Future availability of 9V

[AndyC]

Since the PF "goal" was to be generic, I have a difficult time accepting TLG calling these "PF" just because it happens to work with PF components... every motor and battery pack can work with PF components. It's also not PF just because it might have been redesigned.

There are "degrees" of generic. The new power functions trains can use the same lights that technic sets use, the remotes are interchangable in a way they weren't previously. The IR recievers are the same. And there isn't anything truly train specific about the PF train motors either, they just happen to be a particularly suitable size for integrating into trains - they could just as easily be put into other models too.

That was the key goal of Power Functions, to avoid very specific parts like the older RC train bases or even the 9V train motors which had to have special train wheels and run on metal rails, making them unsuitable for other applications.

[fred67]

That was the key goal of Power Functions, to avoid very specific parts like the older RC train bases or even the 9V train motors which had to have special train wheels and run on metal rails, making them unsuitable for other applications.

First... we're just discussing, here, right? I'm not trying to be argumentative... I value the opinion of everyone here, just want to make sure that's clear.

I agree completely with what you wrote, but you skipped the 9V RC motor. Why'd they make a new one? Because the old one didn't work well... and might as well make it compatible with PF if you're doing something new... but the new one is no more or less suited for non train applications than the RC one...

So yes, you're absolutely right... the point was to make these more expensive parts work across more lines so that they could have larger runs with less risk... which is why I don't get why'd they continue making a powered bogey, because that would completely defeat the purpose.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong here... I hope they do keep making it, because it IS a lot easier to build with, but I just can't count on it... if you want to "future proof" yourself against the whims of TLG, better to build with an XL or M motor (I have to study these "E" motors, but it seems the only reason for their existence is they are better at generating electricity).

[AndyC]

First... we're just discussing, here, right? I'm not trying to be argumentative... I value the opinion of everyone here, just want to make sure that's clear.

Of course! It's only Lego.

I agree completely with what you wrote, but you skipped the 9V RC motor. Why'd they make a new one? Because the old one didn't work well... and might as well make it compatible with PF if you're doing something new... but the new one is no more or less suited for non train applications than the RC one...

It's pretty clear that the technic motors and all the gearing they require isn't ideally suited to younger builders (though fine in an AFOL oriented model like the Emerald Night) so they were always going to need something similar to the powered bogies. They could have just kept the RC one, but I'm guessing they felt it gave them an ideal opportunity to fix some of the flaws in its internals whilst redesigning the casing slightly to take the PF connector. You are of course right that the RC motor could have been used in other models, just as the old technic motors could have been used in trains, but never were for whatever reason. I think it's more all the other parts that cross themes that are where the real savings are.

[hoeij]

What I'm saying is that LEGO's goal was to not have to make motors specific for any one line. The XL IS the train motor... just look at the Emerald Night. It's a generic motor that gets applied to trains and any other line that needs power. That's what TLG's goal was.

And it may just be a matter of personal opinion, but... wait, where'd you read it had redesigned internals? Anecdotal evidence that it's stronger? Because every review I've read said that the 9V RC was better than 9V, and that PF - using XL motors, was far stronger than 9V... but the PF they were referring to was XL motors.

The XL motor is the motor for large engines that can pull very long loads. Almost all train sets ever sold by lego are short trains, only 3-4 cars or so, with engines that are smaller than the Emerald Night. For those trains it is easier to have a motor that looks like the 9V or RC motor. Easier means a younger age-range than the Emerald Night, which in turn means that it can be sold to a larger audience.

The new train motor looks very similar (except for the cable) as the previous RC train motor. It is nevertheless called a PF motor because everything that fits the new PF connectors is called PF.

I have compared the RC and the PF train motors side by side. Despite their very similar looks, the PF motor produces at least twice as much torque. Clearly lego has made an effort to put better components into the train motor. Improving their product is a good indication that they are planning to continue selling lego trains. The previous trains are from 2006, the new ones 2010, it seems highly likely to me that around 3 years from now they'll replace these ones by new ones.

[Carefree_Dude]

The XL motor is the motor for large engines that can pull very long loads. Almost all train sets ever sold by lego are short trains, only 3-4 cars or so, with engines that are smaller than the Emerald Night. For those trains it is easier to have a motor that looks like the 9V or RC motor. Easier means a younger age-range than the Emerald Night, which in turn means that it can be sold to a larger audience.

The new train motor looks very similar (except for the cable) as the previous RC train motor. It is nevertheless called a PF motor because everything that fits the new PF connectors is called PF.

I have compared the RC and the PF train motors side by side. Despite their very similar looks, the PF motor produces at least twice as much torque. Clearly lego has made an effort to put better components into the train motor. Improving their product is a good indication that they are planning to continue selling lego trains. The previous trains are from 2006, the new ones 2010, it seems highly likely to me that around 3 years from now they'll replace these ones by new ones.

In my tests, the PF train motor can handle about as well as the XL one. So far, i've gotten 18 train cars pulled by a single PF train motor with very few problems. You need one of the newer train wheels though that have the clear friction bands.

[gambort]

First... we're just discussing, here, right? I'm not trying to be argumentative... I value the opinion of everyone here, just want to make sure that's clear.

I agree completely with what you wrote, but you skipped the 9V RC motor. Why'd they make a new one? Because the old one didn't work well... and might as well make it compatible with PF if you're doing something new... but the new one is no more or less suited for non train applications than the RC one...

So yes, you're absolutely right... the point was to make these more expensive parts work across more lines so that they could have larger runs with less risk... which is why I don't get why'd they continue making a powered bogey, because that would completely defeat the purpose.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong here... I hope they do keep making it, because it IS a lot easier to build with, but I just can't count on it... if you want to "future proof" yourself against the whims of TLG, better to build with an XL or M motor (I have to study these "E" motors, but it seems the only reason for their existence is they are better at generating electricity).

OK, first to give some background: you see in that press release you linked to how it mentions that AFOLs were involved? I'm one of them.

That covered I'll mention some things:

1. PFS is universal in the sense that it is compatible right across the board. Technic components work with LEGO Educational components work with... LEGO Train components. It doesn't mean that each part has to be useful in all cases, simply that, for example, the same IR reciever works on a train and a WeDo robot.
   
2. Trains now run under the PFS system and banner. The old motor was designed for an older system and the extension leads gave an old plug/new plug connection to make it work but that's not really useful in a childs toy. So a new motor was made using a similar shell. It's a PFS Train Motor and is designed under the PFS banner.
   
3. When I visited Billund to talk about PFS trains I met with the Technic team, not the trains team. That gives you some idea of just how PFS trains are now.
   
4. There is absolutely no suggestion that PFS will be going anytime soon. The system is actually cleverer than what it's used for so far. The software aspects of it are expandable which is why the new variable speed remote works with all motors just as the push-pull did.
   
5. Why on earth would you future proof yourself by not buying something?
   

Just getting some correct information out there.

Tim

[fred67]

Why on earth would you future proof yourself by not buying something?

Just getting some correct information out there.

I didn't say not to buy something, I said the motors that are made specifically for trains defies the concept that parts be useful across all (or at least multiple) lines... it's TRAIN specific, and therefore doesn't "leverage" itself across other lines, which means smaller runs of production, which usually means higher cost, which is one of the things they said they were trying to avoid. It doesn't make sense when you can use a generic PF motor and power a geared bogey or drive wheels like the EN does.

So I'm not suggesting not buying something, I'm suggesting that buying and using "real" PF motors (M and XL, and whatever generic ones they come out with next) are a way to "future proof" against the whims of LEGO W.R.T. trains.

I also laugh at the idea that you have two battery operated train motors, and one is PF and the other is not because it doesn't have an integrated connector. Even if I accept that the "internals" are different, they are functionally the same for most people.

[pinioncorp]

Its really quite simple. There's 3 dedicated train motors.

• 9v motor. The one with metal wheels. Pretty obvious this one. Although they are all technically 9 volt, generally this is the one referred to as a 9v motor.
  
• RC motor. This is the one without a cable, when they were making the RC base all in one unit.
  
• PF motor. This is the latest one out that comes with the cable with a PF attachment built in.

The RC motor was released before the onset of power functions. There was only electric parts were the RC base and the motor. It uses a different connector, and such is not compatible with power functions (without the transition cable).

The new PF train motor is designed to encorporate into the PF system. And yes, while it is technically just a train motor, is can be used for other things, as you can attach whatever kind of wheels you like. To say that it isn't a power functions part is incorrect because it does fit in with the PF mentality: it is compatible with the other parts. Just because it is used for one thing only doesn't mean they won't keep it, they do need a compact train motor. It will be kept for a considerable period of time and released with every new train set. That alone is enough to warrant the part's existance, and their expenditure on research supports this. If anything, it is more likely to stay around than the other motors, which can be redesigned without consequence.

[fred67]

To say that it isn't a power functions part is incorrect because it does fit in with the PF mentality: it is compatible with the other parts.

Bah! I hate arguing semantics on internet message boards... the fact is the RC motor can be used with PF parts in EXACTLY the same way as the newer one, and it can be used for other things, and blah blah blah... for the vast majority of people, there is fundamentally no difference... but it doesn't matter, I don't care, that's not the point...

This is:

Just because it is used for one thing only doesn't mean they won't keep it, they do need a compact train motor.

Why? Name one recent engine that couldn't have been powered with an M motor and a geared bogey?

It will be kept for a considerable period of time and released with every new train set.

Pure speculation... I might have said the same thing about 9V in 2003 or 2004... hey look at all the great 9V MOTs on S@H! These will be around a while!

The fact is that TLG presented a bunch of arguments about why they were discontinuing 9V and moving to PF, and this train motor defies their reasoning (in part). I'm not saying it's not PF (they can call it whatever they want... by the definition you guys continue using, virtually every motor is "compatible" with PF so that makes them PF... LEGO also calls "tan" "yellow," if you catch my meaning).

What I'm saying is if you use something a lot more generic, you won't be as subject to the whims of LEGO. The other PF motors are used in numerous sets, the train motors in just trains... how many different train systems has TLG released? Every time they release a new one, I'm sure people have thought "this is it!"

Let me summarize this, as a lot of things seem get lost along the way:

1. I'm not against PF. I'm annoyed at discontinuing 9V for a number of reasons, but TLG has their reasons for moving on, and it's true there are some advantages.

2. While I have substantial investment in 9V, and plan to continue using and expanding my use of 9V with my existing trains, future train purchases will be PF... it's just not worth the headache to not use what's currently available.

3. I'm not against, and have nothing against the new train motors... I just think that they fit the complaints TLG had about the old train system, and I don't think we can trust TLG to simply decide not to discontinue them because of it... much more likely than them discontinuing M or XL motors (or whatever their drop in replacements might be)... MUCH more likely, as they will have a LOT FEWER purchasers. What does that mean? It's means you're probably right that they will be around for some time... but not as long as the other motors (m and xl), and any thinking along the lines that TLG will not change to a new system is pure folly when you look at past history.

You can't approach the hobby in the same way as someone doing any traditional scale (O, HO, N, etc) railroading can... those people can count on always having compatibility in that hobby, not so with LEGO, so you need to plan accordingly if you plan to be with it for a long time.

[pinioncorp]

Bah! I hate arguing semantics on internet message boards... the fact is the RC motor can be used with PF parts in EXACTLY the same way as the newer one, and it can be used for other things, and blah blah blah... for the vast majority of people, there is fundamentally no difference...

The fact that everyone is siding against you should make you reconsider your argument. I understand what you are saying completely, But there are other train only parts (wheels, tracks, bogey plates, couplers, bases, etc) to say that they do need to invest some parts into trains, a motor would be no exception. And while you say that they can be powered by the other motors, it may be that this is actually cheaper and easier (especially for kids) than using the standard motors and gearing, you just don't know.

As for being the same as the RC motor, it essentially is, but rather a newer, updated version made to work with PF. The two motors are not meant to compliment each other, the PF motor supersedes the RC version.

The fact is that TLG presented a bunch of arguments about why they were discontinuing 9V and moving to PF, and this train motor defies their reasoning (in part).

No, it doesn't. It fits perfectly, a motor that is compatible and reusable.

It's means you're probably right that they will be around for some time... but not as long as the other motors (m and xl), and any thinking along the lines that TLG will not change to a new system is pure folly when you look at past history.

Of course they will change it down the line. Past history shows us that. But past history also shows us that there'll probably be a new train motor that you can hot swap onto your model. The dimensions of the motor is virtually the same since the 9V motor introduced in 1991 - clearly they are happy with it.

You can't approach the hobby in the same way as someone doing any traditional scale (O, HO, N, etc) railroading can... those people can count on always having compatibility in that hobby, not so with LEGO, so you need to plan accordingly if you plan to be with it for a long time.

Its just something you need to be mindful of when approaching this hobby. You get the good with the bad: Lego changes everything at the drop of a hat, you just have to adapt to that. If you can't, there is still the standard model railroad that you can fall back on. Part of the joy of Lego is being able to create something from what you're given.

[SavaTheAggie]

You can't approach the hobby in the same way as someone doing any traditional scale (O, HO, N, etc) railroading can... those people can count on always having compatibility in that hobby, not so with LEGO, so you need to plan accordingly if you plan to be with it for a long time.

Careful, that's not entirely true. You're talking about compatibility of a system as a whole, and all LEGO trains are compatible as a whole. The gauge of the track has not changed. A 12v train set will roll on PF track and every track in between. A 9v train will roll on 4.5v track. The scale has not changed, all trains are meant to be used with minifigs. The bricks have not changed, they all still click together. You can count on trains made by LEGO 20 years from now to use the same rail width, same bricks at the same scale.

You are referring to the motive power, and in traditional scale railroading that does change. A non DCC locomotive cannot reliably run on a DCC layout, since it gives you no control separate from other locomotives. I can't say for sure, but I would imagine some European made locomotives run on a different voltage than American made. PF is a 9v system that does not use metal rails, and can be connected to the old 9v system using the PF/9v wires.

So build away, you're not going to have any problems in the future.

--Tony

[fred67]

The fact that everyone is siding against you should make you reconsider your argument.

I disagree.. in fact, my argument has morphed into if you're going to call the newer engine PF then you must call the older one PF, since they are both "compatible" with PF, which is the argument everyone seems to be making.

As for being the same as the RC motor, it essentially is, but rather a newer, updated version made to work with PF. The two motors are not meant to compliment each other, the PF motor supersedes the RC version.

But for most people they are functionally equivalent... it's a new version of the same motor. To call one PF and claim the other isn't because it doesn't have a built in cable is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't. It fits perfectly, a motor that is compatible and reusable.

They clearly said they wanted to leverage parts across multiple lines, and this motor does not. As such, it's MUCH MORE susceptible to being discontinued than any other PF motor. Can anyone really seriously disagree with that statement?

[SavaTheAggie]

But for most people they are functionally equivalent... it's a new version of the same motor. To call one PF and claim the other isn't because it doesn't have a built in cable is ridiculous.

They are more different than that. The PF train motor has more tractive effort than the RC train motor, and in fact has more tractive effort than the 9v train motor. Of the three, the RC motor is the weakest motor.

To say they are interchangeable in any respect is incorrect.

--Tony

[fred67]

You are referring to the motive power, and in traditional scale railroading that does change. A non DCC locomotive cannot reliably run on a DCC layout, since it gives you no control separate from other locomotives. I can't say for sure, but I would imagine some European made locomotives run on a different voltage than American made. PF is a 9v system that does not use metal rails, and can be connected to the old 9v system using the PF/9v wires.

So build away, you're not going to have any problems in the future.

--Tony

I would agree if you were somehow forced to use DCC or even mix it in with your trains without wanting to.

You seem to bring up DCC quite a bit in these train discussions, and I'd like to point out that you could have had ALL of the benefits of the PF system (with it's DCC like control) without requiring a battery and without the cost of DCC by using a simple auto-switching pick up bogey if TLG decided to go that route... you would have ALL the benefits with few (if any) drawbacks.

Now, pragmatically, if people want to continue with LEGO trains, they need to make the change to PF - I haven't said otherwise, and something I realize now, but didn't realize when I dumped my N-gauge trains for LEGO, is that I can't count on a system that I can build now and be able to play with my grandkids with in 20 years.

All I'm suggesting is that, IMO, if you pick a train specific motor, you are much more likely to get cut off than if you build your PF train using an M or XL motor with a geared bogey! (EDIT: in fact, I often point people to YOUR article in Railbricks on a geared bogies).

They are more different than that. The PF train motor has more tractive effort than the RC train motor, and in fact has more tractive effort than the 9v train motor. Of the three, the RC motor is the weakest motor.

I didn't say they weren't different, I clearly said that for most people (i.e. NOT YOU), they are functionally equivalent. Most people aren't pulling dozens of cars, I would suggest the vast majority of people playing with LEGO trains are not adults at all, and are pulling the cars that came with their sets.

However, the point is that they ALL can be used with PF (even the 9V one!).

Edited September 23, 2010 by fred67

[SavaTheAggie]

Now, pragmatically, if people want to continue with LEGO trains, they need to make the change to PF - I haven't said otherwise, and something I realize now, but didn't realize when I dumped my N-gauge trains for LEGO, is that I can't count on a system that I can build now and be able to play with my grandkids with in 20 years.

Then you're in luck. 100% of my PF trains are backwards compatible with every single LEGO train system that ever existed. 100% of my PF trains will be forward compatible with every single LEGO train system that will exist.

I will be able to play with 100% of my PF trains with my grandkids on their LEGO train system or my own.

--Tony

[fred67]

100% of my PF trains will be forward compatible with every single LEGO train system that will exist.

That's one amazing crystal ball you have. I'm wondering how you're going to replace those train motors when LEGO stops making them, though... or will you "weep and whine" about the loss of PF train motors?

[ZueriHB]

(...)

I didn't say they weren't different, I clearly said that for most people (i.e. NOT YOU), they are functionally equivalent. Most people aren't pulling dozens of cars, I would suggest the vast majority of people playing with LEGO trains are not adults at all, and are pulling the cars that came with their sets.(...)

The RC-motors can't even pull a short LEGO-issued train around a circle, best example is the Cargo Deluxe Train, which reportedly can't pull all carriages it comes with.

Same for the new Cargo Train with the old wheel sets / rubber bands.

So the PF motor supersedes the RC motor in any way except the cable sticking out of it.

But the new cables are sturdier than the old ones.

[SavaTheAggie]

That's one amazing crystal ball you have. I'm wondering how you're going to replace those train motors when LEGO stops making them, though... or will you "weep and whine" about the loss of PF train motors?

I will adapt, just as my 12v and 4.5v ancestors. If all my PF motors die, I'll either perform surgery upon them or buy the new LEGO system. That's the beauty of LEGO - I can rebuild everything I make a thousand times over and nothing goes to waste.

--Tony

[fred67]

I will adapt, just as my 12v and 4.5v ancestors. If all my PF motors die, I'll either perform surgery upon them or buy the new LEGO system. That's the beauty of LEGO - I can rebuild everything I make a thousand times over and nothing goes to waste.

--Tony

That's right... I'm not going to disagree with you... that's the way it is, but then you're not going to be using PF, you're going to keep changing to adapt to the whims of TLG.

The only thing I've suggested is that instead of using those train specific PF motors, you use the XL or M motors, as you're much more likely to have a drop in replacement. Is that really a matter of contention?

Edit: and in order to adapt those trains, BTW, if you used the train specific motors, it could be a LOT more work to make your trains function in the future - in much the same way it is going from 9V to PF.

Edited September 23, 2010 by fred67

[SavaTheAggie]

That's right... I'm not going to disagree with you... that's the way it is, but then you're not going to be using PF, you're going to keep changing to adapt to the whims of TLG.

The only thing I've suggested is that instead of using those train specific PF motors, you use the XL or M motors, as you're much more likely to have a drop in replacement. Is that really a matter of contention?

Edit: and in order to adapt those trains, BTW, if you used the train specific motors, it could be a LOT more work to make your trains function in the future - in much the same way it is going from 9V to PF.

I build 8-wide. No trouble at all to convert from 9v to PF.

--Tony

[fred67]

I build 8-wide. No trouble at all to convert from 9v to PF.

--Tony

Well, that's wonderful for you Tony. Congratulations.

[andythenorth]

if you're going to call the newer engine PF then you must call the older one PF, since they are both "compatible" with PF, which is the argument everyone seems to be making.

Fred, I can't help but read this as you're just being difficult I'm sorry if that's not the intent. I just hope we're not being trolled here

If we follow the logic you're applying in one direction, that makes the following PF:

- all the older technic motors using the quarter-stud electric connection system

- the technic RC motor

- all the 9v light bricks

- all the 9v sound bricks

- all the battery boxes using the quarter-stud electric connection system

- the technic control center

- probably the bar code system

- all of mindstorms (using adapter wires)

- all the quarter-stud connector wires and plates

Or alternatively, the logic could be used to imply that PF simply can't exist as a definition, because it's compatible with older (mostly 9v) lego electric components

PF has two key hallmarks:

1. the PF protocols: for IR communication: and for the 4 wire system of transmitting power and control.

2. a system of physical connectors. These connectors provide the 4 wires for the PF power and control.

The older electrical systems do not support the PF protocol, therefore they are not PF. The RC protocol is limited to the IR transmissions, and just uses standard 2 wire connectors.

It is semantics, but anything that requires a definition of something is semantics, that's kind of the point. Labelling a chair 'chair' is semantics.

I missed a third hallmark of PF:

3. PF is what Lego define PF to be. They control the semantic space in which the definition exists most usefully. There are other semantic spaces where the definition of PF could exist, but they aren't as useful

They clearly said they wanted to leverage parts across multiple lines, and this motor does not. As such, it's MUCH MORE susceptible to being discontinued than any other PF motor. Can anyone really seriously disagree with that statement?

I think you call this right. The whole train line seems to have a fragile existence. Lets hope the 2010 sets sell well :)

I have zero concerns about PF motor being discontinued. I don't have $thousands invested in 9v though. Other people's perspective may vary.

If my PF or RC train motors fry and no replacements are available, I'll do some or all of the following:

- rebuild the model with a different motor

- rebuild the motor (crack open the case, find a similar replacement from one of the hundreds of widely available off-the-shelf motors in a similar size)

- not worry too much. It's just toys

Edited September 23, 2010 by andythenorth

[fred67]

Ok, there's really two separate points here, and I'm not trying to just be difficult, but I have a hard time understanding why TLG has so many apologists... we're customers, not minions, and the sky isn't going to fall if we complain about something like the FACT that every few years (some periods longer than others) LEGO changes themes, including Trains, Castle, and every other theme they've ever done. In retrospect, it should not have been a surprise to anyone that they discontinued 9V, but at the time train fans were thinking "now that they're doing it like every other successful model railroading system, they'll continue it!"

Look at what people here are saying... it's the SAME THING... "THIS time it'll be different!"

I guess I'm just once bitten and twice shy about investing anything into LEGO... unlike Sava, apparently, I don't relish the chance to obsolete hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of stuff when something new comes along. Yes, I admit PF will be better in terms of longevity.

The other thing just semantics... it's a rather pointless internet argument about semantics... yes, I started it.

Yet.... Even LEGO shows the OLD RC train motor (8866) as being a "Power Functions" part. So sure, LEGO can call it whatever they want, but this part requires a conversion cable... and they can say tan is yellow. And I'm saying... not by MY logic, but by theirs, that anything that can be connected, even if it requires a conversion cable, is PF. Of course that's not the case, that's just the logic that they're applying.

EDIT: at least, I think, this isn't as bad as arguing about what an elf is supposed to look like (see the series 3 minifigure thread).

Edited September 23, 2010 by fred67

[SavaTheAggie]

Have you never considered that these "apologists" are really people who just honestly feel the Power Functions system is superior to the 9v system? Sure, I pitched a fit when I learned 9v was being discontinued same as everyone else. I went into quite a depression over it.

But then I saw for myself.

And then I bought product.

And I learned just how much I like the Power Functions train system. And my 9v train stuff isn't obsolete - I can still use my track. In fact, I find Power Functions equipment runs better on metal rails than on plastic, something to do with more friction for the rubber o-rings to grab on to. I'll continue to use my 9v motors till they die, but they will die. I already have several dead motors and I've only been collecting 9v train stuff since 2006. It's the way of things.

Eventually my PF train stuff will die, too. But even under heavy loads, my PF motors don't heat up NEAR as much as my 9v motors ever did, so I believe my PF train motors will be around A LOT longer than my 9v motors, and they don't rely on the dying metal rails I own, which again I only started buying in 2006. I've run my PF Allgheny for a full day on a TexLUG layout with a full load of rail cars, enough to risk the magnets giving way under all the stress, and the motors were only slightly warm when I powered it down. After an two or three hours of moderate work my 9v motors are almost too hot to touch.

It's not as if LEGO is changing the bricks when it revamps a theme. Parts are parts, nothing more. With the exception of the Cafe Corner buildings I've never bought a set I didn't want to part out and build something else, anwyay.

Oh, and the Yellow LEGO Brand Semi Truck. That's awesome.

--Tony

Edited September 23, 2010 by SavaTheAggie

[fred67]

Have you never considered that these "apologists" are really people who just honestly feel the Power Functions system is superior to the 9v system?

Which part didn't I say that people should use PF? Where did I argue PF doesn't have advantages? Where am I refusing to move to PF?

Where am I badmouthing PF, Tony?

I'm merely pointing out that you can "future proof" yourself, to some extent, by staying away from the "PF" train motor and stick to M and XL (IT'S STILL PF!!!!), because they would be easier to replace should TLG discontinue them... are you really saying that's a bad position? It may be a bit paranoid, but like I said... once bitten, twice shy...

Edited September 23, 2010 by fred67