Hi All,

Please free free to forward along to your clubs and train-head AFOL friends and please respond to legosteveb@yahoo.com.

altBricks is planning to release a large radius track element (32 sections per full circle) in the next 2-3 months. We have the CAD files ready and the bids in from the Portland (US) based mold shop and injection manufacturer. We have even printed a dozen of these (104s plastic version) and had them at BricksCascades last week. Given the high cost of the endeavor we want to make sure that we get feedback from the train community before we move to the next step.

Two survey questions:

1) Please rank order the radius of track you prefer: 56, 72, 88, & 104 (studs)

2) Please choose the type of track you perfer. A) Plastic (~$4.50* / section) or B) 9v (~$6.50* / section)

*These prices are preliminary and to show there is a higher cost for metal.

Thanks for your help in making this possible.

SteveB

altBricks

Are you permitted to show what the products would look like?

They will look very similar to LEGO® track. If we do the 9v, we are planning to use the same design as LEGO did with the metal sheathing.

FYI: I have already discussed this with LEGO and they are not endorsing or supporting this, but they are OK with altBricks making large radius track.

SteveB

I'm no train expert, but I do have a LEGO train setup. I would be interested in parts like these. I'm am unsure about the radius I would prefer. I would definitely go with plastic because it's cheaper and I am currently running power functions.

Two survey questions:

1) Please rank order the radius of track you prefer: 56, 72, 88, & 104 (studs)

104 stud radius curves should definitely be the top priority, with the other values descending in order or priority, and 56 studs as the least attractive candidate.

2) Please choose the type of track you perfer. A) Plastic (~$4.50* / section) or B) 9v (~$6.50* / section)

I'd prever 9v purely for the aesthetics of the metal.

Sounds quite exciting! Would be a very interesting way to vary layouts at home.

104 stud radius curves should definitely be the top priority, with the other values descending in order or priority, and 56 studs as the least attractive candidate.

Same here.

As a 9V user, I would be very interested in the 9V curves and assuming they pass initial reviews, I would both be interested for myself and I would lobby my club to invest in at least two full loops of 9v if they were 104 and/or 88. At this price, however, I would want to make sure that they had good conductivity performance (i.e., comparable to the lego curves), did not have any oxidation or rust issues (again, comparable to lego), and were at least as good as the lego curves in terms of the lip at the rail joint. (see Railbricks 7, p36)

I would be interested in the plastic curves, but not nearly as much as the metal given the fact that I've already started towards my home built solution. However, if these curves work out well, I would think they would generally be a more attractive option to most over my glue based approach. As for my club, our mainlines are 9v, so for now I do not think they would be interested in plastic.

Yes Please! Could someone elaborate on the actual radius of current Lego Curves? I know the inside radius is 36 studs, the central radius 40 and the outside 44. What is the consensus on which radius we use? Is it 40, but then is 88 2x?

For the OP: I would love 2x radius track, whatever that would be. I have 9V track, but would probably buy plastic as I switch over to power functions. I have 3 9V locos, but since coming out of my dark ages, it has been very easy to accumulate 3 (and soon to be 4... HE) PF trains.

Thanks!

Edited March 18, 201410 yr by jrathfon

@jrathfon

Using standard LEGO curves, the center radius is 40 studs (inner: 36, outer: 44). SteveB is listing center radii (I'm assuming because that makes his numbers make the most sense).

Let's say 5 parallel tracks (with 8 studs between tracks) turn to the left, and the first track from the left uses standard curves.

Each curve will be concentric with the others if:

- the second track has a 56 stud radius

- the third track has a 72 stud radius

- the fourth track has an 88 stud radius

- the fifth track has a 104 stud radius

Equivalently, when placed around a circle of standard curves, the space between tracks will be:

- 8 studs for 56 radius

- 24 studs for 72 radius

- 40 studs for 88 radius

- 56 studs for 104 radius

@SteveB

Would you consider making more than one radius? It probably doesn't make sense to do so from the start (cost prohibitive), but maybe in the future?

Hi All,

The feedback is wonderful, thanks a bunch! Answers like “88, 72, 104, 56, 9v“ are best, it helps me actually tally the “votes”. Antidotal replies are great too but a little less measurable.

Thanks for the follow up on the radii question, you got it correct!

These stud numbers are center-line radii, the outside diameter (OD) is to the outside edge of the tie (see below), this is good to know to determine table size needs. I'm leaning toward 88 for two reasons: 1) it is the same radius as the curve-straight (repeat) circle, 2) it fits on two banquet tables (US size). Can someone confirm the width of the banquet tables in Europe? Is it ~75 cm?

- the second track has a 56 stud radius (the OD is 37" or 96 cm)

- the third track has a 72 stud radius (the OD is 47.5" or 121.6cm)

- the fourth track has an 88 stud radius (the OD is 57.5" or 147.2cm)

- the fifth track has a 104 stud radius (the OD is 67.5" or 172.8cm)

I haven't tested the 6 wheel trucks yet. I'll do that tonight on the 104s 3D-printed prototype. It would be nice if the 6 wheel trucks worked on the chosen radius.

I haven't tested the distance between fixed axel cars yet. I'll do that tonight on the 104s 3D-printed prototype. I believe the max is 18s length on standard 40s curves. It would be nice if the max length could accommodate longer fixed axel cars.

It would be great to measure/calculate relative rolling resistance for each radius, I don’t have them all made so can do the test… any physics nerds out there that are up for the challenge? I can do the trig for each wheel but don’t know how to model rolling resistance per wheel at various wheel-rail angles.

I am planning on a single radius now. I originally wanted to do all 4 in one mold but the price is to prohibitive. Perhaps as a stretch goal once I get the Kickstarter project underway.

SteveB

I'd go for:

1. 88 stud radius

2. B) 9V

The size of tables in the U.K. are 1.75m x 75cm and if you need any curves testing

I would like the option to have all the radius, but if you are only making one then I think it would make most common sense to make ones that would enable someone to run a parallel track to the existing LEGO track, so for that I am assuming it would have to be the 56 radius tracks. Then you could do a double loop with real LEGO track keeping 8 studs away at all times. That would match nicely.

I would prefer plastic becuase I only have Power functions or the old 4.5V at the moment but booth of these are battery operated.

I would still consider buying other radius track, but whatever it is I would want to be able to get ones that run parallel to enable two matching tracks in a loop. So if you did the 104s I would buy these but only if I could also get the 88s. If you made 88s I would only buy those if you also made 104s or 72s, again so I could have two parallel tracks if you see what I mean.

So for just one radius it has to be the 56 I am afraid.

Hope that helps.

It would be easier to use the poll option I just added ;)

It would be easier to use the poll option I just added ;)

Thanks JopieK!

(Edit) Nevermind... this will work as is.

Well thanks... only issue is that it only lets you choose one radius and rank order them. Can the Poll do that?

SteveB

Edited March 18, 201410 yr by SteveB

I have recently ordered and received street signs from altBricks and I have to say that the quality is superb. I'm sure the track will be of the same high standard.

Very cool initiative! Will you producing plastic OR metal? or both when there's enough people who are interested in both?

For me it has to be 9V, this allows anyone to use the track for a little more money. The big lots will be taken by the clubs anyway and most use 9V, although it think more and more PF trains are running. Plastic only excludes the 9V market

For me it has to be 9V, this allows anyone to use the track for a little more money. The big lots will be taken by the clubs anyway and most use 9V, although it think more and more PF trains are running. Plastic only excludes the 9V market

As much as I have no need for 9V and don't want to pay the legacy baggage tax, I have to agree with this.

By the same token, larger radius curves (which are the domain of clubs and folks with generous space) will exclude the casual train/home layout market. If you consider that there’re many AFOLs in North America that build to the 4x8’ sheet of plywood, R72 is the largest size they can use. While at the same time I’m sure clubs and hardcore train users would still buy the smaller radius, because it’s better than what we have (and would probably look good in a curve-straight-curve configuration too.)

Die-hard train fans are a limited market and what happens when we have our fill of curved track? I’d really consider that casual train user market: the town user that just happens to have some trains. They’re the visitors that stop by the altBricks table drawn in by those vibrant colors of the fall leaves or the cherry blossoms hoping to snag some for their home layout. What’s the largest size curve do you think you can pitch to that person and make a sale?

Final thought to appeal to your business sense. I know you are leaning towards R88 because it’s the same as a banquet table width, but consider this: if I have a regulation ping pong table that I use for a layout (5x9’) or my display is only as wide as two of these banquet tables pushed together (also 5',) I can only build one loop of R88 track. In the same space, I can build two loops of R72 track. That’s twice the sales, which recoups your initial investment that much faster.

Edited March 19, 201410 yr by greenmtvince

Don't mind me asking, but how about strait track? Could be 8 standard length or some thing like that.

I have enough curves, but it's straits i need. And maybe some 3 way switches.

Below are statements that are synthesized from a lot of great discussions! THANKS for your feedback of deep thoughts and feelings on this topic!

I am trying to comprehend and then properly react to the needs of the train head AFOLs. Here's a summary and follow up Q’s of what I'm reading...

1) Club layouts can handle large radius curves. Personal layouts are size constrained, thus need smaller curves.

Q: But… do the 56s (R+1) radius curves meet the needs of running longer trains with a higher car count for everyone?

Note: In my experience, no.

2) 72s (R+2) radius enables 2 circles on a 60" / 75cm table. And only requires 47.5" or 121.6cm per circle (a 4'x8' sheet of plywood in US).

Q: Will this satisfy both club layout larger radius needs and personal size constrained layout needs?

Note: I'm leaning this way now.

3) There is a lot of emphasis on the appearance of parallel tracks (16 stud center line spacing).

Q: Does adding a 1 straight section at the halfway point or 3 straight sections at the quarter and halfway points meet these needs?

Note: The bigger the radius the less noticeable the straight sections are.

4) All 9v folks REALLY want 9v track, but there is a fixed & limited market for 9v track. Plastic track users shouldn’t have to pay the “9v tax”.

Q: Would a plastic track with a simple snap-on “install at home” metal sheathing upgrade be a solution (assuming the rail height and gauge tolerances are maintained)?

Note: One mold for both Plastic and Metal track will spread out the capital expense… the only viable solution I have found.

Note: Replacing current track geometry with large radius track will also net straight track (and 40s curve) surplus!

Edited March 19, 201410 yr by SteveB

As I've posted in many other custom track threads... I would love to get some larger curves. I will be excited to see where this goes!

In the poll I voted for 88 stud radius, but actually thinking about it (and seeing greenmtvince's post) made me realize that 72 probably would be fine as well, if not better. To answer your questions, though:

1) I know for my personal layout I'm wanting, I want larger curves than the standard lego track without going too large. I feel that 72-88 really is the sweet spot between the personal and club layout. I personally don't know how interested I would be in a 56r curve as I think it would be a little too close to the current radius. Passenger cars and locomotives alike can both easily be far too long or fast for the current 40r, and 56r may still be a little tight for some.

2) I think I answered this with #1, really, but here's a bit more. Right now for my track layout I tend to like to do a curve-straight alternating for the curves as it feels like a good size; the real fallback to it is that it still uses the same tight curve pieces. 72-88 would let me have that ideal radius without having the somewhat unsightly alternating curves. In addition, I think the more shallow curve angle would look much better with the alternating method which lets us have still larger radii without looking as strange as the LEGO curve. This could serve both the larger clubs and clubs that may still be starting out.

3) I know many people would like to have the tracks parallel curves, but I think with the larger radii curves the parallelessness (is... is that a word?) will be less noticeable. For me, personally, if I'm going to be spending this amount of money on a custom curve I would rather it be a significant enough difference to justify not simply dealing with the slightly tighter curve. Please note, I am not complaining about the prices, they seem quite reasonable, I simply feel that I would be more happy spending that money for something more different than I already have.

4) At first I didn't think I'd want to deal with a 9v tax, but I actually did end up voting for the 9v track for two reasons. One, I don't want to rob the 9v people of something all train fans want; and two, I myself do like the look of metal rails better. Those considered, I wouldn't mind the extra charge too much. As far as the at-home-install of the metal sheathing, I think that's a great idea so long as the track doesn't suffer either in looks or smoothness of running without it. If you get that perfect balance, that's probably the way to go! At the very least, make sure that the plastic track can stand alone as a competent track system. 9v has been the real killer for the other rail projects, so if something unfortunate comes to light down the road, at least the plastic track can live on. That way you haven't wasted a mold, and at least some train fans get their curves.

I am really excited to see how this track project turns out, and really hoping beyond hope that it works out! I'm looking forward to purchasing your track!

Edited March 20, 201410 yr by Daedalus304

1) Club layouts can handle large radius curves. Personal layouts are size constrained, thus need smaller curves.

Q: But… do the 56s (R+1) radius curves meet the needs of running longer trains with a higher car count for everyone?

Note: In my experience, no.

There is no such thing as the typical club or the typical home layout. There are some huge home layouts and some tiny club layouts (too bad John Neil isn't around this message board to poke at).

R+1 would probably go far for aesthetics for some, but it will only be a small improvement for operations- including long trains, long cars, and long steam engines. Even at R+3 my 52 stud long cars are only marginally happy.

2) 72s (R+2) radius enables 2 circles on a 60" / 75cm table. And only requires 47.5" or 121.6cm per circle (a 4'x8' sheet of plywood in US).

Q: Will this satisfy both club layout larger radius needs and personal size constrained layout needs?

Note: I'm leaning this way now.

Forget about making everyone happy with a single radius, it will not happen. That is the difficult part of this market. Right now you are leaning towards R+2, but R+2 is the least popular response in the survey. If you simply go with the average, you might come out with something that nobody loves and that would be horrible. Personally, I'd probably pass on the R+1, it is not sufficiently different from R to get my attention. There are plenty of others who would probably pass on the R+3 because it is too large to work with their layout. Trying to split the difference, you run the risk that no one finds it attractive enough to buy.

Now as for the current votes in the poll, I suspect the folks who read this forum lean disproportionately towards super-wide, e.g., there are several who are only mildly interested at R+4 and would much prefer R+6 or R+9. While those would be super cool, I doubt there are enough of them (us?) out there to justify going beyond R+4. The fact that your survey has the modes at R+1 and R+3 should be telling. I bet the lego train fans who do not read this forum would also exhibit similar modes, but they would be about equal in height (as opposed to the current votes here where R+3 is ahead).

Focus on just one or the other mode at first, then if that works, come back and try to make the other group happy too.

I personally voted for R+4 in metal, but I would suggest starting with R+1 in plastic. If it sells well, then do R+3 in metal. And when you do, you could justify the higher price for the wider radius to the non-9v folks with the fact that it is also a larger radius with more plastic. This way you also avoid the dual hassle of figuring out the nuances of the curve geometry at the same time you are figuring out how to wrap metal around a curved rail and keep it flush.

As for R+3 versus larger even larger, I suspect R+3 is probably a good balance between the folks who want huge curves and those that are space constrained.

You should also point out that one does not have to make curves out of these curves, they would also lend themselves to more realistic meandering paths if you just laid them out in serpentine (L,R,L,R) or mixed with straights (L,S,S,R,L,S,S). So the person with a constrained space could find use for the larger radius curves as simply a replacement for straight track on the mainline.

3) There is a lot of emphasis on the appearance of parallel tracks (16 stud center line spacing).

Q: Does adding a 1 straight section at the halfway point or 3 straight sections at the quarter and halfway points meet these needs?

Note: The bigger the radius the less noticeable the straight sections are.

Again, you can't please everyone. Myself, I'm fine with tossing in two extra straight segments to make parallel quarter turns line up. Others would probably be most ticked if they did not have to do so (though I suspect they are also mostly going to be the ones who prefer R+1 because as you said, it the difference is inversely proportional to the radius).

Maybe after collecting the first round of data, pick two specific options (e.g., "R+1 plastic at $__" vs. "R+3 metal at $__") and for each poll "yes/no, would you buy this option at this price if it were the only alternative?"

4) All 9v folks REALLY want 9v track, but there is a fixed & limited market for 9v track. Plastic track users shouldn’t have to pay the “9v tax”.

Q: Would a plastic track with a simple snap-on “install at home” metal sheathing upgrade be a solution (assuming the rail height and gauge tolerances are maintained)?

Note: One mold for both Plastic and Metal track will spread out the capital expense… the only viable solution I have found.

Note: Replacing current track geometry with large radius track will also net straight track (and 40s curve) surplus!

I am highly suspect that you could make that work without having separate rails for metal and plastic... then if you do that, you will run into strength problems that will undermine operations. The tolerances for the lego train wheels are too tight. The difference between w/ and w/o the metal overlay is too close to the limit.

^Hi

^{Voted 56 because this is the radius my home layout would be best suited to accomodate (given the space limitations). If you want me to differentiate, my vote would be 56, 104, 88, 72, 9V}

^{For my Club however, 88 or 104 would be suitable. We have 9V rails and thus would prefer that to be able to continue running DCC and PF together. 9V is the only system that can cater for this option.}

^{I ordered ME straigth rails, but these are to be combined with Lego pieces that you don't need anymore (i.e. sitting a little too tight on the studs), and slipping of some of my 9V motors.}

^{Good luck with the production, I am excited to see the result.}

^Baard

Following the discussion of Zephyr I strongly suggest to investigate the possibility to produce only a system of ties, like the original design of Ben Fleskes (I've no idea of copyright issues). A system of different interchangeable ties which will accomodate code250 or, better, code 200 vignole metal rails that are bended to custom desire to produce not only a much larger gamma of radii but also different geometries. Also the endavour should cost less.

Sergio Monai