Toastie

When you go here you'll find a (crude) schematic of the 9V LEGO switch and what it does in the very first picture. The remaining part of that reply is addressing an issue that came up in a very complex layout, discussed above that reply. Best regards, Thorsten

Chemistry@work! This is my favorite approach Well, he found the vacuum wrapping technology, so we have come to a solution, Best, Thorsten

Ever looked up this Bricklink store? Yes, 3-D printed - and even that makes the difference. But again: Fine with me!!! Best, Thorsten Yes, of course! And that is entirely OK! I have absolutely no problems with that. It is a smart move! But the loco sucks. Best, Thorsten BTW: I love this place, I love these discussions! Have all a good night! (I am on GMT +1) Thorsten

Ha! Hahaha! You have to change the country form "-" to "Austria". Here is to feeling good Austria - we never get any points from you guys in the ESC - and lost recently in a soccer game, didn't we? (OK: I could not care less about soccer - and the ESC) Best wishes, Thorsten

Don't think so, philosophy-wise: I have about €25k of LEGO bricks and plates here in my attic - mostly MOCs, and many sorted away in storage bins, I can easily access to "play" with. Many are of the Mindstorms variety and - trains ;) I have about 10 larger display models; the MK FD, TLG's Silent Mary, Saturn 5, Apollo 11 Eagle, the bust of Darth Vader, 42042 Technic crawler crane, 3 modulars and that's about it. I like to play as well despite being old. Best, Thorsten

Didn't the ones with three holes exist for long? Best, Thorsten Maybe ask: How long do you live? Stuff like a >luxury< OE whatever resort and experience may not be on the hot boilerplate for younger people? Well maybe for some, but certainly not the average. When I was 24 years old, believe me, "luxury" + "holidays on a train" was not once, not only once under my horizon. Regards, Thorsten

OK. Let's clear that up. And here as well. You have heard of the concept of exaggeration, I am sure of. Yes, it is not a DUPLO train, not even like, as the bricks are smaller and more diverse, and I do apologize for the "bizarrness" this phrasing created. Although ... Duplo bricks and pieces do also get more diverse ... OK, forget it. My first LEGO train was LEGO's #323; a push along train not even running on track, as there was no track, back in 1965. Since then, I am in love with trains. Both in real world and in brick world. From 1965 to 2023 there is naturally some time for evolution. On my layout there are 4.5V trains; 12V trains; 9V trains - the "BNSF", "Maersk"; I built Ben Beneke's BR23 from LEGO bricks only, motorized it, do run the Crocodile, pimped and PUp equipped, and operate all LEGO diesel "shunters" of the 9V and PF variety - and do enjoy all of them very, very much. The HR was the last train in that line, as it was just "reinvented" afterward - same for the cargo trains. There are also some MOCs cruising around, well, all TLG trains got some (serious) treatment. I also do look at stuff people create - here on EB and elsewhere. And then I do look at the OE steam locomotive. 58 years of evolution in the brick world. $300 as price tag: The shape and color of the side and main rods. Every Technic model has a new fancy mold - not the trains. Oh, sure - there is a hole missing in the connecting rod, and apparently that got patented. Then I look at the trains on my layout. All not the point: I >do< get that this set is not aimed at train fans, but at OE universe, for obvious reasons. I do get that some people may find the loco design slick and nice, because there is space for motorization, which in turn was turned down by TLG's QC. I am also aware of the fact that the "train" theme is a niche in LEGO world. I just don't like the praise for essentially (I am sorry, this is my personal view, others do voice here as well) - nothing - loco development wise. So: I stand correct: This locomotive is not DUPLO like. Regards, Thorsten

This. This is the core of the matter. Very nicely phrased! TLG is a for-profit, globally operating enterprise and not a small business toy manufacturer located in Denmark. It may have been that more than half a century ago. Why licenses? Read @Aanchir nice summary. Why this locomotive? It was about the carriage induced look and feel, and the loco is just a "thing" pretending to pull the carriages. The audience this set is primarily targeted at is certainly not the train heads. It is aimed at folks willing to shell out $300 for the OE feeling. And thus a Duplo-like loco is good enough. Absolutely fine with me! Saves me $300 - well, $160, as Santa spent $140 on the Steampunk Station with elevated train and carriage. Conclusion: All is where it belongs Best, Thorsten

Ooops, missed this one: No they are not. The MK Flying Dutchman is a pure display model. I rigged her up quite a bit. Also, the bow and stern sections really benefit from that stronger clutch power - there is absolutely nothing wrong with the molds, in contrast. I'll never take that beauty apart. Yes, this is not in the sense of true LEGO, but the folks over in Billund themselves have abandoned ship on that one with all their black boxes sets. Yes, could be - too old, who knows. I was building for 4 1/2 decades with LEGO only. Over the last decade, I ran into some other companies as well. And eventually reverted to vintage LEGO (mostly parts, not sets; the latter usually have insane price tags, for obvious reasons). As said elsewhere, 58 years of building with ABS bricks results in some sort of experience or better "familiarity" with the product. There is hardly any space left up here in my "office" - but I could not resist asking Santa for the Pantasy Steampunk Train Station (85007), which includes a suspended train + one carriage. I sure hope for >very< strong clutch power, as I am entertaining the idea of doing a little automation project with that one Best, Thorsten

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

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

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

Where's the environment, then? OK, 5-10 min to wrap one box you keep for love. There are so many sets, TLG cranks out every year. Times 5 to 10 seems not to be that of an issue, when I think about building a large set. But hey, even with very small boxes ... I bet I can cling wrap them way faster, you can build them. I am not claiming that I am a cling wrap expert, but food in this house gets that treatment rather frequently. And comfortably. And yes, there are food containers as well, but they demand kitchen storage space. And for the large sets taking hours and hours to build them - no, sorry, I can't follow your logic. In any case, seal them as you wish. Best, Thorsten

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

Well when it comes to the impact on the environment - cling wrap will certainly be better than any bunch of ABS bricks - in every regard. Making ABS needs nastier chemicals and more energy than making polyethylene based cling wrap. Just weigh the content of a LEGO box and the amount of cling wrap you need to wrap the box. The latter is next to nothing. Cling wrap degrades must faster into microplastic ABS lasts for a very, very long time (that is what we love so much about LEGO, isn't it? I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with not building the sets - but in that case, even cling wrap will last a pretty long time. I also don't get the "very expensive" bit: The amount of cling wrap for any LEGO box will be orders of magnitude less expensive than the set itself, so I am a bit lost. Best, Thorsten

I never built a B-model - actually all A-models (stopped buying functional Technic models about 10 years ago) have been disassembled for parts usage in structures, supports and such. The only model I kept intact, is the 42042 crawler crane. It pulls up and down a train bridge. Back then, I got two of them to extend the boom (https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/156326-lego-train-bridges/ - bridge 2). Never made it into modern super cars and such as they usually look (to me!) as if they had been under machine gun fire And all the 6++ motors with multiple hubs (or PF remotes) are just ... beyond LEGO - just for me! Best, Thorsten

Yes, this would be the case, when "people" want to do that. I have a different take on how TLG operates - in recent times, that is, but what do I know. I am coming from the "bare-bone Technic" and "yes, this could be a robot arm ^^" community and find it cool to automate stuff. And thus believe in Technic Control (1986), RCX/Cybermaster Mindstorms as LEGO Technic heaven. Seeing all these black (also Technic) boxes filled with Liebherrs, super cars, licensed stuff, you name it, makes me feel, TLG is more or less aiming at one-time or a couple-of-time customers, who easily shell out 500++ $/€ if the set appeals. When I look at these nice photographs, where a person is sitting somewhere in a rather expensive looking home - along with this rather minimalistic, but again very expensive furniture (call it Danish or whatever), that LEGO set displayed creates a cool contrast. To me, it appears as if this is on purpose: Exclusive, luxurious. The instructions, now of the layout and page count of an expensive bible edition, tell a similar story, to me. So the storage bins may not be an issue at all. B-models thus become completely obsolete in this world. But again: Just my view. Nothing of importance. I just ordered a couple of Cybermaster antennas and two 4.5V motors. Best regards, Thorsten

I believe having understood your point. What I meant to say is that PUp should not at all rely on "smart" (i.e. internet dependent) devices, but rely on dedicated (sort of closed) BLE servers. I also believe that abandoning "digital" is not the way to go. Going "smart" may very well be; as this implies that a "smart" fridge orders the food Amazon believes you like or need, according to your roaming data, Google collected for you. A BLE connection is as secure as an infrared beam pointed at a PowerFunction receiver, when taking care. There is no necessity at all to go "internet". Zero. All the best, Thorsten

With PUp L-motor - that will for sure work fine! And then use SetSpeed and the OE will run with constant speed on your layouts. Lovely! The cable may be a bit challenging, but they sure have figured that out. Happy motorization! Best, Thorsten

As we are at it: Out of curiosity: Did TLG update their PoweredUp app with regard to "app crashing, when medium linear motor is operated with SetSpeed command"? I deleted the app from my phone (^^) and don't want to reinstall it for that test. Best, Thorsten

SHOOT - I looked so hard All the best, Thorsten

He took the second picture a bit more from the left I guess it is "inside" - the changes he made upon building it (see above) Best, Thorsten

I also totally agree on what @allanp has said. What I'd say may become a disaster though (for many using it now) is when PUp is phased out. PUp has become an integral part of (premium) Technic sets, as far as I see it (I am much more inclined to a mix of Technic and studded LEGO, leaning towards the latter. I am closely following discussions in the Technic forum, simply because Mindstorms and programmable stuff is here as well.) As I said, in my opinion, TLG should in principle stay with PUp and integrate some sort of smart brick that allows you to easily sign up diverse remotes and hubs. As far as I understood, this is what @allanp has proposed before - which was heavily discussed here. I may be wrong. OK, would be another PUp device, but this is how it is in the real world as well: Every smart home-automation system has a) clients (dedicated remotes, smart devices running apps, lamps, etc. pp.) and b) some sort of server (which may or may not provide wifi or web-services, not the point). In PUp world, the server is the smart device, which is at the same time the "remote" - which is - a bit bizarre, to say the least. When you run Legoino on an ESP32, hubs and remotes are clients, which are signed up to the server (the ESP). It makes so much more sense as it is so much more flexible. Almost all complaints about PUp seem to (rightfully) focus on the smart device (phone), which I totally agree on, as said. But that is just a short-cut TLG took, to save money, as they always do - and then royally screw up. There should be a dedicated PUp "server" in PUp world, which then can be scaled to any needs. And should have a firmware that does not need to be updated every other day because of bugs. Which in turn is expensive. We seem to have accepted that "updates" and new "firmware available" are good things. Well, they underline that the product was flawed in the first place. OK, I know, new features need new software. But LEGO is a toy, and should not be a virus-vulnerable, software dependent internet client needing firewalls and what not (which a smartphone does). BTW, the RCX had three official updates of its firmware, the SCOUT, Cybermaster, and Spybots had >none<, over the entire lifetime of the product. Because people figured it out before others were cranking it out. It appears as if today it is more like: Crank it out, then we'll fix all the crap later. Just my 2 cents. Best, Thorsten

Yeah, could be true. At least MK did not literally >slaughter< the design of the engine to the extent, TLG did (apparently in compliance with the licensee). The carriages are beautiful, but the engine is a ... poor, if not obnoxious attempt, and of course, in my humble opinion only. But yes, if "license" means what it creates: Too bad. So, let's live with it. Best, Thorsten

Oh yes, there are. And they all - way sooner than later - will merge into the "quality", TLG provides - injection molding is injection molding and by far no rocket science (anymore; times change, bricks did not). I guess the 1-piece-per-page approach is aimed at people who really did not deep-dig into the LEGO hobby but love the story behind it. And now, as adults, want to put reminiscent of their youth "or" life (Vader, OE, Nikies, cars, buildings, whatever comes to remembrance ...) onto a shelf. Which is of course totally OK, I do it as well!!! But I began building age 3. So there maybe some recollection of "how-to" - and thus multiple parts per page (the more the better) are pure fun - for me. Guess you enjoy the same "challenge". Have fun!!! Best, Thorsten