Are the Creator Expert trains finished?

[Digger of Bricks]

8 hours ago, gotoAndLego said:

I predict a Creator Expert Hogwarts Express.

Well, for as long as the revived Harry Potter theme stays around, a D2C Hogwarts Express would more likely find its self under that theme rather than Creator Expert. Plus, it may be a little while before that ever happens, as we just had a non-D2C playset of the Hogwarts Express released last year.

[fred67]

On 1/28/2019 at 7:02 PM, CSW652 said:

I don't think the Lone Ranger train sold very well even though it had a very nice looking locomotive, but that may have had more to do with the movie not doing so well. Wasn't to crazy about the included rolling stock, but that can always be changed. 

Agreed, but, surprisingly, this is actually my favorite "official" LEGO train.  I like steam engines.  I liked the EN, but the Constitution is more the "old-timey" style I liked when I first got into trains. I added a caboose, and removed the "play" features from the cars.  One thing I don't like is that they seem to be cheaping out on us with the small cars lately.  That includes The Lone Ranger one, and the Christmas one, and having just seen pictures of the "hidden" one, those cars are like half size, also.

 

[M_slug357]

@fred67 You forget that some of the better freight sets from the 80s & 90s had small two-axle cars... but I agree that it does seem as though TLG is cheaping out a bit.

[Aanchir]

6 hours ago, M_slug357 said:

@fred67 You forget that some of the better freight sets from the 80s & 90s had small two-axle cars... but I agree that it does seem as though TLG is cheaping out a bit.

Considering that price is probably one of the bigger turn-offs keeping people from buying more train sets for KFOLs, I can't exactly blame LEGO for giving those sets smaller-than-average train cars. I mean, the one from the Hidden Side theme is $90, the Hogwarts Express is $80, the Constitution Train Chase was $100, the Monster Fighters ghost train was $80… and that's all without electronics, or sometimes even a full loop of track!

Meanwhile, the Emerald Night ($100) and Horizon Express ($130), which DO contain more realistically proportioned cars, have been getting criticisms in this very thread for not having enough cars, not having a full train, and costing too much even before adding tracks + motors. So obviously some tough decisions have to be made one way or the other.

On 1/22/2019 at 1:46 PM, XGBC said:

what would also be cool to see released as a set would be one like the factory train set where fans designed the builds.

XGBC

I don't believe the Hobby Train set sold well, but if anybody wants to put together a set that works similar to that but with their own train builds, they could always put it on LEGO Ideas and see how it fares. I mean, with stuff like the Old Fishing Store, Voltron, the Saturn V, and probably however the final design for the Treehouse turns out, it seems like LEGO Ideas has proven its ability to turn out finished sets at a price as high or higher than any of the Creator Expert trains. And many of the Ideas sets have  atered to more niche interests than stuff LEGO would typically release sets like that for on their own.

Whoever wants to do that, though, you'd still have to make many of the same tough calls mentioned elsewhere in this thread (size of cars vs. number of cars vs. price, track vs. no track, RC train vs. push train, steam vs. diesel vs. electric, etc). Even though LEGO will be able to fine-tune and improve your project based on the feedback they get from supporters and their own understanding of their internal manufacturing costs and quality standards, you still have to do your best to create a model that train fans will be enthusiastic to support, and that they'd then be willing to buy as a set at a realistic price for the contents in question.

[CSW652]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 7:18 PM, Aanchir said:

Meanwhile, the Emerald Night ($100) and Horizon Express ($130), which DO contain more realistically proportioned cars, have been getting criticisms in this very thread for not having enough cars, not having a full train, and costing too much even before adding tracks + motors. So obviously some tough decisions have to be made one way or the other.

 

Which is exactly why I think they should sell their train sets (locomotive and a couple cars) along with additional add on cars like they did with the My Own Train and I think they should do it under the Creator line.

[fred67]

On 2/16/2019 at 8:18 PM, Aanchir said:

Meanwhile, the Emerald Night ($100) and Horizon Express ($130), which DO contain more realistically proportioned cars, have been getting criticisms in this very thread for not having enough cars, not having a full train, and costing too much even before adding tracks + motors. So obviously some tough decisions have to be made one way or the other.

Maybe I just haven't been paying much attention, but I don't see a lot of complaining about the prices of those sets.  Imagine this, though (agreeing with @CSW652), if something like EN was $70 for just the engine, and $30 a car separately.  Or, maybe adjusted for current pricing, $90 for the Engine, $40 per car.

I honestly think people were just still not "with it" when it came to MOT.  The intersection of LEGO Fans, Saavy internet users, train fans, and people that actually knew about MOT was tiny.  I was in those first three groups - I had no idea about LEGO trains at all until I stumbled across Railway Express at Sam's Club nearly 20 years ago, now.

We're past the point where something like that should be feasible, given modern technology and automation, it's just that TLG can make more money elsewhere (not that they can't make money doing this).

[TeriXeri]

48 minutes ago, fred67 said:

We're past the point where something like that should be feasible, given modern technology and automation, it's just that TLG can make more money elsewhere (not that they can't make money doing this).

I often wish that parts of many sets across many themes those days were it's own seperate sold set, but LEGO already has so many more sets in the old days, I suppose it just is a logistical nightmare.

Also some sets are packed in boxes way bigger then they'd need to be to look bigger for the price, an ongoing trend is that piece count is going up, size isn't.

I was almost tempted to get back into LEGO Trains recently because 60198 was on a fairly big discount, but then I really saw how few sets are actually made in recent years. Certainly nothing like the 9V era (which "My Own Train" was still a part of)

Edited February 20, 2019 by TeriXeri

[fred67]

2 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

Also some sets are packed in boxes way bigger then they'd need to be to look bigger for the price, an ongoing trend is that piece count is going up, size isn't.

Interesting observation.  Sets are having a lot more SMALL parts to make things way more detailed than they used to be.  This is why people should just throw out trying to compare price per part in their comparisons.  Weight might be better, but even then it's not really that great.... an injection mold making a single large plate that might weigh less than a bunch of bricks made by another mold, for example.  It's hard to quantify, but with the number of smaller parts they're including, price per part is even less meaningful than it used to be, and it was never that good.

[3797]

20 minutes ago, fred67 said:

Weight might be better, but even then it's not really that great.... 

When looking at LEGO sets at a physical store I never judge the box by it's weight, because I feel that they've been making the instructions thicker and heavier for a reason.

I always try to think about what would potentially sit in front of me after building a set. Kind of like Jang sometimes does it. "The volume of stuff", as he puts it. However, I do look up parts lists and when I notice that LEGO used panels instead of bricks and real windows as a cost cutting measure, then the set automatically becomes a lot less interesting to me. I've got 164 1x2x2 trans black panels left over from parting out four 60197 trains. Those panels are completely useless to me and not really worth much on eBay. Real train windows on the other hand would have had a much better resale value. Of course I wouldn't have sold those.

[Aanchir]

12 hours ago, fred67 said:

Interesting observation.  Sets are having a lot more SMALL parts to make things way more detailed than they used to be.  This is why people should just throw out trying to compare price per part in their comparisons.  Weight might be better, but even then it's not really that great.... an injection mold making a single large plate that might weigh less than a bunch of bricks made by another mold, for example.  It's hard to quantify, but with the number of smaller parts they're including, price per part is even less meaningful than it used to be, and it was never that good.

Something to keep in mind is that price per piece (from my understanding) has never only been solely about measuring the value of the set in terms of size/volume of bricks, but rather in terms of the complexity of the building experience and value as a parts pack. After all, there are often a lot more ways you can use two 2x4 bricks than one 2x8 brick, even if the amount of size/volume they add to the finished model is close to the same. Likewise,

One particular context in which price per piece seemed to really get AFOLs' attention as a means of comparison was when comparing the value of 80s and early 90s sets with late 90s and early 2000s ones. The latter were often similar in overall size or sometimes even larger, but had lower piece counts and a much less intricate building experience due to a heavy reliance on big, specialized pieces.

In that particular capacity, price per piece is still usually a valid way of comparing sets. It's just never really been a particularly precise way of measuring other types of value like what a set offers in terms of its play experience, overall size/display presence, or the quantity of old/common vs. new/rare contents. I don't think there IS any really quantitative way to compare which sets are a better value for money in all respects, since it not only varies depending on the type of contents but also on the subjective value the buyer assigns to stuff like building experience vs. size, how much value is added by potentially costly new elements, etc.

I know some people have become rather cynical about the number of smaller parts like cheese slopes and Technic pins in sets, though for the most part I think you're right that the designers who put these parts in sets tend to be more focused on how they enhance the set's detail, stability, and building experience than on padding/inflating the piece count. After all, outside the Americas, they usually don't even put the piece counts on the boxes, so buyers who are making their purchasing decisions in stores rather than online are unlikely to be too preoccupied with that aspect of a set's value anyhow.