tmctiger

Yes and No: true, it was available through Toys'R'Us, but it was also strongly limited to 20000 Sets - remember the individual license plate ...

Yes it is small, it is roughly the size of the Falcon like 7965. And the second thing is, that this is not an official lego-thing, rather an advertisement for a company specialized on building large scale Lego models for companies and private persons.

I am completely with you.I hope that the UCS Falcon is never re-released. This should stay an iconic set, which not everyone has. But anyway: the model shown is way smaller as the 10179 (count the studs and compere the dish).

Hello, hmm I read your thoughts but judging the new system from what you have seen only with this very very small set is at least bold. 1. Packaging: on this point you are right - I also like more the "old style" boxes... 2. @ colors: odd axles are gray even axles (yes there are even axles ) are black, special ones tan and dark tan ... 3. sizes: the "oddity" is owing the new lift arm design (compare a lift arm with a beam with holes and you will see ...) 4. Instructions: another point I have to agree with. I also do not like the 1-Part Steps... where are the times where you have to search 20 or more Parts for one number (e.g. 8880) ... and at least it would also reduces costs due to instructions with less pages ... 5. If you are complaining for example about the steering mechanism in this set please be aware that this is a SMALL set, and steering usually looks like complete different to this one (we are still using gear racks for propper steering ) To be fair, I think the steering used in your example 8815 is a poorer design ... it is a lot more inflexible 6. Again, you are looking at a very cheap and small set - please have a look into bigger ones (42009 or so ) Please have a look into instructions from other "new system" sets (e.g @ http://www.brickset.com) In this point I am again not your opinion: I do have a lot (really) old AND new Technic sets and mostly the new ones win when it came to stability ... you won't be flattered when i hit you with the 42009 for example, and there are even sturdier sets All other points from 7 I'll agree with you ... BR

Hi Elroy, ah thx for clarification. Now I get the concept behind it. This was new for me ...

Sorry guys, but I don't get it ... So basically you are building containers and ship them to others to receive their built containers - what's the sense behind this ... other then generating a lot of mail traffic an costs? Honestly, this is a serious question, I really don't understand what this is all about ?!? BR

For me it was the glorius 10179. I currently own 230 unigque Sets. You can view them there: http://brickset.com/search/?ownedBy=tmctiger

For my opinion it is a rerelease: the same topic, same size, even al lot of construction details are the same. But some are different. So, a rerelease of the CC for example, could also benefit from some redesign - but it stays a rerelease because the theme of the house is the same, as the x-Wing. A 1:1 rerelease is very unlikely, but a rerelease with some redesign not ...

Hi, unfortunatly for your argument: LEGO indeed do re-releases of set-legends. Most recent set ist the Ultimate Collectors Series X-Wing 10240 ;) Or the upcoming Technic Mobile Crane MK II ... So why not re-release the CC-Modulars? Regards, tmctiger

Hi, please add my layout also to this index. See thread http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=79945&hl= Thanks, tmctiger

Hi! @Lazarus: oh that has nothing to do with Luck . I planned the ballast with LDD and I am currently in the process of ordering the 17.000 pieces I need . When I buy them from Lego direct it will cost about 1700€ . But thats worth the looking I think. I am doing the ballast for 2 reasons: first for the look of course, second for the rigid mounting of the tracks. I am using the design from ToT-Lug. @proraptor: the table is 3m x 1.25m (and with a small part which is 1.5m deep)

Thanks Annie! Your are right. Modular buildings fit very well in a layout with trains. The station area was a trade off due to lack of space in my layout and the need for longer station platforms. I was also pleased with the outcome, though this was my first "MOC" after my dark ages (I entered the LEGO hobby via building the UCS StarWars Sets - so there was no need so far to build a MOC, unteil I got into LEGO trains ...) BR, tmctiger

Thanks. I did it because I needed a longer platform for the trains. In fact I used three sets to acomplish the current solution. In fact I can run two trains at once. I have two independent train circles. If you are fast with reactions you can run three trains ;) - but this is a little bit stressful ... and results in significant more train crashs ....

Hi all, I'll wan't to show you my updated train/town Layout. You can find the photos here: http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=523275 Any comments are welcome. I try always to improve the layout. If you have suggestions for me don't hesitate do write it. Further plans on the layout: - underlay all with 32x32 baseplates - add railroad ballast - add a mountain with tunnels at the right side (monster house, fright terminal) to get some additinonal space for buildings - add a smaller hill on top of the moumtain-plane for the monster house BR, tmctiger Edit: I added a overview image of my layout to this post:

It seems the mounting point is movable. In one picture the boom is lowered and in the other one the boom was raised. So it seems for me, that the mounting point changes with the raising of the boom. Perhaps this also regards to the strange LA setting (pointing down) when the boom is lowered... But still this is an impressive set. I like it and will get it - for sure. I can't understand the people arguing about it. It is Lego, if you don't like it - modify it ;)

That's your opinion: mine is more 95% his design 5% from you. You know my opinion regrading this model - so it is valid for me to enter a competition ...

Hi Sariel, ok let us go through the issue point for point: first of all: the model you did is not "rare" - just enter "JCB 465" in googles image search - I found three Images showing the JCB 465 with black boom and JCB logo placed as placed on your model. second: you calim that several things are identical to your build. But if you have a closer look you will see that: - the arm is NOT identical to yours - the cabin is built DIFFERENT - the back of the loader is built DIFFERENT - the mechanic (as far as we can see) is completely DIFFERENT - the step on the side to reach the cabin is DIFFERENT - the fenders are built DIFFERENT - even the size of the thing is DIFFERENT The only thing which is indeed built the same way as you did it are the rims. (but well: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=55472 - And attaching the disc to the tooth wheel isn't that effort) So it looks like you have an exclusive contract with JCB for designing their loaders in Lego - right? Otherwise I can't understand your reaction. And it seems that I am not alone with this opinion. And you will call this build a rip-off? I don't see it that way. If I look at this build I can see a independent solution of the JCB 465 (even we don't know if it is a 465 - it also could be a 426ZX and so on... JCB seems to have a strong corporate identity ;) ) with black front boom. Nothing special so far. So I still don't get you point. Regards

Hi Sariel, I do not understand you. I have now closely looked at your model and the model of the other guy and I have to notice that the two models are not even close to be a identical. The Guy decided to build the same Machine as you but since this is based on a real thing it naturally looks identical ;) - And you think no one is allowed any more to build this front-end loader because you first build one? And in the details you can see that the model is completely different assembled than yours. The only thing I can identify which is truly identical to your model are the rims. And I think you are not the first who did rims in Lego this way ;) The point with the stickers is also obsolete. This model is (again) based on a real thing - and for this particular front-end loader the stickers have to be placed at exact this positions. So basically you complain that someone build the same model than you? Serious? I would understand you if the model is a plain rip off of yours - that would be not ok. But this model is clearly a complete different solution than yours. So I can't see any plagiarism here. I would recommend the other posters ,which meant that this is a copy, to have look at the images ;) regards, tmctiger

Hi All! I have a question regarding the LDD and using tracks into the same. My problem is that I am currently planing some ballast for my track. For the the curves, straights and flex-parts it worked really fine. The parts are in the LDD (extended mode). But when I came to design the ballast for the switches I realized that this parts (peeron part number 53407 and 53404) are missing in LDD. Now my question is, is it possible to get the switch part also into the LDD. Are there any custom parts available? Many thanks in advance and BR, tmctiger

Hi all, I took your considerations to my layout and started too redesign the whole thing. I finally came up with the following layout I would like to share with you. I would like too hear you comments on this one? 2 remarks: 1. The train station isn't placed as it is shown on the layout. I did a rebuild on that so that it fits better in the track. It now covers all three track lanes. (Photos will follow) 2. I am aware that the fire and police stations generate some problems with the trains. In the final layout I'll move them some studs in the direction to the street so that the trains can pass without any trouble.

Hi *, many thanks for your help and suggestions. The issue with the short tracks was also on my mind. You are right - I have to rethink several sections of the layout. A short explanation why the layout was as it is in the first place: my goal was to fit all my trains and city stuff on the layout. The problem here is that my space is limited as given in the picture. But with you suggestions I identified some workarounds to solve the problems with the short track sections. I'll update you soon on my progress. Thanks, tmctiger

Hi all, this is my first post on Eurobricks and in the train section. I am currently planing a small train layout as you can see in the attachment. As I am new to this I have following questions: 1. What do you think in general about my layout. Du you have any suggestions for improvements? 2. Did anyone of you have links or instructions on how to build a track bed? 3. Did anyone of you have links or instructions on how to build a mountain? Edit: Oh there is another question for instructions: How to build a track end buffer? Edit2: These trains should run on this track: - 7720 with 7814, 7821, 174 - 7810 with 7815, 7818 - 10194 - 10219 - 3677 - 7939 - 7939 Thanks in advance for your help! Removed original Layout due to upload limits :( BR, tmctiger