Duplo Trains discussion

[Hey Joe]

Agreed, thanks Adam.

And happy new year to everyone!

Thanks, and same to you.

Hey, excuse me, but I thought you looked familiar. Are you THE Robert Cailliau of CERN? The co-inventor of the World Wide Web?

What a great honor to have you here with us at Eurobricks, and let me thank you for your work. Geez, I'm studying philosophy online, ordered a laptop off Amazon last week, and keeping up with friends halfway around-the-world in the blink of an eye because of you and your colleagues.

Joe

[bastiaan]

Hi,

I bought a 10506 set yesterday hoping to get the newer curved tracks which fit properly, but it had 8 of the older type. I'm quite disappointed, luckily I bought it mainly for the switches.

I'm wondering how to reliably get more of the good curves? Buying on ebay seems like it will be taking chances, unless I can convince the seller to take good detail pictures of all the pieces.

regards

Bastiaan

[Robert Cailliau]

... I bought a 10506 set yesterday hoping to get the newer curved tracks which fit properly,...

Bastiaan,

Don't worry. Those tracks will do the job for everything, except for the extremely rare occasion that you might want two of them side-by-side fixed to the same long plate. I have never had that "problem" at all. I just found out by accident, when trying to get good measurements of the curvature. So f I were you I would not worry.

Buying second hand is fine ( I bought many) and I seriously doubt that (1) you can get many "proper" ones on the second hand market, and (2) that any seller would know what we are talking about. The difference is so slight that even on a good photo it is hardly noticeable.

From your purchase it seems that even Lego does not care much.

So don't be disappointed...

:-)

Edited January 22, 2014 by Robert Cailliau

[Robert Cailliau]

Hey Joe:

... Robert Cailliau of CERN? The co-inventor of the World Wide Web?

What a great honor to have you here with us at Eurobricks, and let me thank you for your work. Geez, I'm studying philosophy online, ordered a laptop off Amazon last week, and keeping up with friends halfway around-the-world in the blink of an eye because of you and your colleagues.

Er... Yes. Thanks for the accolade (this is totally off-topic, guys! I hope you will indulge).

Reality is a little more prosaic, you can read about it all in great detail in "How the web was Born" (ISBN 978-0-19-286207-5). Please note that my name is on that book but it was James Gillies who wrote it (and rightly gets the royalties).

First I have to say that the web is completely different from the Internet which is much older (we were doing [/quote] well before there were web pages).

Let it also be known that the web idea was in the air. The earliest vision was probably by another Belgian, Paul Otlet in 1934 (use Wikipedia to find him; Otlet also had the idea of the League of Nations in 1918, unfortunately quite badly set up by Wilson)

Later the web idea cropped up again in thoughts by Vannevar Bush, then Ted Nelson, then some of it got implemented by Doug Engelbart (who unfortunately died last year), then again implemented by the University of Graz (Austria), France Telecom (1980), etc. etc. At CERN, at the time of the planning of the LHC in the late 1980s, two people independently had the idea of a networked hypertext again, Tim and myself. What Tim did was to realise that every document could be uniquely addresses, even if it did not exist or was virtual: the idea of the URL name space. All the other elements were already there. But that URL idea was crucial and is what made it all workable.

So yes, we did it, but to quote Newton, we stood on the shoulders of giants (however, even that phrase has a much older history...).

BTW, I am not sure, but I think I may now have more Lego than Tim does.

:-)

Edited January 22, 2014 by Robert Cailliau

[Adam Badura]

Wow! Not only I got a thriving (as far as it gets with Duplo!) thread on Duplo Trains but also it includes giants standing on the shoulders of other giants. Fantastic! I have to tell someone in real life, that will be a great story! :)

[Peter Nolan]

Hi—I found this topic really interesting. I have a 3-year-old boy who enjoys playing with his duplo train (as do I!). In particular I found the all points reachable (APR) problem (and the work that went along with) fascinating. It seems to me that a track will become non-APR whenever you connect one of the output arms of a switch back into that same switches input arm. When a train travels along a switch from the output arm side to the input arm side, the switch behaves as a simple curve. If you connect a switches input back to it’s own output you have (for one direction of travel) made a simple loop that the train can’t get off. Further, since a switch can act as a simple curve (if used in the correct alignment)) you could replace any number of curves within that simple loop with switches and the train would still get stuck in the loop. Robert Cailliau's photo of a circle made entirely of switches (http://www.cailliau.org/Alphabetical/L/Lego/Duplo/Train/Rails/Dimensions/SwitchRing.jpeg) shows this well.

Could we simply say that a closed track layout will become non-APR if it contains within it a loop of track where all switches are connected in the same orientation (relative to the travel of the train)?

[Peter Nolan]

In my experience a train having two or three railcars significantly slows down on longer curves.

I’ve also found this to be a problem. If you’ve got numerous carriages, it’s natural for a child to make the longest train that they can. It’s then disappointing when it runs very slowly (or stops when going over a bridge). I briefly considered replacing the motor with a high performance one from a Tamiya mini 4WD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_4WD). Some of these motors, such as the 'Plasma Dash', can spin at up to 29,000RPM. Unfortunately though, these motors turned out to be physically smaller than I expected (20mm diameter vs 24mm for my intelli train) so wouldn't fit. Conceivably you could modify the existing motor to provide more torque or speed at the cost of battery life, but this is beyond my skill and knowledge. Incidentally, from the external dimensions I suspect that the motor is something like a Mabuchi FC-260SA 2670.

[Robert Cailliau]

Yes Peter, as a child one wants to go to extremes (as an adult sometimes too...) and build the longest train possible. I remember that even on Märklin sets the limit was reached fast, especially when going around a bend (pulling over cars) or uphill (not making it at all).

Duplo trains are no exception, and given the need for sturdiness, friction is present more than we would wish.

As to the number of revs per minute: that does not say anything about the power output. You need to know how many watts it can supply to the driving axle. There is also the consideration that the driving axle should not turn too fast nor too slow, hence torque at that desired mean speed is important. A good drive that gives high torque has a worm, but worms cannot be reversed and also have high friction.

One could indeed build a special locomotive from parts of a Lego one and a "foreign" motor. Interesting project. The loco would then also have to weigh enough to provide traction without its drive wheels slipping.

I do predict though that on a very long train a powerful loco would pull over the first cars when the train goes through a curve. The angle between successive cars is too big (the radius of a circle is too small).

I also predict that most would be gained from letting the wheels on each axle turn independently. That would relieve the large amount of friction caused by the fact that the outer wheel has to turn faster than the inner one on a curved track. But they are fixed to the axle, so one of them has to slip. This is why on curved rails only one side has the grooves and the other is smooth. As pointed out on my page, real railways cope with that problem by having conical wheels and the added 1/2 inch to the original 4'8" track, so they can move slightly and the outer wheel then presents a larger diameter and the inner a smaller one, so no friction is present. (or did I talk about that? perhaps not...)

Making the wheels independent would give the best advantage, but even that is not a simple modification: one would have to drill holes, provide new axles, ...

Maybe I'll give it a go, but I'm certain that a reasonable workshop is needed.

As to the APR property: yes, you are right. Any loop with only one switch will act as a trap, and any loop with all switches connected in the same orientation also acts as a trap, hence such layouts will not be APR. Excellent. I'll add that to the page. There are probably other patterns that show non-APR, but this one is easy to spot. Thanks!

(anyone try to work the LiveCode program?)

[Peter Nolan]

Thanks for your reply Robert. I'm starting to think that modifying a Lego train might be a bit too large a project... But it is fun to think about such things.

I'm wondering if the 'loop with all switches connected in the same orientation' might in fact be the only condition to cause a non-APR track. My suspicion is that any other apparent condition that makes a track layout non-APR could be untangled to reveal a simple loop of aligned switches (if you weren't constrained by the physical limits of Duplo).

Put another way, let us assume the train is trapped in a complex-looking portion of the layout. It travels along the track as we look for a way out (a switch). Each switch we come to is facing the wrong way though. So even though the train may have gone over bridges and through crossings, it is still essentially traveling along a simple loop of aligned switches.

Wondering about other possible types of patterns that show non-APR, I thought that perhaps it might be possible to create a large track where the train gets trapped in a complex sub-section (but is able to get to all points of this sub-section). In other words, a non-APR track with a subsection that behaves as APR. However, I realised that you'd need to essentially need a 'one-way' switch to make this occur. If you use a real switch, the train would be able to leave the sub-section as soon as it approached the switch from the right direction.

Perhaps 'a track will become non-APR if and only if there exists a closed length of track where all switches are connected in the same orientation'?

[Peter Nolan]

If you did want to create a 'one-way' section of Duplo track though, you could do it like this:

[Robert Cailliau]

Thanks for your reply Robert. I'm starting to think that modifying a Lego train might be a bit too large a project...

But it is fun to think about such things.

Perhaps, but now you have set me going…

I'm wondering if the 'loop with all switches connected in the same orientation' might in fact be the only condition to cause a non-APR track. My suspicion is that any other apparent condition that makes a track layout non-APR could be untangled to reveal a simple loop of aligned switches (if you weren't constrained by the physical limits of Duplo).

That last reflection in parentheses effectively means "topologically speaking", so now you are in the realm of topological mathamatics. You may be right. We need a mathematician of a different kind now.

Put another way, let us assume the train is trapped in a complex-looking portion of the layout. It travels along the track as we look for a way out (a switch). Each switch we come to is facing the wrong way though. So even though the train may have gone over bridges and through crossings, it is still essentially traveling along a simple loop of aligned switches.

There is a way in but no way out. Interesting statement of a theorem. Prove it.

Wondering about other possible types of patterns that show non-APR, I thought that perhaps it might be possible to create a large track where the train gets trapped in a complex sub-section (but is able to get to all points of this sub-section). In other words, a non-APR track with a subsection that behaves as APR. However, I realised that you'd need to essentially need a 'one-way' switch to make this occur. If you use a real switch, the train would be able to leave the sub-section as soon as it approached the switch from the right direction.

Ah, so: if a layout has an APR subsection, then it is APR all over? New theorem.

Perhaps 'a track will become non-APR if and only if there exists a closed length of track where all switches are connected in the same orientation'?

This seems a good starting point for the textbook "Fundamentals of Railway Layouts", though I'm not sure it would sell very well. I'll buy a copy, and Adam too I'm sure, and perhaps a few others on this topic, and you will give copies away to your close family, but after that… Ah, and don't forget to thank your wife in the introduction, because I did, and that omission cannot be rectified ever!

All jokes apart though: your statements may be true. I'm going on a river cruise in June. I'll take along some paper & pencils and reflect on it if/when things get boring.

If you did want to create a 'one-way' section of Duplo track though, you could do it like this: ...

Yah... :-D

[Adam Badura]

Looking forward for new results! In the mean time having a third kid put me out of theoretical work. :(

[Peter Nolan]

This seems a good starting point for the textbook "Fundamentals of Railway Layouts", though I'm not sure it would sell very well. I'll buy a copy, and Adam too I'm sure, and perhaps a few others on this topic, and you will give copies away to your close family, but after that…

Haha--perhaps it could be called 'Duplo track layout for slightly-obsessed dads'.

I keep thinking that someone must have already considered this problem. I guess in the real world though train networks are full of dead ends and other complications--and the train just stops and reverses out...

Ah, and don't forget to thank your wife in the introduction, because I did, and that omission cannot be rectified ever!

As it turns out it is my wedding anniversary tomorrow, so I really should stop thinking about this for a while lest I end up in a similar situation...

All jokes apart though: your statements may be true. I'm going on a river cruise in June. I'll take along some paper & pencils and reflect on it if/when things get boring.

Actually thinking on it further, I have become a bit mixed up on all this. If you take the 'simple loop with one switch’ trap and add a pair of opposed switches (i.e. both outputs of one switch connected to both outputs of the second (opposed) switch) then you have an APR subsection within a non-APR layout. I think that what this means is that it's not the orientation of the switches that matters, rather it is about where the outputs of the switches go to. I’m not quite sure how to word this, but I’ll give it a try:

A loop of track will cause a layout to become non-APR if, while travelling in a given direction, one (or both) of the outputs of any switch that the train encounters (and enters from the input side) eventually connect back to that switches own input.

And now I think it is time to go have a rest on the couch...

Edited April 11, 2014 by Peter Nolan

[Robert Cailliau]

In the real world this does not matter for railways, but there may be other applications. E.g. planes cannot go backwards by themselves, and one day I found myself in a situation where I had to climb out and turn the thing around by hand (watching the wingtips carefully). Fortunately a P2002JF is very light.

And yes, you better book a good restaurant or some such thing.

Your penultimate sentence is too difficult just after lunch. The last one however I will probably follow up.

[Peter Nolan]

Success! I have just replaced the pinion gear on my son's intelli train. It now runs much better, and can now pull two of the heavier intelli carriages over a bridge. If you are interested I used the instructions at: http://www.papa-mach-ganz.de/lego.html (you can buy the pinion gear on ebay).

Adam--regarding one of your original questions:

How it was with the old “smart locomotive”? As I think it was far more “difficult” and “complex”

The intelli train (http://lego.wikia.co...gent_Locomotive) was released in 2003. In my experience the extra features do make for more interesting play. However, I'd say that kids would have to be at least three to enjoy the set. Certainly fun for fathers though...

Edited April 17, 2014 by Peter Nolan

[Robert Cailliau]

WOW!!

Good!

And an excellent resource that "Papa-mach-ganz" site; I'll remember that.

Yes I agree that the extra features are for older kids. They can probably enjoy the trains until much older (like 67...) IFF there are enough rails and enough switches.

:-)

[Ambroise]

The Intelli-train was released at a time when The Lego Group was having huge financial problems (2003, although the development probably took more than 2 years.). The name "Duplo" was even abandonned at that time, and the intelli train was in the "Explore" range (which makes it somehow difficult to find on Peeron). One expensive thing to develop (that was already there in the previous iterations 3932 and 3933, as well as 2741 and 2745) was the "reverse direction" feature.

After a quick survey on kids' requirements, TLG realised that kids were not using all the functionnalities, and especially If they want the train to move backwards, they simply take it off, and put it back on the track in the opposite direction. So the new trains do not have such extra features, in order to reduce development and production costs (and the Duplo brand is back).

I personally enjoy the Intelli train a lot, they have became quite rare and vauable. Following Peter Nolan, I will probably replace the broken pinion on mine soon (although the eBay price for a new one is a little high I think).

[Peter Nolan]

They can probably enjoy the trains until much older (like 67...) IFF there are enough rails and enough switches.

:-)

Haha :-)

...kids were not using all the functionnalities, and especially If they want the train to move backwards, they simply take it off, and put it back on the track in the opposite direction.

I think that this highlights the problem with the Intelli trains--the system is quite structured and prescriptive. For instance, if the child wants to fill the train up with fuel, they have to place the correct smart brick in the track, start the train and then wait for the train to travel over the smart brick before filling up with fuel (when the train makes the 'glug glug glug' sound). With the current model train, they just need to stop the train and start filling (and the train makes the 'glug glug glug' sound). I think that if the other Intelli functions (e.g. cargo and passenger sounds) had have been designed in a similar fashion it would have worked better as a childs toy. All that being said though, it is a great toy.

I personally enjoy the Intelli train a lot, they have became quite rare and vauable. Following Peter Nolan, I will probably replace the broken pinion on mine soon (although the eBay price for a new one is a little high I think).

Yes, the pinions are expensive considering how tiny they are. Also, replacing the pinion isn't a trivial job--I was quite nervous about it. However, once you have done it once it becomes easier. I have made the repair twice now, as I had bought a second Intelli train engine, just in case the first broke down. Happily my son now has two fully functional trains :-)

[Robert Cailliau]

Wow again. Very good. Did you make photos of the steps? It would be useful to have those available for others attempting the same repair.

But do consider that tinier things are more expensive to make. Look at the cost of your kids' shoes compared to yours (not suggesting you have large feet though).

Nora does not have an intellitrain. She has two of the intermediate ones: they will go back and forth as guided by thingies that you put on the sleepers. She also has two of the "new" locos, which make the gurgling sound but do not look at the thingies.

You say play with the intelli-trains is structured and prescriptive, and from what you describe I fully agree, it's too complicated even for 5 year olds. When they are old enough to play with that imaginatively, they have switched away from Duplo.

It should not go too much in the other direction though: I learned that the latest issues of the locos no longer stop when they hit something. Now, that is not a "function", it is a protection, and it has been removed. The older issues have a little magnet on the axle that is not driven. It passes before a reed relay at each turn so the computer knows the axle is rotating. When the train falls over, is picked up or gets blocked, the computer stops the motor after a few seconds. That saves batteries and protects against wear and so forth. It also prevents little fingers getting caught in the driving wheels, at least for any length of time.

But this feature has been removed. I find that annoying.

[Peter Nolan]

Sorry, I didn't take any photos :-( There are a few resources online though if you search hard enough...

On the subject of the latest Duplo trains having fewer features, I think that this is part of general shift in the positioning of Duplo in the market. It seems that Duplo is now being marketed to a younger market than it used to be. I've also noticed that a lot of parents see Duplo as more of a baby/toddler toy rather than something that is good for kids up to 5 years or so. It seems to be that people decide that once their child is a certain age it is time to get rid of the Duplo and then move on to Lego. (sorry if I'm repeating some of the sentiments that have been expressed earlier in this thread).

At the moment I find that my son is happy playing with both Duplo and Lego and creating hybrid models (not everyone realises that Duplo and Lego are compatible it seems). When you throw in some Duplo Toolo (bought second-hand, like the Intelli trains) there are all sorts of play possibilities.

[Robert Cailliau]

Peter: Yup, agreed.

Now that you raise the point, there is also a degree of age-variety in Duplo: the big blocks are no longer very attractive after 5 or 6, but the trains certainly could go for much longer. Again, IFF there are enough rails. I consistently find that train sets of any make or scale have far too few straight rails. An oval, even with an intellitrain soon loses all attraction.

And yes, few people realise that Duplo is called Duplo because it is "double size" and compatible (to some extent) with the single-size blocks. Thanks fro reminding us of it.

Toolo is very rare. Strange stuff, well designed. I ony have some incomplete things that Nora has "inherited" from cousins, but she does not play with it.

[zg0]

my first try to make duplo compatible train base from lego pieces.

[Adam Badura]

my first try to make duplo compatible train base from lego pieces.

Nice!

Be sure to check it with switches, crossings (both rail-rail and rail-street), and bridge. Those are places where other Duplo bases fail. For example 10558: Number Train doesn't fit on that type of track and that is sad.

Yours looks like it would have no issue but it is always good to keep that in mind.

[zephyr1934]

The intellitrain was from an era where Lego figured the under 3 set would be playing with quatro or primo. The rest of the toy industry is pushing "realism" down to an insanely young age these days. I played with Tonka trucks (the real ones, made of metal) until I was at least 10, but now the toy industry has the blue isle all figured out. First dinosaurs, then trains, the superheros, then .... With trucks falling by the wayside somewhere around 5 years of age. I think duplo has also been pushed to younger ages as a result of consumer demand. It is too bad, because the modern lego sets can't be anything more than a model for the 5-8 yr olds (as in, there is very little room to go off and build what you like with so many specialized pieces, you can build the main model and that is it). For the simplicity of the bricks my first grader still plays with duplo even though he has a room full of system bricks.

[zg0]

I think duplo has also been pushed to younger ages as a result of consumer demand.

disagree. lego bricks sets long time was 3+, now 4+. creator was 4+, now 6+/7+. so lego clears 1-2 years from lego for duplo. and in 2013-2014 set we can see that duplo sets became more "constructional". cars from monolitic became consists from 4-5 pieces. and pieces became more universal.