Brickthus

Nemo has had a few updates, particularly in his eyes. Since then I have changed the gearbox so that two functions may be used together. This allows the mouth & gills to move at the same time as either the tail swish or the pectoral fins. Gear selection is now done with 2 manual levers on top, so this saves a motor. More possibilities from the free port (PF or PU) include motorising the Anemone movement. Nemo will be on show at the National Space Centre in Leicester, UK on 14th-15th March as part of their Brickish weekend. It would be great to meet some of you there. Mark

Forma uses a different business model for a different market. It began as a crowd-funded thing, with limited circulation. It aimed to be a desk toy. It has a few Technic pieces and a printed shell. Unfortunately Forma fails to meet the Technic set attributes of functions/cost and parts/cost so it is too expensive. It has only one function, which sets a functions price of £10, and under 300 pieces, which indicates a parts price of £25. It retails for £43! This is why I considered those equations for Nemo before building him. I designed Nemo to be Technic set, the natural equivalent of the Porsche 42056 or Off-Road Buggy 42099, using standard parts. Nemo has 4 motorised functions (£30 each) and 4 manual functions (£10 each) plus combinations so that's a functions price of at least £160. 2000-2500 pieces indicates a parts price of £200 including 1 motor and 1 2-port hub. I was also flexible between PF and PU, knowing that PU will be here for 10 years or so, and that a phone app provides opportunity for interactive play, similar to BOOST and 42099. I chose the 2-port hub because the train remote will work with it, not needing a phone. The fun of Nemo is to make some similar and some different mechanisms for a new application, but one that can rebuild just as any Technic set can. Definitely worth a try. Definitely worth supporting; let TLG and the market decide. Nemo has engine mechanisms in the Anemone, suspension wishbones supporting the fins and a gearbox to select the functions, as well as various cranks, sliders and levers. Even wheel arches for the mouth and gills. Add 4 wheels and rebuild as a car if you like! I have more ideas for creatures, with some really interesting mechanisms. These would each find a price point, based on the mechanism cost equation, and hence a size, so that the number of pieces would set the parts price similar to the functions price. I also set out to avoid loading the price with too many electrical pieces. When calculating the value of a Technic set, take off the electrical pieces at cost, and £1 per large panel, and then hope for 5-6p/piece for the rest. Mark

I'd love to set another precedent for Technic, also aligning with the modern theme of saving the planet, a set where the primary model is an animal. We have had the occasional dinosaur (8485 3rd model) but not much else. The chance of having realistic movements and also fitting the functions/cost and parts/cost that we expect of the best vehicle sets. Might attract more people to Technic too. My first is Nemo, a scaled-up clown fish with motorised fins, fin-fold, tail, mouth & gills and manual tilt, turn and anemone. 48cm long, aiming for the same price point as Porsche 42056 or Off Road Buggy 42099. Compatible with PF and PU. Mark

I build to 8mm scale, 1:38, using 8+ wide for UK prototype and it would be 10+ wide for US/EU prototypes. Minifigs are too short; using Woody's legs or a plate under each foot can raise them a bit. Mark

1) Here's the circuit diagram of 9V train controller: The diodes top left rectify the 7V AC input and the capacitor smooths the unregulated power. The LM317 regulates to 9V DC. 2) Rails carry 9V and 0V but a partial short circuit between two opposite-position controllers would create 18V across the un-shorted connections. 3) No, but I would try to follow either standard LEGO circuits or model railway book circuits, which may specify keeping signals isolated from track etc. Mark

Most of us can only dream of attracting support that fast. As long as it's honest, and not associated with anything dodgy, I would have no problem with someone promoting my MOC. Getting the project accepted is a big fulfilment; further development is a means of attracting more interest. I've gone for something we don't see often, a Creature in Technic. An Orange Clown Fish, like Nemo and Marlin, with motorised features but designed to fit the parts/cost and functions/cost criteria of the best Technic sets. I hope this would provide variety for Technic fans and also attract a wider range of people. Mark

As an alternative to the usual vehicles, here is my Technic MOC of an Orange Clown Fish, which can be built as Nemo (with "lucky fin") or Marlin. The model has 4 motorised functions: 1) Pectoral fins with 2 degrees of freedom in cyclic movement; 2) Folding in of pectoral fins; 3) Moving mouth and gills; and 4) Swishing tail. There are also 3 manual functions: 1) Tilt with trans-clear beams, able to nibble the anemone or swim a little above the flat position; 2) Turn on the turntable, through at least 180 degrees; and 3) the Anemone can move with some crankshafts underneath, via the gear on the left of it. The gear change is currently sequential (motorised) but I'm working on upgrades to that. The model has about 2000 parts in the fish and stand, plus another 500 or so in the sea bed items and turntable covering. It is designed to fit the parts/cost and functions/cost criteria for the Porsche 42056 or Off Road Buggy 42099 price point. You may notice parts from several sets; mouth/gill wheel arches from Corvettes 42093, fin edges from Car Transporter 42098, turntable from big red crane 42082 and orange parts from many sets. I have erred towards the real fish, omitting the whites of eyes and white teeth that are used in the cartoon characters. There is a short video and a long video on YouTube and the project is live on LEGO Ideas. More pictures there, and please add comments. I have development options for the control scheme. I used PF to get the functions working well but, as a potential set, I intend to use the 2-port PU hub for 2 motors (gear change and function power) as swap-in replacements; that would allow handset or phone control for best user-accessibility. One or two 4-port hubs could be used instead, but should I go that far, given the risk of loading the price with the electrical parts? The ultimate motorisation might be like 42100 with 4 motors in the fish and 3 motors on the sea bed, but £400 was not my intention. Nevertheless it should be cheaper than keeping a real fish and has the advantage of leaving the real fish where they belong. As a large Technic set, there is potential for sponsorship from Disney Pixar, just as other sets are sponsored by vehicle manufacturers. The Finding Dory franchise is accepted as a theme. Hope you like it. I would be very grateful for your support. If you would like to see Technic Creature sets alongside the usual vehicle sets then this might be the way to do it. It might even interest a wider range of people in Technic. Thanks, Mark

You hear that "p" word in the January Technic sets announcement? That is the sound of inevitability! I wish it were so for pneumatics in the August announcement! No Technic animals in the range this year; all vehicles as usual. I thought perhaps an animal or two would attract a wider range of people to the theme, as well as providing variety to existing Technic fans. More people = more profitability = better sets. I would hope that a firmware update to the Technic Control+ hub would enable the hub to have at least some outputs controlled with a train remote handset. Even better if two handsets could work to control all 4 outputs; otherwise why does the remote have peg holes at the sides? Mark

Thanks for the review. I'll wait and see whether there will be smaller and more-versatile PU parts like the PF parts, especially leads. I have made much use of the PF switches, including in a control panel (which is why it has the little switch on the back). As for PU in a Technic flagship, I would be put off unless PU demonstrates versatility and integration with the system. The parts in this review a plug and play for a smaller range of applications, such as trains or educational robotics. It is not as easy as PF was for a set like the 8275 Bulldozer. I would be more enthusiastic if the simpler PF functions were replicated; the expensive "Bluetooth and app" philosophy works for the new generation but would add too much complexity to use it in all models. I have many PF models with just a motor and battery; the trade for including those for £10 was favourable compared to adding the (now £35) 8293 kit separately. The X-Ray video shows that the motor inside the Boost motor is the same as the one on the XL motor, which makes it a good powerful standard motor and easier to use than a large NXT or EV3 motor. This is the most likely in a Technic set and would be an encouraging sign. If more than two motors were used then the instructions on getting 2 hubs controlled from 1 handset need to be included. I've done it but not always right first time. Sometimes the 2nd hub is reluctant to sync with the handset. However, recent Technic sets have tended to use fewer motors and more function gearboxes because of the cost. A further encouragement would be if the Boost motor can act as a servo motor (if there is no Servo motor in PU). Mark

We can only hope. Otherwise the applications with our previous product investments are limited. I do get the feeling PU is designed for the modern "module + app" generation and have less appeal to those of us who are used to making compatible hardware. The most fun I had with PF was to create my own circuits to go with its protocol. I had in mind to make a multi-coloured LED signal and also a flashing light like the 9V light pair. If TLG do not announce a set of leads soon, including some compatibility with PF, then I'll be tempted by the other IDC plug idea. However, the problem of obsolescence of older products is serious; many of us have large investments in previous electrical products. 9V leads degrade. Track connectors crumble and other leads are showing similar signs. I'm not sure whether the PF or PU lead insulation material is similar or not, but it has similar flexibility and feel. Either way, it indicates that there is a life limit on electrical products with cables, far short of the life of ordinary bricks, which will severely limit my purchasing unless a maintainability solution can be found. Oddly enough the 4.5V and 12V leads are fine, and use plugs that are easy to rewire. Best cable system yet! Given that the PU plugs are unique to TLG, is the 6-way cable available commercially? If so, I'd like to get some and re-wire some 9V leads and track connectors. That would keep things going at least until PU is fully deployed. Thanks for the teardown and interesting discussion. It seems the 6 pins are similar to the NXT/EV3 interface, where Gnd and Vcc (3.3V) are similar and ID1 and ID2 work as serial ports. I drove an LED from the NXT by changing the sensor type in software. Perhaps PU will be able to control an NXT/EV3 motor with only an interface programming change in an app? Mark

The answers gave a few encouragements, such as how to control multiple hubs from one handset, but it's not easy. Connecting each one individually and switching off each time still leaves trouble recognising the 2nd one as you restart and try to add up the connections. Sometimes it goes into a bang-bang control mode too! That was fixed by turning off and on again. I noticed that the PWM command on each hub is offset when a hub is first turned on, so going up and down in power without reaching maximum or pressing Stop leaves a buzz at zero speed. Fixed for the duration of hub On-time by going to maximum or pressing Stop. As long as we can get the multi-hub control to work, PU should prove to be a good product, at least as good as PF. I have made sure my Space Monorail is compatible with PU. I have yet to take pictures of my monorail train that uses it as an alternative to PF. Serious use for trains or monorail would need a PU hub with a LiPo battery, but I am remaining calm and quietly confident, awaiting developments. The support for PF should continue while PF sets are on shelves. 42080 is a new 2H2018 set with PF so the support would extend to at least 2 years from now. Wait and see if any 1H2019 sets have PF included. After that it will be while stocks last. Whilst I might agree with M_longer and andythenorth that soldering is going a bit far, using 12V individual plugs is something I did between 9V and PF, mainly to power an IR Receiver from a 9V battery box. A similar technique would work for the transition from 9V/PF to PU, and it's "all LEGO". The patent thing is only prohibitive if you intend to make commercial profit from it, or sell in a way that might undermine the patent-holder's market. Part of the aim of PU is to prevent kids making short circuits; it leads to customer dissatisfaction and expensive replacements. It was easy to make them in 9V, possible in PF with the 9V backward compatibility but not possible with NXT plugs. PU retains the impossibility of short circuits but simplifies the NXT plugs, losing the vulnerable clip. TLG has not ruled out selling female PU sockets for AFOL use but is pensive about selling them to support 3rd-party products. If I were TLG I would think hard about the balance between losing the initiative electrically, as they did with PF, and the need to satisfy customer functionality desires themselves, when they are a much larger organisation and therefore slower by default. They will have to think like a start-up if they are to develop PU rapidly themselves in the ways we would like. I would recommend that TLG licence selected 3rd parties as they did with some NXT sensors. I bought some licensed sensor types (IR Link, IR Receiver, Colour sensor and RFID sensor) and I would buy licensed PU parts. This kind of licensing would enable TLG to keep control of its patented connectors but let us get a wider range of electrical parts to play with. My investigations so far, using 2x train set 60198 (hubs and train motors) have found results consistent with my own assumption that the electrical interface would be similar to NXT/EV3 with the new connector type. That means pins 1&2 are 0V and 9V for a dumb motor or light (powered either way round but possible to read an RCX-type sensor when the motor drive is off, if the hub supports that), pins 3&4 should be +3.3V and 0V for smart sensors and pins 5&6 should be data pins (open drain) for serial I/O. This means smart sensors & motors would be recognised by type by their serial IDs, whereas dumb motors have the potential to be recognised by having a resistance of tens of ohms and an inductive load characteristic, if the hub detects voltage and current and has the right software to correlate their changes in time. This depends on what TLG wants the hub to do. Certainly the Boost hub can recognise the smart sensor and motor, and the WeDo hub can recognise the motor, motion sensor and tilt sensor. If the tilt sensor is only a passive device, where a ball-bearing makes one or two of four resistance contacts at a time, then it could be like an RCX passive sensor on pins 1&2 and that would mean passive RCX sensor types could be used (active TBD but more likely to benefit from being smart instead). The CyberMaster recognised its tools by the resistor in the switch in the module but did not work with active senors; this might be the extent of RCX-type sensing by pins 1&2 in the PU protocol - TBC, for TLG to confirm or deny. The use of an electrical interface similar to NXT/EV3 also means it would need only 2x 12V individual plugs to connect a dumb motor (including 9V motors or PF motors with pins C1 & C2) to pins 1&2 of a PU male plug lead. I suspect the port uses a similar motor driver to PF IR Receiver, so it might have the same issue as PF IR Receiver V1 if it were asked to drive 2x PF M-motors in parallel. This could be a simple reason why daisy-chaining of motors has been prohibited by design. The use of the NXT/EV3 interface would also give backward compatibility with those types of sensors and motors if a suitable lead were provided (or if AFOLs used 12V plugs to hybridise one). I'm sure there are software developers ready to get hold of the PU SDK if it were released. I would suggest that anyone brave enough might like to try splicing an NXT cable to a PU cable, to see if they can control an NXT/EV3 motor. Identify pin 1 of the NXT cable and connect to pin 1 of the PU cable and so on. Use a multimeter to check each port; voltage setting of 20V for hubs, resistance setting of 10-30 ohms for motors. I don't expect the motor's encoder to work with the train hub, but it might work with the Boost or WeDo hubs. Caveat: no responsibility is taken for your experiments or any damage consequences from them, whether you take the suggestion or not. If you try it and succeed, please post here. I would like to see three things from TLG regarding PU: Confirmation that the electrical interface is similar to the NXT/EV3 or confirmation of what it is, if it were different. Images and descriptions of the simplest products in the PU range, as soon as possible. It has to be cheaper than the hub to add a motor and battery to a model without needing Bluetooth control, preferably also with a pole reverser switch. There should be a PU kit to replace PF kit 8293, preferably starting in 2019 and sold in parallel with 8293, to help the transition. The price point of £30 looks difficult to achieve because the light brick 88005 is already £8.99 rather than £5.49. The lower the entry point price, the better for children. A PU LiPo multiplexer hub, in a 4x8x3 box, including the LiPo cells and charging socket of PF battery 8878, a flying lead to take commands from a PU hub, 2 ports on one end of the box (using the PU hub port positions) copying the motor drive input and 2 ports on the other end copying it in reverse (swap pins 1&2 or drive the opposite way round from the other channel of the motor driver). This device would enable 2-motor train locomotives by plugging a train motor into each end. It would power the motors with the LiPo battery and keep the AAAs for just the Bluetooth part. The motor driver chip can drive 2x motors per channel so that would make use of it for 4 motors. The multiplexer hub would also behave like an NXT/EV3 multiplexer for smart sensors and motors. Target price £50, perhaps £55 including the smart sensor functions. While I wait for PU to develop, I am encouraged in pneumatics. We have a new valve switch in set 42080 and it is possible to order them separately over the phone for about £2 each (pneumatic parts always show "Out Of Stock" on the LS@H "Buy Bricks" page, if they are listed at all. Other parts may be ordered either individually from that set or by the pneumatic bag of a set like 42043 (around £44.71 for 9 parts plus 28 tubes). This gives us the option to enjoy mechanical control systems while we wait-and-see for the electrical ones. Mark

Next year 10 balloon tyres and a mini version of 42009! Having 8 tyres made me think twice about how many sets to buy; settled on 2 for now and ordered some extra valves. There is also a trend in pneumatic pieces: 42043 4 switches, 2L, 1M, 1S cylinders but a lot of truck with it 42053 3 switches, 2L, 1S cylinders as the main functions of the vehicle, and a hand pump. 42080 2 switches (new type), 2L, 1S cylinders, main functions but a larger vehicle Soon we could have a replacement for the 8837 small pneumatic excavator with 2 switches and 1L/M and 1S cylinders as the main functions, and hand-pump control, but would it be at a low-enough price point to buy quite a few? I suspect £30 might not be possible these days for any set with 2 pneumatic functions. Perhaps if it did not have the small compressor for PF motor addition? There would be an excuse for lacking motor addition capability from the transition from PF to PU; it would need a Technic PU battery box and an L-motor with PU plug first. That would also be more expensive than necessary for adding a motor; I hope there will be cheaper ways to add a motor without remote control, at least to mirror the functions of PF in the PU parts range. I'd also like to see more Technic sets with 4 of the 43mm wheels and tyres of the type that replaced the ones that were so plentiful in Model Team days. A smaller set like 8837 would encourage younger kids to get into pneumatics, from age 9 rather than 10 (42053, 42080) or 11 (42043). 2 functions is also just enough to automate a second model, which is where the technical fun really begins! Mark

Since my brick order arrived, I have added an update to my Space Monorail with completely stress-free curves of smaller radii in both permanent and movable varieties. Mark

Since my brick order arrived, I have added an update to my Space Monorail with completely stress-free curves of smaller radii in both permanent and movable varieties. Mark

Firstly, well done for posting your first project. As you see other monorail projects, that will give you ideas about the technology and the theme to make your reposted project more successful. If you could think about how to add a motor and make it go round some curves to complete a circuit then that would be a big step forward. I've added an update to my Space Monorail. The curves are now completely stress-free in both permanent and movable varieties. Look out for more updates on various aspects of the project. Mark

I have flashing lights on my monorail train With a simple PF light brick it was easier to use a mechanical method to flash the lights. The Solo Conveyex train would need magnets to keep both halves on the track, if it used roller-coaster tracks back-to-back. The alternating track support pylons mean both edges are covered so there is no way to build the two halves of the train together. I have some Neodymium magnets from my Working BB-8 Droid experiments (near the bottom of the 3rd page of updates) but even encasing them in minifig dustbins they would not be allowed in a set (given the intestine-ripping reason for removing all swallowable magnets from toys) and even then they would be at the limit of their magnetic attraction, just as I found with BB-8. Such a system would also need a twistable track to ape the movie well. That is not in the current parts selection for the roller-coaster track pieces. It is also not easy to achieve in a brick-built monorail track. Flexi-track could do it though, or I have a previous barrel-roll track from the 5-wide tracks, with a video. The track type fulfils the function; monorail is good for some functions but maybe not all. Mark

See the latest curves in my second update Where you have a black peg, substitute a blue axle pin with the axle uppermost. The black peg would foul the round tile but the axle pin does not. For legal building the peg has to remain uncompressed at both ends; 4 plates in a 5-plate-high sandwich does not allow that. Mark

I think we agree, though I would take the apparent distraction as a pointer to what a monorail track system has to deliver. It is a matter of both engineering and marketing. So let's say in 4-6 years' time the new stuff has had its day and TLG have shifted all the track parts they've moulded. A monorail system has to do just as well but use a motor on the train. Another consideration for a product theme is Intellectual Property, which means TLG keeping one step ahead of the cloners with their new pieces. The 2x4 brick patent may have expired but that does not stop TLG carrying on with a patent for every new piece and system of pieces. We see the patents for the original monorail pieces. These give the LEGO brand some exclusivity. Alongside that, a brick-built monorail track would not be strong enough if built with most clone brands. The cloners might not consider making a 1/8 circle curve from 70 pieces because they concentrate on cheap production and quick sales. They don't care if their bricks end up in landfill or the Pacific. To throw away genuine LEGO bricks is a crime, considering how well they last. A monorail track system has a compromise to make. If we want multiple curve radii, to blow away the old restriction, then the pieces used have to be not too bespoke. One can either stress a few small plates a little for radii down to 48M, or use coupling plates for radii as tight as 12M. The stress can be removed with some 2018 pieces, though the curves would then have to be formed around a regular curved object as they would lack the self-regulating springiness of the small amount of stress. Then there is the form of motorisation on the train. A vertical motor (e.g. XL) can do any curve radius but is quite fixed, like the original system. This needed a bespoke motor cover piece, much sought-after and now pricey. A horizontal motor or train motor might be limited in the tightness of the radius, unless the drive shaft can pivot on top of the motor bogie pivot (I've tried it but it gets unwieldy). Torque-steer is not an option technically; it would not be reliable enough, so that rules out a vertical drive shaft going through a bogie pivot. The technique may be used in MOC trains but this is for a set, where extensive reliability trials are done. The aim to have longer, faster trains needs a powerful motor and a simple drive-train. These things, and removing other limits of the original monorail, are the reasons for choosing the system I built. Mark

True, but there is the matter of capacity. Given that the parts factories use expensive real estate and hence parts production, stored inventory and machine capacity are considered carefully, TLG would have only a limited number of track systems active at once. Having two, with Trains and Roller-Coaster, puts off a monorail for a few years. Given that the Roller-Coaster parts are versatile enough to be in quite a few other sets and themes, this would cover off Indy Mine track for the foreseeable future, but that also means putting off monorail. We have not seen the wide range of Train track pieces that we hoped for; only a crossover and the much-lambasted flexi-track. The Roller-Coaster track has 7 different pieces, which is a bigger initial investment. This is why I went for a basic-piece monorail. A decent monorail system has to last for decades, not just 3 sets and 2 track packs. By using common pieces it could last for ever and need no additional investment in moulds. If only the delivery of parts orders from TLG would be as quick as promised, I might be able to update the project a bit more often! Mark

Not the generation (people) but the world-wide media culture. Ever-shorter attention spans mean that some LEGO sets get simpler to give a child more instant gratification (Juniors and the former Jack Stone range). The new even-larger sets are designed for adult fans who grew up in an age of greater perseverance. You can see the difference between famous brands that are attached to adverts or TV programmes, and those traditional in-house themes such as Classic Space. Classic Space is not a brand attached to other products to sell LEGO, but it is the Space theme that I have more parts for than others. Also, I want a Classic Space revival, regardless of how many others agree; it was my favourite minifig-based theme other than Trains. We have had Benny's Spaceship and the Exo-suit but these were not followed up; perhaps Space itself, or any imaginary in-house space-based theme (without a famous brand like Star Wars or Star Trek), has insufficient following to be a feasible market. Space is part of the original context of LEGO monorail; it would look odd with a castle theme! I have deliberately made the monorail adaptable to all Space themes because the market is too small for a single one to succeed on its own. I will have trains in some of the other Space themes by the time I exhibit a scenic layout. Yes, both Disney and Classic Space fans are likely to want a monorail but that is market understanding, or context, not attaching a brand for the sake of attracting sales. The latter is a shallow technique used more as the culture develops. You would have grounds if there had been a Star Wars monorail that I had aped (one in a film, not the painted-up real one); if I had done that, I would have at least five times the number of supporters by now. Once something is liked and shared on phones it is gone from most people's imagination. This is where an in-house LEGO theme struggles more nowadays. Nexo Knights and Friends each have a TV series to accompany the sets - one long advert, a bit like the Gadget Show for adults. The broken-record technique used on kids; would parents like that? At least the reusability of LEGO means it's not a one-use toy. Sales on the basis of substance and reliability are much harder to make in a culture that concentrates on the short term wow-factor. It will probably be that there are not enough monorail fans remaining. What a shame to give TLG the ammo to say no-one wants a monorail. Still, we build for the love of the hobby. The roller-coaster system is good but I wonder how long it will last. The track parts are optimal by using less plastic and having a tight radius. The theme focuses on putting minifigs on the train for play value. The cars are bespoke, which might be necessary to ensure low friction. By being simple it can be deployed in ordinary sets such as mines. Perhaps a Space command centre too, not needing a whole track circuit. There could also be a rocket test strip with lots of straights (from Indiana Jones). The key is how the train is powered, at least where there is a whole track circuit with slopes. A roller-coaster is fine with off-track motive power on the straights. Continued motion on the curves has to depend on the shallow slopes, as can be seen in the sets. A motor on a train would struggle to climb the slope pieces without a long run-up, and would then struggle for grip and against gravity, purely on power-to-weight ratio with an on-board battery. One weakness of the system is in the chain drive that would eventually wear out the track cross-members. I have seen a MOC with pinch rollers of soft tyres, which can launch the cars up a decent slope for the usual descent pattern to take over; this has no limit on input power as long as the train stays on the track. We will see what happens in 2 years' time. The system is versatile enough to fulfil all the roles of the Indy mine track so it has some staying power as a set of parts in several themes. In the fairground range there ought to be a ghost train before the demise of the system; this could use pinch rollers at the start and shallow slopes in the middle, without a tall slope. We will see whether there will be another new roller-coaster set later or whether a fourth type of fairground ride will take over after this, the carousels and ferris wheels. Until then, enjoy, and make world-record track lengths; the initial large set might be the best source of parts as further sets might be smaller in their track scope. A bulk-buy of middle-slope pieces is advisable to gain height for a longer track, since the trains will run out of momentum in a relatively short horizontal distance and angling straights might be an "illegal move"! The roller-coaster system will absorb what was left of our chances of TLG producing another monorail, at least for a few years. We had better be careful how much it bites out of the Trains theme too! Mark

I'd love to get to 10k but I'm being realistic. If the Hidaka Monorail made 1707 and I have 1/3 the support rate of BB-8 that made 1327 then I might not expect to make 10k. I'm an "experienced optimist", and also a safety engineer (which means I stare into the abyss to conceive what can go wrong and how to fix it before it does). It means I still consider how to get as much support as possible but I don't set my hopes too high. You guys are right in the need to appeal beyond LEGO itself, but this is also a problem about LEGO. It used to stand on its own as a toy. If it is no longer popular enough without a famous brand attached then it is failing as a concept in this age of celebrity, short attention spans and "video or it didn't happen". My aim is to make the best possible monorail set with a compatible theme (Space was 2oo3 of the original monorail sets), great engineering (faster, fewer limits, reliable) and minimal obsolescence (so it lasts for ever as a concept rather than having ridiculous prices that make it inaccessible to further generations). Those are my skills, to varying extents. To be honest I would be disgusted to plaster good engineering with the need to accommodate Mickey's ears, Donald's bill or Pluto's nose or a silly colour scheme that would detract from the universal compatibility with the Space and City themes. This is why the Joker Mansion has purple roller coaster track where other sets have grey track; purple track belongs to imagination, theme parks and film franchises, where real tracks are grey. Kids need to have fun in reality as well as in fantasy, and learn to tell the difference. Otherwise if all their reality is tough then they will try to escape by spending too much time in fantasy lands, where it would be better to equip them to improve their reality and help others to do the same. In publicity I have only basic skills but at least I will exhibit this a few times. I have already resorted to using some outrageous hashtags on Twitter! In various forums one can only post "support my project" so many times before people get fed up with it. This forum is no exception. BB-8 had the advantage that a few Star Wars groups were legitimate places to post, but even a facebook group where people make their own BB-8s frowned on it. I had similar issues in a model railway club, though they appreciated LEGO trains more at a show, where mine was voted the best alternative layout in a popular modelling magazine; that was down to the engineering and prototypical running compared to other layouts that had little moving. What is key is to muster the support of the monorail fans in the LEGO community. Some of them stick to the alternative of 3D-printed parts for the old monorail; if we have lost them then some of the hope of getting TLG to produce a set goes with them; a community divided against itself cannot stand (or raise enough support). Relying too much on 3rd-party support (e.g. for motors where the investment is more there than in the LEGO parts) seems like "not LEGO" to me. The occasional 3D-printed ABS part might be OK and I do like BBB wheels as their quality is good. Mark

Thanks Some people stick with 3rd-party support for the old system, with 3D-printed tracks and other motors. It's a shame that the alternative route effectively divides the fan base and reduces the drive for TLG to produce a monorail set. In a sense I have nothing to lose by submitting a LEGO Ideas project; I would like to get more than 1000 votes but I don't necessarily expect to do any better than Masao Hidaka did with his earlier project at 1707. Even 1000 is looking like a big challenge at the moment - the support rate is not what it needs to be so early in the project. I'm at about 1/3 of the level of support that I had for my working BB-8 droid, which reached 1327. I might have the engineering more mature than I did with BB-8 but Classic Space is just not as popular as Star Wars. The main thing for a LEGO Ideas set is to be a complete set with play value. I added that with the removable modules, each of which fits on the train or buggy in turn and each of which has further features. I was inspired by train set 4559 for the module system. I have a plan for stress-free track, which is the only outstanding issue on pure build-legality for a set. I added an update with the plan. I take encouragement from my latest test piece while I wait for more parts to arrive. The updates page of my project is a space to watch. I have even recreated a brick-built crater plate because the old one is no longer available. I use exactly the same PF parts as a train set (which IMO is the most a project could get away with including), so this would adapt to the PF2 train set parts just as well. I expect the motor would be unlikely to change except in its plug. Same for the other parts - mostly connector changes - apart from a new Bluetooth receiver in a package with some studs, which would not be too different from the IR Receiver. TLG should be aware that small means versatile, so I hope it's no bigger! Hence all building legalities should be met with my LEGO Ideas set. To do Disney would require more precision in the field of the characters. Disney already has a franchise, making it ineligible for a LEGO Ideas project. I chose the Classic Space theme for my monorail set proposal because it is still the most popular Space theme and has 2 recent kits in Benny's Spaceship and the Exo-Suit. Two of the three original monorail sets were Space-themed. Classic Space also adapts more easily than a City theme to the needs of the monorail train configuration. Classic Space has dedicated LEGO fans, just as monorail does. I want my set to be part of the Classic Space revival, so I included the crater plate and a brick-built canopy in the right colour scheme. The platform plates deliberately include pairs of wedge shapes to rebuild easily into a spaceship. I have also tested prototypes for Futuron, Blacktron and M-Tron so later-theme fans are not left out. I would have an exhibition layout with all 4 themes having their own stations and trains. I might investigate Unitron as I have a 6991 set in the theme. As we who have tested these monorail systems know, there is a width tolerance for the guide rollers to avoid binding on the track, especially in the curves. I have produced a jig piece from the same pieces used in my LEGO Ideas set, which would be made and then dismantled in the instructions, as happens in some other sets. The train bogies would be built on this jig and it would calibrate the roller gap to ensure good running. This helps to answer the inevitable question for a proposed set: "Can it be built by an 8-year old?". Having posted to facebook (several groups), twitter, Reddit, YouTube, EB and local LEGO forums, are there any other places I should post to attract more support for a Space Monorail? In a sense my LEGO Ideas set proposal is everything I would want from a LEGO Monorail system, which is a reliable, fast and versatile monorail in the proper context of a Space theme, accepting that the limits of a set mean that the more ambitious track pieces are an extension for some idea pages in the instructions, rather than being included. Pictures of those on my Brickshelf. Mark

Absolutely Thanks. Ironically the straight segments need less support than the curves. I've done straights with a 64M span with no problems - that doubles the span of the previous monorail sets. The sag you see is the differential depression of the edges of the cardboard sheets on the bed, underneath the scenic sheet. I've used the 64M spans to enter and exit helical curves; the tangential track needs to reach beyond the radius of the outer curve. I just posted a new update with the plan for stress-free curves. There is a useful new piece in 2018 sets, which I have on order. The project updates are a space to watch - it will develop, just as I did with BB-8. The greater support is needed in votes! Are there really enough LEGO monorail fans out there who are not so tied to the obsolete original or bespoke extras that they can support this project and convince the LEGO company to make another monorail set? How do we find them? Mark

42082 has Unimog-sized wheels, 94mm rather than 62mm, so it's a fair bit bigger in scale than 42009. Hence more pieces in a 2-axle chassis. Perhaps TLG read that some people had had trouble with 42009's stabilisers and decided a shorter crane would be good for avoiding a repeat of the problem? They also mention the reminiscence of the original 855 Mobile Crane. The next question is, how long will it take one of us to turn 42082 into the equivalent 4-axle crane shown in the extra instructions of 851, 856 and other original Technic sets? The original was built from 850 + 854 + 855 + 871. 42082 already has 4-wheel steering. I miss those extra instructions, so full of aspirational ideas. I built those in my head hundreds of times! Mark

The whole point of PF for domestic products is versatility. Larger sets with PF have had multiple receivers from one battery box. PF for education can stand more bespoke integration. The kids are using it for a couple of hours at a time, to demonstrate concepts for the curriculum. Versatility is a key attribute of LEGO parts and sets. "It's a new toy every day" was the slogan for a long time. The moment it becomes too bespoke, we might as well buy another toy that does the specific job. I would never do that; I would cut up LEGO pieces before I lost my brand loyalty! Dinosaur bodies and train front ends have long been lampooned as POOP, the most useless Parts that should be made Of Other Parts. With the late-1990s technology, the Cybermaster was not as good as the RCX. Cybermaster had radio rather than IR communications but it was stuck with 2 integral motors, making the unit bigger. Once a motor failed, that was it; the RCX could be given replacement motors. The same was true of the scout master units, with one integral motor. Not too bad for a large-enough model (R2D2 or AT-AT) but this reached the limit of desirable unit size. The PF philosophy, at least for domestic products, is to have inputs, processors and outputs. Inputs are battery boxes for the moment, since TLG have not integrated a small button into the system yet. Processors are the switch or the IR Receiver. Outputs are motors and lights. If a battery + receiver unit could be no bigger than the AAA or LiPo battery then maybe OK, but the WeDo2 unit is too big. What we really need is a unit the same size as an IR receiver but with other comms, such as radio, Bluetooth or WiFi, which is where the S-Brick scores well. It does need a suitable handset so that those without a phone can use it. Otherwise a proportion of the market is lost instantly; TLG should have thought of that. Mark