Chances of an Emerald Night re-release?

[Aanchir]

On 11/29/2018 at 6:17 AM, ProvenceTristram said:

This.

Look, the simple fact of the matter is: pretty as the Emerald Night may be, it isn't a particularly good representation of a steam locomotive. Just because it's better than the outright swill that Lego typically passes off for steam engines doesn't make it good in general - just in a relative sense. Given the price tag attached even when it was new, I took one look at the thing and started giggling. But I guess people are enamored of bright colors or something.  

You can design a significantly more realistic locomotive at around the same part count (preferably in 8w), and Bricklink it for the same price. That, to me, is a no-brainer. 

I think as a train enthusiast it's probably not hard to spot all the problems with a set like Emerald Night, but I remember it being popular even with AFOLs who don't really pay attention to the world of trains outside of LEGO. On Brickset it is both highly rated by reviewers and highly sought after.

And let's face it — it's not as though AFOLs who collect other sets inspired by real-life historical subject matter like castles and pirate ships are super concerned about whether they are realistic in every possible respect. Some of the most beloved sets in those themes take enormous creative liberties from their real historical counterparts. The bigger concern generally tends to be whether they are in line with the generalized picture of those subjects that people have in their heads, based on exposure to those subjects in both real life and fiction/pop culture.

On 11/29/2018 at 9:34 AM, 3797 said:

Trains not making enough money is quite the fairytale. If that was the case, then why even make 60197 and 60198? They do sell. There are quite a few webshops that have review sections and trains usually have pretty much the same amount of reviews as other sets in that price bracket. Also, Powered Up (or PF before that) isn't that expensive to manufacture. It's not as if they'd have to give the rest of the bricks away for free. Aaand... train sets are some of the most heavily pirated sets. There has to be a reason for that.

I've seens kids beg thair parents for a LEGO train and I've heard teenagers talk about how awesome of a set 10254 is and how they enjoyed building it. 

Nobody says train sets don't sell, but they most certainly don't sell at the same rate to either kids or adults as things like modular buildings or City police stations that LEGO is able to sell a new installment of each year. In fact, they seem to make a purposeful effort to keep City train sets available far longer than most other City sets since they wouldn't be able to sell in nearly those same numbers over just a one to two year period.

Of course, a lot of that is definitely due to costs. A complete train set with tracks, controllers, and motors is extremely pricy even by usual LEGO standards, and always has been. At $150, the (rightfully!) beloved Metroliner was only slightly cheaper than this year's similar-priced passenger train before adjusting for inflation. Making that adjustment brings that up to $275.89, 72% higher than the latest passenger train set… and that's still without the $42 Transformer and Speed Regulator set that you needed to make it run! As much as the costs of LEGO train sets have decreased, they are still far more expensive than most other City sets, as well as most sets in other popular themes like Friends, Ninjago, Classic, and Creator.

Even so, when comparing even a more modestly-priced, AFOL-targeted train set like Horizon Express versus even slightly more expensive and somewhat more divisive sets from around the same time like Fairground Mixer and Palace Cinema, far more Brickset users own the latter sets than the former.

And it's not as though LEGO designers like Mark Stafford (1|2|3|4|5), who are themselves AFOLs from the same generation as many LEGO train fans, have had any incentive to lie to us AFOLs about the popularity of train sets (both in terms of kid testing responses and sales) being limited. It'd be one thing if they were saying that kind of thing about sets they don't make at all or ones they never made, but why would a company try to negatively spin the popularity of product categories that were such a big source of childhood enjoyment for so many of their older fans? Let alone ones that, even if few in number, are still an almost constant part of their portfolio?

On 11/30/2018 at 1:12 AM, ProvenceTristram said:

I feel like a driving rod isn't something you can really fake - it's a specialized part that just needs to be what it is. The thing is, though, were they to design, say, a three or two-couple driving rod mold, that could be reused on all Lego-designed steam locomotives going forward for the next 20 years or more; it would definitely have multi-set use.

Multi-set use for a handful of sets over a 20 year period is a really low bar to clear compared to the actual requirements LEGO generally puts on new molds and on the budgets for individual sets these days. One of the big problems for LEGO in the 90s and 2000s was their number of colors, molds, and elements expanding out of control, often without those costs being adequately accounted for in the price of the sets. So since then, LEGO's Design Lab has become MUCH stricter.

You would not be able to get away with saying that the mold ought to be able to pay for itself within a 20 year period. How are going to guarantee that the demand you anticipate for such sets in the next 20 years, and the design standards you created the mold based on, will even be the same across that whole span of time? It's totally possible that demand for train sets could decline even further at any point in the future, or that some change in audience expectations, toy industry regulations, or advances in technology might require completely re-imagining the design of LEGO train tracks or wheels, potentially rendering parts designed to work with existing train wheels obsolete. So to get a new mold approved by Design Lab, you'd need to show them evidence that it will have versatile enough, extensive enough, and necessary enough uses to pay for itself in the short term.

Granted, there are some molds that ARE used only in one or two sets, like the heads of the Star Wars buildable figures or some minifigure parts and accessories for licensed themes. But these can reduce their costs somewhat by using molds that aren't designed with the kind of resilience required for extensive, long-term, multi-set use in the first place. And even then, the set's price point and quantity produced/sold are still required to absorb the additional costs of those new molds… which is part of the reason for such sets often having a poor value for money compared to sets that stick to more traditional parts or new parts that are shared with numerous other sets and themes.

On 11/30/2018 at 10:07 AM, CSW652 said:

I think the trains would be more popular if you could actually find them in the stores.  Other than Toys R Us, I have never seen them in a store like Walmart, Target, etc....

I think the causality is a bit backwards there — based on what we've heard from LEGO, how much impact retailers have on LEGO's product decisions, and the fact that in the past some of these retailers DID carry LEGO train sets more extensively, it seems more likely to me that train sets aren't in those stores as often because they weren't popular enough for those retailers to continue stocking them. Even ignoring the relative popularity of trains as a category compared to stuff like police or fire or Ninjago or Star Wars sets, a lot of shoppers at stores like Target and Walmart go there specifically looking for low prices, so stuff as expensive as LEGO trains isn't as well-tailored to that market segment as lower-priced sets that take up less shelf space and are within more people's budgets.

Stores like LEGO Brand Stores or Toys 'R' Us tend to have more success high-end LEGO sets in general, because as specialized retailers they have better insight into how to sell them, and also they are better at attracting collectors and parents who are more comfortable spending a little more than they might elsewhere if they know they're getting a quality product and a satisfying, toy-enthusiast-targeted shopping experience.

 

[3797]

On 12/1/2018 at 11:35 PM, Aanchir said:

Nobody says train sets don't sell, but they most certainly don't sell at the same rate to either kids or adults as things like modular buildings or City police stations that LEGO is able to sell a new installment of each year. In fact, they seem to make a purposeful effort to keep City train sets available far longer than most other City sets since they wouldn't be able to sell in nearly those same numbers over just a one to two year period.

You don't need to continue throwing these walls of text at me. You're the guy who basically wanted to tell me that kids don't like teddy bears anymore. Can't take that kind of senseless drivel seriously.

@LEGO: If the statement about trains not selling enough is true, then please do yourself a favour and stop selling 60197 & 60198 in 2019. Feel free to use those two slots for more lucrative things, instead. Don't hold back because of morrons like me. Don't worry, I can spend my money elsewhere.

[Aanchir]

6 hours ago, 3797 said:

You don't need to continue throwing these walls of text at me. You're the guy who basically wanted to tell me that kids don't like teddy bears anymore. Can't take that kind of senseless drivel seriously.

I… uh… don't remember saying anything even slightly close to that? Like, is that in reference to Fabuland, because I thought the last conversation I had with you on that subject was pointing out that Fabuland was around the same building level as later stuff like Jack Stone/Juniors/4+. But I don't remember ever trying to argue that kids no longer like cute animal toys. Heck, I still have plenty of stuffed animals and usually bring one with me most places so I have something to hug if I start to feel stressed/depressed/anxious. If anything, I'm MORE in favor of cute and cuddly looking LEGO stuff like the LEGO Friends/Elves critters than many other AFOLs are.

But I apologize for not being good at keeping my thoughts more concise. I know the walls of text are something I have a problem with and it's not something I'm proud of. Usually it's because I'm worried if I don't clarify everything enough that people will get the wrong idea about what I'm saying… but then, if that's what happened with whatever that conversation you're referring to was, then I guess any attempts I must have made to clarify didn't really help any and just made me sound preachy/obstinate. Sorry about that…

6 hours ago, 3797 said:

@LEGO: If the statement about trains not selling enough is true, then please do yourself a favour and stop selling 60197 & 60198 in 2019. Feel free to use those two slots for more lucrative things, instead. Don't hold back because of morrons like me. Don't worry, I can spend my money elsewhere.

That kind of all-or-nothing reductivism isn't very helpful. There's plenty of middle ground between "category so popular that it deserves a full wave of sets every year" and "category so unpopular that there's no point to investing in it at all". "A few new big train sets every few years" is well within that middle ground.

Like I said in my previous post: there's demand for trains, just not as much of it as there is for other stuff LEGO already invests more in. And it's not like having fewer train sets would create more demand for "more lucrative things". Even the most popular themes and subthemes usually get about as many sets per year as LEGO expects the market to bear.

[Digger of Bricks]

25 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

I know the walls of text are something I have a problem with and it's not something I'm proud of. Usually it's because I'm worried if I don't clarify everything enough that people will get the wrong idea about what I'm saying… but then, if that's what happened with whatever that conversation you're referring to was, then I guess any attempts I must have made to clarify didn't really help any and just made me sound preachy/obstinate. Sorry about that…

Don't be sorry!  For me, your 'walls of text' are the reason I'm following you, as they make for some great, insightful, well-researched reading material. I may not always share the same sentiments, but you still make excellent points for any topic you respond to! 

[Pdaitabird]

I think part of the problem for the Emerald Night, like most of the more recent train sets, is its size. A $100+ train is a pretty big investment for a lot of people. When the entire train line consists of just two or three big sets, many fans will opt to buy neither. I think TLG had the right idea in the early 2000s, with a diverse line of rolling stock at various price points.

[supertruper1988]

1 minute ago, Pdaitabird said:

I think part of the problem for the Emerald Night, like most of the more recent train sets, is its size. A $100+ train is a pretty big investment for a lot of people. When the entire train line consists of just two or three big sets, many fans will opt to buy neither. I think TLG had the right idea in the early 2000s, with a diverse line of rolling stock at various price points.

Except they didnt sell well and were blown out for pennies so TLG wont be doing that again. 

[Pdaitabird]

Who cares about profits? TLG exists solely to cater to my personal taste!

[legotownlinz]

47 minutes ago, supertruper1988 said:

Except they didnt sell well and were blown out for pennies so TLG wont be doing that again. 

But shouldn't be a re-release be profitable even at low quantities? There are no costs to design the model, even the instructions already exist.

I wish they did a re-release every few month, available for a limited time in the web store only. Lego produces so many sets, it can't be a big deal to produce some re-releases.

[ScotNick]

40 minutes ago, legotownlinz said:

But shouldn't be a re-release be profitable even at low quantities? There are no costs to design the model, even the instructions already exist.

I wish they did a re-release every few month, available for a limited time in the web store only. Lego produces so many sets, it can't be a big deal to produce some re-releases.

I think a re-release is not as easy as it might seem. I think I remember some Lego staff stating somewhere that each year or so only some parts are produced - this is necessary to keep production cost as low as possible. Producing every part in every colour the whole time wouldn't be possible - even for Lego. There just is a limited amount of machines that fill the molds with plastic, changing the colour of a mold takes a long time so this has to be justified as well. This explains some odd colours in areas of models not seen from the outside. The parts and colours produced each year just changes, which makes re-releases quite expensive, if crucial parts of the model aren't produced for other sets as well 

[Bartosz]

20 hours ago, supertruper1988 said:

Except they didnt sell well and were blown out for pennies so TLG wont be doing that again. 

Was it really a case for those rolling stock sets, or was it a more general problem for TLG at that time?

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, Bartosz said:

Was it really a case for those rolling stock sets, or was it a more general problem for TLG at that time?

I think both — a lot of sets/themes back then performed poorly, but for the most part it was not because of a general disinterest in LEGO, but rather because of a failure to adequately understand, research and test what kind of products people were actually interested in buying.

In this Reddit thread that I linked above, Mark Stafford specifically addressed some of the problems with selling individual carriages rather than more reliably successful all-in-one trains or train sets, including the strain it puts on production resources to produce limited-run sets aimed at smaller audiences.

[Carefree_Dude]

On 11/29/2018 at 3:17 AM, ProvenceTristram said:

This.

Look, the simple fact of the matter is: pretty as the Emerald Night may be, it isn't a particularly good representation of a steam locomotive. Just because it's better than the outright swill that Lego typically passes off for steam engines doesn't make it good in general - just in a relative sense. Given the price tag attached even when it was new, I took one look at the thing and started giggling. But I guess people are enamored of bright colors or something. 

You can design a significantly more realistic locomotive at around the same part count (preferably in 8w), and Bricklink it for the same price. That, to me, is a no-brainer.

Man, so much eliteism here. Sure it may not conform to your ideas of what a steam engine should be, but it is a fun set and an interesting build, which is all that should matter in a mass produced childrens toy.

[ProvenceTristram]

2 minutes ago, Goldenmasamune said:

Man, so much eliteism here. Sure it may not conform to your ideas of what a steam engine should be, but it is a fun set and an interesting build, which is all that should matter in a mass produced childrens toy.

1) Nice ad hominem. I don't give a wet fig about your opinions of me, and I stand by my take: it's a weak product.

2) Moreover, you cannot play both sides of the same coin - either the Emerald Night is beautiful, and a strong effort by Lego, or it's a "mass produced children's toy," in which case you are conceding the point on whether its aesthetically acceptable given its high dollar command and ridiculous after-market price.

3) Lego Creator sets are, by the way, marketed almost exclusively towards adults. Their city sets are of a very high quality... but we're just supposed to accept mediocrity because it's a train?

[icm]

2 - Part of being an adult and recognizing the complexity of the world, I think, is that it is possible to "play both sides of the same coin," or at least recognize that competing opinions usually all carry some degree of truth.  It is quite possible to consider that the Emerald Night is a beautiful set and a strong effort by Lego, while also conceding that it is a mass-produced children's toy!  At 1085 pieces and an RRP of $99.99 USD, it was quite reasonably priced when new, even if it does command silly money on the used market now.

3 - Buyers of the Modular Building line, to which you refer, complain about mediocrity just as much as you do.  I'm sure many of them hold just as high an opinion of the Emerald Night as you seem to hold of the Modular Buildings.

Conclusion: We can hold firm opinions about something without, like Thanos, snapping at the other side.  For myself, I admire the Emerald Night a lot, but I also concede its flaws and agree that I would rather see a wholly redesigned locomotive with more accurate proportions and mechanics rather than a direct re-release.

[Eaglefan344]

What do you guys think is the better buy right now? Maersk of Emerald? I think the chances of a re-release for the Maersk are limited to none, especially since they don't even make the Maersk blue anymore, while the EN re-release chances are much better. EN also optimally needs multiple carriages which is not doable with the aftermarket prices now. Thoughts? I want both eventually but I'm wondering which to go for first.

[supertruper1988]

17 minutes ago, Eaglefan344 said:

What do you guys think is the better buy right now? Maersk of Emerald? I think the chances of a re-release for the Maersk are limited to none, especially since they don't even make the Maersk blue anymore, while the EN re-release chances are much better. EN also optimally needs multiple carriages which is not doable with the aftermarket prices now. Thoughts? I want both eventually but I'm wondering which to go for first.

I think that MODing both of these would be cheaper and look better at this point. You can do a ton of road names for the Maersk as its based on an EMD GP38/40 model.

The Emerald night can be built in a bunch of colors with little fuss and the running mechanism needs to be re-built anyway. The train cars for the EN are also hard to build in the original colors but there are many great MOD and MOC versions out there.

[MAB]

15 hours ago, ProvenceTristram said:

3) Lego Creator sets are, by the way, marketed almost exclusively towards adults. Their city sets are of a very high quality... but we're just supposed to accept mediocrity because it's a train?

 

Most creator sets are aimed at 7 or 8 to 12 year olds. Creator Expert is aimed at 16+. Compare the flagship of the Creator Expert range - the Modulars - with real buildings. They are to real buildings what the Emerald Night is to real steam trains. Really quite poor if you want exact, detailed, working copies, but the best you'll get from LEGO.

 

[Aanchir]

On 12/6/2018 at 11:07 AM, Eaglefan344 said:

What do you guys think is the better buy right now? Maersk of Emerald? I think the chances of a re-release for the Maersk are limited to none, especially since they don't even make the Maersk blue anymore, while the EN re-release chances are much better. EN also optimally needs multiple carriages which is not doable with the aftermarket prices now. Thoughts? I want both eventually but I'm wondering which to go for first.

If they wanted to remake the Maersk Train, I suspect they'd just change the color to Medium Azur, since that's closer to the color Maersk currently uses in their corporate branding. Frankly, there's a good chance that Maersk would insist on that update in order to better meet their current brand standards even if the old color (Pastel Blue/Maersk Blue) were still available to LEGO.

That said, I think Emerald Knight is probably a more immediate candidate for a re-release, because it's closer to its 10th anniversary, and because its nostalgic appeal is based on its design, not divided between the design itself and the connection to a well-known brand.

 

[Redimus]

As someone who's got both, even though it has no real connection to my particular train interests, the Maersk is lightyears ahead of Emerald Night. It is a fantastic set that shows you can get a good compromise between realism and playability. 

I think comparing EN to the modulars is unfair, the modulars are designed by people clearly passionate about making Lego buildings, and are mostly very impressive and full of details that make sense. EN looks like it was designed by someone who didn't give a toss about trains, and had no idea how to power them. It has random colours sticking out in places that make no sense (the brown under the running board for instance) the tender (like all Lego tenders) is such an obvious afterthought I suspect they considered not even releasing the set with it (come on guys, at least make it the same width as the loco it's connected to!) and someone needs to explain to Lego that having a battery box sticking out of the tender is never a satisfactory solution to powering a loco.

TL;DR The Modulars are a range of consistently good high quality fun Lego builds. EN is not.

I find the chances of any of the creator trains being re-released is very low too.

EDIT: While not perfect, I'd say the most recent Hogwarts Express was a step in the right direction. For the first time ever, it looked like the designer of a Lego steam loco had seen a photo of the real thing (and it didn't take much to bring it up to a standard I was happy with... and then I completely rebuilt it from the track up because I have a problem, lol). Maybe instead on insisting on niche creator sets, we should be encouraging Lego to bring out trains connected to popular franchises, because they sell better. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Redimus

[Julam]

Giving how much those tan window frames cost me to make extra carriages, I certainly hope we don't see a re-release.  Although I'd happily see it in another colour.  That blue version looks Grande

[ProvenceTristram]

2 hours ago, Redimus said:

As someone who's got both, even though it has no real connection to my particular train interests, the Maersk is lightyears ahead of Emerald Night. It is a fantastic set that shows you can get a good compromise between realism and playability. 

I think comparing EN to the modulars is unfair, the modulars are designed by people clearly passionate about making Lego buildings, and are mostly very impressive and full of details that make sense. EN looks like it was designed by someone who didn't give a toss about trains, and had no idea how to power them. It has random colours sticking out in places that make no sense (the brown under the running board for instance) the tender (like all Lego tenders) is such an obvious afterthought I suspect they considered not even releasing the set with it (come on guys, at least make it the same width as the loco it's connected to!) and someone needs to explain to Lego that having a battery box sticking out of the tender is never a satisfactory solution to powering a loco.

TL;DR The Modulars are a range of consistently good high quality fun Lego builds. EN is not.

I find the chances of any of the creator trains being re-released is very low too.

EDIT: While not perfect, I'd say the most recent Hogwarts Express was a step in the right direction. For the first time ever, it looked like the designer of a Lego steam loco had seen a photo of the real thing (and it didn't take much to bring it up to a standard I was happy with... and then I completely rebuilt it from the track up because I have a problem, lol). Maybe instead on insisting on niche creator sets, we should be encouraging Lego to bring out trains connected to popular franchises, because they sell better. 

I also thought the Hogwarts express was a slight improvement, if sadly having reverted to 6w.

[3797]

On 12/8/2018 at 11:20 AM, Julam said:

Giving how much those tan window frames cost me to make extra carriages, I certainly hope we don't see a re-release.

Why, though? A lower price would mean that you could buy more of them.

[Aanchir]

On 12/8/2018 at 4:32 AM, Redimus said:

I think comparing EN to the modulars is unfair, the modulars are designed by people clearly passionate about making Lego buildings, and are mostly very impressive and full of details that make sense. EN looks like it was designed by someone who didn't give a toss about trains, and had no idea how to power them. It has random colours sticking out in places that make no sense (the brown under the running board for instance) the tender (like all Lego tenders) is such an obvious afterthought I suspect they considered not even releasing the set with it (come on guys, at least make it the same width as the loco it's connected to!) and someone needs to explain to Lego that having a battery box sticking out of the tender is never a satisfactory solution to powering a loco.

Based on reviews I've seen when it came out (including Eurobricks' own initial review and the Reviewers' Academy review two years later) and the comments that followed, Emerald Night was extremely well received for its time and continued to have a positive reputation for some time after that. And one of those reviewers was by an Australian who said the local price of $149.99 AUD (equivalent at that time to around $100 USD) was "nothing" for that many pieces, and that he "would have paid $150 AUD for just the loco and tender so I suppose the car is just an added bonus." So I don't think it's fair to say that it was designed by somebody who didn't care about trains or lacked the sort of know-how/expertise of other LEGO train fans. Even some of the most negative comments argue only that it deserves "no more than a 9/10" due to the many areas where it could be improved.

Some additional notes after reading through those reviews and comments, by the way: first of all, nobody in either of those reviews or the responses made even a small complaint about the width difference between the cab and tender, whether they owned the set or not. So I wouldn't say that's something people would generally agree is an obvious weakness. Second, at least one comment mentions it being up on Toys 'R' Us's website. So much for the idea that other categories of Creator Expert sets only sell better because they're carried by more retailers than just LEGO.com/LEGO brand retail…

In hindsight, sure, Emerald Night seems pretty dated, but so do most sets that AFOLs have ever begged and pleaded for LEGO to bring back, such as classic Space, Pirates, and Castle sets; beloved "themed" D2C sets like Medieval Market Village, Imperial Flagship, and Haunted House; and the early Modular Buildings like Cafe Corner, Market Street, and Green Grocer. It feels awfully unfair to attribute that in any of those cases to a lack of skills or knowledge on the part of the designers, when particularly in the case of the Emerald Night and early Modular Buildings, they typically were working with much tighter restrictions on what sorts of parts were available to them than the designers of later AFOL-targeted exclusives.

For instance, the left side door of Cafe Corner is constructed using a 1x4x5 element with clip plates as a hinge, meaning it has no doorknob and is awkwardly placed one module further in from the street than the adjacent windows and columns. This is probably at least partly because at that time there wasn't as much variety in door, window, or hinge elements as what exists today. Likewise, the dormer windows use 1x2x3 panels with no panes instead of 1x2x3 window frames and panes, because the latter didn't exist yet except as narrower train windows that would leave conspicuous gaps between the front surface of the frame and the surrounding roof line).

And as for the Market Street? In some communities it's downright reviled these days because of the even more severe part and color limitations that came about as a result of it being released through LEGO Factory, not to mention some part choices (like 1x2 grille bricks for wall texture) that would almost certainly be replaced with something more suitable like the masonry brick today, but were not uncommon at the time even in many AFOLs' own creations. And the less said about the lack of finished interiors on those buildings, the better!

In the specific case of the Emerald Night, it came out before LEGO had introduced the Power Functions train motor that was recommended for all subsequent Creator Expert trains — the Emerald Night's instructions, instead, call for you to use the absurdly bulky Power Functions XL motor which couldn't be more obviously designed for Technic sets rather than minifigure-scale trains. It was not only highly conspicuous, but ate up all the space inside the cab, requiring the removal of the minifigure and furnace. Do you seriously think the designer made these decisions by choice, and not because even the three new wheel designs were pushing the limits of the meager budget that Creator Expert sets were granted for new elements, and launching new electronic parts in the Emerald Night would have been way beyond that budget?

Frankly, if LEGO were to redesign EN today to use the Powered Up system, it would facilitate several major improvements. Because the new wires attach to the end of the Powered Up hub instead of the top (and the hub receives inputs via Bluetooth rather than infrared), you could very easily cover the top of the tender almost entirely with greebling to represent piled-up coal. And because a separate infrared receiver element is no longer required, you could potentially use the space inside the boiler (where the receiver was attached in the original model) to house the Powered Up motor, which unlike the Power Functions XL motor is designed with System compatibility in mind.

For that matter, if you weren't so intent on maintaining the uniqueness of the Emerald Night being motorized through its actual driving wheels, you could even make some slight design changes to the bogies under the tender so you could replace it with a more conventional Powered Up train motor, as is used in the recent City trains. You could also make structural updates using newer SNOT pieces to free up even more space inside the boiler. Honestly, the biggest question would simply be whether the cord for the Powered Up headlight set would be long enough and have enough slack to reach all the way from the tender to the front of the engine without jerking around when making a turn.

Overall, the question of whether classic sets are worth re-releasing at all is totally valid. Most of the time, they will not offer remotely the same kind of quality and technical excellence as a new set, let alone the amount of surprise or the appeal to buyers whether or not they own the originals. Conversely, they also don't demand nearly as much time on the part of the designers, so it might be inaccurate to think of them "taking the place" of a newer and more revolutionary product — particularly in a series like the Creator Expert trains where there's never any guarantee of how often genuinely new set designs can be expected to begin with.

Regardless, if LEGO does decide to continue doing "out of the vault" re-releases and/or updates of classic D2C sets, as they have with a handful of Star Wars UCS and Creator Expert sets over the past half a decade, I think the Emerald Night still seems like about as good a candidate as any (and a better candidate than many), in spite of the many ways it shows its age.

[M_slug357]

I think the healthiest thing to do on this thread might be us coming up with solutions rather than focusing on the shortcomings.

For example, part substitutions: What elements exist now that could potentially improve the shape& structure of the EN?

What could we do for the carriage’s windows since the demise of our beloved Train Window pieces?

What would a strictly 6-wide EN look like? Or 7-wide? Dare I ask 8-wide?

Again with newer pieces, could the parts budget stretch just enough to factor in a 2nd carriage?

 

I feel like these are the questions we should be asking instead of bickering about “This set is wayyy better imho”... Just remember that an honest opinion is still only worth about 2 cents.

 

Now, will that be cash or card?

~M_slug~

Edited December 11, 2018 by M_slug357
lolz

[Redimus]

3 hours ago, M_slug357 said:

I think the healthiest thing to do on this thread might be us coming up with solutions rather than focusing on the shortcomings.

For example, part substitutions: What elements exist now that could potentially improve the shape& structure of the EN?

What could we do for the carriage’s windows since the demise of our beloved Train Window pieces?

What would a strictly 6-wide EN look like? Or 7-wide? Dare I ask 8-wide?

Again with newer pieces, could the parts budget stretch just enough to factor in a 2nd carriage?

 

I feel like these are the questions we should be asking instead of bickering about “This set is wayyy better imho”... Just remember that an honest opinion is still only worth about 2 cents.

 

Now, will that be cash or card?

~M_slug~

I think the best thing to do for the budding train fan is to look for already available instructions, such as Sava's ones, or do what I did and download one of Murdoch17's many freely available designs and modify them to your needs (I totally understand how daunting it is trying to design your first loco from scratch).
It's my intention to do the same as Tony for my British outline locos and rolling stock (see photo bellow) at some point too (you when time permits me to actually finish the instructions).It's always gonna be an expensive option, but honesty, considering the price EN goes for, not that much more expensive (especially if you have pieces already).

As for the windows, I brick built my Pullman windows, and I've seen people add the curved corners and other frame detail on standard windows, maybe one of the custom sticker places could have a standard set of train window stickers (if one of them doesn't already)?