Lego 2x3 Plate Mold

[Carrera124]

I don't see why a re-release of monorail parts/sets is impossible. Yes, the parts are big and their usage is limited, what makes both producing the mould and producing the parts very expensive.

But in the last years, parts of the same category were chosen to be produced. E.g. parts 85976 and 85977: rather big, very limited use cases, and released in only 2-3 sets.

So, it doesn'lt look like an isse of pure money/costs/benefit, but rather like an issue of money/costs/benefit + willingness.

[Lyichir]

There are a number of reasons why we're unlikely to see monorails again. For one, it would cost a lot to bring back the molds. Secondly, the old monorail was honestly a pretty poor design (not really a true monorail, since the whole thing rested on a large platform). Thirdly, monorails no longer represent the bright future they once did; nowadays the only monorails you see are at theme parks and similar attractions, and the new future of mass transit is represented instead by mag-lev or bullet trains. This limits the appeal of monorails to kids.

[naf]

While I do think Lego monorail as we know it is dead and never coming back, I'm sure at some point Lego will produce some sort of "space train of the future." It will just be a completely new design, the mag-lev mentioned above would be neat.

[LEGO Historian]

Lake Otaku (my fellow Michigan native WILYKAT on BL).... that was very very well said!!

I really enjoyed your narrative, and you hit on all the right points! Job well done!

P.S. Carrer124 also hit on one additional point... "willingness".... which sometimes seems to be an intangible that TLG adds to parts production.... we sometimes "don't get why TLG does a particular thing... it may not always make sense... but it's somehow based on a "willingness" for TLG to do some things that may not otherwise seem to make business sense.... something that many of us can find examples of!

Good job folks!!

[Faefrost]

There is a forum thread over on Brickset in which Mark Stafford offered a lot of commentary that goes into some pretty deep detail as to why there is pretty much no chance of seeing the Monorail again. At least in the type of setup as it was in th eold days. Sadly I can't get to Brickset right now to link it, but If I remember the highlights were something like this.

- At least 4 of the Monorail molds can no longer be used and have been retired or destroyed. These are high precision part molds, so figure these would run at a minimum $200,000+ each to replace.

- Electric motor systems face incredibly tough (and incredibly expensive) product testing requirements.

- The Monorail sets while fondly remembered, never sold well and never made money. Hence when the molds died they were not replaced.

- Their research finds that kids like to look at nice displays with movement, like monorails and trains. But it isn't really what they want to play with or buy. The trains survive on the rich dedicated AFOL train fan hobbiests. The Monorails were more a novelty. While they are remembered fondly, there just isn't the actual market out there willing to pay for them. At least not a large enough market to account for well over $1 million in tooling and design costs.

There are a lot of fans and AFOLs that are looking to use existing common pieces and Power Functions to design a new type of Monorail that does not use the specialized parts. That would probably be the only hope for it.

[Carrera124]

Maybe they never made money, but did the monorail sets really sell so badly?

There are tons of sets and rails listed at eBay and BL, and this represents only a small fraction of the total number of all produced sets.

They were expensive flagship sets at their times. But like all other flagship sets, this didn't prevent buyers from buying them.

[naf]

There is a forum thread over on Brickset in which Mark Stafford offered a lot of commentary that goes into some pretty deep detail as to why there is pretty much no chance of seeing the Monorail again. At least in the type of setup as it was in th eold days. Sadly I can't get to Brickset right now to link it, but If I remember the highlights were something like this.

- At least 4 of the Monorail molds can no longer be used and have been retired or destroyed. These are high precision part molds, so figure these would run at a minimum $200,000+ each to replace.

- Electric motor systems face incredibly tough (and incredibly expensive) product testing requirements.

- The Monorail sets while fondly remembered, never sold well and never made money. Hence when the molds died they were not replaced.

- Their research finds that kids like to look at nice displays with movement, like monorails and trains. But it isn't really what they want to play with or buy. The trains survive on the rich dedicated AFOL train fan hobbiests. The Monorails were more a novelty. While they are remembered fondly, there just isn't the actual market out there willing to pay for them. At least not a large enough market to account for well over $1 million in tooling and design costs.

There are a lot of fans and AFOLs that are looking to use existing common pieces and Power Functions to design a new type of Monorail that does not use the specialized parts. That would probably be the only hope for it.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the current power function technology, but I'm assuming that Lego still produces some sort of motor that could be used to power a monorail? I think the problem back then was that they had a special motor for the monorail, a few different types of motors for the trains, etc. If everything ran off of the same basic system, it would cut that cost way down.

Where did you read about their research with regards to kids and the monorail? I'd be interested in reading about it. I was 6 years old when I got the futuron monorail, and I absolutely loved it. The main problem was the lack of track in the box, you could only make a basic oval. Once I got the track expansion I had a lot more fun with the set.

Perhaps there's a large enough AFOL and teen market where a monorail would be more profitable now? I know I'd buy one if it was produced.

[GregoryBrick]

When it's said that the monorail (or any other product) didn't make enough money, I assume it's not simply whether there was a profit or not. It's whether the profit on the investment necessary for a monorail was greater than the profit on a different use of TLG's resources. This includes consideration of spin-off effects, like brand appeal, customer attraction/retention, or whatever.

This is why a contemporary monorail requires more than simply people who will buy it, even if it sells at a profit when looked at in isolation. It would have to generate enough return that it would be more appealing than an alternative application of TLG's resources.

[Carrera124]

When it's said that the monorail (or any other product) didn't make enough money, I assume it's not simply whether there was a profit or not. It's whether the profit on the investment necessary for a monorail was greater than the profit on a different use of TLG's resources. This includes consideration of spin-off effects, like brand appeal, customer attraction/retention, or whatever.

Well, a Monorail layout is still an eye-catcher on every exhibition. Sets reach high prices at eBay, which means that many people remind and desire it.

-> spin-off effects were everything but zero.

[Faefrost]

Where did you read about their research with regards to kids and the monorail? I'd be interested in reading about it. I was 6 years old when I got the futuron monorail, and I absolutely loved it. The main problem was the lack of track in the box, you could only make a basic oval. Once I got the track expansion I had a lot more fun with the set.

Perhaps there's a large enough AFOL and teen market where a monorail would be more profitable now? I know I'd buy one if it was produced.

Lego designer Mark Stafford talked about the research, and what it is the kids actually buy, over in that older Brickset thread. He got a lot of flack for basically saying that no kids don't want to play with Monorails. But he lays everything out very clearly there.

I think it would be possible to create some form of modern Lego monorail, using current tech. Power functions and basic parts. But not in the classic 4 wide form factor. And to what real benefit? Look ant the current red passenger train? The only real practical differences between it and the airport monorail was ultimately the track. The monorail had an advantage of being able to change elevation, but in every other way the train systems are more flexible. Plus monorails don't represent what they once did. Once they were the future. These days they are mainly remembered as anachronistic boondoggles. The three most famous monorails in the world. Disney. The Simpson's. And Detroit. One of those has morphed into more of a light rail airport type tram. The others are a famous fictional political boondoggle to illustrate political corruption and fraud, and it's actual real life counterpart of political corruption fraud and failure. Monorails are relics of the rocket age. The modern equivalent is high speed rail, of which kids are more likely to encounter, is still growing, and has supplanted monorails in the areas of political corruption and tax payer fraud. Lego seems well invested in high speed rail sets.

[naf]

I think that's why I liked the monorail so much. I'm a Detroit resident and liked riding the Detroit People Mover as a kid. It's a lot less impressive as an adult The futuron monorail, however, still brings me joy.

[GregoryBrick]

Well, a Monorail layout is still an eye-catcher on every exhibition. Sets reach high prices at eBay, which means that many people remind and desire it.

-> spin-off effects were everything but zero.

I'm not ignorant about how many AFOLs love the monorail sets and I'm not sure how this changes anything about my point. Could you elaborate?

[Faefrost]

Well, a Monorail layout is still an eye-catcher on every exhibition. Sets reach high prices at eBay, which means that many people remind and desire it.

-> spin-off effects were everything but zero.

Actually in his commentary on the older Brickset thread Mark Stafford addressed just that. Yes Monorails garner a lot of attention at public displays. Kids love to watch them there. But there is pretty much no correlation between what they like to watch on Exibition like that, and spin off effects of product sales.

And it wasn't that the monorails didn't make enough money, or they felt more could be made elsewhere with the resources. Trains is basically a break even or small profit line that Lego sticks with. The monorails did not achieve that. They were a loss.

[Carrera124]

Actually in his commentary on the older Brickset thread Mark Stafford addressed just that. Yes Monorails garner a lot of attention at public displays. Kids love to watch them there. But there is pretty much no correlation between what they like to watch on Exibition like that, and spin off effects of product sales.

Of course, there is no effect on product sales. Because TLG doesn't offer monorail sets any more.

And lots of people like to watch them, many people buy used and MISB sets. All this proves that monorail is still alive in the minds of many people. So, imho this is clearly a kind of spin-off-effect.

But it's useless to continue discussing. As we all know, TLG marketing guys are always perfect and without fail. They never had false estimations. They always placed the most-wanted series, and they never produced too much or too few sets of specific series. We never had the situation that sets were sold out for a longer period (who said "friends"???) or that sets were produced which no one wanted to buy.

[GregoryBrick]

And it wasn't that the monorails didn't make enough money, or they felt more could be made elsewhere with the resources. Trains is basically a break even or small profit line that Lego sticks with. The monorails did not achieve that. They were a loss.

Yeah, for the past monorail sets. But I was clarifying that "Why don't they sell X? I would buy it, and they would make money" isn't enough reason for a company to make product X now or in the future.

EDIT: And now I don't see how your description is anything different from what I said, after reading both of them carefully. "Was a loss" is the same as "didn't make enough money [to warrant continuing their production]".

Edited February 4, 2014 by GregoryBrick

[Faefrost]

Here's the thread over at Brickset.

http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/3869/why-no-more-monorail

(Please keep in mind this goes back to 2012 so they probably don't want it bumped.)

LEGO_Nabil is Mark Stafford. And he has a number of very detailed posts throughout the thread. A worthwhile read to realize why "it's dead Jim".

This is probably the most direct and concise of his statements concerning it; (quoted from above link, Lego_Nabil, 2012)

"The reason LEGO has stopped making monorail is threefold, one the motors and track molds ran out and would be very expensive to replace. Two, no monorail set ever made any money, in fact despite trying several different types at high price points they all cost more to produce then they were sold for. Three, kids these days don't see them as exciting, they are from theme parks or airports, not a futuristic thing at all, in fact pretty boring. Though most find trains quite dull too - sorry, but ninja's vs skeletons is far cooler then a train going in a circle even if it is on only one rail!"

Also be warned there is quite a bit of well let's call it "debate" over there that would not be tolerated here. The thread is more than a bit argumentative. You have been warned.

[AndyC]

EDIT: And now I don't see how your description is anything different from what I said, after reading both of them carefully. "Was a loss" is the same as "didn't make enough money [to warrant continuing their production]".

Not quite. "Didn't make enough..." implies that the line was profitable, but that the profits were considered to small a margin to be worthwhile (because other lines would be more profitable, the amount was too small for the risks involved etc). "Was a loss" is very different. It means that TLG actually lost money overall and simply couldn't sell enough sets at a high enough price to actually recover the investment costs, let alone make any actual money.

Now it's also true that the monorails came from an era when TLG was doing a poor job of understanding the true cost of individual sets at design time and often weren't pricing them as high as they perhaps should have (or conversely adjusting the design to better target the proposed price point). I suspect that if they had been as effective at that as they are today, we may never have seen monorails released at all.

[GregoryBrick]

Not quite. "Didn't make enough..." implies that the line was profitable, but that the profits were considered to small a margin to be worthwhile (because other lines would be more profitable, the amount was too small for the risks involved etc). "Was a loss" is very different. It means that TLG actually lost money overall and simply couldn't sell enough sets at a high enough price to actually recover the investment costs, let alone make any actual money.

And it's precisely this distinction which is a red herring, which is my point. If someone thinks that the reason any set (monorail or otherwise, new molds or otherwise) is discontinued is because it lost money, then the implication is that a set which makes money has reason to be produced. This implication is false, and it's an implication reiterated by the posts which say "I and all my AFOL buddies would totally buy a new monorail, therefore it would make money, therefore TLG ought to make it". That argument is predicated on the assumption that the important distinction is 'didn't pay for its costs' vs. 'would pay for its costs and also generate additional revenue', and that assumption is false. The important distinction is whether producing a set would optimize profit for TLG in the long run or not. While TLG doesn't seem to deal in loss leaders, the "yes/no" for producing a set can't be reduced to "made money/lost money", taken in isolation. I'm not disputing the historical facts around monorail production.

[Front]

People tend to glorify things from the past. Had there never been LEGO monorail sets, and it was launched as a entirely new product in 2014, AFOL would all jump at it, claiming it was useless, and totally redundant because of trains.

Btw. that mould in the first post in this topic, is so outdated.

Erland

Part Design

[Artanis I]

I think you could replace "demand" for a monorail by having train tracks (or a brick-built alternative) that take up less space and can be elevated. The Horizon Express train looks a lot like the old monorail trains.

I don't think the "draw" to Lego monorail that isn't satisfied by regular Lego trains is to be able to reproduce real-life style monorails in Lego, nor the notion of one rail. I think it's the way that the tracks are compact (a bit more invisible), and can go up and around buildings in multiple levels. If train tracks provided these two things, Lego monorail fans could be satisfied by Lego trains.

So we don't necessarily want new monorails, we probably just want the trains be more versatile and less daggy*.

(*More like a Lamborghini and less like a Volvo)

[SearchFunction]

Thirdly, monorails no longer represent the bright future they once did

Hits the nail on the head. If they wanted to redo them, they could make them like the newer flexible traintracks. To all others though, why not just brick-build your own monorail? Or cheat a little and use non-lego parts? Or buy a model train instead? There are options here if you want it badly enough people.

[RTZX9R]

I bought a Futuron monorail (set 6990) a few years ago and it is a very neat LEGO set. That being said, I am not sure this theme would sell well these days. Due to the track and electronics (even if using existing PF), the set would need to be expensive to ensure traditional profit margins are maintained by TLG. I would struggle to pay $250 + for a NEW monorail set as an AFOL. Part of the appeal of the monorail sets is that they were virtually unobtainable as a child – too expensive, hard to find, short lifecycle, etc.

As an AFOL, now I can afford to spend the same $250 on a used old monorail and fulfill that desire I never met as a child. Sure it costs a bit more than I care to spend, but it is part of the appeal and challenge to me. The same goes for older 12v trains – many were never available in the USA and now I enjoying collecting the 7745, 7740, 7735, 7725, etc.

Hopefully one day I am able to purchase an Airport Monorail… until then I don’t plan for any news from TLG for a new Monorail theme. I am just happy they keep releasing (great) new train sets

[naf]

People tend to glorify things from the past. Had there never been LEGO monorail sets, and it was launched as a entirely new product in 2014, AFOL would all jump at it, claiming it was useless, and totally redundant because of trains.

Btw. that mould in the first post in this topic, is so outdated.

Erland

Part Design

Lego has produced several different types of train track in the past, and different powered trains (4.5v, 9v, 12v, etc). I don't think people complain that these are redundant and useless, and you have fans in each of these categories.

Monorail is just another type of track. It is more compact, it can change elevation, it's small enough to wind up and down around and through buildings. Plus, you can't do this with traditional Lego trains:

Edited February 15, 2014 by naf

[Orange Leader]

The elevation and the 4 studs long width are the main arguments for me why I enjoy LEGO monorail more then LEGO trains, but I enjoy the latter as well.

[Lego Otaku]

Same, I loved Monorail back then as it was the future plus it's still the only official motorized set that is designed for 3D use. Train and other motorized sets are only capable of 2D (no Z-axis or up/down)