I would tend to agree with the above post (ties that would accomodate code 250 track) but for this to work, it would need the all important transition piece between this new system and LEGO track. Otherwise, that would mean a complete system that would completely replace the LEGO track instead of complimenting it. For 9-volt, this piece must also assure a good electrical connection with the LEGO track. For the code 250 track, there already are screw-on connectors that would link the pieces of custom track together. Not really sure how easy or inexpensive this transition piece would be to make but i would be the deal-maker in this system.

Dan-147

Edited March 20, 201410 yr by Dan-147

As regard the connections with the 9v sysytem there are some examlpes like:

http://users.erols.com/kennrice/flextrack.htm

but I think this is perhaps a problem for 9v volt existing owners, for the others the actual price of 9v straight track is too high for imaging a merge,

I would go for a completely new look track system, for the switches too, like this example:

http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3184301

regards

Sergio

Hmm, others bring up some pretty good points as well.

Is it possible to settle this by letting people vote with their dollars? I know you did a kickstarter for the street signs. Couldn't you do the same for multiple versions of this product and reduce your risk and some of the guesswork?

Hi,

thanks for this fantastic idea, just did the poll.

How do you plan to distribute the product in Europe?

Thanks,

S.

I voted for the 88 stud curve. Mainly because it matches the curve, straight, curve set up that most AFOL use when trying to create larger radii curve. So most AFOL's should be familiar with the spacing and geometry making this size an easier one to adopt with out having to change to much about how their layouts are currently set up. Also for myself and my club it's the smallest radius that we would consider viable for our needs.

After some careful thought I voted for plastic track. As much as I would like a larger 9v curve my feeling is that it wold only be a bandaid on a dying patient. Day by day 9v is getting more expensive. The motors track, and controllers are all out of production. There is only a finite supply and with each year as more of the components fail from years of use and the collector market grows the price of 9v grows. A new fan looking to start out in the LEGO train hobby is increasingly being priced out of the 9v market. New fans are going to be looking at the current LEGO Power Functions trains to get their start. The added expense of metal track will offer no real advantage for them. Plastic track will offer a homogenous option to those new fans looking to grow their layouts and add wider curves.

Cale

Hi All,

Just want to let everyone know I am reading every message (sometimes more than once)! Here's a response to the last couple days. Thanks again and keep them coming!!!

Some background... I have been a train AFOL since 1997... and I have wanted to do this since the beginning! Ben and I (we both live in Portland, OR) and many others have been talking and even acting on this project. Until the track is in your hands any number of things can and will go wrong! But I think I got a clear path to at least making the plastic large radius track, assuming the Kickstarter funding happens.

As for redesigning the entire track system... I thought about and worked on this for a while. There are some very good new and past project ideas, but there are too many barriers to be successful. So I believe staying with the same design aesthetic and direct compatibility is the right solution for altBricks.

I plan to do one or more Kickstarter projects for all this. There isn't a good method to have people choose 1 of many on KS, it's rather binary, go or no go. So I have to come up with the best product offering that covers the most needs so that the project gets funded. The first KS project will be for plastic track, if I can sort out the manufacturing costs in the next month these may be upgradable to support metal for 9v.

After all that if there is a high enough demand I will definitely add to the product line, more radii, 9v, straight etc.

Thanks,

SteveB

altBricks

Edited March 21, 201410 yr by SteveB

If it's only one radius, and one material, I'm voting for R56, plastic.

Reasons are the same as others have given - it means can do parallel tacks with the existing R40 radius, and I think it has a better chance of succeeding with a wider market.

If you are going to kickstart this, and assuming that you are going to prototype with 3D printing, here's what I suggest:

1) Pick one radius and material as intended

2) for a $ contribution, give a production sample of 1)

3) for a $$ contribution, also provide a lifetime subscription to 3D printable prototype files

4) create files for all radii and use your funders as beta testers

5) as stretch goal put other radii into production

6) as a further stretch goal consider points/switches

Personally I would be willing to throw $100 on this for a subscription for curves, maybe $200 for one that would include points.

Might be worth collaborating with Big Ben Bricks and http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/338281 (rejected by Cuusoo)

Edited March 28, 201410 yr by whosscruffylookin

I voted for plastic for the same reason as Cale but I voted for 104. If we're going for this we might as well aim big. If we can have 2 then 88 would be my second choice so we can have double track with wide curves.

I think 56 is pointless as a first product because it offers little benefit over the current solution of using standard curves for the outer track, just with an extra straight at the start. I certainly wouldn't pay $4.50 per section for R56.

Having said that I haven't quite decided whether I'll be spending serious money on R88 or R104.

I'd go for R88 for starters. R104 being #2. I agree with Duq about R56, so save that one for later.

I voted for 9V, but if this can be better started with all-plastic rails, then go for it. The reason I voted for 9V, is because it can be used to power PF equipment, with custom pickups. A custom power supply (no need for the regulator) would provide the juice. Doing so would eliminate batteries, while keeping the best of the PF world.

Might be worth collaborating with Big Ben Bricks and http://www.mopages.com/moc.php/338281 (rejected by Cuusoo)

That link is 404.

I dont mind the radius, as long as it is plastic, and in the correct color. I definitly wil buy at least one circle for my own use.

I dont know how easy it is to find ABS in the correct color? Maybe one can melt old lego and duplo bricks...

I voted for plastic for the same reason as Cale but I voted for 104. If we're going for this we might as well aim big. If we can have 2 then 88 would be my second choice so we can have double track with wide curves.

I think 56 is pointless as a first product because it offers little benefit over the current solution of using standard curves for the outer track, just with an extra straight at the start. I certainly wouldn't pay $4.50 per section for R56.

Having said that I haven't quite decided whether I'll be spending serious money on R88 or R104.

Honestly I would prefer the 104 too, but I weighed my decision between what gives the biggest bang for the buck and what would be most practical for the greatest number of builders. Ideally we could have multiple sizes and if this first effort is a success then hopefully we can. My preference for 8 wide, steam, and prototypical accuracy pushes me to want as wide a radius as practical. I know If something approximating the Super Wide Curves we're available I would be all over it. Probably investing in several full loops. Even with 88 though I will be happy to buy a few curves to use where the big ones just aren't practical. Smaller than 88 though and it becomes more of a curiosity and occasional use than anything our club would use extensively.

Cale

Can we get some comparison pics of the radii along with pics compared to Lego track?

I would be interested in some in any size but would like a little comparison/photo/measurements before voting on a specific size.

Thanks

Hi Steve, old friend,

I keep my fingers crossed that any alternative curved track solution will show up for us AFOLs. There had been to many announcements in the past. We need to fill the gap between standard LEGO curves and the Super Wide Curves. If the track is available, let's see how people buy and use it and then head on for new projects, e.g. switches/points without the stupid S-shape layout. But this is the late future. Let's concentrate on the near future :-]

Didn't BBB's trainwheel started with just one size in the beginning and coming up with more sizes over the years?

Good luck in choosing the right radius and material for the first kick off!

Holger

It's a bit crude, just drawn with straight track pieces, but it gives you an idea of the relative sizes:

LEGO Track curves by Duq, on Flickr

It's a bit crude, just drawn with straight track pieces, but it gives you an idea of the relative sizes:

LEGO Track curves by Duq, on Flickr

Duq beat me to it but here is my example of the different radii.

Curve Examples by Cale Leiphart, on Flickr

All of these examples are possible using current LEGO track geometry though some require modifying track sections to make half and quarter length sections. None of these are truly a replacement for a purposely designed and molded larger radius curve however. They all suffer from a jagged profile most noticeable when running shorter wheelbase rolling stock which can wobble quite a bit in some of these curves.

The radius of each track example is measured to the center of the track gauge.

1. This the standard 40 stud radius that LEGO has used since the introduction of their first train sets.

2. This is a 56 stud radius built using standard length curves with half length (8 stud) straight sections in-between.

3. 72 stud radius built using the common flu curve, full straight construction method.

4. 88 stud radius built using 1.5 straight sections (24 studs) in-between full cube sections.

5. 104 stud radius using two full straight sections in-between full curve sections.

6. This is the super wide curve first seen in RAILBRICKS #1 and since adopted by many clubs including my own. This curve as constructed using the method detailed in RAILBRICKS results in a 232 stud radius curve though with some tweaking 216 and 244 stud radius curves can also be achieved.

7. Our standard 40 stud radius again for reference.

8. 56 stud radius built using alternating half curves and quarter straight sections.

9. 72 stud radius using alternating half curve and half straight sections.

10. 88 stud radius using alternating half curve and 3/4 straight sections.

11. 104 stud radius using alternating half curve and full straight sections.

12. This is the most common configuration used when AFOLs and clubs look to increase the radius of the curves in their layouts. This is built using the 72 stud radius technique from example no. 3. When adding additional lines each curve is started one full track section further out than the previous line. While this is the simplest large radius curve to make, requiring no modification of track it is also the least aesthetically pleasing of all the examples. The abruptness of the transition from strait to curve and back to straight again is very noticeable as well as the inconsistency in the distance between tracks as you travel around the curve.

13. This is merely to show just how impossibly tight standard (40 stud radius) LEGO curves are. In less than the space of one 48x48 baseplate a train is changing directions 90 degrees. Most stock LEGO train cars today are at least half the length of this radius. The only real life railways using anything close to such a tight radius would be trolley/tram lines and small industrial railways.

Cale

Edited March 23, 201410 yr by Cale

In respect of offered options the choiches undoubtely go to both 88 & 104 stud curves and, of course, realized in metal. I put my unique choice on 88.

As many of us who partecipate at Lego events can confirm, the electrified rail is the best solution. Long and heavy trains need more than one motor, need a lot of electric power. The batteryies as source of power is a real trouble! Moreover the IR system is good inside home but unusable at the events on long distance and with other people using the same channels.

It 'also a problem fitting the battery pack and receiver into the body of small units

Don't forget that with a simple current pick-up you can supply all PF motorizations you want! This is the way I'm working on for crossing the limit of 9V motor unit.

Someone has published a solution here and you can build up it by yourself, you can find metal wheels in the model trains market, the cottage industries can produce an accessory like that.

The plastic rails can be wrapped with a metal tape, but battery train can run on each type of Lego rails. There are thousands of 9V motor all around.he world.

You can digitalize each type of motorization with metal rails

So to me, unquestionably electrified rails! The past, the future!

I wish I had discovered this topic sooner! In any case, kudos to Steve B for taking the initiative on this! altBricks is one of the complementary manufacturers of alternative parts that we are lucky to have, especially for the under-served Train theme niche.

I voted for 9V 88-stud radius curves, if only selfishly for preferring metal rail. Folks campaigning for plastic track make very good arguments for it making the best commercial decision at least for the first product offering.

I'm a relative late-comer to Lego trains (having been a scale model railroader before) and did start out with RC track/trains (around 2011). Since last year, I've switched over to 9V, acquiring what I can from various 2nd hand sources. I have also been progressively fitting my locomotives with NMRA DCC control. The idea is to bring the standardized, proven, and sophisticated technology from model railroading into Lego trains. This of course demands metal rail and metal wheels--an increasing achilles heel since the supply of Lego 9V track and motor bogies will only continue to decline or become subject to irrational "collector economics".

I am very supportive of this initiative, if only to encourage more enterprising folks to fill other niche gaps in the Lego train theme. The fundamental appeal of Lego trains is the fact that we can scratch build virtually any prototype from any era and locale using the same palette of brick elements. The only weakness that underpins the Lego train hobby is the availability and crudeness of its fundamental elements, i.e. the wheels and track. More complementary products in these two vital areas would serve to bolster interest and greater legitimacy of our hobby. In particular to those builders who adopt the same prototypical scale model railroading sensibility to Lego trains. Almost every other model train scale from Z to Gauge 1 uses metal rail to deliver electrical energy to trains with metal wheels. Furthermore, model train manufacturers and modellers have been increasingly adopting DCC (Digital Command Control) as the dominant control system standard due to its operational flexibility and support of sophisticated lighting, sound, and accessory effects. The Lego train hobby would benefit immensely if it could embrace the same technology basis as its scale model train peers.

I don't want to veer too much off this valuable topic thread because fundamentally Steve B needs to know what product offerings are going to yield the best commercial success, i.e. reflect what we want! I will however conclude with a few personal opinions on what principles/products I would like to see offered in the Lego train hobby market:

1) Compatibility with the 5-stud gauge/0.250" rail height geometry of Lego 9V/RC track.

2) Track geometry which adhere's the relatively standard 16-stud centreline interval spacing.

3) Metal track options

4) Metal wheel set options:

i) technic wheel with cross axle and metal tyre (form-fit-function replacement for existing)

ii) steam wheel/blind with cross axle and metal tyre

5) Metal wheel pickup wiper parts with stud attachment

6) More track assemblies: switches, diamond crossings, slips, cross-overs (16-stud CL), scissor crossings, etc. Even a new switch with geometry which supports a 16-stud centre cross-over--perhaps the most ubiquitous track switch configuration in the world!

With metal wheels and wiper parts, we can continue to use existing PF motors and bogies in locomotives yet benefit from electrical control via the track. This would give the choice to use 9V, variable DC, or DCC control systems as desired. If I win a lottery, I promise to launch a commercial venture to give us these options ;)

I've lurked for a while, but this thread finally convinced me to register an account. :)

I'd love to eventually see all of the options available, but I think the 88 stud size work best for my needs, if I were to only choose one.

All of my train stuff is currently running with PF parts, so I'd prefer plain plastic track.

Hello Steve,

This is quite exciting, I have been following this thread closely. I will definitely be making a purchase regardless of what you decide to make. I would prefer 9v track, but would be happy to get either one in order to have a nice large radius layout. I voted for 104, and my next choices in descending order are 88, 56 and 72.

When you say 32 sections per full circle, does that apply to all radii? For example, R56 sections would actually be shorter than the stock R40 sections?

-Kevin

I voted R72 in plastic.

I read this post about 5-6 times now and asked questions prior.

It is a good split between the home/general user and club/large layout. Most of us are limited to 4ft-5ft in width and figure 8ft lengths(you should see the looks I'm getting from the other half the way my boy's floor looks like right now lol)

If this is to be a success, someone has to make money or at a bare minimum cover costs, this comes back to the middle ground for everyone vs either extreme. Whatever happens, I will pick some up regardless if my son and I are building layouts on the floor currently.

I voted for R88 in 9v.

R88 because this is the largest radius which will permit a double track mainline in a 40" x 40" corner which clubs prefer. And 9v electric to allow the plastic tooling cost to be amortized across a larger market. It is hopefully possible to engineer a single plastic element which can be user-modified to 9v by attaching tinplate strips.

- BMW

Hi All,

Here are a couple renderings of the track and relative size. To answer a question: all radii will be 32 pieces per circle, 11.25 deg per section. This is because if I make more than one radius I want to enable all to be used in parallel. One old model railroad "rule of thumb" is that you should never place track parallel to the edge of the table. So one segment of 11.25 deg track makes for a really nice subtle angle to the edge of a table. If there are multiple parallel tracks in a main line you'd want all to curve at 11.25 deg.

This first image shows two segments of track per radius, these are the proposed tie count and spacing. Below are the relative circle sizes and I added a 60" x 60" table to show a comparison. I love the drawing in the last post that showed the super "HoMa" curves (using only straights with 1/2 stud offset trick).

Great project -- I would definitely support on Kickstarter and would welcome the option to buy/receive 3D printing files for prototypes, etc. too.

I voted for 104 radius track as I tend to run long trains at high speed using floor layouts, but I can definitely see the appeal of 88 studs for club use given the table diagram above. Eventually a suite of all radii would be highly ideal and something I would support.

In terms of plastic vs. metal rails, I voted for the 9V system, but I can definitely see the business case for making all plastic track, which I would still buy. If a kit or information on what 3rd party rails to order were available to allow the user to upgrade their track to 9V was available as suggested earlier, this would be a great compromise.

Looking forward to more updates, and thanks again for this initiative!

LEGO9Vtrainfan

...

That link is 404.

sorry, had to type by hand because c&p wasn't working for me. Fixed now.

3. 72 stud radius built using the common [full] curve, full straight construction method.

5. 104 stud radius using two full straight sections in-between full curve sections.

Seeing as we can achieve 72 stud and 104 stud radius curves using existing track without modification, I think an 88 stud radius curve would be the best starting point. That way parallel tracks with better aesthetics than #12 can be achieved with only one new radius.

As for plastic vs metal, I was originally leaning toward plastic, but seeing as metal doesn't exclude PF users whereas plastic excludes 9v uers, I think I would prefer metal. Maybe do a kickstarter for plastic with a stretch goal of metal? I think that would be the best.

Second radius to be produced could be 56 stud radius, so all radii are attainable without modification. Third and fourth radii produced could be 72 and 104 (not necessarily in that order) and would serve to replace curve+straight solutions.

Based on all this, I have voted 88 metal.

I would suggest including in the mold a label of what radius the track is. That way if you end up producing more than one radius, we will have a super easy way to tell them apart.