fred67

So, having been away from LEGO last year, I got this set on BF (so 30% off, which actually made it worth, IMO); I would not consider full price for most of what TLG has been releasing lately. I was really impressed, overall, with the build, but realize they are never going to make everybody happy. The world is full of compromises. The 8 wide didn't work on my Winter Village (built for Christmas, after all) without modifying the station and the crossing, but it was hardly a big deal. The new train wheels... well, I had a problem with 2 of the 10 new wheel holders, they were mismolded and bowed inward, so I couldn't fit any 2x parts on top, but the wheels were OK; it's not terrible how the new wheels run, but I suppose running for lengths of time (for a Train LUG, or around a tree, for example) could be problematic. Since I didn't want to wait for replacement parts, I used a couple of old wheel sets that fit just fine. If you got this set because you're a train fan, they are easy enough to replace (although paying for parts you don't use is not an easy pill to swallow). I would say, in all my years, I never had a problem with previous wheel holders. If I had one complain it's with PU and the Hub. Using it for just a couple of minutes at a time (showing the wife, then each kid as they came around), I feel like the first set of batteries couldn't have lasted more than 1/2 an hour. The second set even less. I've since got rechargeables, but never had an issue with the AAA PF box, so was very disappointed that TLG claimed battery life would be similar to PF. Additionally, I watched their rigged video with the train wheels, too; I know they are a profit driven company, but so far they've been one of the good ones, and while I can see them changing things to cut costs, I wish they would be honest about it. Ultimately, it's more of a display piece for me. I may even take the hub and motor out for other things (they are expensive!) I was very excited about PU, even buying an extra hub and motor, but now I'm not sure about it. I think sbrick might be a better alternative, and may even retrofit this train with sbrick and PF to see if it lasts longer, just as an experiment. I did do one thing that I think is really awesome - I used the light sensor from the Boost set (which I spent very little time playing with - I only got it at the TRU closings), and was able to make a little program to run the train around the track a random number (small random number, though) of time and stop at the station for a while, and then repeat. Kind of neat. Enough about PU; the station is really a nice build, too, but I do wish we had more complete buildings. Then again, I'm an adult, and want things for display and not play (well... I like running the trains). Don't mind the figures, don't love Disney but understand the set wouldn't exist otherwise. Mom is a big Disney fan... but I have a mental problem that won't allow me to give parts of a set away such that what I have is incomplete. I can add to a set, but not really remove from it (unless I have multiples, which really isn't an option here). The mini trains in the station are really neat two... definitely inspiration for a microbuild.

I think most creator sets, including winter village and city type sets (like the new Townhouse Toy Store, as well as most like it from the past few years) have all used regular plates, which make them not match with modular buildings. Personally, for roughly the price of a baseplate, you can get four 16x16 plates on bricklink; it's what I've been using instead. I still have older modulars that I have not done this with (they are already built), but new ones (for the past few years) are getting four 16x16 plates as their base instead, and for the Old Fishing Store, too. How so? It's not under stress, and should hold well once completed.

Sorry; I know @Killugh revived a nearly year old thread, and I'm jumping on because I haven't been around for a while. Also, it seems like we're actually getting much closer to a release date. I recently learned a lot about Tolkien licensing. Middle Earth Enterprises is the rights holder to all of JRR Tolkien's literary work for films, merchandising, and other rights. Even though TLG made Tolkien sets (I'm saying it like that because it's both LOTR and the Hobbit) based on WB and Newline IP (the sets and figures were based on the movies, not on the books), TLG was required to get a merchandising license from MEE (https://www.middleearth.com/current-licensees.html). The first thing to note, then, is that TLG can make Tolkien based sets, but not sets based on Amazon's interpretation of Tolkien's work, because then they'd be violating Amazon's IP rights (as far as we know, no agreement between TLG and Amazon). The sets would have to be original sets based off the books, not based off the show. But then I noticed something peculiar. Why is Amazon Studios not listed on MEE's current licenses? So I dug deeper and found out that Amazon Studios is working in conjunction with Harper Collins and Newline Cinema! (https://deadline.com/2019/09/amazon-film-the-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-new-zealand-1202737536/). Unfortunately we don't know the terms of TLG's agreement with WB (parent over Newline). It may actually restrict them from making anything not mutually agreed on; it may restrict them from making sets outside the scope of WB's work... who knows. Maybe Newlines's agreement with Amazon doesn't give them merchandising rights. Unless the companies feel like sharing that information, we'll likely never know. I will say this; I do not think LEGO LOTR/Hobbit was as successful as some people here might think. Yes, they made money, but TLG is really good at making money, and they'd rather put resources towards the things that make them the MOST money, so "didn't lose money" and "turned a slight profit" are not really what TLG considers successful if those resources spent could have been on a theme that sold twice as many sets. It's an interesting topic, though; I really hope we see more medieval fantasy type things from TLG, Tolkien based or not. Remember when they made Orcs for Fantasy Era, but called them Trolls because Orcs was a Tolkien trademark? So we had regular size trolls and big fig trolls. Well, now they could actually call them Orcs (but probably have to pay for the right to do it). I remember long discussions before LEGO did LOTR; I was on the side that said it was very unlikely, that I wouldn't hold my breath, but I could actually see TLG doing it and succeeding. I'm going to say the same thing now about the Amazon series: it's possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath, and I think it's unlikely. Shared sentiments; I'm hopeful, but not holding my breath. I want to point this out, though; LEGO LOTR was like 10 years too late. The Hobbit films were aimed at a younger audience, and because of it we got a bunch of "play sets" that didn't appeal as much to the people who were big LOTR fans when the movies came out. I could have done with fewer Hobbit sets, and more LOTR sets, personally, and I had to remove play features (like from Balin's Tomb) for my adult tastes. It could possibly be more successful if they actually released sets in conjunction with the show, and geared sets towards TFOLs and AFOLs. But again, they are looking to maximize profits, so if they can make more on other lines, they won't even think about it.

You'll never completely stop scammers, and a lot of people collect the boxes (I don't, under most circumstances), so they don't want destroyed ones.

I might buy the aquarium; the only thing I'd definitely buy is Planet Express. I appreciate the typewriter, but can't imagine who would actually want one (besides authors). One great thing about some LEGO sets is to have them on display in my office. Random passers-by will stop and strike up a conversation about Star Wars, sometimes Architecture; the ECTO-1 has been a conversation start; I think Planet Express would be, too. The typewriter... not so much. The Aquarium? If I could fit it into a modular building for display, or make my own larger building around it, or fit it in the Pet Shop or something, I could see it. I've hacked a bunch of 9V cables to be able to run PF stuff off an outlet, so it's a display thing I could just keep lighted and running if I wanted to. Kinetic LEGO is always interesting.

So, I've got to admit I largely stepped away from LEGO last year and haven't been keeping up with things. I've been interested in PU from the start (got Boost at the TRU closing discount), but hadn't really done much with it until recently. I got the Disney Train on black Friday and, after building the train and running it on my Winter Village layout, ran to S@H to order some separate components - I thought it was just awesome. But then I discovered something that I haven't seen mentioned lately, and not mentioned enough - the miserable battery life of the PU hub. IMO, it's so bad that I can't believe it's not mentioned more often. It makes me think that, if you actually got a four port hub, you'd be lucky to run it for more than ten minutes. So is it really just me? The batteries I was using? After going through a second set of alkaline batteries in like 20 minutes, I got a bunch of rechargeable batteries just for the hub, but it seems to me to be a pretty serious drawback to PU. And, yes, I also agree that the lack of documentation for people actually using the App is terrible. I'm a professional programmer, and have figured out quite a bit so far, but the lack of any way to give feed back to the person using your UI, and the lack of documentation seems to really baffling to me, seeing as how Boost came out like two years ago.

I had to laugh when they suggested the cost savings would essentially benefit the consumers. I love LEGO, but TLG's profit margins are super high for a toy company. They are very good at optimizing profit. It seems to me they are being much better with boxes. I just got the Disney Train, and was really surprised how small the box was for what you were getting - there was very little empty space. Again, I'm being hard on TLG, but they traditionally made larger boxes than they needed to optimize their shelf space in third party stores (like Toys R Us and Target). But then they started opening their own stores and, hopefully, realized they were costing themselves quite a lot when you consider commercial real estate leasing costs per square foot. But that wasn't really enough - I think they started absolutely killing themselves on shipping. Think of the the size of box you need for modulars, and those were the kinds of sets that were getting free shipping because of the cost - not the little sets. Every year people are buying more directly from them online - shipping must be a huge expense. So it's just one set (I've been away from LEGO for a while), but I'd like to think they are getting better (but again, for the sake of money, not the environment).

I didn't know that bit of trivia. I think the set looks great for a Disney Train, and possibly because it does fit the look better than a 6 wide would. I wouldn't hold my breath for 8 wide, either. I will say this; I JUST got the Disney set and have been putting it together the past couple of days. I put it on my Winter Village layout - a figure 8 this year, and to keep it simple it's just got Santa's Workshop, the Cottage, and the Train Station. Guess what? It doesn't work with the Winter Village Train Station, particularly if you put the steps from the passenger car facing the train platform. But not only that, the crossing doesn't work, either (I had to move the gates out away from the track an extra stud on each side). If you turn the open passenger car so that the steps are away from the train platform, and fix the crossing, it's fine. Point being that 8 wide could break some previous sets, like 10027 train engine shed, or anything with a platform.

I was getting a better deal. Unlike a lot of people here, I don't buy from S@H if I can get a discount elsewhere - the vast majority of the time the discount is worth more than VIP points. I bought the Disney Train at 30% off. I didn't even know there was a free Tree (I just wasn't paying attention) until it was listed in the cart. The principle of the problem is that it's there in the cart when you click "submit," they are obligated to give it to you (or some other compensation). In this case, I sent in a very simple email... I said I don't understand how they thought they could just cancel the tree without saying anything, and that it just plain wasn't cool. I didn't call; I know they are busy. I wouldn't return the set - 30% off that set is a huge chunk of change. I hadn't heard back from them for several days, but finally got two responses yesterday: 1) sorry we're taking so long to respond to you, we're really busy, and then later 2) sorry about the Tree, we ran out, so we're going to send you a Nutcracker instead. I had a mixed reaction. The good is that I didn't really care about the Christmas tree anyway. A dozenth LEGO Christmas tree is about the last thing I need, despite that it would have been the biggest one I had. So the Nutcracker, for me, is a lot better. The bad is: 1) instead of just cancelling the tree, they should have, without me having to whine about it, sent an email explaining what happened and that they'd made up for it with the alternative promotional item, and 2) they could have offered a choice in case I'd already gotten the Nutcracker promotion, or didn't really care for it - especially if I was making the order to get a specific promotional item, like "Choose how we can make it right: 1) give you X VIP points, 2) send you this promotional item instead, 3) cancel your order." But they should do it BEFORE the customer gets upset at finding out they just aren't getting anything when, when they checked out, it said they were.

I don't buy just for the freebie, but if the promotional item is something I'd want, I might by from S@H instead of, for example, Amazon or Walmart who might be selling the set cheaper, or I might, as you pointed out, bought sets a lot earlier than I was planning/budgeting for so that I could get the promotional item. I have a case now where I ordered a set late on Black Friday; when I checked out, it set I would get the promotional Christmas Tree. Now, I'm not going to cancel all my LEGO orders or quit the hobby about it , but there IS a customer service issue here: if they were out of sets, and it said "sorry, we ran out of promotional sets," I'd have shrugged and ordered my big 30% off set anyway. But when you submit all your payment information, and when you click that submit button, and it clearly says you get the promotional item, then you damn well better get it. I received the set I ordered today, but no tree. So I checked my order online - it was unilaterally cancelled by S@H. No note, no message - just "cancelled." That's HORRIBLE customer service. There's four combinations of what can happen in a situation like this, and telling someone they will get something when they are clicking that "buy" button, and then NOT delivering? That's the absolute worst customer service scenario. If they said "sorry, ran out" when I ordered, it would be a total non-issue with me. I just find it highly disappointing. As I've said, if this was one of those times where I timed my purchase because I really wanted the promotion, I'd be livid at being told, when checking out, that I'd get the promotional item.

No... that's not what "purist" means. PF is still LEGO, as are the old 9V LEGO Trains. Just because they aren't current doesn't make them not "purist."

Interesting observation. Sets are having a lot more SMALL parts to make things way more detailed than they used to be. This is why people should just throw out trying to compare price per part in their comparisons. Weight might be better, but even then it's not really that great.... an injection mold making a single large plate that might weigh less than a bunch of bricks made by another mold, for example. It's hard to quantify, but with the number of smaller parts they're including, price per part is even less meaningful than it used to be, and it was never that good.

Maybe I just haven't been paying much attention, but I don't see a lot of complaining about the prices of those sets. Imagine this, though (agreeing with @CSW652), if something like EN was $70 for just the engine, and $30 a car separately. Or, maybe adjusted for current pricing, $90 for the Engine, $40 per car. I honestly think people were just still not "with it" when it came to MOT. The intersection of LEGO Fans, Saavy internet users, train fans, and people that actually knew about MOT was tiny. I was in those first three groups - I had no idea about LEGO trains at all until I stumbled across Railway Express at Sam's Club nearly 20 years ago, now. We're past the point where something like that should be feasible, given modern technology and automation, it's just that TLG can make more money elsewhere (not that they can't make money doing this).

Agreed, but, surprisingly, this is actually my favorite "official" LEGO train. I like steam engines. I liked the EN, but the Constitution is more the "old-timey" style I liked when I first got into trains. I added a caboose, and removed the "play" features from the cars. One thing I don't like is that they seem to be cheaping out on us with the small cars lately. That includes The Lone Ranger one, and the Christmas one, and having just seen pictures of the "hidden" one, those cars are like half size, also.

In the third picture you can sort of see a bit behind the side of the engine - it does not look like there's any electronics in there. I would be cool for a new monster theme, but I wouldn't buy this train as a train. EDIT: wanted to add, as I commented about this in another thread; I feel like TLG is cheaping out on us with these half-size cars these days.

I supported that last one - the steam train, but question the spacing of the large wheels (typically need less space for LEGO curves, I thought). I supported the street car, although the image is a bit deceptive (dark), because it looks dark red, but when I asked the builder said it was just red. The shuttle is interesting - as I've said in the other thread, I think these sorts of trams using the coaster tracks are really neat, but I'm not particularly enamored by this set (mainly the buildings). I did support it, though. The Flying Scotsman is way too close to EN, I can't support that. It's like EN with some minor mods. I supported the monorail a LONG time ago! 360 supporters.... it's just not happening. It's hard to blame TLG for avoiding monorail (and even trains, generally) when none of these projects can get any traction. The closest is the street car. I wonder if people are OK with small, quality, city transports rather than thinking about the kind of large layout they'd need to "play" with some of these other trains.

Oh, I get why it's so steep, it's just laughable for a tram. At least it's good to know it works, because you know it'll be know problem with more subtle elevation.

I actually think it's cool, using the track this way; I would love to see an "official" motorized version of this. JK Brickworks motorized version is really cool (except, as a people transport, I don't like how steep the slopes are). I'd love to see more like this - I wish I had more than a few minutes every day to spend on LEGO; I have so many ideas - some I'd like to share with people here, but these last few days have me thinking about finally building my city square set, and using these tracks and motorizing it (as an elevated transport, also). The vision of my someday city keeps evolving, and I'd now be happy having just a simple train loop around the outskirts while having either monorail, or something like these coaster ideas, as the inner city transportation system. But I will never call this monorail, and I will always point out to anyone that calls it monorail that there is simply more than one rail the train is running on... it's just that simple.

You can't stem the tide of the butchering of the English (in particular) language. It's like LEGO vs legos. I know I initially brought it up, but it's already obvious it's pointless to argue about when TLG themselves can't even get it right. It IS amusing, though, when TLG stated outright they'd never do monorail again, that they then release a set with what they call a monorail in it, even if it's quite obviously not one.

Definitely worth it. I was fortunate to win the Super Chief in an auction for around $100, so was pretty happy, but the cars are just as bad - so I recreated using parts I had and bricklinking the rest. I started with black roofs, because the curved slope wasn't available in LBG at the time - at least not in quantity from anywhere, but I subsequently was able to use LBG later on.

My problem with the tape I used (both copper and nickel, which is supposed to be stronger) is simply that it wears out relatively quickly. The tape, wedged between the hard edge of the track and the metal wheels of the 9V motor makes it quite easy to cut through the tape, and once you lose that hard inner edge of the track, you're no longer getting electrical contact. I don't know how long you've used them, but I put them on my Christmas layout and they didn't last even hours.

Why do people keep referring to using these tracks as monorail? I know I'm just being OCD about it, but it's TWO rails, PERIOD. It definitely makes for some interesting transportation systems - something that would be used instead of monorail but, for crying out loud, it's got TWO rails

OK, I know it's just nit-picking now, but the LEGO monorail was a monorail because it has a single (mono) rail.

Ok, so you're not the first person I've heard call it a monorail. It's not a monorail.

That looks great - seems to run quite smoothly compared to first generation.