Tube Map Central

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tube Map Central

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    Trains
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?
    Crocodile

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Trains, architecture

Extra

  • Country
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tube Map Central

    Should people buy Fake Chinese PF motors?

    This forum sooooooooo needs a like button
  2. Tube Map Central

    Should people buy Fake Chinese PF motors?

    I deal in IP for a living, I create it and I protect it, so I know all the issues, and the sinking feeling when someone on Etsy, eBay, or fiverr is ripping off my work, yet again. Anything that Lego has covered with design registration, copyrights, patents, or trademarks is protected, full stop, legally. Anything not protected is fair game, and there are no ethical or legal issues whatsoever. So buy those third party bricks in a colour that Lego refuses to produce, as long as it is legal, it is ethical.
  3. Tube Map Central

    Should people buy Fake Chinese PF motors?

    So everyone is going to donate their profits to charity? No, you don't play dumb. IP is time limited, Lego's patents have expired. That is how the whole of the rest of the real world works.
  4. Tube Map Central

    Should people buy Fake Chinese PF motors?

    So this upsets you then? https://ideas.lego.com/projects/acc7c4c8-3967-4563-8fb5-a49859fa7755
  5. Tube Map Central

    Straight tracks closer together than eight stud gap?

    Thanks for all the replies, really good suggestions here (apologies for not thanking individually, but all were genuinely appreciated). Looks like it will be safe for me to go ahead as planned but this will be a big project for next winter. Spring has finally arrived on the Essex Sunshine Coast and the great outdoors beckons.
  6. The next project brewing in my head will be a place for my tube trains to call, two through tracks and side platforms. I would really like to be able to use 32 stud baseplates for this (four of them end to end). The question is, can I narrow the gap between long lengths of straight track, e.g four stud gap rather than eight, and easily bring them back to geometry at the ends, not necessarily using standard Lego curves/straights, and avoiding flexible track if possible?
  7. Sorry to send you off topic, but you started me looking up Glencoe stations. The one in Illinois must be the sweetest US Station I've ever seen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glencoe_station The one in Ontario is rather nice too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glencoe_station_(Ontario)
  8. Tube Map Central

    Ongoing BR Mark 1 Ideas

    Curves for me, so many details on Lego trains get exaggerated, a bit of extra curve to the tumblehome is almost necessary to blend in with the exaggeration elsewhere
  9. Under certain circumstances, yes you do https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl Stop trying to instill fake emotions and motives, you are not my counsellor, nor are you psychologically trained.
  10. Didn't want to destroy a certain other thread completely. So, here goes, new thread. A simple logical analysis of TLG teaming up with Bricklink to bring trashed Ideas models to us raised all sorts of issues with me. First, the claimed teaming up with Bricklink is a logistical fiction, Bricklink is a clearing house for private Lego parts sellers. Bricklink itself does not carry inventory, sort bricks, or distribute parts. This pairing up would make as much sense as TLG pairing up with eBay. Second, the fact that Bricklink offered something like this in the past is irrelevant. That was an old private initiative, Bricklink is now owned by TLG. Third, the eventual claim in the other thread was that this would be the equivalent of a Bricks & Pieces order that happened to make a set, minus printed instructions and (presumably) box. My issue here is that we are long being told that trains are too niche (15,000 votes, 4th place in Ideas poll) and so any wider range of train-related sets created by TLG would not be profitable enough. And yet, here is TLG doing something - parting out complicated small-run sets - that we are continually being told is too complex/labour-intensive/unprofitable for them to do. Especially Studgate, which looks like it will be quite hard work on that count. So what to conclude from this? I assert, and none of the TLG cheerleaders can refute this, that something fishy is happening from a marketing perspective. The link with Bricklink is logistically bogus, and these sets will have to have TLG design department QA. If not, who do I get the refund from if the set is not up to TLG design standards (a real issue if some of these Ideas projects have never been built for real)? I suggest that TLG is merely trying to distance itself conceptually, i.e. from a branding perspective, from this activity. It is perfectly capable of creating many small-run sets sufficiently profitably, but this is not compatible with its core marketing strategy. This is why clone manufacturers can do this (complete with instructions and box) but TLG do not. TLG could do it sufficiently profitably, but their instinctive control-freakery means that they do not want to. Even a supposedly democratic activity like the 'Bricklink' initiative has been turned into an exercise in marketing-led rationing. There were two stations that got to 10,000, but we have only been offered one. Might the other interfere with their Creator Expert Modular Building brand? We cannot have that! Bottom line, we do not have more train-related sets because TLG marketing does not want us to have more train-related sets. Wrong image, wrong fans. In immediate practical terms, for the next TLG passenger train set, I expect to be able to order, direct from TLG, complete extra individual coaches from a simple menu structure with a basic single click, because that seems equivalent to what is happening here. We will know that all the relevant parts will have availability, because they are part of a production set, and we know that basic small-run parts compilations are profitable enough because that is happening right now.
  11. Tube Map Central

    LEGO Ideas Comes Through - The Train Station: Studgate

    There has to be basic QA somewhere, if the set turns out to have illegal or impossible builds then someone has to carry the can, that is fundamental consumer law. I can't imagine that TLG would do nothing to ensure that all is well for their branded products, especially as many of these Ideas sets seem to exist as renders only. But you are still putting yourself in a place where 3,000 unit sets are sufficiently profitable for TLG to issue them as long as there are downloadable instructions rather than hard copy. One might have expected that such sets be disproportionately expensive to part out and distribute because of the smaller numbers, which leads me back to my original point. Why restrict fans by giving them virtually nothing, when a 3,000 unit set with downloadable instructions can be parted out, sorted, and distributed sufficiently easily/efficiently for TLG to make sufficient profit? If this so-called Bricklink collaboration is sufficiently logistical/profitable for TLG then they have no excuse to ration supply in the way that they currently do.
  12. Tube Map Central

    LEGO Ideas Comes Through - The Train Station: Studgate

    "Most profitable lines" Exactly my point, whatever Lego does it has to be "most" profitable, otherwise the less profitable activity is effectively a drain on profits that could have been made by doing something else more profitable instead. So, let's try and square that off with the so-called Bricklink collaboration - remember that Bricklink is part of TLG - and that these ideas were rejected, presumably because they would not be profitable enough when released as Lego Ideas sets. So, how is this activity supposed to yield sufficient profit for Lego when it has already been rejected as being non-profitable? Here is a clue: 1) Low volume sets can be sufficiently profitable for Lego too, and of course they have the capacity to issue them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it via Bricklink, so let's have lots more low volume sets, castles, trains, whatever, time to stop rationing supply, or is this the world of communist dictatorships? 2) Low volume sets can be profitable enough for Lego if they get lots of free/low wage assistance. In which case that is TLG being exploitative of labour, so perhaps the clone manufacturers are not so bad after all.
  13. Tube Map Central

    LEGO Ideas Comes Through - The Train Station: Studgate

    I don't have a grudge with TLG, I merely observe the illogic of their behaviour. Stop making false claims about my emotions. You don't have to research to expose illogic, you just gave to consider the arguments and activities carefully. I suggest you engage with my logical analysis rather trying to deflect and obfuscate my accusations. If you can't answer the points I am making then you are not putting yourself in a very good light. Let's go through this step by step, question 1, why is there a shortage of train products in the Lego range?
  14. Tube Map Central

    LEGO Ideas Comes Through - The Train Station: Studgate

    No, you are making huge assumptions about the business model. Either TLG has to make humungous profits with everything they do, that is why the train people get little or nothing. Or else TLG do not have to make humungous profits. Either way, you cannot compare what Bricklink have done in the past with what Bricklink do now TLG own them. You don't seem to post on train tech very often, so maybe you don't understand the issues
  15. Tube Map Central

    LEGO Ideas Comes Through - The Train Station: Studgate

    I do wish you could make your points without writing extraordinarily long essays, And in comparison, I will keep it short. Us train people are continually told that we are not profitable enough, and so we should not expect TLG to give us anything. And yet TLG launches a programme that is either niche/not very profitable, or else it relies upon charity pickers working at less than minimum wage for the benefit of TLG profits. Seems like the looking glass world of marketing believes it can make us believe anything.