JopieK

BrickTracks: different curves, PF/9V compatible

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, coaster said:

As promised, here are pictures of the production samples.  There are a few minor bugs to be addressed (such as the missing "BT" mark on the studs), but overall, they came out really well.

35389523235_f7993ee280_c.jpg34580284343_7b449e7200_c.jpg

Hi Coaster,

Great track pieces! They look very promissing. Besides the missing "BT" on the studs, how is the overall quality? Like connection strength, mechanical clutch on plates/bricks?

I hope that the "minor" adjustments won't cost a lot, now that you have already one working mold.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ludo said:

Hi Coaster,

Great track pieces! They look very promissing. Besides the missing "BT" on the studs, how is the overall quality? Like connection strength, mechanical clutch on plates/bricks?

I hope that the "minor" adjustments won't cost a lot, now that you have already one working mold.

 

Hi Ludo, they won't cost anything.  These corrections are within the original scope of work, so it's on the toolmaker to fix.  Otherwise, the studs are a bit undersizeds, so that's being corrected as well.  They work fine, but I'd like it to be better. The bottom clutch and connection with other tracks is perfect though.

They'll correct the tool and then send me new samples.  Once I approve those, it'll be full-tilt production!  And at that point, I'll open it up for pre-orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ludo said:

Hi Coaster,

Great track pieces! They look very promissing. Besides the missing "BT" on the studs, how is the overall quality? Like connection strength, mechanical clutch on plates/bricks?

I hope that the "minor" adjustments won't cost a lot, now that you have already one working mold.

 

I was fortunate enough to see these in person at Brickwork this past weekend. Besides the minor things Coaster mentioned that he is already on top of, I was seriously impressed with the quality. The color looked good, the clutch seemed great, and they mated up with LEGO track perfectly. Also there was almost zero warpage of the rails, which is a problem with ME track, and even a problem with stock LEGO track. The BT rails should lay nice and flat when assembled into a layout. If the turnouts are as good as the curve samples I looked at, they will be worth every penny and then some.

Cale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cale said:

I was fortunate enough to see these in person at Brickwork this past weekend. Besides the minor things Coaster mentioned that he is already on top of, I was seriously impressed with the quality. The color looked good, the clutch seemed great, and they mated up with LEGO track perfectly. Also there was almost zero warpage of the rails, which is a problem with ME track, and even a problem with stock LEGO track. The BT rails should lay nice and flat when assembled into a layout. If the turnouts are as good as the curve samples I looked at, they will be worth every penny and then some.

Cale

Hi Cale & Coaster,

 

Thanks for this update from someone who could see them from close by.

I guess you where thrilled to get them in your hands.

Very glad tho hear that there's almost no warpage on the samples, and hope, when going into production that it stay so.

I'm far from a specialist in plastics, but i visited years ago , when i was still a hardware engineer for the company, a plant where they did mold injection, like the plastic 3 1/2 floppy casing and the front & rear car bumper for Volvo & Opel.

When the mold for the floppy casing opened too fast (plastification time too short), the plastic was still to hot and deformed (warpage!).

The timing to mold plastic pieces need to be precise, not to fast or the pieces are worthless = higher cost, and not to long or the production number decrease = higher cost, and perhaps this was also the case of the warped LEGO track. Increasing production number by decreasing the plastification time? It's risky.

Quality should be on top of the list, but i'm sure that Coaster wil keep a close eye on this issue, isn't it?

Anyhow, it's in his interest. Bad quality = low or no sales = Financial hangover.

I'm looking forward to the release of the 9V track & 9V points!

 

 @coaster

when you go into production, did you look already for a distribution point in Europe? :sweet:

 

Best regards,

Ludo

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I likewise was able to examine these closeup at Brickworld Chicago.  I must say the fit, finish and color are very satisfying.  The track sections definitely have a Lego feel about them.  They snapped together firmly and stayed put the entire show with plenty of live trains running over them.

Coaster, one point I did notice is that while the clutch on the bottom (tubes) is solid, the clutch on the top studs is a little weak.  This may become an issue when attaching ties/ballast.  Perhaps this can be addressed when engraving the "BT"s.

I must say the combination of R104 + R120 single section tracks is encouraging, and I look forward to purchasing a loop.

Edited by BMW
Forgot to include "ballast" in a sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.  @Ludo, I've looked at a couple distribution options, but I haven't gotten in touch with anyone yet.  It's on the to-do list.

@BMW, I noticed that too.  The studs are about .001-.002" undersized.  It's being addressed. 

EDIT:  By the way, here's a picture of the "field test" of R104s at Brickworld.  NILTC was kind enough to rip out a corner of ME tracks:

35350343246_994d9f122e_c.jpg

Edited by coaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, coaster said:

Thanks all.  @Ludo, I've looked at a couple distribution options, but I haven't gotten in touch with anyone yet.  It's on the to-do list.

@BMW, I noticed that too.  The studs are about .001-.002" undersized.  It's being addressed. 

EDIT:  By the way, here's a picture of the "field test" of R104s at Brickworld.  NILTC was kind enough to rip out a corner of ME tracks:

I will be posting a video of our tests, hopefully later tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's super awesome to see how these are coming along, they look great! Also, I'm very happy to see that the rail profile matches very closely (If not precisely) to the one LEGO uses. One of my small handful of problems with my ME curves is that the base of the rail is so tall that my BBB-driver locos ride on their flanges instead of the actual 'tire', which isn't super great for traction on my driver-powered locos. These don't look like they're going to have that problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised here is one short video of one of our member's bullet train going through the tracks:

 

Also I took some pictures of ballasting the pieces.  There is a slight color variation between these tracks and standard Dark Bley

r104.jpg

r104-bottom.jpg

r120.jpg

r120-bottom.jpg

r120-color.jpg

3 hours ago, Daedalus304 said:

It's super awesome to see how these are coming along, they look great! Also, I'm very happy to see that the rail profile matches very closely (If not precisely) to the one LEGO uses. One of my small handful of problems with my ME curves is that the base of the rail is so tall that my BBB-driver locos ride on their flanges instead of the actual 'tire', which isn't super great for traction on my driver-powered locos. These don't look like they're going to have that problem!

The rail profile is closer (if not the same) as the LEGO straight and curve track and not like the ME Models track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The colors of the samples are darker.  The mold shop just used a stock gray for these samples.  We have color-matched coupons, so production parts will match the dark bley as closely as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait to get ahold of some R120s! The nice thing about these is that I won't have to set up my whole layout when I want to run heavier trains. Sometimes I like to show people my engines but I just don't have the time to set it all up. This changes everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering, would it be possible (financially/design) to make (double) straights that have a height increase? So 1 plate/straight higher at one end and the sleepers adapted so they are level (if you understand how I mean)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Barduck said:

I was wondering, would it be possible (financially/design) to make (double) straights that have a height increase? So 1 plate/straight higher at one end and the sleepers adapted so they are level (if you understand how I mean)

Small 'ramps' to overcome a 1 or 2 plate height difference is one of the things we thought about for our extended range of 3D printed track segments.  This is a track we designed a while ago but we haven't tried printing them.  It's a 16 stud long straight track that raises the height by one plate (3.2mm).  Is this what you're looking for ?  If so, I can make a print in dark bluish gray and post a picture...

4dbrix-train-ramp-1.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lowa said:

Small 'ramps' to overcome a 1 or 2 plate height difference is one of the things we thought about for our extended range of 3D printed track segments.  This is a track we designed a while ago but we haven't tried printing them.  It's a 16 stud long straight track that raises the height by one plate (3.2mm).  Is this what you're looking for ?  If so, I can make a print in dark bluish gray and post a picture...

4dbrix-train-ramp-1.png

 

those do look sweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Barduck said:

those do look sweet

Hi all,

 

If i look to the right bottom picture, I have the idea that you will end up with a bumpy track, and no smooth increase of height if several placed one after the other. Or is it an optical illusion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ludo said:

Hi all,

 

If i look to the right bottom picture, I have the idea that you will end up with a bumpy track, and no smooth increase of height if several placed one after the other. Or is it an optical illusion?

 

No, it's not an optical illusion.  This track is designed to overcome a difference in height of 1 plate, both ends of the track segment are horizontal so you can connect it to standard PF track.  So if you connect them you will indeed have a 'bumpy' track.  If you want to create a steady slope you need a set of tracks, like for the LEGO monorail:

  • a lower ramp: starts off horizontally and then gradually increases the slope
  • an upper ramp: starts with a slope that gradually decreases to a horizontal track
  • ramp: has a steady slope and is used in between the lower and upper ramp

It's feasible to make that, but I guess you would want to do that with a slope that is steeper than 1 plate / 16 stud segment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lowa said:

No, it's not an optical illusion.  This track is designed to overcome a difference in height of 1 plate, both ends of the track segment are horizontal so you can connect it to standard PF track.  So if you connect them you will indeed have a 'bumpy' track.  If you want to create a steady slope you need a set of tracks, like for the LEGO monorail:

  • a lower ramp: starts off horizontally and then gradually increases the slope
  • an upper ramp: starts with a slope that gradually decreases to a horizontal track
  • ramp: has a steady slope and is used in between the lower and upper ramp

It's feasible to make that, but I guess you would want to do that with a slope that is steeper than 1 plate / 16 stud segment...

I know that the recommended max slope is 1 plate per straight so you have a 2.5% incline. I think that producing a set of straights that have sloped rails but perpendicular sleepers would be ideal. then you need a slope start and a slope end and how ever many in between to over come the obstacle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option that I have employed is to slant the baseplates the track is attached to, then it is linear all the way up the incline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Barduck said:

I was wondering, would it be possible (financially/design) to make (double) straights that have a height increase? So 1 plate/straight higher at one end and the sleepers adapted so they are level (if you understand how I mean)

What would be the purpose of this piece though?

It's not exactly friendly to longer engines or cars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, supertruper1988 said:

I know that the recommended max slope is 1 plate per straight so you have a 2.5% incline. I think that producing a set of straights that have sloped rails but perpendicular sleepers would be ideal. then you need a slope start and a slope end and how ever many in between to over come the obstacle. 

Indeed, a system with a start/slope/stop configuration would be the most flexible system.  I'm just not sure about the 1 plate per straight slope.  

What applications are you thinking about ?  To me, one of the more obvious applications would be to make a bridge.  If you want a train to be able to pass under it you need a least a clearance of 12 bricks.  With a 1 plate per straight slope that give: 12 bricks = 36 plates => 36 x 16 studs = 4.6 m or 15ft, on one side so you're talking about 9m / 30 ft for the complete bridge.  I would think that's too long for most situations, no ?  Another issue would be price, 3D printing sloped track would not be cheap: a) you would need to print with a low layer thickness (more layers to print) to improve the approximation of the lope with print layers and b) you need to print more support material than for a 'flat' track segment.  So the lower the slope the pricier the system becomes.  

I did a quick search and found this interesting article on the topic.  

http://thetechnicgear.com/2014/02/howto-create-lego-train-inclines/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, M_slug357 said:

What would be the purpose of this piece though?

It's not exactly friendly to longer engines or cars...

for me personally it would be to overcome a slight change in height, it's not always possible to make a layout that is level overall, on rare occasions you need to be able to overcome a difference in height without having the problem of the rails going down from the wait of the train that passes over it. To make a bridge using this would be a bridge to far (pun intended), personally I would need to go even 14 bricks high so that's a no brainer that it's simply not possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Barduck

I see also the problem as M_slug357 says: it's not friendly to longer engines, and specially not to steames with the close positioned driver wheels. They can float over the track, losing most or all  of their traction power and spin.

Best way to get a 'nearly flat' display table is to put beer felt (Nederlands = Biervilt) under the table legs to equalise the table top.

Explaination of 'Beervilt' : is a - standard - 94mm by 94mm light carton from abouth 3 mm thick thats been placed under a beerglass. See here for a picture to see what i mean. 

Or use small wooden gussets (Nederlands = houten spie).

Personally, I would never use such track piece. The story change a lot when you want to get an inclined track to aproach a bridge. Then you need a track that goes gradually up, as mentioned in an earlier post in this tread. We've done it with 2 plates / straight track piece with standard LEGO trains, and even then you need a huge room. Additional problem then is that the train slows down while running uphill, but gain a lot of speed when running downhill. Precautions need to be taken!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lowa said:

Indeed, a system with a start/slope/stop configuration would be the most flexible system.  I'm just not sure about the 1 plate per straight slope.  

What applications are you thinking about ?  To me, one of the more obvious applications would be to make a bridge.  If you want a train to be able to pass under it you need a least a clearance of 12 bricks.  With a 1 plate per straight slope that give: 12 bricks = 36 plates => 36 x 16 studs = 4.6 m or 15ft, on one side so you're talking about 9m / 30 ft for the complete bridge.  I would think that's too long for most situations, no ?  Another issue would be price, 3D printing sloped track would not be cheap: a) you would need to print with a low layer thickness (more layers to print) to improve the approximation of the lope with print layers and b) you need to print more support material than for a 'flat' track segment.  So the lower the slope the pricier the system becomes.  

I did a quick search and found this interesting article on the topic.  

http://thetechnicgear.com/2014/02/howto-create-lego-train-inclines/

For most folks, the space required for a figure 8 with a bridge or similar is way to great. You would need a tone of space. Much more than a 2.5% incline and you start running into steam locos not working so its more about small hills and such on most AFOL layouts. When you get into the huge LUG layouts, they are using different height table to create the clearance for bridges and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.