Increasingly losing patience with Lego

[zephyr1934]

20 hours ago, LEGO Train 12 Volts said:

The fact, that you underline, remains : we see more trains in the real world than ships and planes ... amen!

I don't know, doesn't lego get the correct proportion of helicopters right? (grin)

 

21 hours ago, SD100 said:

Even an 11 long (?) technic half width liftarm would be an improvement.

 

20 hours ago, JWBDolphins said:

make a "Liftarm Thin 1x9".  That alone would eliminate a lot of the bulk in what LEGO uses for rods.  And better yet, make 1x9 & 1x5 Thin Liftarms with 3 inner studs worth of holes being Solid.  I would think just those pieces alone would get cross-platform support by Technic builders too.

Yes, 9 and 11 long half lift arms should have been introduced years ago. There is this elusive 16 long lift arm in BL, if it is a real lego part, maybe they tried longer than 7 and decided it was not strong enough.

 

19 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

How about, the next time they release, say, a semi truck, they use magnetic couplers to connect the cab to the trailer?

There are plenty of the modern buffer beams available, if you just want train parts getting a city train set has been the way to go for at least 20 years. The trouble is that for the last 15 years the magnets have been integrated into an unswallowable part for safety reasons. My cheap fix is to cut off the buffer beams. Of course the new train wheels kind of sinks the value of a city train set as a parts pack

 

18 hours ago, dtomsen said:

Not only do LEGO not give us train builders enough new train sets or parts, they often retire some of our most beloved evergreen parts, like train windows  train doors, old magnets, old buffers, rechargable battery boxes etc. replacing them with lesser parts and sometimes not even replacing them at all.

The windows were lost to cost savings and standardization- the specialized glass was expensive (but man did it look good) and who needs a bit of curve in the corner (at least by corporate logic). The magnets are gone due to safety reasons and I suspect that is what happened to the LiPo battery boxes too (they literally disappeared overnight). So while I do not like any of these disappearing, I at least think I understand why.

 

3 hours ago, Pendra37 said:

My issue with the Lego trains is that they are even more expensive than H0 sets.

I don't know, every time I spend $60 on a car or $300 on a locomotive I'm surprised to see my cost in line with HO. But I get the feeling that prices on the reseller market for parts have gone up by at least 20% since covid so my price basis is probably out of date.

[Duq]

https://www.eurorailhobbies.com/product.asp?mn=36&ca=1&sc=O&stock=LE-40294.01

Pretty sure my  BR94 cost less...

 

[Pendra37]

54 minutes ago, Duq said:

https://www.eurorailhobbies.com/product.asp?mn=36&ca=1&sc=O&stock=LE-40294.01

Pretty sure my  BR94 cost less...

Don't get me wrong, your BR94 looks very impressive for a Lego, but this looks better. It is a model, it is supposed to look better. Also it seems to be fully digitized with great many functions and features that can be pretty expensive for a H0. I don't know about bigger scales, I'm not into those a lot. Something like that in H0 (not exact type. but an old, big steam loco) with simple analog control goes for around 100 USD which is probably less than the part cost of your BR94. Digital with sound and smoke can go for 200-300.   

Edited March 10, 2021 by Pendra37

[Toastie]

I simply believe that the compromises in a LEGO build - regardless of model, particularly though for LEGO train models - are >the< fascinating thing. The tricks and skills to make it look like the real thing - and to somehow induce some imagination. The closer a "model" gets to resembling the real thing, the less we have to extra- or interpolate, to envision, to let a stud in the "wrong place" vanish. And even that is wrong: There is a stud, where a stud is. When you have the skills to let it physically disappear - or TLG finally releases that very part - do it. I am mostly just dreaming it away.

I still believe that Ben Beneke's BR23 is a miracle. The boiler is far from being round (at all), I need to make it round in my imagination. And so on and so forth. I will never touch this design - because for me, it is perfect.

But: Everyone has a different view on this. Living with some limitations though, makes life much more interesting. And for me, the same holds true for my hobby. Which after all is meant to be a toy for kids and those adults who never grow-up (ask my wife).

Best and happy building!
Thorsten

[LEGO Train 12 Volts]

33 minutes ago, Toastie said:

I still believe that Ben Beneke's BR23 is a miracle. The boiler is far from being round (at all), I need to make it round in my imagination. And so on and so forth. I will never touch this design - because for me, it is perfect.

The BR23 from Ben is one of the wonders of the modern world ... no doubt! The use of only lego parts and the 7 studs format make it a timeless jewel ...and as you I will never touch this design! 

However, why lego doesn't try to redo something similar by trying to produce pistons made specifically for trains? I could remain a child despite my age ...I promise 

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, LEGO Train 12 Volts said:

I could remain a child despite my age ...I promise 

Oh my, Emanuele - I know! You don't have to promise - well - you are a child, my friend. And you know how I mean that - I am as well. Very happy about that.

With regard to the pistons: What should I say? No frigging idea why they just don't do it. Yes, it is an investment. Because we train folks are a niche within a niche. But you know what? Why on Earth did they do the Crocodile? Why did it work out decades ago? There are so many reasons we can bring up. One is: The "accountants" - the ones that do the Excel sheets (I know, they'll never ever use Excel, they have of course some super smart software running on Linux or - on Macs ) lost contact to the user base. >As well as< to the higher-ups. I don't know. 

You know what: All is good. Your MOCs are way, far, far away beyond my horizon - maybe someone is listening. Maybe not. I still do believe though both of us are very happy with what TLG is giving us.

All the best and my best wishes to the family.

Yours
Thorsten

Edited March 10, 2021 by Toastie

[Duq]

3 hours ago, Toastie said:

I simply believe that the compromises in a LEGO build - regardless of model, particularly though for LEGO train models - are >the< fascinating thing.

Exactly. That's what I meant as well:

Quote

For me the challenge is to make something as realistic as possible with the available parts.

 

[Toastie]

4 minutes ago, Duq said:

That's what I meant

And why did I "know" that - am thus - why am I not surprised. At all.

Best wishes,
Thorsten

[Hod Carrier]

I suppose that this discussion was due for another outing, as it's been a while since we last had it. I guess it's a good time to take stock of the situation.

LEGO has always been a big part of my leisure interests but I have never particularly been taken with any of the official offerings. Even as a child I had both LEGO and a OO gauge trainset, but I had no interest whatsoever in LEGO trains because they just looked so primitive. Official sets of the past looked to my eyes no better than badly pixellated versions of badly drawn ideas of how a child might draw a train. My interest in LEGO trains, and my membership here, really has only come about in the last few years when I realised just what you can achieve using LEGO as a building medium, even when you have fists of ham and fingers of butter and very little practical dexterity for something like conventional railway modelling, as I do.

I've said many times before that, for me, the joy of LEGO is that you can build whatever you want provided that you have enough imagination to realise it from the palette of parts and colours that we're offered. It takes time and effort to build up the skills needed to pull off a very satisfying build, but that is an investment of time and energy that is well-spent. The more you tinker the more techniques you learn and, therefore, the better equipped you become to bring your visualisation into reality. In a lot of ways, the restrictions that the medium imposes on parts and how they can be connected creates a bigger challenge that leads to a bigger pay-off when something works. As a consequence, I'm really not bothered what happens with regard to official LEGO train sets as they are unlikely to be of interest to me. As much as I can appreciate the release of the Crocodile and the quality of the finished model I have not bought one because it is just not of any interest to me.

What I do understand is the impact that TLG's lackadaisical attitude to trains has on the trickle-down of parts into the market. Also we have the impact of changes to parts design and construction, such as the coach/wagon train wheels. I'm no business expert, but it strikes me that continuing to produce expensive parts for a very small niche market is not necessarily good business practice. If making parts more cheaply means that TLG can ensure keen pricing for their official releases then I suppose that is what we should expect, and in that regard I do not see how TLG are any different to any other manufacturer.

Also, and to bring the Crocodile back into the discussion, sets have to be built to a price in order that the final product is not so ludicrously expensive that it will be shunned and just sit on shelves until sufficiently discounted for them to be bought for splitting for parts. This also has the effect of limiting ultimately how satisfying the set is to the market segment at which it is targeted. I have no idea about such matters, but it might be interesting to compare the part count of the official Crocodile set and some of the after-market MODs of the set and to speculate on what difference this might have on the retail price if such a MOD were offered instead.

All of which ultimately brings us on to the 3rd party suppliers. Although we have created a demand for items like wheels in different sizes, coupling rods, track and power and control options, that demand has not fallen onto TLG, and in that regard we as an AFOL community are complicit in this. I can only echo what others have said about the size of the market for such items ("a niche within a niche" was a phrase I recall being used), and in that respect there is precious little reason why TLG should bother to roll up it's sleeves and cater to this demand. As a consequence they can happily sit back and let that tiny crumb from the toy market pie to fall to other companies and businesses upon whom the demand falls. In many respects, TLG benefit from this as much as we do because we can act like their unofficial shop window while still buying up large quantities of their bread and butter in the shape of bricks, plates, tiles and whatnot for our builds.

Speaking only for myself I shall continue as I always have by imagining, designing and building what I like in the way I like it. TLG's rowing back on the trains theme is a shame, as is their withdrawal of some very useful components, but for those things there are the 3rd party suppliers. I know that the purity of a LEGO build is something of a personal concern for some people, and I do feel worried for them if they feel that they can no longer build as they would like according to their own feelings. Everyone will have to decide for themselves how they go forward and, while I can understand why some people might feel exasperated or frustrated at TLG's support for this theme, I tend to find myself unmoved by these questions. 

[TuffTuffTuff]

At least LEGO could offer part packs such as train windows and glasses. Or just offer those at bricks and pieces. Prices on bricklink are insane. 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

1 hour ago, TuffTuffTuff said:

At least LEGO could offer part packs such as train windows and glasses. Or just offer those at bricks and pieces. Prices on bricklink are insane. 

The problem, as I understand it, is that the molds break after a while, and it's no longer possible to produce certain parts without incurring great expense.

I have some - some - hope that at some point in the next decade or so, 3D printing will reach a stage where the final product on "quality" prints are equal to those of Lego parts. We're fairly close to that now, but not quite there. Then, I'd like to think that Lego themselves could do small runs of official pieces which - while more expensive than your average Lego part - are at least reasonable enough that it doesn't cost, say, 150 bucks to wheel-out a new locomotive. That is, of course, if they even care to.

But, yeah, I cannot build steam locomotives at a reasonable price unless the drivers on the real thing were between about 59-61" - that, for my scale, is the sweet spot for the stock Lego driving wheels. Anything outside of that - any passenger locomotives, most narrow gauge locomotives, and any industrial locomotives - and I incur exorbitant overhead just to get the ball rolling.

Edited March 11, 2021 by SteamSewnEmpire

[Duq]

8 hours ago, Hod Carrier said:

All of which ultimately brings us on to the 3rd party suppliers. Although we have created a demand for items like wheels in different sizes, coupling rods, track and power and control options, that demand has not fallen onto TLG, and in that regard we as an AFOL community are complicit in this. I can only echo what others have said about the size of the market for such items ("a niche within a niche" was a phrase I recall being used), and in that respect there is precious little reason why TLG should bother to roll up it's sleeves and cater to this demand. As a consequence they can happily sit back and let that tiny crumb from the toy market pie to fall to other companies and businesses upon whom the demand falls. In many respects, TLG benefit from this as much as we do because we can act like their unofficial shop window while still buying up large quantities of their bread and butter in the shape of bricks, plates, tiles and whatnot for our builds.

While agreeing with most of what you said, I think you're wrong with this paragraph.

The third party suppliers only started after many years of lobbying with the Mothership. It's been made clear in various interactions with various people at Lego that producing other track geometry for example is just not of interest to Lego. The demand from their target audience just isn't there.

Also, I'd like to point out that the large driver wheels that Lego eventually introduced most likely would not have happened without Big Ben showing that in this case the demand does exist.

[MAB]

On 3/9/2021 at 6:36 PM, SD100 said:

On the other hand, with the amount of small and unique pieces that go into each Lego Friends set, I don't think the "It's not worth it for Lego to make more train parts" argument holds up anymore. Even an 11 long (?) technic half width liftarm would be an improvement.

I'm not sure it is fair to compare new small parts that will appear in a large number of sets that sell in huge numbers with parts for trains, especially for exclusive use in trains. An 11 long half width liftarm is probably somewhere in the middle of these extremes. How many sets does LEGO actually need to use that part in and is it cost effective to introduce it? New wheels are something different. It is easy to design a new hand-held accessory for a minifigure. They know the correct diameter for the bar part to hold it, then it is just down to getting a good shape and it will work. Whereas, in comparison, a new system of train wheels would be a huge investment of testing to ensure that they work properly on existing tracks. Especially when, for most people aside from the ultra-serious that want very realistic detail, they have an existing working set of train wheels that look fine for many trains.

[dtomsen]

2 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

The problem, as I understand it, is that the molds break after a while, and it's no longer possible to produce certain parts without incurring great expense.

That expense excuse for new molds for the old train part doesn't hold up very much since the Chinese manufacturers have no problem making them and even expanding them into colors otherwise unavailable from LEGO 🤔

The retired train window 1 x 4 x 3 now exists in the following colors as clone bricks with idential quality for peanuts compared to the second hand market:

Red, Dark Red, Reddish Brown, Dark Green, Blue, Dark Blue, Orange, Dark Orange, Tan, White and Flat Silver.

And that's not the only retired train part being offered and greatly expanded upon.

So demand for these parts seems sufficent for Chinese manufacturers to make new molds but not LEGO?

The Chinese manufacturers aren't eactly mom-and-pop operations anymore but serious players in the global toy industry.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by dtomsen

[Hod Carrier]

2 hours ago, Duq said:

The third party suppliers only started after many years of lobbying with the Mothership. It's been made clear in various interactions with various people at Lego that producing other track geometry for example is just not of interest to Lego. The demand from their target audience just isn't there.

Yes of course. However, my post was with regard to the situation now rather than giving the background to how we got here.

What you say does nicely illustrate the point, though. TLG has no interest in catering to the wishes of the AFOL train community because it represents such a low volume and any return would not justify the cost. However, what they have done is at least given tacit approval to the 3rd party suppliers by not going after them for their IP on the basis that it still benefits them due to the other revenue that we are generating for them.

2 hours ago, Duq said:

Also, I'd like to point out that the large driver wheels that Lego eventually introduced most likely would not have happened without Big Ben showing that in this case the demand does exist.

It's possible but it could simply be coincidence. I don't believe that TLG were thinking solely of the parts market when they produced the Emerald Night, as that has proved popular in it's own right and opened the door to other popular non-train themed train sets (e.g. Disney train and Hogwarts Castle) which is, after all, TLG's core business.

[Toastie]

2 hours ago, dtomsen said:

So demand for these parts seems sufficent for Chinese manufacturers to make new molds but not LEGO?

This is the thing that I don't get as well. What does this imply or tell? As said, don't know. But here are a few things that just pop in there:

• Chinese manufacturers do this because they want to make the world a better place. Could be. Doubt that this is the main driver. But who knows.
• Because the items are "cloned" it is so cheap for them to make them: Nope - LEGO made them before. No more development cost for LEGO as well. Yes they need new molds, but so do the Chinese. Well, when TLG has thrown away the drawings for making the molds: Buy a clone piece and clone it.
• Chinese folks do make so little money, that production costs become so low that it still makes economic sense. Hmmm. I don't know. Could be. It is the case with other stuff as well.
• Chinese folks are smart enough to get all this going - and maybe they don't want to make a fortune with every single piece.
• TLGs overhead is so big, that there is no way of making anything out of producing such pieces other than debt. Well that would be their fault though.

Any other thoughts?

Best
Thorsten

[dr_spock]

Maybe the Chinese are trying to find riches in niches?

For whatever reasons, at the end of day the Chinese found it worthwhile to produce them and LEGO did not.

 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

1 hour ago, Toastie said:

This is the thing that I don't get as well. What does this imply or tell? As said, don't know. But here are a few things that just pop in there:

• Chinese manufacturers do this because they want to make the world a better place. Could be. Doubt that this is the main driver. But who knows.
• Because the items are "cloned" it is so cheap for them to make them: Nope - LEGO made them before. No more development cost for LEGO as well. Yes they need new molds, but so do the Chinese. Well, when TLG has thrown away the drawings for making the molds: Buy a clone piece and clone it.
• Chinese folks do make so little money, that production costs become so low that it still makes economic sense. Hmmm. I don't know. Could be. It is the case with other stuff as well.
• Chinese folks are smart enough to get all this going - and maybe they don't want to make a fortune with every single piece.
• TLGs overhead is so big, that there is no way of making anything out of producing such pieces other than debt. Well that would be their fault though.

Any other thoughts?

Best
Thorsten

I think Lego is somewhat dogmatic about the idea that it needs to keep part counts limited; that, somehow, having too many pieces of too many types stifles creativity. There have been so, so many times when I have been designing something, and I said to myself "if only part XYZ existed; if only there was a VARIANT of part ABC that existed (like, why is it problematic that a variant of part ABC exist, yet they found it okay to make ABC in the first place?)."

I always go back to the problem of the round tower in castle. People have been - for decades - building round towers with Lego. And, I'll be honest, none of the techniques utilized are anything but mildly convincing. You wind up with gaps with one, or no windows on another, etc., etc. Lego could solve this problem by introducing just a handful of pieces that would enable proper round tower construction (and these same pieces would almost certainly have an enormous application across multiple themes). But... they don't. Because... reasons? Because it would make things too easy?

It's the same kind of logic at works with their "no guns but guns" policy. Guns are evil, but blasters are just fine. Guns are evil, but you can brick build a pump-action shotgun (and some Lego figures in a few of the Marvel sets have had these very firearms equipped). Guns are evil, but swords are fine. So are spears. And so are flails. And, hey, you know what? Scratch that. Only MODERN guns are evil - you want a smoothbore matchlock, kid? Or a tommy gun? Or what's clearly intended to be a Winchester rifle? Or a western six shooter? Have at it. But modern machine guns?! YOU ANIMALS.

Basically, I think there's a lot of very hypocritical paternalism at work with this company, and it's not restricted to trains. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by SteamSewnEmpire

[Hod Carrier]

Maybe it's wrong to be looking for motivations, either with TLG or the clone makers, as it could just be a consequence of the manufacturing process. It's a rare company that can start the production of something new without first stopping the production of something old, and with TLG's increasing inventory of parts in an expanding palette of colours it is unreasonable to think that they could continue production of parts where there is little demand for them elsewhere other than in their official offerings.

To me this is the crux of the matter. All of these companies exist to put parts into boxes, or "sets" as we call them. If there is a set that requires a certain part then it will be manufactured in sufficient quantity to fill the required number of boxes, but if there is no box into which a certain part goes then it will be discontinued. That one company will produce some part and not another is primarily a function of what boxes they are trying to fill at any given time. Of course TLG produces parts over and above it's requirement for parts to go into sets, but these will generally be the kind of generic parts that you find on Pick-A-Brick walls and not small runs of parts which have only minimal appeal in the wider LEGO marketplace.

As for the "round tower" approach, well why not give me 100 interlocking parts that together build a perfect LNER A4 Pacific? The attraction of the LEGO hobby is not that you will end up producing perfect replicas of whatever it is that you're trying to build but that it is a puzzle that needs to be solved. There's a phrase that I've used in the past to explain the design process, which is that it is a quest to find the least worst solution to a building problem. It may not necessarily be the best looking solution but it strikes the best balance between looks, stability and parts usage. If I wanted perfect representation of prototypes I wouldn't be in this hobby.

[zephyr1934]

20 hours ago, Toastie said:

But: Everyone has a different view on this. Living with some limitations though, makes life much more interesting. And for me, the same holds true for my hobby. Which after all is meant to be a toy for kids and those adults who never grow-up (ask my wife). 

I was manning a display at the NMRA National Train Show a few years back and the NMRA president came up to me to shake my hand and thank me for bringing my "toys" to the show. As he looked down his nose at me I couldn't help but think, as opposed to all of the other toys around this massive exhibit hall? All model trains are toys, but nothing wrong with that.

 

 

7 hours ago, Duq said:

While agreeing with most of what you said, I think you're wrong with this paragraph.

The third party suppliers only started after many years of lobbying with the Mothership. It's been made clear in various interactions with various people at Lego that producing other track geometry for example is just not of interest to Lego. The demand from their target audience just isn't there.

Also, I'd like to point out that the large driver wheels that Lego eventually introduced most likely would not have happened without Big Ben showing that in this case the demand does exist.

Lego was actively pursuing the model train angle in the 1980's and early 2000's. They don't dislike us, we are just a relatively small fish. According to legend, Big Ben gave his blessing and sent samples of the steam wheels to Lego in the planning stages of the EN. They still invite us to parties (by tossing us a neat part or an old part in a new color) every now and then and that is deliberate. But no, we are not Lego's best friend... >>sigh<<

 

2 hours ago, Toastie said:

This is the thing that I don't get as well. What does this imply or tell? As said, don't know. But here are a few things that just pop in there:

• Chinese manufacturers do this because they want to make the world a better place. Could be. Doubt that this is the main driver. But who knows.
• Because the items are "cloned" it is so cheap for them to make them: Nope - LEGO made them before. No more development cost for LEGO as well. Yes they need new molds, but so do the Chinese. Well, when TLG has thrown away the drawings for making the molds: Buy a clone piece and clone it.
• Chinese folks do make so little money, that production costs become so low that it still makes economic sense. Hmmm. I don't know. Could be. It is the case with other stuff as well.
• Chinese folks are smart enough to get all this going - and maybe they don't want to make a fortune with every single piece.
• TLGs overhead is so big, that there is no way of making anything out of producing such pieces other than debt. Well that would be their fault though.

Any other thoughts?

Best
Thorsten

Lego requires a huge profit margin to be interested in anything. There's still plenty of money to be made between the cracks. The main business for the Chinese companies is simply making knock off bricks that they can sell to families who want inexpensive Lego-like things. Once in that business, you can sell more of your cheap bricks if you steal neat builds and pack them up in sets. Another angle is to single out some of the most in demand parts that Lego isn't producing. It all makes business sense.

One of the things that caught my attention in some of the nicer looking clone trains is that the old style magnets appear to be in production somewhere in China. Bluebrixx is figuring out how to pull the clone makers to the train builders, I wonder what will happen if/when one of the large clone makers decides to actively court the train market.

[Toastie]

38 minutes ago, zephyr1934 said:

They still invite us to parties

Ouuuhhh - nice. With Carlsberg Elephant or Porter, some Faxe varieties, Aalborg Aquavit and all that?

(Just kidding - I live close enough to Denmark to get all these wonderful fluids in stores nearby)

Best
Thorsten   

Edited March 11, 2021 by Toastie

[Duq]

1 hour ago, zephyr1934 said:

Lego was actively pursuing the model train angle in the 1980's and early 2000's. They don't dislike us, we are just a relatively small fish. According to legend, Big Ben gave his blessing and sent samples of the steam wheels to Lego in the planning stages of the EN. They still invite us to parties (by tossing us a neat part or an old part in a new color) every now and then and that is deliberate. But no, we are not Lego's best friend... >>sigh<<

I remember that story about Ben but couldn't find any reference to it. The similarities between the wheels are obvious... (I prefer the Lego version to be honest).

1 hour ago, zephyr1934 said:

I was manning a display at the NMRA National Train Show a few years back and the NMRA president came up to me to shake my hand and thank me for bringing my "toys" to the show. As he looked down his nose at me I couldn't help but think, as opposed to all of the other toys around this massive exhibit hall? All model trains are toys, but nothing wrong with that.

First time Lowlug was at a model train event in the Netherlands (looong time ago) during set up some of the 'serious' modellers walked by and saw us unpacking Lego. You could hear the "Tsk, what are those guys doing here?" comments.

Next day the public were three rows deep around our tables while they got the occasional viewer. Over the weekend they came back to check us out and had to admit that those trains didn't look so bad after all...

A few years later that experience was repeated in Ireland when we set up brick.ie and started attending train shows there. Pretty soon they were very happy for us to bring in families and get a younger audience to their shows but still weren't entirely happy that we kept winning the public vote for best exhibit ;-)

[*thomas*]

I have not read all the replies, so sorry if I am just repeating what has already been said, but I don't buy the whole 'marketing' 'LEGO is  toy FOR KIDS' ' the moulds are broken' nonsense anymore. They just don't want to make trains, end of story.

So - and I'd never tought I'd do this - I just buy parts (and models) from other sources. Why would I spend many euros on a silly train window when the exact same window is up from grabs from another source? Why would I buy a toy train when I can buy a much better looking train for less money? In order to support LEGO? Why, they don't support us do they. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea behind LEGO and can truely appreciate some sets (not only trains), but you can clearly see they just want to make money (like any company), but I don't work that way. I want value for money, something which LEGO doesn't offer anymore. 

[Stuartn]

7 hours ago, *thomas* said:

have not read all the replies, so sorry if I am just repeating what has already been said, but I don't buy the whole 'marketing' 'LEGO is  toy FOR KIDS' ' the moulds are broken' nonsense anymore. They just don't want to make trains, end of story.

I believe the reason there is a lack of trains is due to teh fact that the only market they regularly try to sell sets to is KFOLs. Trains are expensive as they are only sold in large sets, and there isn't desire within the market to purchase more than one or two train sets within a period greater than three or four years, or that is when Lego believe the next generation of train buyers will be available. Lego had planned, prior to the 2006 train sets, to release cheaper individual 9v locomotives and other rolling stock individually (I recall seeing the catalogue on these forums), but this never happened and hence trains are big expensive sets ever since.

I can't blame you for buying other brands, it most certainly isn't unreasonable to expect loyalty to long-term consumers  from Lego. I think TLG know there are enough complete purists out there to keep their market available. They should perhaps release another train set, be it a steam train or something in the 18+ line soon if they expect to keep there consumer base strong though.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Stuartn

[*thomas*]

2 hours ago, Stuartn said:

I believe the reason there is a lack of trains is due to teh fact that the only market they regularly try to sell sets to is KFOLs. Trains are expensive as they are only sold in large sets, and there isn't desire within the market to purchase more than one or two train sets within a period greater than three or four years, or that is when Lego believe the next generation of train buyers will be available. Lego had planned, prior to the 2006 train sets, to release cheaper individual 9v locomotives and other rolling stock individually (I recall seeing the catalogue on these forums), but this never happened and hence trains are big expensive sets ever since.

I know this is supposed to be LEGOs point of view as well, but I also think that they only sell complete train sets because they make more money in one sale. Individual rolling stock, locomotives, track, track side structures would sell, but parents/buyers would not be obliged to spend 150€/USD in one go. Instead, they could spend 40 on two pieces of rolling stock, 30 on a locomotive and 20 on some track and afterwards decide to NOT add a motor or buy any more trains because their kid has lost interest. But, it could also be that over the course of a few years they buy some more items and spend way over what a single train costs. The problem: this is a gamble for LEGO. If trains wouldn't be selling well, they wouldn't produce them AT ALL. This is how I see things.

In the early 2000s they indeed had the idea to launch two lines: one aimed at kids with RC trainsets and one with 9V aimed at AFOLS. If the internet would've been a bigger thing back than or if there would have been more stores offering the santa fe, BNSF etc, I'm almost certain they would've stuck with the idea. But I for instance was 12 at that time and my parents bought LEGO sets at the local toy shop. I would've adored owning the santa fe etc and if available at a 'normal' shop, I would've gotten it.