coaster

Thanks for the support, guys! I'll be sure to update a little more frequently. Life just has an annoying habit of getting in the way of the important things. Longterm, I very much intend to do the other track geometries, especially the corresponding R120 switches. However, this is a good example of walking before running, so R120 curves first, then if that's successful, I'll do a half length straight (that should go quick), then the switches. Switches will certainly take some time to develop, but it'll be worth it. I will most likely get a kickstarter going, but I'm going to make sure all my ducks are in a row first. I don't want to suddenly find myself $20k+ short on funds and not able to deliver as promised. When I hit kickstarter, it'll be go-time. Edge-to-edge, it's 78"/1984mm wide. Diameter of the centerline is 1920mm. You're right about ME; it seems they're learning about product development the hard way. It also sounds like they have terrible vendors and/or the engineer they contracted with is just phoning it in. What are your needs? If they're not super specific to you, I can certainly add them to the project list.

Thought I'd update everyone since it's been a while. I've focused my attention on just the R120 curves for now, as it seems like a pretty safe place to start. The size of the R120 curve would be comparable to standard R40s and straights, and the angle works out such that a full 360° loop will require 48 pieces. Figure I'd sell them in boxes of 12 (1/4 turn). The plastic base was no problem to get quoted, got a great price on tooling and piece-parts. The rails though, have been a bit of a headache. Stamping houses are a dime-a-dozen, but most of them can't handle material this thin, so I've had to find thin-guage stampers that also don't mind smaller quantities, and that's been a bit of a challenge. As such, the price on the metal rails is high. I'm seeing if I can get additional quotes from other suppliers as well as seeing how greater quantities will reduce the cost of the rails. Right now, I'd have to sell a single piece for $15, or $180/box. This is almost 3x what my target was, but it may simply be the reality of things. One option I do still have is to modify the track design. If I thicken the material, it will open me up to more vendors that may be better suited to small runs like this. It uses more metal obviously, but it may still be advantageous price-wise. It shouldn't negatively affect the tracks at all, so I'll explore this option before committing to anything. That all said, if I just did the curves in all plastic, they'd be about $3 each. Too bad I'm married to 9V. I get why Lego switched...

Actually, it's mathematically impossible. The universe is constantly moving towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. All systems, even those that are considered reversible and adiabatic, can never decrease their entropy. It's a fool's errand to try. Consider this: noise, heat, friction, are all sources of energy loss. Any perpetual motion machine would have to overcome such losses, therefore, the device would not only need to sustain it's energy, it much actually augment it. It's a something-from-nothing scenario. You might be able to build a machine that runs for a billion years, but it can't go on for literally ever.

Ø2mm, precision ground tool steel, 3' length for $2.49: http://www.mcmaster....8625k61 Cut to length, deburr, train on.

There was a piece of Lego literature years ago (probably '92ish mini catalog) that had a scene with a train using 1x1 grey plates as ballast, and I just remember thinking how awesome that looked. The track was raised up by 2 or 3 plates in order to give it enough depth to look realistic. Once the kids are old enough not to climb all over it, I plan to build a layout doing exactly that. I'll dig around and see if I can find that picture somewhere.

Thanks for the responses everyone. Tooling isn't nearly as bad as it was 10 years ago. With so much stuff going to China, it's forced tool and die makers in the States to rethink their processes, and as a result, a lot of them have gotten much more nimble and cost effective. It may still prove out to be too expensive to make this a reality, but I can investigate. I've actually got a sketch showing very similar things to Michael Gale. In addition to the wider radius switch idea, I think it would be good to have the standard R40 one diverge at 37° (36.89° to be exact, but we'll call it 37°). This does a couple really nice things for us. First, if you have 2 of the same opposing each other, you get a nice crossover at the usual 16 stud spacing with the ends at exactly 1 straight length off. Second, if we have a a corresponding 8° curve, we can build an interlaced turnout with the square crossover or at 45° with a diamond crossover. There are certainly a lot of neat layouts we could build with more track options. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The R120 switches right now only exist as a concept, where I've overlayed an R120 curve with some straights. It's not a functional model yet, but I can work on that. Don't forget also that we need a spring for the point, but I should be able to source that. However, switches are big and complicated molds, and we're dealing with significantly smaller demand, so they may not be as practical as the small straight and curve pieces. And zephyr is absolutely right, the 9V switches have some serious design work to them. Have you guys noticed the long rails on those aren't a single piece, but rather several overlapping segments with a ball indent on the side to ensure conductivity? Or the jumper wires buried in the rails? It's all doable, but there's a lot of work to be done before we get there. What I'll do is get some quotes on tooling for the half length 9V straights and a wide radius curve, say R120? I like that one because its' exactly 3x the normal R40 but still falls within the 16 stud spacing ME has designated (the next step would be R200, in my mind). This will get us a starting point, and be pretty telling if switches could ever be in the stars.

I could, but again, it's also about them not matching the Lego ones.

Hello everyone! Like I'm sure many of you, I've been in the Lego train game for a while now (20+ years) and am pretty well entrenched in 9V. I'd always hoped that Lego would put out wider radius curves, but needless to say, those hopes were dashed when they discontinued the 9V line altogether. Those hopes were built up again each time we had someone promise to pick up where Lego left off, only to have that also fall by the side of the road for some reason or another. With the advent of the ME rails, I had hopes once again. While the multi-piece design may work for some, it just doesn't suit me for a couple of reasons. 1) the solid metal rails may look more realistic, but don't match the existing track (which I'd rather not have to completely replace), and 2) most of our setups are on the floor running around the house, where they frequently get kicked or shuffled around. Assembled track is going to constantly need repairs. I asked if one-piece metal rails were in the works, but it appears that's not in the stars. So once again, it looks like I'm out of luck. As it stands, I'm working on a layout that needs 2x half length straights. And I started thinking to myself: why am I waiting for someone to do what I can do? I suppose I should introduce myself a little further than I have. My name is Scott, and I'm an engineer. My job is to design and make all sorts of things. Specifically, plastic and metal things. So as a design exercise, I modeled up an existing straight and curve: Alright, that seems to work. How about the half length I need: Looks good, but let's print one and check dimensions: Perfect! Studs and plate bottoms all checked out too. All I need now is to have the stamping guys punch out some rails, get them plated, and I should be good to roll. Here's my question though: Is this worth pursuing beyond my own needs? Curves, straights, switches, & crosses could all be made, just tooling would run in the several thousand dollars, and I'm not going to spend that just for a handful of pieces for myself. I'm not going to promise anything, we've all heard it too many times, but if there's community support I'll look into this further. And I'm certainly not trying to slight the ME guys; I applaud them for the effort they're giving the community. It just doesn't fit my needs. But I also know I can't be alone in this struggle, so I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts. For the fun of it, here's roughly what an R120 switch would look like: -Scott

Maybe, maybe not. But we could make one if you need it.

Certainly possible, but you could accomplish the same by using stock plates and tiles and modding the interior a bit.

legoman666, I'm now back in town, and I did notice a few things we had on there are off a bit, but you should still be able to use the parts. The biggest thing I found wrong was the counterbore depth of the technic pin hole should be 0.8mm, and I had it at 0.5mm. Not a tremendous difference, but it could make a pin not really want to lock in there. At worst, you could use a flat-bottom drill to clean it up. I've updated my model as well as added the taper to the wheel and half a dozen other little details. If you find anything else wrong, let me know, and then I'll provide an updated .stl. Aaron, mark up what you find, and I'll make an .stl file for you too.

Mike, you made mention earlier about doing 1 piece versions in the near future. It may have been said and I just missed it, but would that include a metal rail version similar to the 9V ones?

Sadly, it was probably either the box or instructions. As far as I'm aware, Connecticut was never more than a distribution/packaging center.

I'm going to agree with the above, you don't want a train, you want a monorail system (which, by the way, Lego really needs to bring back). First, have a peek at this awesome old set: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?S=6990-1 There's only a single motor available for it, and it's this guy right here. It runs off a 9V supply, so you'll probably just use a 9V battery box like this one. The motor is geared and locks into teeth molded into the rail pieces, but what's really awesome about it is the direction control mechanism. There's a 3-position switch built into the motor, and is toggled by this track piece. When the monorail reaches the switch, it could either pass right through, stop, or reverse direction, so you could easily have it set up where it shuttles back and forth between two points. The only disadvantage is you can't use that base you saw. The monorail only has this base that connects to the motor, and it must be used with one of these bogey plates. You can use exactly 1 or 2 bases. Hope this helps. Some of those pieces aren't exactly cheap, but then, if you dig around the train world, they're practically a bargain.

Not quite the same, but there are a couple similar ones: Looking at it more closely though, if you need the wing piece to match exactly, you could use a 3-long wing instead of the 4-long one I have shown, and then cap it off with a 1 x 2 plate.

The axle hole's not too small, just would require a special broaching tool to do, and they don't want to buy one. Most machine shops though would charge you more than $10 to do anyway, even if they do just chuck it up into a CNC (which they would) and run 100 of them. Overhead is crazy expensive at an actual shop, and most are thrilled if they can manage a 30% gross on a job. A guy in his garage may be a different story, but businesses aren't free. Alternatively, if there's enough demand for a particular design, we could MIM these in stainless. Surface finish would be significantly better than the Shapeway ones, and cost/piece would be really cheap. The upfront tooling, however, would be significantly more, such that we'd probably have to get 750-1000 pieces to break even. If you guys think there's enough demand though, I'd be willing to get quotes. I know the vendors; I could get it done.

23.95mm might be a little too big still. Standard bricks leave .1mm/side, so a 3 stud diameter flange should be 23.8mm. I wouldn't go any bigger than this, otherwise you could still have them bumping into each other, especially when you stack the clearance of the axles through the brinks.

That does seem high. One thing I forgot to point out is the .stl is generated in mm, not inches. Yours was in inches before, so check that first. It might be making something 25x too big. Otherwise, try this on for size: https://www.dropbox....Wheel3.stl?dl=0 Woot! No longer "New Member".

Dropbox for Wheel2.stl: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kyyq6nzidxlg1qm/Wheel2.stl?dl=0 I didn't try it with Shapeway, but it works in both the Makerbot software and Preform (which, by the way, is awesome). Let me know if you need any changes. EDIT: Found a mistake already. .stl file's been updated.

I'll need to verify dimensions, but how's this: You had a couple things that seemed off dimensionally, but I'm on the road this week for work, so don't have any pieces to check against. I can do that next weekend though. The back of your part was also shelled, not sure if that was intentional or not, but I just made it flat: I can output the .stl file now for you if you want, or wait till I can verify the dimensions.

Apparently, "round" is not in SketchUp's vocabulary: I assume that upper hole is supposed to be a technic pin hole? I don't have time at the moment, but give me a day or 2, and I'll redraw this for you.

Email me your .stl file. I've never used SketchUp, but I have Inventor, so I should be able to open and repair your model. I can also test it on our 3D printer's software, see if I get the same issues.

What format do you have it in? I might be able to clean it up for you.

It'll probably be fine, but my concern with the wheels wearing the rail plating was because of the printed surface finish. I suppose as long as they're just rolling and you're not driving with them, you should be fine. As for the spokes, I was just thinking for consistency with the plastic Lego version.

jtlan nails it, but just to add, typical tolerances on the metal SLS machines are within .08mm, and many offer even tighter ±.05mm (at double the price, mind you). I believe Lego's typical tolerance is ±.01mm, which is about as tight as you can get with most machining operations. I would guess the printed parts are adequate for this, but I'll parrot the concern about wearing the plating off the rails. EDIT: You need the spokes on that wheel too!