Brickset ForumHome›
Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
We're bringing back the Monorail - 3D printed!
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 316 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
We can certainly do that at some point, but for the moment I'm lacking the time to do this... I'm focusing on getting the basic automation for train and monorail ready.
I wrecked the end car to built the middle car using the design 3 posts up, and then have slowly worked my way through the end car, rebuilding it as a mirrored image of the original end car.
Aside from some roof pieces, lack of yellow seats, a 1x1x2 panel piece (in red for the cab), the 1x2x3 panel pieces for the ends, and window pace glass pieces (I pick and chose what windows to have glass in for the photos), it's pretty much complete.
We're currently working on a number of additional track types for the monorail system. Over the last few months we had a few requests for a 'monorail track tile': a tile with a monorail rail on it. Integrating monorail track into the pavement of a city layout is be one the potential applications.
The tile itself is pretty straightforward, getting that tile connected with the standard monorail track is not. You can see a first prototype of these tracks below. On the right you have a prototype of a 4x8 prototype tile; on the left you see an adapter to connect that tile to the standard monorail track. It works but the ramp is too short and it's rather bumpy when the train goes over it. We're going to redesign the connector as a 4x16 ramp. The final ramp would also be printed at a higher resolution to have a smoother surface.
Making curves with this system would not be straightforward either, the main issue here is that different sections along the curve all would require different connectors to match the stud pattern below. But that's not unfeasible to make, but it would be a bit of a puzzle to assemble the track. Another idea that I had was to add a 'narrow gauge train track style connector' to the tiles, as such you could assemble them without needing a base plate; that might be handy for the curves.
These are just prototypes to explore the possibilities of this system.
What do think ?
However, one solution would be creation of a imitation railway track piece with studs for attachment of ramps, and have this as, say, a 6 wide x 8 long piece.
The main issue with integration into street running would be the 'tooth' rail - this is a brick high(?) so would still look out of place, even if the sides were integrated, unless the objective is to lower platform height (2 brick height to monorail car floor better than 2 brick + 2 plate)
But IRL, the cost isn't worth it.
The issue I have with 'street running' is that it will cause a huge disparity with the track system, hence the need for the adaptor. Personally I think the easier option will be custom design ramps (or moc'ing using existing pieces) which allow the existing brick height monorail track to blend into a raised pavement section.
However, one solution would be creation of a imitation railway track piece with a row of studs either side for attachment of ramps, and have this as, say, a 6 wide x 8 long piece.
The main issue with integration into street running would be the 'tooth' rail - this is a brick high(?) so would still look out of place, even if the sides were integrated into a pavement, unless the objective is to lower platform height (2 brick height to monorail car floor better than 2 brick + 2 plate of full height track).
As for curves, would making these as half curves be better? That way you can also create diagonal track and not have to create 2 items (2left and right half curve pieces and diagonals as required)
But IRL, the cost isn't worth it. But, this isn't real life...
Alternatively, you could make a 'odd cut-out' version (so the track ran to the closest 2 to 3 studs either side of the rail) which could save on printing time and materials.
Not a bad idea, but that would be very, very expensive prints... With 3D printing need to print a support under the piece you're making, the larger the footprint of the part the larger the support/raft. This one would need a massive support...
@MrShinyAndNew, @sid3windr, @SprinkleOtter, @MattDawson
This is a question that has come up a few times and I have been thinking about it. We would need something like the black base of the current motor but with some technic peg holes to mount a motor. The medium PF motor has nearly the same size of the monorail motor, so It might be possible to make a variant of the current motor cover for the medium PF motor. The main issue that I see is the connection between the cog and the motor. The cog is not in the center of the bogey and if you put the PF motor directly on top of the cog, it's too far off center to still get it in a 4 stud wide train. So the motor has to be placed in the center and we need some additional gears to get the cog in the right position, that complicates matters... I also wonder if the medium motor is strong enough...
A first test could be to take the bogey of the extension car and modify it so we can put a PF motor on top of the cog (off center). That might not be too complicated and would allow us to test whether the medium motor is strong enough or whether we need the large motor.
1. 'jagged edge' curved rail tile:
Which would mean less support, but a need to configure the tiles around the curved track; or
2. Create the rail as a 'tile high' add-on piece that would fit onto 'jumpers' and other pieces at select locations.
Must, clean, baseplate......
1) Put the curved edged monorail tiles on pavement level and fill the gaps with the jagged edged tiles
2) Put the curved edged monorail tile on top of the pavement.
IF Lego do introduce a monorail, it won't be with any of the original pieces, and will likely be using brick built track.
There is also the assumption that LEGO still has the molds for the old track, which is unlikely.
In the end, this has been a debate that has been going on nearly since the form has been around.
If making a monorail for LEGO would be profitable they would have done another by now. Monorails were NOT cheap when they were last out, as I think I saw a price tag of 199.99 USD for #6991 alone, and that was in 1990's cost. Guessing a monorail now would be around 300-400 USD.
1. Representatives have said that the monorail didn't make much money when on sale originally, and possibly even at a loss.
2. The moulds themselves have been destroyed (or if the rumour is believed, buried in a factory floor)
3. New moulds would be required - even making just the old track again would mean at least 12+ new moulds (if we include the functional elements as well, like the direction/stop track and turnouts).
3B. Then there's the new mechanism (most likely using a PF motor + bogie or new PF motor bogie for the monorail) required to power it.
4. It's been proven that brick built track is feasible without modification to elements. And it's able to do things the original wasn't, like Y turnouts, rising whilst configured as a spiral, and traversers.
LEGO likely could never have sold sets in the late '70s / early '80s that a lot of the bigger sets go for today. Think of the SW UCS sets, the modular sets...those wouldn't have sold in any kind of quantity back then due to cost. People have more expendable income now, and the online LEGO community / global marketplace also helps to sell product today that wouldn't have done well back then.
With the number of people who are rabid Disney parks fans / monorail fans, I'll bet such a set would sell well today.
5. Anything involving motors or electronics has to undergo far more rigorous (and expensive) safety testing than regular bricks. And safety standards for toys change over time, so what worked in the 80s might not work today.
6. Kids today have even less interest in monorails than kids in the 80s and 90s did. Kids LEGO has tested monorails with in the past decade don't see what makes them any more interesting or special than trains, which most of them aren't super interested in to begin with.
7. Sets aimed at AFOLs, even big expensive ones like the Disney Castle, Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters, and Death Star, generally don't have the budget for more than a couple new molds. This is because they are not produced or sold in the same numbers as more kid-oriented models. The AFOL community is passionate but it is a fraction of the size of the company's core audience of kids. And when you're only producing a set in the tens of thousands rather than the millions, it's much harder to cover the cost of new molds.
This has all already been debated to death in the "why no more monorail?" topic: http://bricksetforum.com/discussion/3869/why-no-more-monorail
But our molds were around $20k each and definitely had a lifespan that wasn't as much as you might think before the quality would start to degrade on parts. And what we were making was nowhere near as tolerance dependent as LEGO is.
Keep in mind when I say the molds were $20k each, each mold has a number of pieces to it, but still, they are very expensive.
3D printing is a completely different process and is still maturing.
3D printing currently cannot match the quality of injection-molded LEGO pieces. The examples shown in this topic are excellent examples of 3D printing, especially for a small fan-run operation, but they still are rough and inconsistent in texture compared to real LEGO parts. This may not be a big issue for you, but it's a big issue for LEGO. Plus, the tracks are just one part of the equation. The motors, as I mentioned above, would need to be redesigned and extensively tested to meet modern toy safety regulations.
Could you design a monorail that uses existing Power Functions motors? Quite possibly! But in that case why even bother sticking with the old track? It didn't look especially authentic for a monorail anyhow. But even with the old molds out of the picture, you still run into the issue that monorails as a concept don't necessarily generate enough demand to be worth the LEGO Group's time and money.
Your idea that LEGO cares more about licensing and selling minifigures than making monorails is technically true, if only because anyone the least bit sensible knows that making things that have been proven to sell well year after year is better than making things that never, ever sold well and show no indications of selling better today.
As of last year, only about a third of the LEGO Group's products are licensed, the same as it's been for over a decade, but if the narrative that licensing is taking over everything has endured this long, it's not as though anything I say is going to stop it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about Friends and Ninjago sets having the "design and feel" of licensed sets. It's true that some of the sets sort of tell a story and have recurring named characters, but couldn't you say basically the same thing about Adventurers, which was basically a non-licensed Indiana Jones? Or Time Cruisers? Or Fabuland? LEGO was definitely already on a trajectory towards more character-driven themes years before they got into actual pop culture licenses.
Believe me, I myself frequently get frustrated with how often discussions in the AFOL community make it seem like the licensed sets are the only ones that matter. But it's important to remember that's not a reflection of how the LEGO portfolio is actually broken down, and LEGO still values and commits substantial resources to their original themes. If LEGO genuinely thought there was a substantially bigger market for monorails than in the past, there's no reason to think they wouldn't put one in the City or Friends theme. Or for that matter, even the Nexo Knights theme, which in the show already has a glowing "holo-rail" as a means of transit which has been the target of multiple bad guy attacks.
It's not just a matter of the cost of making new molds or redesigning PF motors. I don't think a new monorail will exist because there isn't a market for it. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of kids who come in the store are gunning for Star Wars or Superhero sets. There aren't as many that are looking for City sets, and there's only a tiny fraction of those who are interested in trains. For your average kid, there isn't a functional difference between monorails and trains. We usually only have one train on the shelves at any time (It's been the High Speed Passenger Train for as long as I can remember, it seems) so to have a train plus a monorail taking up shelf space isn't viable when the trains already sell at a much slower rate than other sets. There unfortunately is a narrow target audience. Not to mention, train layouts take up a TON of space. The advantage of monorails is that you can run them overhead of your existing setup easier than you can trains.
It's mostly the adults my age who ask about the old monorail sets but I can tell you that there are WAY fewer of them than the customers that ask about the Firehouse, Slave I, or Helicarrier. Someone upthread made a good point about how expensive monorails were back when they did exist. According to the database, 6990 was $155 in 1987 which is just over $330 today. If I gave you the option to spend $330 on a monorail or spend an extra 20 bucks on a Firehouse Headquarters, Disney Castle, or Helicarrier, which would you do? And keep in mind on top of that that it's a specific type of AFOL on these forums pining for monorails, not necessarily the typical customer.
I hear the argument that Lego is more concerned with their licensed themes, but then the same customers balk at the price of the big exclusives that aren't licensed. There's limited shelf space and limited disposable income. Believe me, I'd love to see a new monorail, but it would require specific track: the track is toothed which allows it to climb (if you've never seen an image of monorail track, think cogged-railway) which is half the appeal of a monorail. I'm looking forward to finally having my monorail up and built in Brickadelphia as I've had to design a good portion of my city around the route, taking into account clearance for track curve and other issues. But it beats losing square footage for on-the-ground train tracks. Most kids would rather just get a self-contained playset that they can build and play with quickly, which is a whole other topic.
Years ago, in the days of RTL, I went into a Service Merchandise, and from across the store I saw a tiny bit of a yellow box way up on top of the toy shelves, where product was not normally kept. I climbed up the shelves and lo and behold it was the Airport Shuttle, marked down to $39.97. It was already over a year since it had been discontinued. I'm assuming somebody stuck it up there while merchandising (it was a huge box for those days) and simply forgot about it.
I've bought plenty of sets on sale / clearance over the years, but that was my only really great score as such.