LEGO #21344 - Orient Express

[Toastie]

16 minutes ago, Shiva said:

Curved slopes issue?

The f'd up prints on them? (in German) begins @ 9:30 ... but dunno - don't like this train at all. It doesn't fit on my layout and for me the engine is a (bad) joke.

Best,
Thorsten

Edited December 6, 2023 by Toastie

[Shiva]

Those wider cars and other stuff, actually made be buy this.

Loco is okay. Ofcourse it could be more detailed etc, with a higher price as end result.

Ok, the line talk starts about here https://youtu.be/vEM8esfyO84?si=2OBlfN5UrpFr_Y5b&t=554 , nothing new, that lines etc ain't always straight, sadly.

 

 

[something_fabulous]

1 hour ago, Shiva said:

@SerperiorBricks Curved slopes issue? I can't remember anything about that, except from you? Did I miss some review where those were mentioned?

There have been quite a few instances where the 1x4 slopes with gold lines have misaligned printing. mine has 2.

[Toastie]

44 minutes ago, Shiva said:

with a higher price as end result

Sure! In LEGO world. We get used to that argument, don't we? This thing costs >$300< - I have abandoned TLG on these "expensive" sets entirely. Could I afford them? Think so. Do I want to do that? No. Not for that: Sticker colors wrong. Spelling of city names wrong (oh my). Prints misaligned. Driving rods in Duplo world. "Can't be motorized"? Man. Why don't they just shut up? I was literally hours after embargo lift and that thing toured the R40 curves! Man. Why do they boldly lie? Why don't they tell us: Motorization would have been too expensive to rationalize ... the set proce in light of competition? That would much more appeal to me. But certainly not that "can't be done" crap.

$300. Just think of it. And yes, the carriages are nice. But honestly, not for $300. Then fire it up with Pup, as this is where we are in LEGO world. $400? And tracks we need - if we don't have them. New for ??? This is getting a bit off the rails, in my humble opinion. But: Money money money, it's a rich men's world, as ABBA was singing along, back in the days

So no, not for me, but this is just me!

Best,
Thorsten

[something_fabulous]

7 minutes ago, Toastie said:

Sure! In LEGO world. We get used to that argument, don't we? This thing costs >$300< - I have abandoned TLG on these "expensive" sets entirely. Could I afford them? Think so. Do I want to do that? No. Not for that: Sticker colors wrong. Spelling of city names wrong (oh my). Prints misaligned. Driving rods in Duplo world. "Can't be motorized"? Man. Why don't they just shut up? I was literally hours after embargo lift and that thing toured the R40 curves! Man. Why do they boldly lie? Why don't they tell us: Motorization would have been too expensive to rationalize ... the set proce in light of competition? That would much more appeal to me. But certainly not that "can't be done" crap.

$300. Just think of it. And yes, the carriages are nice. But honestly, not for $300. Then fire it up with Pup, as this is where we are in LEGO world. $400? And tracks we need - if we don't have them. New for ??? This is getting a bit off the rails, in my humble opinion. But: Money money money, it's a rich men's world, as ABBA was singing along, back in the days

So no, not for me, but this is just me!

Best,
Thorsten

I do agree with their lack of quality control on this set, it's kind of disappointing. When it comes to the price its most likely because of the Orient Express license, I've checked the prices of their service online and they go absurdly high. 

When it comes to the motorization I don't think you should claim they are "boldly lying" to us. Even though it does run and go through r40 curves, it is a heavy train and lego's wheels heaving no actual bearings doesn't help with it.Those 2 factors probably put enough stress on the motor for their internal testing to not give it a pass to be marketed with such compatibility as it might wear out the motors quicker. 

[Toastie]

34 minutes ago, something_fabulous said:

Those 2 factors probably put enough stress on the motor for their internal testing to not give it a pass to be marketed with such compatibility as it might wear out the motors quicker. 

True.

But then just tell us: Shelf model. And not: Could not be done - at the same time providing the exact space you need for a City hub in the tender. And lots of space in the boiler. What is this?

Tell us: Don't motorize it, because our very expensive motors will wear out quicker. But no: They seem to blame it on us, when that happens. Well: If that happens at all. We'll see. And >we< should address this in the future: The moment folks blow out PUp L motors, they should tell us. Because otherwise, all these successful motorizations are doomed for utter failure. And if they don't, then what? Did they lie to us? We'll find out, I sure hope.

Best,
Thorsten

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Toastie

[something_fabulous]

37 minutes ago, Toastie said:

True.

But then just tell us: Shelf model. And not: Could not be done - at the same time providing the exact space you need for a City hub in the tender. And lots of space in the boiler. What is this?

Tell us: Don't motorize it, because our very expensive motors will wear out quicker. But no: They seem to blame it on us, when that happens. Well: If that happens at all. We'll see. And >we< should address this in the future: The moment folks blow out PUp L motors, they should tell us. Because otherwise, all these successful motorizations are doomed for utter failure. And if they don't, then what? Did they lie to us? We'll find out, I sure hope.

Best,
Thorsten

 

They did say *THEY* couldnt get it motorized (within their own internal criteria most likely), they didn't say it couldn't be motorized at all if I remember correctly. They also mentioned they could have most likely shipped it with the ability to be motorized if they ditched the 2nd car, but O.E didn't want that so they had to go this route. Knowing this they probably designed the loc around the thought that people would 100% try to motorize it giving us precisely enough space for a battery box and even an accomodating hatch that has no use besides accessing the power button which I would say was nice fan service of the designers.

And well, they did say it was too heavy, so if we ignore that statement and decide to motorize it anyways and potentially wear out our motors quicker than normal that's on us, not on them.

Edited December 6, 2023 by something_fabulous

[Toastie]

6 minutes ago, something_fabulous said:

I would say was nice fan service of the designers

What I am saying is: This "nice fan service" may translate to: the fans blow the motors out, as per TLGs QC. My view of "nice fan service" is: "Don't. Internal QC says: Don't; it may blow the motors. Our motors are expensive, and you don't want to do that."

Well, in the rich men's world it may be visioned as: Who on Earth cares? If one of these motors blows out, we put in another one in. Done. It is simply on us. And of course forgetting that we were tempted to do so ... as well as folks who may >not< live in that world.

Again: I simply don't care about this train. All I look at is the way TLG (the "company" (heads), the marketing department, the legal department) is operating in recent or not so recent times; I am old. 58 years "playing" with LEGO. And counting.

Best,
Thorsten

 

[oddjob]

The could have released the carriages as a separate set, like they use to do back in the day. And then also released a decent steam engine as at the same time, like an EN re-release or something. 
It would’ve satisfied so many people. Missed opportunity.

[Bensch55]

8 hours ago, something_fabulous said:

When it comes to the price its most likely because of the Orient Express license

The big question is: Why does every Lego set need a damn licence or IP behind it? 

I don't get it. Yes, 1 flagship Technic model with a licence partner is ok but now even the smallest 20€ tractor can't be sold without a John Deere logo. The only ones that benefit from this are TLG and the licence holder, while the consumer has to compensate the markup for an entirely irrelevant name of a train.

And in the case they absolutely have to do it, why do they not partner up with an active railroad company?

[RedBrick1]

2 hours ago, oddjob said:

The could have released the carriages as a separate set, like they use to do back in the day. And then also released a decent steam engine as at the same time, like an EN re-release or something. 
It would’ve satisfied so many people. Missed opportunity.

Rose-tinted glasses. The last time they tried this the sets sold poorly. There is a reason they have never tried the "My Own Train" strategy again. 

[lego3057]

1 hour ago, Bensch55 said:

The big question is: Why does every Lego set need a damn licence or IP behind it? 

I don't get it. Yes, 1 flagship Technic model with a licence partner is ok but now even the smallest 20€ tractor can't be sold without a John Deere logo. The only ones that benefit from this are TLG and the licence holder, while the consumer has to compensate the markup for an entirely irrelevant name of a train.

And in the case they absolutely have to do it, why do they not partner up with an active railroad company?

If they pay anything. The publicity factor could be enough. Does anyone know these values? How many sets are produced? What is the percentage for the designers? This set was so far from the original that the author was actually paid only for having the idea of building an OE train in Lego.

Edited December 7, 2023 by lego3057

[oddjob]

1 hour ago, RedBrick1 said:

Rose-tinted glasses. The last time they tried this the sets sold poorly. There is a reason they have never tried the "My Own Train" strategy again. 

My Own Train is hardly comparable to a one-off, licensed set which blows most people’s budget out of the water.  

When many train fans aren’t interested in the first steam engine in years, you know you’ve screwed up.

[Space78]

"Back in the day"... Lego made the licensed Santa Fe and BNSF sets.  I don't know how popular they were at the time, but obviously they are very desirable now.  They were all $40 each as I recall, which I thought was a good price at the time.  Either BNSF didn't get much for the license fee, or the fee structure has changed?  In either case, not sure licensing is the issue.  I suspect with some of the licensed sets Lego is hoping to tap into two markets: those that like that "brand", and those that don't care and just won't put the brand stickers on.  In either case, you get the same basic model.

Thinking back to the SF/BNSF sets, it does make me wonder what Lego would charge if they sold those sets today?

Wow, just entered $40 into an inflation calculator, and that equates to $67 today!  At that price I would think SF/BNSF sets would fly off the shelves.

[Bensch55]

15 minutes ago, Space78 said:

They were all $40 each as I recall, which I thought was a good price at the time

*excluding the 9V Motor

16 minutes ago, Space78 said:

In either case, you get the same basic model.

And that's the problem. In case of the OE, the licence holder apparently had a big amount of influence on the final set, which gave us some nice coaches with a locomotive to laugh at. Might not be a big issue for all 5 die-hard-OE-fans out there but it certainly is for everone else.

tl;dr: This set could have been way better and cheaper without a licence.  

[something_fabulous]

Playing around a little, gonna see if I can do the orient express justice without deviating too much from the original design.
 

[Lyichir]

8 hours ago, Bensch55 said:

The big question is: Why does every Lego set need a damn licence or IP behind it? 

I don't get it. Yes, 1 flagship Technic model with a licence partner is ok but now even the smallest 20€ tractor can't be sold without a John Deere logo. The only ones that benefit from this are TLG and the licence holder, while the consumer has to compensate the markup for an entirely irrelevant name of a train.

And in the case they absolutely have to do it, why do they not partner up with an active railroad company?

In this case, it's because the Ideas proposal that was approved was literally based on the real Orient Express. There was no scenario where this particular set wouldn't be licensed.

[Bensch55]

2 hours ago, Lyichir said:

There was no scenario where this particular set wouldn't be licensed.

Then just rename it. Or decline it, like all the other train mocs that got into the review phase.

[Phil-B259]

13 hours ago, oddjob said:

The could have released the carriages as a separate set, like they use to do back in the day. And then also released a decent steam engine as at the same time, like an EN re-release or something. 
It would’ve satisfied so many people. Missed opportunity.

No they couldn't

Please remember Lego could only make this set in the first place because the holders of the rights to the brand "Orient Express" let them do so - and as Lego have explained in this case those right holders were VERY involved in the design of the set seeing it as a way to showcase THE CARRIAGES which are used on the real train.

The rights holders didn't care that much about the locomotive - because as has been highlighted the owners of the "Orient Express" have never owned a single locomotive throughout the trains entire existence, they merely hire them as required from the countries the train travels through, all it needed to do was look OK when put in front of the carriages

 

[Sven J]

7 minutes ago, Phil-B259 said:

Please remember Lego could only make this set in the first place because the holders of the rights to the brand "Orient Express" let them do so

If that was right, and the whole licence thing was mandatory - then why have "normal" railway model companies been releasing Orient Express models for decades without any apparent influence of the "OE" brand's owners?

[Aanchir]

11 hours ago, Bensch55 said:

The big question is: Why does every Lego set need a damn licence or IP behind it? 

I don't get it. Yes, 1 flagship Technic model with a licence partner is ok but now even the smallest 20€ tractor can't be sold without a John Deere logo. The only ones that benefit from this are TLG and the licence holder, while the consumer has to compensate the markup for an entirely irrelevant name of a train.

And in the case they absolutely have to do it, why do they not partner up with an active railroad company?

I mean, in this specific case, the Orient Express is the train that that LEGO Ideas users supported. Obviously for other models like the Crocodile Locomotive or the various LEGO City trains, they've had no problem opting for a generic, non-licensed design. But here they weren't designing an original train design from the ground up or "shopping around" for different railroad companies to partner with — they went into the process with the aim of producing an Orient Express model.

[Phil-B259]

47 minutes ago, Sven J said:

If that was right, and the whole licence thing was mandatory - then why have "normal" railway model companies been releasing Orient Express models for decades without any apparent influence of the "OE" brand's owners?

 

Because the Orient express brand have licensed them to do so!

It makes no difference whether the medium is Lego or a ready to run model loco made by Hornby, Bachman, Atlas, etc they ALL need to have secured express permission of the owner of the real life intellectual property to reproduce that in model form.

You want to make a model of a train with the DB logo on it (regardless on whether its Lego or not - guess what?  you need express permission from Deuche Bahn to do so.

In fact a couple of decades ago Union Pacific Railroad in the USA caused a massive problem when they suddenly* started charging huge sums of money for model railway manufacturers to use their liveries & logos and threatening to sue anyone who didn't pay up!

However its also true that in most cases said rights owners are usually content to issue a licence to reproduce their intellectual property free of charge or for a minimal fee - recognising that model railways manufacturers returns are actually quite modest compared to the wider toy industry plus a 'poor' model doesn't actually reflect too badly on them nor the public perception of them due to the relatively low levels of public participation in the hobby (compared to other things people do as 'hobbies')

Lego is a rather different matter - not only is the brand far more globally recognised and in terms of profitability makes way more in turnover each year than many of the traditional model railway manufacturers do in a decade, it also is something far more people globally are likely to interact with and as a consequence the perceived risks to the rights holders reputation will be seen to be much more significant.

Therefore the its quite likely that the rights owners to the 'Orient Express' IP will have not only charged a hefty fee, they will also have wanted far more involvement in the venture than they will do with the respect of a traditional model railway manufacturer who has been turning out HO / N gauge models of their coaches for many years.

*(After a few months and much lobbying by manufacturers / railway modellers UP did in the end give way and significantly lower what they charge).

Edited December 7, 2023 by Phil-B259

[and_ampersand_and]

23 minutes ago, Sven J said:

If that was right, and the whole licence thing was mandatory - then why have "normal" railway model companies been releasing Orient Express models for decades without any apparent influence of the "OE" brand's owners?

It's very common for a company to change their licensing contracts over time or do different contracts with different companies. Maybe those model train companies are working under older licenses from when the Orient Express' owners were less controlling over their property (the Orient Express brand changed hands in 2017 and in 2022 they announced a rebrand and relaunch scheduled for 2025. This includes a new logo which the Lego set features.). Additionally, Model train companies might know their customers care more about realism and might either insist on accurate locomotives or refuse to agree to contracts where the license holders have more control. Or, they might choose realistic locomotives because they already have all the tooling, molds, and parts already made making it cheaper to repackage a real locomotive (or make a new locomotive they can also sell as a non-Orient Express model, splitting development costs between them).

Or, maybe this is the most likely thing: model train companies are working under the same license holder influence as Lego. According to Lego, the license holders wanted them to focus on the coaches and that there needed to be 2 of them. Lego couldn't remove a coach to make the engine motorizable. And with two coaches and a strict parts budget and MSRP goal already in place, the designers couldn't put as many parts into the locomotive. Compare that to any Orient Express model train set - scrolling through google, they all seem to have at least 2 coaches. And you would definitely expect that in a model train set. Some even have blue locomotives to match the coaches, which we know is another stipulation the license holders asked for.

We can play armchair contract negotiators all we want, but in reality none of us are going to know the real reasons for the decisions made with this set. Buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't. I'm happy enough with the set and am glad to see it's easily motorizable. Even if Lego was unable to provide official motorization instructions, I'm very thankful the designers still were thinking of us by leaving plenty of room for the battery box and cable in the tender.

[Phil-B259]

6 hours ago, Bensch55 said:

 

tl;dr: This set could have been way better and cheaper without a licence.  

It could but its sales potential would have been lower!

There will be a large number of people who couldn't care less about railways and especially couldn't give a toss about Lego trains but who would potentially be attracted by the set specifically because of the IP tie in! That could be because they liked the films, liked the book, have travelled on it, want to travel it in future, like the 1930s period in terms of decor / fashion etc

That is in addition to those adults who like having Lego models on display around their property because they look nice.

The number of Lego train enthusiasts is pretty small (despite what some on these boards like to think) and Lego know that a train simply pandering to that segment will not be a profitable proposition.

[RedBrick1]

4 hours ago, something_fabulous said:

Playing around a little, gonna see if I can do the orient express justice without deviating too much from the original design.
 

Further spacing out the pilot wheels is a great-looking mod. How much extension was needed to add the rear bogie? Are those larger drivers?