Future availability of 9V

[gambort]

I didn't say not to buy something, I said the motors that are made specifically for trains defies the concept that parts be useful across all (or at least multiple) lines... it's TRAIN specific, and therefore doesn't "leverage" itself across other lines, which means smaller runs of production, which usually means higher cost, which is one of the things they said they were trying to avoid. It doesn't make sense when you can use a generic PF motor and power a geared bogey or drive wheels like the EN does.

You can make a remote controlled car chassis out of basic parts too but that didn't stop LEGO releasing a PFS remote control chassis with integrated steering. It's pretty arrogant to base your concept on what is or isn't PFS on what you personally feel fits the system. Or at least it's arrogant to expect other people to care.

So I'm not suggesting not buying something, I'm suggesting that buying and using "real" PF motors (M and XL, and whatever generic ones they come out with next) are a way to "future proof" against the whims of LEGO W.R.T. trains.

You still don't make sense. If you buy the PFS Train Motor and they stop making it you have a bunch of PFS Train Motors. It's like people who stocked up on 9V motors when the line was discontinued.

Or maybe you're worried about the gauge changing... which has never happened.

I also laugh at the idea that you have two battery operated train motors, and one is PF and the other is not because it doesn't have an integrated connector. Even if I accept that the "internals" are different, they are functionally the same for most people.

The first motor was made before trains fell under the PFS banner. The IR train system was interim (in truth I'm pretty sure it was a failed experiment) and its motor was made compatible with the old electrical system. The new motor is compatible with the new PFS.

Seriously... you can argue all you want but some of us actually do know what's going on because we're involved in it. Not to say that TLG couldn't discontinue trains tomorrow but it does make it much less likely. There are at least three parts on the market (no I won't say which ones) that came about through train fans being invited to help with PFS. That's not a sign that it's going away soon.

Tim

Edited September 23, 2010 by gambort

[fred67]

You still don't make sense. If you buy the PFS Train Motor and they stop making it you have a bunch of PFS Train Motors. It's like people who stocked up on 9V motors when the line was discontinued.

And if you do that, Tony might just berate you claiming that you "whine and weep" holding on to PF.

Seriously... you can argue all you want but some of us actually do know what's going on because we're involved in it. Not to say that TLG couldn't discontinue trains tomorrow but it does make it much less likely. There are at least three parts on the market (no I won't say which ones) that came about through train fans being invited to help with PFS. That's not a sign that it's going away soon.

Tim

Seriously, did you bother to follow the link I gave? The old RC train motor is listed in the LEGO PF section of their website. I didn't just make it up - I'm claiming if you follow that logic, then anything that can be connected to new PF stuff is PF. I didn't claim it made any sense, that's my point.

And for the record, I don't expect people to care... of all the points I made, that's the last thing I felt like arguing about, but this being the internet people seize on one minor thing and go crazy... the question of the thread is about the future of 9V - I defy anyone to show me a post where I recommend clinging to 9V or claim that PF "sucks."

But since we're talking about "future," I also made a recommendation that I stand by... you can't count on LEGO for anything (except the fact they will change things... which isn't necessarily bad, but it IS necessarily so), so if you're going to build or convert a train, you might as well use the most versatile parts... and the train motor is not it. I never claimed the sky would fall if you wanted to build something using the train motor, and I never said the train motor wasn't good! For crying out loud!

[peterab]

I'm merely pointing out that you can "future proof" yourself, to some extent, by staying away from the "PF" train motor and stick to M and XL (IT'S STILL PF!!!!), because they would be easier to replace should TLG discontinue them... are you really saying that's a bad position? It may be a bit paranoid, but like I said... once bitten, twice shy...

It is paranoid. I'm a 4.5V collector. My stuff can run on 4.5V, 12V, 9V, RC and PF track. In fact with a little bit of mucking around with power cables I think its probably possible to make any system run on any track. While TLG changes the system occasionally (four time in my lifetime so far) they do put some effort into being backward compatible, that's why you see no functional difference between the RC and PF motor; they produced an adapter cable.

I can still buy second hand (and sometimes even unused) 4.5V train motors (the technic ones seem to be rarer which doesn't speak very well to your argument either) or if I wanted too I could adapt any of the later motors.

Is this any worse than HO? Not really. I've been through changes in couplers, track and wheel sets (code 80 to code 100), 12V DC to DCC. Each of those changes were far more expensive and obsoleted some of my rolling stock. At least with Lego that never happens, only some parts have become obsolete.

[hoeij]

I can still buy second hand (and sometimes even unused) 4.5V train motors (the technic ones seem to be rarer which doesn't speak very well to your argument either) or if I wanted too I could adapt any of the later motors.

For those that think that prices of 9V will just keep going up: the cheapest lego train motors you can buy happen to be the oldest lego train motors, the 4.5V motors.

[fred67]

It is paranoid.

It is paranoid... I said as much in one of the posts, I'm not going to lie about it.

I can still buy second hand (and sometimes even unused) 4.5V train motors (the technic ones seem to be rarer which doesn't speak very well to your argument either) or if I wanted too I could adapt any of the later motors.

That doesn't change the argument... I could buy 9V motors, that doesn't make it worthwhile; the second part of the sentence is what I'm referring to... if you have two or three trains, it's one thing when a motor burns out to adapt it to whatever new thing LEGO is offering - when you have a collection of dozens, and trains have to be heavily modified, it's something entirely different.

Is this any worse than HO? Not really. I've been through changes in couplers, track and wheel sets (code 80 to code 100), 12V DC to DCC. Each of those changes were far more expensive and obsoleted some of my rolling stock. At least with Lego that never happens, only some parts have become obsolete.

I don't know what you're doing with your HO trains, but when I decided to start using new couplers, I only had to change one on the old cars, and just connect the new ones to that. And while there have been changes in track (like to snap track type systems), there was always the availability and continued production of the older style - you're upgrading was completely your choice, it's not exactly comparable.

[peterab]

They clearly said they wanted to leverage parts across multiple lines, and this motor does not. As such, it's MUCH MORE susceptible to being discontinued than any other PF motor. Can anyone really seriously disagree with that statement?

Yes. The train motor fits a particular niche. It's a simple motor for kids train sets. It or a functional equivalent will be available as long as Lego trains are, which I might add is longer than PF or in fact technic by at least a decade. If as the adage goes, the past is the best predictor of the future your argument fails. If i have to buy an additional PF XL or M motor to 'future proof' myself, why wouldn't it be easier to just wait a see what options the future brings, and buy the replacement then instead of now?

[fred67]

Yes. The train motor fits a particular niche. It's a simple motor for kids train sets. It or a functional equivalent will be available as long as Lego trains are, which I might add is longer than PF or in fact technic by at least a decade. If as the adage goes, the past is the best predictor of the future your argument fails. If i have to buy an additional PF XL or M motor to 'future proof' myself, why wouldn't it be easier to just wait a see what options the future brings, and buy the replacement then instead of now?

Because it'll be a lot easier if trains are designed from the ground up with the extra requirements.

[peterab]

I don't know what you're doing with your HO trains, but when I decided to start using new couplers, I only had to change one on the old cars, and just connect the new ones to that. And while there have been changes in track (like to snap track type systems), there was always the availability and continued production of the older style - you're upgrading was completely your choice, it's not exactly comparable.

Since I modeled German prototypes and had a collection spanning decades, and liked freight switching on my layout, the coupler change obsoleted some older wagons since they couldn't be fitted with new couplers. Since the operations were the key part of the layout having two different coupling systems was not practical.

When the track standards were changed the finer wheelsets derailed on the older track, and after some time, fitting older wheelsets to new rollingstock became impractical. I was left with the choice of replacing all my track, obsoleting more rolling stock which couldn't be fitted with new wheelsets or not buying new rolling stock. None of my track was snap track, I was using Peko track, with Fleishman trains which was part of the problem. The British and Germans had varying standards, but they were the better quality stuff that was available to me when I built my layout.

I never moved to DCC because I couldn't retrofit some of my locomotives and they represented a lot of my capital investment in HO.

None of the changes I made were by choice beyond like it or lump it, if I wanted to keep adding to the layout I was forced to upgrade. I think that is a good comparison to the Lego changes.

[peterab]

For those that think that prices of 9V will just keep going up: the cheapest lego train motors you can buy happen to be the oldest lego train motors, the 4.5V motors.

Well, I think it also has something to do with supply and demand. The supply of 4.5V motors is static, they very rarely burn out (far less so than 9V train motors), can be easily repaired with replacement motors, and they were far more widely available as they were the only motor for a very long time. There is also far fewer 4.5V collectors and a lot of those collect MISB. I'm pretty sure 9V motor prices will eventually plateau, but I think it will be a long while before they come down.

[peterab]

Because it'll be a lot easier if trains are designed from the ground up with the extra requirements.

That doesn't really help the vast majority of Lego train fans who don't build MOCs, because sets are easier for them. Fine for me, fine for you, but it seems like you are creating a lot of drama about something of the same significance as elf ears. It just doesn't make any difference to the vast majority. And although you are not directly badmouthing Lego, you would fit the criteria for spreading FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). Given that you have admitted your fears are paranoid, your argument is based on your own definitions of Lego brands, not those used by TLG (and therefore reasonable to assume most other peoples), and that most here don't seem even to understand the distinction you are trying to make let alone agree with it, I can't see the point beyond wanting to start a semantic argument.

For the record the best criteria I can think of for deciding to use an M, XL or train PF motor is which best suits the wheel layout of my prototype. Any prediction of which will be 'future proof' is speculation based on assumptions which may or may not be correct. I could probably form a consistent argument to say give the performance characteristics of the M motor, since its weakest it's most likely to become obsolete as a smaller replacement becomes available, but it wouldn't make it any truer than yours.

[fred67]

That doesn't really help the vast majority of Lego train fans who don't build MOCs, because sets are easier for them. Fine for me, fine for you, but it seems like you are creating a lot of drama about something of the same significance as elf ears. It just doesn't make any difference to the vast majority. And although you are not directly badmouthing Lego, you would fit the criteria for spreading FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). Given that you have admitted your fears are paranoid, your argument is based on your own definitions of Lego brands, not those used by TLG (and therefore reasonable to assume most other peoples), and that most here don't seem even to understand the distinction you are trying to make let alone agree with it, I can't see the point beyond wanting to start a semantic argument.

Huh... I cut and pasted from TLG's own emails and linked to LEGO's own website, using their own definitions...

For the record, I will bad mouth LEGO when I think they deserve it. I don't think I'm bad mouthing LEGO to point out that the only themes they've never changed are the brand new ones they haven't had a chance to... that's the nature of the LEGO beast, they keep changing things. It's not necessarily good or bad, it just is - which is why I don't consider it bad mouthing LEGO, just pointing out a fact.

Like I said, we're customers, not minions... but if I didn't love LEGO as a hobby, if I wasn't absolutely addicted to it, I wouldn't be here.

I could probably form a consistent argument to say give the performance characteristics of the M motor, since its weakest it's most likely to become obsolete as a smaller replacement becomes available, but it wouldn't make it any truer than yours.

No... I never said LEGO would do anything in particular, I said it's better to be safe than sorry, and if you designed your engine around an M motor, it's much more likely to have a drop in replacement than a train specific one. Does that really sound like an unreasonable position?

Edited September 24, 2010 by fred67

[peterab]

Huh... I cut and pasted from TLG's own emails and linked to LEGO's own website, using their own definitions...

It's pretty clear to others here that you are applying the technical aims of PF from the email, to the RC motor which was not developed by the PF team, but was later branded PF by marketing. In fact this was confirmed by Gambort.

For the record, I will bad mouth LEGO when I think they deserve it. I don't think I'm bad mouthing LEGO to point out that the only themes they've never changed are the brand new ones they haven't had a chance to... that's the nature of the LEGO beast, they keep changing things. It's not necessarily good or bad, it just is - which is why I don't consider it bad mouthing LEGO, just pointing out a fact.

Like I said, we're customers, not minions... but if I didn't love LEGO as a hobby, if I wasn't absolutely addicted to it, I wouldn't be here.

While it may be a fact that the train system has changed over time, your reaction to that and mine (and others) is different. You label us as minions because we don't see the need to react in the same way as you and safeguard ourselves against a change that may or may not happen. Yet you maintain it a reasonable stance? You admitted your fears were a bit paranoid but are surprised that not everybody else shares them.

BTW I said you were NOT bad mouthing Lego, but insisting on the reasonableness of a (in my view) over cautious avoidance of the PF train motor may hurt Lego unnecessarily.

No... I never said LEGO would do anything in particular, I said it's better to be safe than sorry, and if you designed your engine around an M motor, it's much more likely to have a drop in replacement than a train specific one. Does that really sound like an unreasonable position?

It is unreasonable (not necessarily wrong) because the only way of testing if the M motor or the PF train motor disappears first is to wait and see. The unreasonableness is in your insistence on the relative likelyhood of the two outcomes. No one knows, so your more limiting action may not keep you any safer. Technic in its shorter history has had some big changes (like studless beams), and if you include the samsonite gears from the early 70s it even has some non backward compatible stuff. That's why I said your argument was not inconsistent, it is a logical argument, fits most of the known facts, but without testing it it against other logical arguments like my own, we can't tell it's the best argument. The only way to be sure is wait and see.

In the mean time you may feel more comfortable not using the PF train motor, but if it turns out you're wrong and have convinced others not to you've stopped them from enjoying whatever benefits they may gain from the PF train motor for no gain other than your own peace of mind. Since we now have a history of four pretty much drop in replacement train motors in a row (12V 9V RC & PF) I don't have the fears you do, and I can't agree that the XL and M motors which have different size and connection from any previous Technic motor are a safer bet.

Since we just don't and can't know what will change in the future the reasonable stance is to just use what works best for each individual, and not avoid particular products based on logical but untestable positions.

[andythenorth]

Huh... I cut and pasted from TLG's own emails and linked to LEGO's own website, using their own definitions...

Fair point - I checked the page you linked. The train motor is shown in the PF section. It's not named as PF like the other components, but there is a big PF logo on the product detail page. So hey....marketing is messy

No... I never said LEGO would do anything in particular, I said it's better to be safe than sorry, and if you designed your engine around an M motor, it's much more likely to have a drop in replacement than a train specific one. Does that really sound like an unreasonable position?

Not unreasonable at all. Quite reasonable. Hopefully PF M and XL motors will be around a long time.

If the PF M and XL motors are discontinued then there's always bricklink....and if you're not buying train motors there, it's one less buyer in the market

Hey, if you can convince everyone to not buy PF train motors, you will probably be proven right in your assertion that PF train motor is likely to be discontinued