ME-Models Track arrives!

[Rob Klingberg]

Hi everyone, ME-Models has started shipping their first shipments of track (or at least mine shipped this week). It came in the mail yesterday, and my first impression is that the track is very well constructed. I especially like the way the LEGO bricks snap (and hold tight) to the bottom of the rails. Will need to test this out in a layout format soon, but initial connect tests with my 9v track showed tight alignment. These are clearly very well-made items. On the downside, I was disappointed to see the inclusion of adhesive metal strips, which are advised to be stuck to the plastic sections joining the rails (under the rails) to ensure good conduction. I wasn't aware these would be required, and it seems their nature is better suited to permanent layouts (which I don't have) vs. temporary ones. Again, I have yet to test conductivity with and without the strips. This was one thing the OEM Lego 9v track had going for it-- the thin metal covering on the plastic rails had a "spring" to it in the inner portion where two rails connected-- this led to a tight fit on each connection. The ME-Models rails don't have this "spring" because each rail is solid metal (which of course has its own advantages over the OEM track having just a thin covering of metal).

The other surprise (I ordered a variety of track packages) was the lack of 2 x 8 plates (sleepers) in the "double" and "quad" rail sets. Sleepers are provided with the ME900G/B (box of rails for $19.99) and also with the "half" rails, but not in the polybag ME900G/B-BAG of standard-size rails. This is clearly spelled out on their website if you look at the detail page of the product, though, so clearly in my haste to order the products on the first day they were available I missed this detail (my fault, not ME's). FYI though for those who have ordered "double" and "quad" tracks-- you will need seven 2 x 8 plates for *each* section of "quad" track and three 2 x 8 plates for each section of "double" track. I placed a rather large order on BL last night to build my stash in anticipation of ordering more ME track later.

What are others' impressions and opinions of the product? All in all I'm delighted that we finally have an affordable alternative to OEM 9V track and I plan to order more from ME (and I can't wait to see what they have cooking at Brickworld next month). I also am excited to order some of the curved track (especially the wider radii) when it becomes available.

--Rob

[Fuzzylegobricks]

Great news! I will get some as soon as I can.

[fred67]

I haven't tested it out yet; I opened one pack (of doubles); the fit is indeed quite tight, which is good, I think. I realized right off I'd be supplying my own plates, and had already ordered a few (but not enough... brown is hard to come by in quantity at good prices).

The only downside is those adhesive strips... I'm hoping the trains function well without them. If I ever do get a permanent layout then it's not a problem, but as of now I have not done my own conductivity test.

I'll almost certainly be buying more of these... a lot more... in the future.

[Brickthus]

My layout is modular, with intention for exhibition. This means it would be useful for an extra pack of adhesive strips to be available.

If the adhesive strips would have to be replaced at each module boundary at each build, this would be tiresome, probably taking 2 hours to replace 480 rail joints (assuming 2 tracks of 2 rails between adjacent modules and 120 modules in the layout). Since my hope was to still build the layout in 8 hours with more track than before by using a modular approach, this would not work. Maybe if modules were 4ftx4ft (10-20 modules), as with some model railways of other types, the adhesive strip time overhead would be small as well as saving build time. This would need more people (4 to carry a module) and a wider van (4ft between wheel arches), meaning that a club effort is required.

Modular layouts would naturally use 48x48 baseplates, so triple straights would be useful. Alternating single and double straights might sound odd as trains pass over the unevenly-spaced joints. Real railways used 15ft and 60ft rails, with continuous welded rail now the norm, so it helps when modules are 64M long and can use quad rails. The module structure is often dictated by the location of the switch points, which need a 32x32 space to themselves, 48x32 if the siding-straightening curve is included for easier (straight) module connection.

Is there enough spring in the standard track ends to avoid using adhesive strips where a standard track piece meets a pair of ME-models rails? If so, standard track pieces alternating with ME double rails could work, though it might look odd without full ballast.

I applaud the concept of these rails, the aim of extending 9V longevity and the effort demonstrated but it seems there is some proving and ironing out to do. I look forward to seeing how your tests go, and whether the adhesive strips are required in all, some or no cases.

Mark

[Rob Klingberg]

There are extra strips packaged with each set of rails, and the number of extras appears quite generous. I thought about mounting the strips beneath the rails so the strips stuck out just a bit from the end of the rail-- this would allow easy connection/disconnection but not sure if a solid strip is needed beneath the entire rail. Again, will have to run some tests when time permits (never enough time....). I also thought about putting a small piece (cut) of strip on the inside of one end of rail (vs. underneath the rail), in effect creating a tighter connection to the joining rail, but not sure there's sufficient clearance for that.

Yes, based on my initial and very unscientific tests, the "spring" action on the OEM rails does mate nicely (and tightly) with the ME rails, so you do have that option if you want to alternate.

--Rob

[Eric J. Olson]

Hi guys,

The adhesive stripes are included solely as a "fail safe." They are not required and so far, we have have had all BETA testers as well as customers who have posted elsewhere including blog reviews, etc, say that they have NOT included them and had no conductivity issues whatsoever.

We decided that it was better to give customers the option to use them if they so chose (perhaps on carpet or unlevel terrain) as opposed to making users find this solution on their own.

Keep in mind, our standard length rail system is a 7 piece unit versus the 1 piece LEGO section. Individuals who are no hobbyists or perhaps have less "LEGO knowledge" may find them more useful that the crew here.

If you're not running power, just throw them out as they are useless to you...if you are running power and you have a totally static layout, then perhaps throwing them on isn't a bad idea. If you're constantly changing your layout or it is mobile, then this solution probably isn't necessary because every time you put it together, you're already ensuring a tight fit for the duration it will be running.

Being LEGO 9V fans, we realize that even LEGO brand 9V track can short and have continutity problems as well. This was our fail-safe solution.

In summary, it's not required (per the insert) but is available as an option.

[Toastie]

Hi guys,

The adhesive stripes are included solely as a "fail safe." They are not required and so far, we have have had all BETA testers as well as customers who have posted elsewhere including blog reviews, etc, say that they have NOT included them and had no conductivity issues whatsoever.

Hi Eric,

thanks for the info! I believe that this system is really a chance to make 9V last much longer (maybe for "ever"?) than originally anticipated - I thought the battle was over and we would have to live with a fixed amount of powered 9V LEGO rails ever produced in this universe ...

I am seriously entertaining the idea of replacing my 9V rails in "the back" with the ME system rails and use the resurrected 9V rails for the ever changing play area. I will sure go with the long pieces. Here are my thoughts:

Aluminum is a decent conductor, almost comparable to Copper. Neat Aluminum metal quickly generates a rather solid, "closed", and stable (which is nice) oxide/hydroxide layer, which is essentially non-conductive, though. We always have trouble in the lab when using the easy-to-machine Aluminum material in conjunction with the necessity of delivering some mA of electrical current to/via that part. We "scratch", grind, or polish the Aluminum surface before attaching electrical contacts. And even then you may want to check in case of conductivity problems, whether or not the Al joint is causing the trouble.

So upon connecting the ME rails, do they "scratch" themselves? Is there some sort of "nose" which removes the oxide layer to some extent? Further, in the back of my layout, I could not care less about labor with the adhesive stripes - I'd just put them on. Is their purpose to increase conductivity? Is there an aging process here as well? The LEGO rails, once connected well (they also need some attention, but not that much and they do have little "noses") do hardly show conductivity loss over time, as far as I am concerned, other people may have other experiences (would love to hear about that!)

I am sorry for asking all these questions, nevertheless, looking forward to any input.

Once again, that system looks awesome, and you almost have me ...

All the best,

Thorsten

[HoMa]

Hi all,

I also recieved my first order of ME Metal Rails. Feel free to check out my little review at:

http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks/en/me-metal-rails.php

HoMa

[Pingles]

Hi all,

I also recieved my first order of ME Metal Rails. Feel free to check out my little review at:

http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks/en/me-metal-rails.php

HoMa

Thanks for that! Very informative!

Edited May 7, 2011 by Pingles

[Pet-Lego]

That's a good review, thanks.

Don't think the marking/scratching of the sleepers is a problem, with the official track they stay on the track as well.

Can't wait to see the new curves.

[fred67]

I also recieved my first order of ME Metal Rails. Feel free to check out my little review at:

Nice... thank you. I rarely get to set up my train layout, so it would be some time before testing, so I appreciate your test (although I suspected the track would work great anyway).

[baard]

Have bought a few of the 32 long ME-model rails and are testing them as I write. They are connecting well with the 9V rails, no need for the provided aluminum foil to connect well, even on a large circuit. Have not needed to put in extra sleepers for stability. All trains run fine on the track, ie, 9V, RC and PF. The only drawback encountered so far seems that the 9V motor wheels are slipping on these rails. I will test with more sleepers and see if the problem continues. Will post results shortly.

[Eric J. Olson]

The only drawback encountered so far seems that the 9V motor wheels are slipping on these rails. I will test with more sleepers and see if the problem continues.

Thanks for the feedback.

Where exactly are they slipping? In general? Going from LEGO -> ME? Going from ME -> LEGO? Just trying to gauge what's going on...

I will tell you to expect minimal slippage going from LEGO -> ME. We experienced a slight case of this at BrickMagic on our display. What we found was that the ME track was conducting the power BETTER than the LEGO track and as a result, the engine was running faster over the ME track as opposed to the LEGO track. It was an interesting phenomenon that someone pointed out for us. As a result, they would slip slightly going from the LEGO to ME as they picked up speed...

[baard]

Where exactly are they slipping? In general? Going from LEGO -> ME? Going from ME -> LEGO? Just trying to gauge what's going on...

I have put ME track interspaced with LEGO 9V track. I have tested several of TLC own engines like the Santa Fe, Santa Fe Burlington as is, that is, without added train weights or lead to make the engine run better with heavier loads. With a heavy load, however, it seems that the train will slip when on the ME track, even when the train has speed. Starting off on the ME track, the engine will slip/spin until it gets to the LEGO track and then gain speed. I have not tried with only ME track for a longer stretch. Will try that over the weekend as well as try to make a sloping track with the ME rails to see if there is a difference. PF engines seem to have no problem whatsoever on the track

Cheers,

Bård

[LEGO Guy Bri]

I have put ME track interspaced with LEGO 9V track. I have tested several of TLC own engines like the Santa Fe, Santa Fe Burlington as is, that is, without added train weights or lead to make the engine run better with heavier loads. With a heavy load, however, it seems that the train will slip when on the ME track, even when the train has speed. Starting off on the ME track, the engine will slip/spin until it gets to the LEGO track and then gain speed. I have not tried with only ME track for a longer stretch. Will try that over the weekend as well as try to make a sloping track with the ME rails to see if there is a difference. PF engines seem to have no problem whatsoever on the track

Cheers,

Bård

I look forward to your results with 9v motor testing. I am strongly considering getting ME rails but, m a little concerned about traction and a long train. How many cars where pulled when you noticed the train slipping?

[Eric J. Olson]

Please let me know what you find out...and any suggestions you might have for it.

We had it running without issues using the new Maersk Train with a 9V attached. As I said, slight slippage from LEGO->ME as it was gaining speed.

[Eric J. Olson]

ME Models would like your opinion about our new rail products. Whether you have bought or not, we want to hear from you!

ME Models Survey

[Bricktrix]

I'm having to borrow straight rails for the rear of my display at the moment, so the possibility of purchasing anything from 80 to 140ft's worth of this stuff for the rear fiddle yards is high on the cards. I am concerened however, about this wheel slip I've just been reading about, as I can get it (sometimes) on the 9v LEGO track when using really long heavy rakes.

I'm certainly interested in hearing more about this from other users before shelling out that much "dosh"

[Snapshot]

I'm having to borrow straight rails for the rear of my display at the moment, so the possibility of purchasing anything from 80 to 140ft's worth of this stuff for the rear fiddle yards is high on the cards. I am concerened however, about this wheel slip I've just been reading about, as I can get it (sometimes) on the 9v LEGO track when using really long heavy rakes.

I'm certainly interested in hearing more about this from other users before shelling out that much "dosh"

Carl, how good are the o-rings on your 9V motors? I found mine were dry and hard through age so probably don't grip as well as new ones. I've got a load of new ones - contact me through Brickish if you'd like some. For anyone else, they're 13mm x 1.5mm N70 and Polymax is a good source for UK buyers.

Jonathan

[Eric J. Olson]

Our test was with the Maersk train with a 9V motor straight from the box. We didn't notice any issues, however, others have reported some, but I'm curious what conditions caused it (i.e. any grade, 10+ cars, etc).

[greenmtvince]

Eric, can you give us a more detailed update than is offered on your website on the release of the larger radius track? This is the product I've been most eagerly anticipating and am just waiting for the pre-order button to show up.

[Eric J. Olson]

The honest answer is, I don't have a timeframe.

Our original manufacturing process wasn't producing results that we expected (or demanded) for the curved rails. As a result, we're going with a better manufacturing process that will bring tigher tollerances. As a result, the curves will be a two-step manufacturing process. Our main manufacturer has bids out for the secondary and as soon as we have something in the works, we will let everyone know.

We're just as anxious as everyone else to get these out. :)

[Bricktrix]

Our test was with the Maersk train with a 9V motor straight from the box. We didn't notice any issues, however, others have reported some, but I'm curious what conditions caused it (i.e. any grade, 10+ cars, etc).

Eric, the way I'm reading that is that you tested 1 standard TLG engine, with a standard 9v motor and no extra carriages, on a track system which is a potential gold mine, before you launched it to the world? Please correct me / tell me I am wrong with that!!

I know a few of the people who had some prelim track to test and not heard anything about wheel slipage, which is contrary to what I'm reading on here.

It would be obvious to me to test this track with engines pulling long or heavy rakes and to watch the wheel slip difference between this and the TLG track as it needs to perform at least as good as the TLG track under extreme circumstances, comparative to the price. I would like to think that is something which has been done already, but I'm not reading anything anywhere that tells me so, so I can only go from what I know so far.

In answer to Jonathans (Snapshot) previous question of O-rings, I have a complete mix from good to bad and cant say any one motor slips more than any other. The slight slipage is where you would expect it to be, when the engines enter a straight still pulling stock through curves (friction and weight are always going to cause that)....some motors slip more than others due to not having enough weight over them. If I swap an old motor out for a newer one with better O-rings, its still the same, thats just down to the weight above them. Its something I can live with, however, it is or will be a problem and concerns me somewhat if the slipage is greater on the ME track, as thats what I'm planning to use for the entire rear section of my display, exactly where engines will be entering straights, still pulling 10 - 15ft's worth of stock behind them through the curves!

Although I'm about to enter a busy period with my work again, I'm planning to try and start testing a full circuit with full loads in the next 4 - 6 weeks.

Eric, I'd be keen to take 50ft of your straight track on to test this thoroughly (I dont need the fiddle yard track yet!)

I'd appreciate it if you could contact me via email, or work, etc so we could agree on an arrangement that we would both be happy if your willing to do so.

[Eric J. Olson]

Eric, the way I'm reading that is that you tested 1 standard TLG engine, with a standard 9v motor and no extra carriages, on a track system which is a potential gold mine, before you launched it to the world? Please correct me / tell me I am wrong with that!!

Of course not...that was just a demo unit we had running at BrickMagic. Prior to launch, we had about 10 beta testers, all 9V "connoisseurs", that gave us the thumbs up to launch. You can always try putting rings on them as well or adding weights if it's a major issue...the rings shouldn't degrade performace because the flange should catch the current as well (2 points of contact).

Eric, I'd be keen to take 50ft of your straight track on to test this thoroughly (I dont need the fiddle yard track yet!)

I'd appreciate it if you could contact me via email, or work, etc so we could agree on an arrangement that we would both be happy if your willing to do so.

Contact me off-board...we'll talk -> eric@me-models.com.

[hoeij]

There are some other benefits of ME track that probably haven't been mentioned yet. Last weekend I had a lego layout at our local train show. I had a long 12V loop and a long 9V loop.

The 9V track has less metal than the 12V track, so the 9V track has more electrical resistance, and so you have to supply power to more spots on the track. In one long loop, I supplied power to 4 places. Two of those places were 9 feet away, one of them was 16 feet away (this means crawling underneath the tables to get those wires to where they need to be). Setting up all this wiring adds a huge amount of time to the setup time.

With ME track (which I do not yet have) you have all metal track, so you have much less electrical resistance, and so you have to supply power to fewer spots on the track (perhaps 1 spot would have been enough?). That would have saved time during setup.

Has anyone measured the electrical resistance of say 100 track lengths of ME? (for 9V that's 8 Ohm if you count it back and forth).