Jon Reynolds

It is very apparent that there are differences between the fundamental principles of Lego as in (a) the compatibility with the original bricks from the 1950s/1960s and now and (b) the compatibility of the last control/electric system with the current control/electric system. It is a sad reflection of our throwaway word that the older systems are not longer marketed by Lego however the enthusiast users have received support for 3rd party suppliers offering products copying the PF system. It is possible that, should Lego move on from the PU system, 3rd party manufacturers will move in to support this market in a similar way. Personally, I think the 9V system was the pinnacle of robustness and longevity but I can see the advantages of the later systems, in particular PU. There is potential for Lego to develop this further and I would like to see them continue with this theme for many reasons. Whichever way they go, I would expect a rechargeable LI battery to fit with the ethos of The LEGO Group better than single use or rechargeable AAA type batteries that we are forced to use. Whilst we are on the subject of the power systems produced by or potentially developed by Lego, I would like to bring up trains again. We have beed bored senseless by the reasons Lego changed to plastic track with the inconvenient and evironmentally poor battery system but there remains the possibility of a short metal 'charge track' that could provide a small burst of recharging power to a battery train as it passes. I am aware that this may elevate the age range but think of the environment 'points' Lego could score as a toy maker by eliminating throwaway batteries! I would add that I'm of an age that enjoyed the excitement of a bit of risk and adventure so I express some sadness in how the modern world would deny this solution to my grandchildren. I really do hope the world wakes up to this and re-thinks the current approach to 'progress' Jon

Firstly, I think there is a lot of over-reaction amongst AFOLs with reference to "I'm never buying Lego again" etc. Those of us who are lucky to have lived a few decades will know this isn't a turning point or the end of freedom for businesses associated with Lego products/market. Secondly, I have a lot of sympathy for HA Bricks. As an AFOL focussed on trains and also a partner to a seller of custom Lego kits, I feel torn on this one. Most of us are not legal experts but we know the 'devil is in the detail' so our largely emotional arguments here will probably fail in a court of law. Thirdly, I can see where Lego are coming from. In the EU (and the UK), there are strict rules around 'toys'. Without going into the complexities of the law, if it looks like a toy, its should be treated as a toy. This means that 'Lego' bricks sold to AFOLs have to meet the same standards as 'Lego' bricks sold to Children. My understanding is that HA Bricks' sets didn't meet these standards because they included 'Lego' bricks that had not been tested as safe for children. I do not know if this is the main reason for the case but it seems to be an indefensible one. I have admired the products offered by HA Bricks (in particular the obsolete Messerschmidt wagon set) and was close to purchasing one a couple of years back. If I were to open a business offering custom Lego train sets, HA bricks would be a big influence and inspiration - Something to offer more relevant real-world alternatives to the the official Lego offerings but with the same quality expectations that we all have with genuine Lego elements. I think this formulae would have been 'allowed' by TLG provided there had been no modification to those elements, although this is only my assumption based on the case reports. So, I think there is a future for businesses reselling Lego elements in their unmodified form. At least I hope so! Jon

So, if HA Bricks had not permanently altered bricks by printing them or by force-fitting bearings to them, would TLG have left them alone? Jon

All very nice and all very impressive layouts but....they are not exactly prototypical! Great that you enjoy them and have the space too, though. I think the availability of various radii via the 3rd party track systems affords us so much flexibility that we should explore going outside the rigid rectangle type layout with 180 degree curves at each end. It's a great use of the space but still looks to 'Lego City' for me. One of my favourite layout types is the dumbbell (or 'dogbone'), with hidden return curves at each end. This creates the impression of a real section of railway with trains disappearing at one end, only to return from that same end a bit later. I guess we are transgressing into the world of traditional model railways with that...but I'm all for it! Play Well. Jon

I do like the crossing and have desires to create a custom 9V compatible one myself, although not a 90 degree version like yours. Ideally, this would be suitable for a double junction in combination with FX Tracks' P40s. I haven't seen any plans for FX to make a crossing of any type so I'm hoping we will see a bunch of excellent DIY solutions appear on these pages.

I sometimes wonder how the hate:love ratio from the AFOL community would look, should Lego have made different choices for the OE. I think we are all a little bit guilty of brushing the reality of a toy manufacturer under the carpet, so to speak, when critically reviewing such models. I do like the set and I think it is very hard to argue against it being one of the best model trains since Lego started making sets in 1966 (?). I intend to buy a set but I'm not rushing right now because it should be available for some 2-3 years. Sure, there are some quality issues related to the stickers and the printed parts. That is bad and goes against the '2 coats of varnish on the duck' philosophy that we should expect. I disagree with most of the other criticisms, though. For example... 1. Lego 'can't' offer a motorising solution - Yes, we know it's possible. I work for a company that manufactures at the high quality end of the market (the best, in fact). For similar reasons, only well-tested products are launched to the market and these are often less interesting or 'sexy' compared to our competitors. The difference is they will work for 25 years, have full back up support and prove at least twice as reliable in operation. I value this. Others, including those who buy on price alone, do not. I'm not saying who is right or wrong here - I'm just illustrating where I think Lego's strategy lies. They apply these standards and we are free to ignore them, as I'm sure many of our MOCs do too! 2. The engine isn't (choose from; long enough; detailed enough; looks like the IDEAS submission; the right colour etc.). I may be in a minority these days but I don't like the trend of Lego concentrating on their 'Adults Welcome' marketing to the detriment of the core creativity of the Lego system. I don't think we, as AFOLs, are served well by sets that are designed to be built into one thing and left on the shelf, much like an Airfix kit. I really hope that there are enough genuine creative adult fans who see through this and buy the sets for not only the fun of building the fixed model but also for what they can turn the bricks into. A symptom of Lego's direction in following the adult pound/dollar/euro is the lack of instructions for a secondary model, like we used to get. So, my message is 'quit bitching and build the engine you want' . 3. Yes, it is overpriced due to the licensing fee. That doesn't mean it isn't a great model. Finally, a question for the wider Lego train community: Had we been able to enjoy the marvel of these internet groups at the time the fabled Metroliner was launched, would we have accepted it without criticism? . Jon

It is a dilemma but I see why Lego have to take this stance; they are focussing specific models to a lucrative adult market yet should an injury occur, a jury would look at 'the Lego pieces' (which is basically what is being sold, irrespective of the marketing focus) and conclude that it is a kids toy. Game over for any attempt by Lego to say it was safe because it was intended for adults only! That doesn't make it any easier for me to accept the demise of track-powered trains, though. We do, at least, have the excellent FX track offerings...though these are best suited for those of use with patience . Back on topic and I am definitely in the camp of a very happy AFOL to see this Lego set. I prefer it to the original IDEAS concept, for various reasons not least of which is that it is far more likely to be a commercial success. We need that to happen for Lego to make the next one . Jon

We all have our favourite 'scales' for this model but The Lego Group need to ensure the set is a commercial success. I suspect the sales performance of that oddball 76405 Collectors Edition Hogwarts Express may push them into making the Orient Express set suit the 6-8 wide 'system' models with compatibility benefits to suit AFOLs and younger markets alike. Personally, I'd like to see something that sits well alongside the 7-wide 10277 Crocodile. By this I mean consistency of scale along the whole model rather than cramming as much detail in as possible. The latter approach may look better as a static model but when the real excitement begins, the trains are racing around an unfeasibly twisted railway and such details are secondary to the fun we can have. I'm sure I've heard the phrase 'Just imagine' before somewhere... Jon