Melfice

Alternatively, the battery pack and receiver go into the "B" Unit of the Santa Fe (using extension cords, if necessary) while you fit the EMD Unit into the actual engine. This way, you can run the main engine open, should you desire (hiding away the cords to the "B" unit) so the public can see the EMD run.

It depends on how clean you want it. If you want the wires visible, it would be relatively easier than if you'd want the wires hidden. Hidden: you might need to cut some parts up and glue them back together, unless you don't mind very clunky constructions. Visible: I'll try to mock something up tomorrow in LDD, and post the picture on here. (Unless I've been beaten to the punch by then.)

The nose slopes down too much, compared with the actual train in which the slope is sharper but in two steps (argh! difficult to explain*), but I don't think it would be possible to make it even more accurate like that. Even if you COULD make it more accurate, it would probably interfere with interior due to the amount of SNOT work. It's pretty damned accurate as it is, though. Good work! * Hopelijk ben je Nederlands en leg ik het zo beter uit: De neus gaat te schuin naar beneden. De echte locomotief duikt ook zo ver door, maar doet dat in twee stappen: een erg zwakke hoek, en een bijna rechtopstaande hoek. For the people who don't speak Dutch: I wasn't making fun of you, nor was I discussing plans to take over these forums. No, seriously! ;)

Ooh... brilliant idea! I've got the suggestion for the Dutch entry already! (Which really is a no-brainer) The iconic NS 1600/1800 series of E-locs! EDIT: Hmm... might actually be more profitable if they did that in midi-scale. Since full-scale would cost too much, for what could be a very meager sale for specific models. And micro-scale would be too small to make it look good. Unless they went with a sort of PaB format, where you custom order those models.

Remember that the Emerald Night is a semi-exclusive along the lines of, say, Cafe Corner, or the Imperial Ship. The cargo train you mention is a full retail one. Also, not just diesels. LEGO made some e-locs as well! And those are pretty cool too, and come with several cars. ;) So my idea for the future is more e-locs!

Alternatively, you get a couple of these: in either red or white, plus their accompanying windows. Add 1x2 brick beneath them to finish the door. Two for each pair of doors on one side. (This would mean between 8 and 16 of those in total, depending on what you want to do with the middle carriage) It's not a working door, but now it'll look like it has some, if it really bothers you. For me, personally, that would be a much better solution, as the traditional LEGO train door would look seriously out of place on this modern-looking train.

I don't think anyone's specifically hating on one style of trains... you're making that part up. We have some differing opinions on them (over- or underpowered American locomotives being an example ;) ), but other than that we're just stating out preferences. I prefer European trains. This does not automatically mean I hate the American style.

LEGO keeps making new designs every time a new train releases, and every time something's wrong with it. Big molded nose? (7897 and 4511) "Not good. Nose is too ugly, and it's molded! We want it brick-built!" Brick-built nose, plus canopy, I guess? (7938) "Not good! Nose is too ugly with the slopes!" Emerald Night (10194)? "Only one car!? What the hell, LEGO!" LEGO releases separate cars? They remain in the store until they throw it in clearance BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SELL, and then it gets scooped up by Bricklink sellers to sell at outrageous prices due to "rarity". Gee, I wonder why they won't release single cars anymore. I can imagine LEGO Trains being a very non-lucrative business for LEGO. I'm grateful for any LEGO train we get. Honestly, if it's up to the most vocal Trains fans, we'd have nothing but Metroliner clones and knock-offs 'till eternity. And they still wouldn't be satisfied. EDIT: As for the question about if there's a prototype close to this? Earlier, in another topic, we mused it could be a mix between a Bombardier Talent and DB Class 425

I can't explain the hole in the floor, but I think there's no doors to keep the length of the train down. If they'd added doors, you would have ended up with less interior or a (too?) long car. While I can't see anybody readily complaining about a long car (more bricks), it would probably make it look out of proportion.

I always thought American trains were underpowered. I know that freight trains in the US pull very long rakes, but I think I've seen similarly long trains here in the Netherlands being pulled by a single NS 1800 where in the US they need two engines. But I'm probably wrong in my thinking. Eh. In any case, I prefer European trains over the American ones.

The problem: LEGO Trains are a niche market, that makes little profit for LEGO. Promoting such a line is a liability, because marketing is not cheap. Not marketing, however, ensure that LEGO Trains remains a niche market. So... what do you do? Spend a million a month (US and Europe market combined. Guess might probably even be on the low end) for what might be very little pay out? Or do you NOT market it and keep the profits it IS making, so you can spend that profit* on licensed series, or other IP's that are making a much bigger profit? Difficult decision, no? * alternatively, you pool the profits from the train sales over 4 or 6 years so you can use those to design a new train. Which seems more likely, actually.

1. Do you buy sets like the Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower and Taj Mahal because you view them as amazing ‘parts packs’? No 2. Do you only buy specific models in the line because of individual appeal or do you collect the whole series because you appreciate the theme? Individual 3. What would you like to see as the next World Icon? A small section of the canals of Amsterdam, with it's characteristic houses lined on (one of) the sides of the canal. Though this may, in fact, be too difficult, or turn out too expensive. As an alternative, a model of the Atomium from Brussels. 4. What particular ultimate set beyond World Icons would you like to see? I would like a "full-scale"* train station, to be honest. Maybe something old, and grand with an arched roof (Something like Amsterdam Centraal); or something modern, almost bordering on sci-fi (Like the proposal for the remodeling of Utrecht Centraal). Though, again, this would probably be too expensive. In any case, something with a platform island, wedged between two sets of tracks. Something that can actually hold a 3 car passenger train comfortably, with some room to spare on each side, instead of just barely (or not even) doing so. 5. The rest of your input not answered above! No further input that I can think of. EDIT: Oh, poo-poo. I'm too late to enter this. >___< I should learn to read more clearly.

Actually, what LEGO seems to market as a high-speed train seems more like a light-rail train to me, fit for exactly that purpose. (Alternatively, it's based on the DB Class 612, or RegioSwinger, which really is a more high-speed regional service.) But comparing LEGO designs to real-life designs is a shaky business, so... yeah. In any case, the 2010 passenger train is more fit to just do a metro-loop than, say, set 4561 or 4511. ;)

A quick google and Wikipedia says that the NMBS does not even have a Class 1600. As in, it doesn't exist. You're probably confused with the Dutch NS 1600? From a quick glance, it appears this is the NMBS Class 16, so I can see where the confusion comes in. ;) Regardless, the engine looks pretty sharp.

Maybe the crossings are more expensive where "they" live. Or maybe it's not available at all. In that case, some home-engineering would be cheaper, assuming you have the straights to spare.

That's just amazing. Simply amazing. It's a shame you couldn't get the doors working on both sides of the train, though. But considering the mechanism used, fully understandable. (Also, more than I could do. Again, simply amazing!)

Yes and no. Well, technically yes and no for both. For the first question: the battery box is the exact same dimensions as the rechargeable battery that was included in K10194. The way the trains are driven, however, is different. The Emerald Night is driven via a PF XL Motor and a series of gears connected to the drive-wheels and the motor, where the new trains will be driven via motors similar to the 9V ones. For the second question... well, see previous answer. Rather than having to fiddle with an XL Motor and working out a gear-ratio, you'll just have to slap on the PF Train Motor, a receiver and the battery pack or the rechargeable battery and you're good to go.

1) That certainly works in a pinch, and as a permanent solution 2) Ah, that does add some diversity, indeed. Doesn't look all that odd either; opposite of what I thought. Certainly on par with the general build-up of the original model. ;) Like I said, looks good! And I trust it runs like a charm too.

You could have used part 30413 with two 1x1 bricks at it's side, instead of the headlights and a 1x6 plate. That said, the plate idea does add some greebling to the model. I assume it's symmetric, though? Very nice work-around, indeed.

That depends. I have no experience with that nose, but does it hold a 1x1 or 1x2 plate in any way? Flat, on it's side, whatever? If it does, it would be "simple" to rig something up, assuming you have enough room behind it. Hold the trans (clear? Would work nicest I think.) 1x2 with a brick or a plate into the headlight hole, then set up a headlight brick with the PF lights in them and a trans-yellow or trans-red 1x1 on it. Then pray that the light transfers through the trans 1x2. It should though. That's all assuming you have the room behind the nose AND that it will hold a 1x2 plate. Which it probably wouldn't. Anyway, using the extension cable 8886, you should still be able to use the original lights in the Metroliner. Which is a far easier method of adding light. ;)

Yeah, exactly like that. That looks pretty sweet. The other one looked a bit too flat on top, like the passengers would bump their heads while sitting down. They won't have that problem now (or maybe they do, depending on how you built the roof, but it doesn't look like they would. :P). And placed next to the real one they look far more alike now than if you'd used the flat-top style.

The first car (the one with the steering-cab) looks better to me. I would personally go with that.

The bottom is different, I believe. If you want to connect any kind of Power Functions to RC or 9V you'll need either 8886 or 8871. Both are different lengths of extension wiring, both allowing you to either power the RC motor, or let 9V power the Power Functions.

I presume, and am probably wrong about it, that LEGO thinks anybody willing to integrate lighting will figure it out on their own (hence the arches to ease the integration for the non-prodigies ;) ) ; Billy Brat, age 10, who really wanted this LEGO train will probably not be very interested in the lights (initially). Add to that, lighting will put an extra drain on the batteries, so I can imagine parents being happy it's only powering the motor. That said... maybe an extra flyer added with the instruction to hawk this kind of thing would have been a sound financial decision on LEGO's end.