makes it especially unworkable for a layout using multiple trains, or an exposition with multiple LEGO train clubs.

4) The line of sight requirement for RC trains means that layouts with buildings, tunnels, and landscaping will have much less control over the trains.

5) It's already been mentioned, but having to recharge or change a battery is a real hassle to those who may run trains for an hour or more at a a time.

As to the supposed advantage of RC trains being able to run long tracks. NILTC regularly runs lines that exceed 80 feet long with 9V. Long tracks are not an issue for 9V

Regarding Power functions.

1) Very Expensive, priced out of the range of many regular LEGO buying families.

2) The flexible track is remarkably ugly, and doesn't look at all like "real" track

3) The rechargable battery and cross compatabilty with other PF products is really neat, but it still isn't going to be a great replacement for 9v for train clubs.

4) If the high cost PF trains is supposedly being marketed to AFOL's why not just keep the 9V, if it's for regular LEGO kids, why is it so expensive.

In the end, PF and RC trains are great for small layouts, kids, and Christmas tree rings, but if you want to pull more than 2 AFOL MOC'd coaches, build a large layout, or participate in public exhibitions, 9v is still the way to go. I'm looking forward to Emerald Night and other upcoming trains, but I'll stick with 9V.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Eilif

[CP5670]

I agree with everyone above, switching costs are too frustrating, and I too am heavily invested in 9V. However, I have an even bigger reason to love it: the metal rails. Compare the look of a rail yard with metal rails to a rail yard that only has plastic ones. There is a huge difference in the coolness factor. I stocked up on 9V rails for my entire display (and then some), even if I end up running PF trains on it. Plastic rails just don't compare.

I also felt the same way as a kid. It wasn't just the appearance, but the whole idea of the train being powered remotely by electricity carried through the tracks was awesome, especially for a Technic head like me.

I didn't get any 9V trains as a kid and wanted to start a collection some years ago, but then I heard that they were going to discontinue the system at some point. I only ever got the re-released Metroliner, its extension car and a few packs of track. Given the high costs and other disadvantages of the PF train system though, I'm not sure how much I will get into that either, although some of the elements like the speed remote will be very useful for Technic models.

The 9v system - $50 for the regulator, $26 for a loop of track, and $25 for each motor. Minimum cost $101 with $25 for every train afterward (not mentioning extra track).

You could actually get the overpriced regulator for much less than that if you looked around a bit. I remember they were regularly going in the $10-15 range brand new on ebay some years ago, which is how I got mine. I don't expect to see the same thing with the PF battery box though.

4) If the high cost PF trains is supposedly being marketed to AFOL's why not just keep the 9V, if it's for regular LEGO kids, why is it so expensive.

I think the idea was that they could include the cheaper plastic tracks with train sets, and keep the expensive PF parts separate. Although it does seem to have backfired given the cost of the battery. A better solution would have been to use detachable metal rails and sell them separately, which is similar to what they did in the 80s with the 12V system.

Edited March 31, 2009 by CP5670

[BillytheKid]

The advantage of the 9v track, offcourse power form the wall, is it works everytime. The 12v system, though better/more controls, doesn't work all the time......cause of the dust in the innertrack.

Because 9v works everytime (even after 6 months break), I love that system.

Only the advantages of 12v is:

*) Sound, when the contacts move over the inner track. Sounds like a steamengine.

*) all those extra remote controlled switches, crossovers and signals.

*) the looks of 12v trains (7700 series).

This is what the 9v misses...........sadly. Otherwise you would have the perfect train system, if you ask me.

Disavantage of the 12v system, as mentioned before, it needs cleaning after a few weeks. But if it finally runs, 9v can't beat the classic 12v system . Well I have both systems and working at a 9v system with remote controlled switches, signals, lights and even a windmill (vestas 4999).

I hate battery's. Even the new PF system, well I dunno. The new train 10194 I will buy and maybe for the curiousity the PF system.

[The Green Brick Giant]

I think the new PF idea is stupid and too technical.

My problem is the price of the new system is the battery pack is $50 and the thing to charge it is another $25! That is completely insane and LEGO said that 9V was too expensive to make and too much for children, and the new system seems even worse.

Plus a real train plugs into the wall and has metal tracks.

[emilec]

I haven't invested in trains much yet, just a single loop of RC track, the hobby train set and some of the power functions elements found in the dino kit released a year or two ago. I will be adding the Emerald Night to my collection and may be tempted to aquire some old 9v trains. Would i be able to add the power functions stuff to an old 9v train or the two current RC trains?

[Legoist]

It's an unsolvable problem.

Each system has its own bugs. A "perfect system" could exist indeed, but apparently it would be too expensive, if the current imperfect system is considered already quite expensive itself.

[Eilif]

It's an unsolvable problem.

Each system has its own bugs. A "perfect system" could exist indeed, but apparently it would be too expensive, if the current imperfect system is considered already quite expensive itself.

I'm curious. Besides expense (and now availability), what do you see as the bugs of the 9v system? Besides my moderate layout module, I'm not a huge trainhead (I rarely build actual trains), but as near as I can see 9V is just about perfect. 9V largely created the tools which the emerging AFOL movement used to create an explosion of new LEGO train clubs.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Eilif

[legotrainfan]

Would i be able to add the power functions stuff to an old 9v train or the two current RC trains?

Depends on how big the 9V locomotive is. With Santa Fe engine 10020 or the Metroliner you may be able to do it since they offer much space to integrate PF stuff. But with engines as the one of set 4563 Load and Haul Railroad, it won't work. Whether you can turn RC trains into PF trains, I have no idea. I have neither of the RC trains and cannot judge how much space they offer to integrate PF parts. With the highspeed train it might probably work. The green RC diesel engine might be too small.

[Freddie]

Would i be able to add the power functions stuff to an old 9v train or the two current RC trains?

Yes, but in most cases you would need an extra car on the train to serve as a tender for the locomotive. You can still use the old 9V-motors, since they can be connected to the PF-system via the extension cable, which has 9V-female connector at one end. The only problem I imagine would be 4563, where the problem would be getting the cable to the motor. Same goes for R/C locomotives, since these already have a (unremovable) battery case taking up space.

Locomotives, such as the 4558 Euro Express/Metroliner, are big enough to carry onboard battery and receiver, and the latter is pretty tolerant about placement, so it can be hidden inside the cabin, as long as it can "see" out through the windows. So basically, it'll look identical, and can run on 9V-tracks if you switch off the battery.

[Brickthus]

There a couple of things that make RemoteControl complete poop, and 9v super-duper, especially in a club or exposition setting.

1) Running long or heavy trains requires multiple motors, something that is quite unwieldy in the RC trains since you have to power up or down each motor separately on it's own channel. One RC motor won't even pull some of the large ornate 8 or 10 wide engines that many AFOL's make. On a 9v system, you just pop an extra motor module on the train and you are set.

2) The bulky one piece RC engine/platform. Makes it hard to incorporate RC into alot of MOC'd steam engines.

3) The limited number of channels for an RC train makes it especially unworkable for a layout using multiple trains, or an exposition with multiple LEGO train clubs.

4) The line of sight requirement for RC trains means that layouts with buildings, tunnels, and landscaping will have much less control over the trains.

5) It's already been mentioned, but having to recharge or change a battery is a real hassle to those who may run trains for an hour or more at a a time.

As to the supposed advantage of RC trains being able to run long tracks. NILTC regularly runs lines that exceed 80 feet long with 9V. Long tracks are not an issue for 9V

Regarding Power functions.

1) Very Expensive, priced out of the range of many regular LEGO buying families.

2) The flexible track is remarkably ugly, and doesn't look at all like "real" track

3) The rechargable battery and cross compatabilty with other PF products is really neat, but it still isn't going to be a great replacement for 9v for train clubs.

4) If the high cost PF trains is supposedly being marketed to AFOL's why not just keep the 9V, if it's for regular LEGO kids, why is it so expensive.

In the end, PF and RC trains are great for small layouts, kids, and Christmas tree rings, but if you want to pull more than 2 AFOL MOC'd coaches, build a large layout, or participate in public exhibitions, 9v is still the way to go. I'm looking forward to Emerald Night and other upcoming trains, but I'll stick with 9V.

I think PF answers most of the RC disadvantages you mentioned:

1. A PF IR receiver can power two train motors from one port, so that solves the RC limitation. Another receiver on the same channel can power another two motors and so on, so multiple motors on one channel is possible, if a tad more expensive. 9V motors can be used with PF. Adding another motor to a loco should really add a wore between the two motors to help with load sharing to stop the motors pulling or pushing each other and hence extend their life.

2. I'm with you there! I didn't buy an RC train. PF is deliberately versatile, with separate battery, IR control device and motor, to enable people to build a greater variety of trains.

3. I agree here too. This was a second reason for me not buying an RC train. PF appears at first to be limited to 4 channels but I have worked out how to have up to 128 bidirectional devices on a layout powered by PF. Co-ordination of this between members of a club for a collaborative layout requires pre-planning and allocation of channels. A few modded PF extension wires are needed too - for trains that may all be stopped at the same time, use the top right circuit here.

4. I have made an IR Repeater for tunnels. I would just aim the PF remote at the amplifier input and the whole inside of the tunnel would then be illuminated with the repeated IR command. It is also possible to have an NXT with IR Link sensor set the speed of the train in the tunnel. I might do this to automatically reduce train speed as it enters a fiddle yard.

5. I think the idea with the PF battery is that if it is mounted in the loco with roof access, the charger can be plugged in when a small part of the loco roof is removed. For a cheaper solution, make a larger piece of roof removable an swap the battery to a different loco. Some people swap train motors between loco bodies in a similar way. Schemes for automatic battery recharge, by pickups or inductive means, would add more cost. It might be possible for someone to do this in the AFOL community.

For 9V I would use multiple feed wires for long tracks. For this layout, which I exhibited at quite a few shows, I had feed wires to the top two and bottom two tracks, the pairs of inner and outer circuit feeds being in parallel for this flat layout. Given the two routes for current to a train from the feed points, and the effect of parallel resistances, the greatest effective distance from a feed to the train was only 13 track pieces. In the yard I had feeds to both roads in the run-round loop (tracks 5 and 6 from the left).

Your PF questions:

1. Using NiMH AA batteries in a conventional battery box might be a cheaper solution if the PF Li-Po battery is too expensive (assuming you are using IR control). It's not quite so convenient to remove the box to change the batteries though.

2. I agree the check rails are ugly. I think it was a choice between that and an unacceptably high rate of derailments. I have sought to ballast the flexible track to make it look more like real track, but I will have to adapt the scheme to what is possible with the product. To do the original scheme I had devised would require mods to track pieces, which would have taken time and not been so universal.

3. Some adaptation of operation is required for clubs, like what mix of trains to run on a layout and who will control which trains on which channels. Cascading IR receivers, as per my modded lead scheme above, allows more trains to run and helps to avoid operators controlling the wrong train, as well as reducing the risk of any member of the audience causing a train to start or accelerate by means of their own remote handset.

4. The official information released from TLG explains the reasons for converting to PF. Metal has also increased in price. PF is standard across most themes and the Li-Po battery will work for Technic too. The train motor 8866 could be used with other wheels in a non-train theme. Kids get more track for their money with plastic track. The market has to be a balance between AFOLs and kids. Kids can either run with normal batteries and an IR receiver for cheapness, or use a Li-Po battery (with its built-in speed control) and not IR control. AFOLs can more easily afford a Li-Po battery - from a manufacturer point of view, the size of some people's railway layouts is evidence of that. 10194 Emerald Night is aimed at AFOLs. A kids' starter train set can be done for £125 or less, even with the Li-Po battery and a light.

I agree that a wholesale conversion of a big layout to PF is not the best way to go right now. I will run 9V on the main lines of my layout and start with PF in the yard, at least till PF has proved itself. I worked out the total conversion cost, even keeping 9V motors and metal track for the straights, to be about £1500, similar to what it cost me to convert from 12V to 9V in 2001 (that was 10 years behind the availability of sets!).

One advantage of the plastic-wheeled motor 8866 for 9V trains is that for trains requiring extra booster motors at the back, I can put plastic wheeled motors at the back of a train, wired to the 9V motors at the front of the train. Then if I have a sectioned 9V layout (using insulating tape between track sections), the train will stop just like a single loco would (it would otherwise pick up power from the rear motors too and need a section longer than the train in order to stop).

In parallel with my layout strategy I will probably experiment with the flexible track and investigate what the derailment risk would be without check rails, at various radii. The advantage of flexible track for me is to allow curves that have straights between them to become one continuous curve, potentially allowing a train speed increase. However, that depends on the output of the PF Li-Po battery, which is 7.4V and may cut the available maximum speed. An unloaded 9V motor would do an 8mm:1ft scale speed of 125mph at 9V. I will have to compare this with other configurations - 8866 motor, Li-Po battery etc...

Mark

[Eilif]

I think PF answers most of the RC disadvantages you mentioned:

Thanks Mark,

There's some really good information in your post. Clearly PF blows RC away. The dual engine capability, and power of the new PF motors does sound like a good thing. Your IR repeater is a great innovation, but I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't have to wire custom devices to get full functionality out of our train sets. However, any new startup clubs or new train fans, will probably find your innovations invaluable. Overall though, I see PF as a good deal for LEGO, but not an upgrade for 9V AFOL's.

You mention the cost of transfering from 9v to Power functions at 1500. Does that including selling off your 9V system? I wonder if selling off 9v systems to acquire PF systems would be a loss, break-even, or come-out-ahead proposition. If I was looking at a 1500 upgrade for a system that isn't really an upgrade, I'd definitely stick with 9V.

[Mr Hobbles]

But with engines as the one of set 4563 Load and Haul Railroad, it won't work.

Not so sure about that!

Put the 8866 train motor on the bottom (Replacing the 9V one), add an old 9V battery box (You'd have to get rid of the doors and the grille and have that replacing most of the bodywork) for power, and put the receiver in the cab somewhere. It might just work!

It's not without it's flaws, but you'd have a functioning locomotive under power functions.

[Freddie]

Put the 8866 train motor on the bottom (Replacing the 9V one), add an old 9V battery box (You'd have to get rid of the doors and the grille and have that replacing most of the bodywork) for power, and put the receiver in the cab somewhere. It might just work!

Unfortunately, the receiver is powered on its own circuit, separate from the motors (and therefore not powered by old 9V-connectors), to secure a stable and level power-supply. That means you'll need some sort of converter to make it work. That converter would either be the older PF-battery box, or it could just be the switch-portion of it.