4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

with or without lights, and I'm sure that selling the light kits separately instead of adding even more electronic components to each train makes the cost a little easier for many buyers to swallow.

I don't think it is the cost of the LED lights.

PUp or PF - these LEDs were and are (and should be) the cheapest elements in each line-up (and they are "dumb"). Consumer price-wise that is. Actually, I buy them to cut the plugs off from the lights for connecting non-PUp things to PUp hubs. The cost of the LED PUp lights is next to nothing regarding production. Throwing them into a train set results in a blip of cost increase (manufacturer-wise). However, adding such a feature generally means adding more bricks and pieces, as you have to cope with the a) the geometry and b) with a 6 wire cable - which is completely unnecessary electronically-wise, but a PUp hub needs to learn what is attached to its ports, otherwise the app freaks out. I believe this is what makes it far less attractive for TLG adding PUp lights, but certainly not the cost of the lights.

So experienced users simply do it - buy the separately sold lights - and then they have the parts required available. Smart move, I'd say.

Best,
Thorsten 

Rumor has it the hogwarts express is retiring this summer too. So we will likely see a new version comming out this summer too! 

11 hours ago, Toastie said:

I don't think it is the cost of the LED lights.

PUp or PF - these LEDs were and are (and should be) the cheapest elements in each line-up (and they are "dumb"). Consumer price-wise that is. Actually, I buy them to cut the plugs off from the lights for connecting non-PUp things to PUp hubs. The cost of the LED PUp lights is next to nothing regarding production. Throwing them into a train set results in a blip of cost increase (manufacturer-wise). However, adding such a feature generally means adding more bricks and pieces, as you have to cope with the a) the geometry and b) with a 6 wire cable - which is completely unnecessary electronically-wise, but a PUp hub needs to learn what is attached to its ports, otherwise the app freaks out. I believe this is what makes it far less attractive for TLG adding PUp lights, but certainly not the cost of the lights.

So experienced users simply do it - buy the separately sold lights - and then they have the parts required available. Smart move, I'd say.

Best,
Thorsten 

what i dont get is why lego doesnt build the id resistors into the pu plug. should be easy enough with smd ones and could eliminate some wiring needed thus making it cheaper to produce

1 hour ago, XG BC said:

should be easy enough with smd ones and could eliminate some wiring needed thus making it cheaper to produce

Well, I actually believe they calculated that through to the fraction of a cent.

We collaborate with a good number of companies in Europe and the US; they (in contrast to us ;)) make stuff. The things they produce are leaning towards the expensive side and require quite some supply chains, as rather diverse materials and pieces are required for assembly. What I have learned from them is that the least thing to care about is electronics. Once the printed circuit board is ready for production (even in small numbers as low as some 100's) - which translates to: all the expensive work has been done - neither the actual making of the boards nor the electronic pieces populating the boards - is treated as severe cost. Once again, for expensive instruments, that is.

Nevertheless, making a dual wire cable and the 6 wire cable means you need to stock both types (or order two different things from an external manufacturer). Putting them together is different (OK, machines do that, but you may need again two different kinds of machines or one kind capable of making both, but consecutively). Also, a mechanical step (crimping on the cables) is a rather different task than getting SMD resistors into a plug. These are all severe costs for TLG. They'll save 4 wires of certain length per LED light, but I bet that that is far less attractive (cost wise!) than having solely 6 wired cables crimped onto the plugs. That's the other thing I learned: The more entirely identical production steps are in your work-flow, the (much) better off you are.

Maybe that is one of the reasons, but this is pure and utter speculation.

Best
Thorsten

19 hours ago, Izzynufc-2 said:

It’ll be interesting what Lego City does with its train stuff this year, considering the new road plate system. 

I think another level crossing and station are highly likely, this being the case.

 

14 hours ago, McWaffel said:

I have never purchased a modern LEGO passenger train, solely because of the giant front pieces. I’ll never get one unless they’re going back to brick built noses

Did you not get 7938 from 2010?  That had a brick built nose.

1 hour ago, Toastie said:

Well, I actually believe they calculated that through to the fraction of a cent.

We collaborate with a good number of companies in Europe and the US; they (in contrast to us ;)) make stuff. The things they produce are leaning towards the expensive side and require quite some supply chains, as rather diverse materials and pieces are required for assembly. What I have learned from them is that the least thing to care about is electronics. Once the printed circuit board is ready for production (even in small numbers as low as some 100's) - which translates to: all the expensive work has been done - neither the actual making of the boards nor the electronic pieces populating the boards - is treated as severe cost. Once again, for expensive instruments, that is.

Nevertheless, making a dual wire cable and the 6 wire cable means you need to stock both types (or order two different things from an external manufacturer). Putting them together is different (OK, machines do that, but you may need again two different kinds of machines or one kind capable of making both, but consecutively). Also, a mechanical step (crimping on the cables) is a rather different task than getting SMD resistors into a plug. These are all severe costs for TLG. They'll save 4 wires of certain length per LED light, but I bet that that is far less attractive (cost wise!) than having solely 6 wired cables crimped onto the plugs. That's the other thing I learned: The more entirely identical production steps are in your work-flow, the (much) better off you are.

Maybe that is one of the reasons, but this is pure and utter speculation.

Best
Thorsten

yea you are right i guess if you look at it from a manufacturing standpoint

1 hour ago, Vilhelm22 said:

Did you not get 7938 from 2010?  That had a brick built nose.

This one was released shortly after my dark ages began. So I missed out on it unfortunately

Now that there is no longer a need for a IR Receiver, it means that Lego should be able to go back and make a smaller Diesel style shunter engine cargo set.  There is no need for the 32 stud long style trains every time.  I wonder if we will ever see a return to this style of engine in a set?

18 hours ago, Toastie said:

I don't think it is the cost of the LED lights. 

PUp or PF - these LEDs were and are (and should be) the cheapest elements in each line-up (and they are "dumb"). Consumer price-wise that is. Actually, I buy them to cut the plugs off from the lights for connecting non-PUp things to PUp hubs. The cost of the LED PUp lights is next to nothing regarding production. Throwing them into a train set results in a blip of cost increase (manufacturer-wise). However, adding such a feature generally means adding more bricks and pieces, as you have to cope with the a) the geometry and b) with a 6 wire cable - which is completely unnecessary electronically-wise, but a PUp hub needs to learn what is attached to its ports, otherwise the app freaks out. I believe this is what makes it far less attractive for TLG adding PUp lights, but certainly not the cost of the lights.

So experienced users simply do it - buy the separately sold lights - and then they have the parts required available. Smart move, I'd say.

Best,
Thorsten 

LEDs are definitely the cheapest Power Functions/Powered Up component, yes, but also the easiest for a powered train to do without. The costs of an electronic train set are already high enough that even increasing the price by just a few dollars (or the equivalent in other currencies) could potentially make them less appealing to buyers who just want a motorized train set and don't care if it has working lights.

Also, even if the price of the individual components (LED, plastic casing, wires, etc) is very low, pre-assembled LEGO parts in general tend to have a higher price than ones that can be churned out from a single mold. Most of LEGO's production tends to be geared towards simple, individually-molded plastic elements, so their workflow isn't really tailored to those sorts of multi-step processes (aside from with stuff like minifigure torsos and legs or Duplo figures that they produce in large quantities every single year).

The assembly process would almost certainly be cheaper at a company that specializes in electronics and gadgets (and perhaps LEGO already contracts their PF/PU assembly out to a company of that sort — I suspect y'all would know that better than I would), but it's still an added cost they don't have to deal with for the manufacturing they do in-house.

I don't think that increasing the number of bricks and pieces to accommodate the lights and wires is a major cost issue in and of itself — after all, most LEGO City passenger trains already include all the necessary gaps to provide a route for the lighting wires and a mounting point for the lights themselves, even though they're not included in the set. For instance, 60197 includes around 10 parts in the cab that are ONLY there to secure the lights and keep the wires neatly tucked away on either side of the driver — they serve no other purpose in the "default" model, and the elements in question don't even appear anywhere else in the set!

I get your point about the 6-wire cable in Powered Up being an unnecessary complication for installing "dumb" features like lights, but I doubt that's the reason that Powered Up lights are not included in City train sets. Again, Power Functions lights were never included in City train sets either — not even when those sets were already designed so they could be installed with no additional modifications. So I feel like the choice NOT to include lights in those sets has got to be something to do with the lights themselves.

If not cost, maybe it's just that LEGO wants to minimize the amount of "cable management" necessary in sets with such a young target age range? If so, that would have given LEGO even MORE reason to avoid lights in Power Functions trains than Powered Up ones, since they already required wiring for a separate IR receiver in addition to the motor.

6 hours ago, Toastie said:

Well, I actually believe they calculated that through to the fraction of a cent.

We collaborate with a good number of companies in Europe and the US; they (in contrast to us ;)) make stuff. The things they produce are leaning towards the expensive side and require quite some supply chains, as rather diverse materials and pieces are required for assembly. What I have learned from them is that the least thing to care about is electronics. Once the printed circuit board is ready for production (even in small numbers as low as some 100's) - which translates to: all the expensive work has been done - neither the actual making of the boards nor the electronic pieces populating the boards - is treated as severe cost. Once again, for expensive instruments, that is. 

Nevertheless, making a dual wire cable and the 6 wire cable means you need to stock both types (or order two different things from an external manufacturer). Putting them together is different (OK, machines do that, but you may need again two different kinds of machines or one kind capable of making both, but consecutively). Also, a mechanical step (crimping on the cables) is a rather different task than getting SMD resistors into a plug. These are all severe costs for TLG. They'll save 4 wires of certain length per LED light, but I bet that that is far less attractive (cost wise!) than having solely 6 wired cables crimped onto the plugs. That's the other thing I learned: The more entirely identical production steps are in your work-flow, the (much) better off you are.

Maybe that is one of the reasons, but this is pure and utter speculation.

That seems plausible to me! I'm sure you understand this stuff way better than most of us do — certainly better than novices like me. There's a reason that I am sometimes reluctant to get too involved in discussions over here in Train Tech, other than brainstorming ideas of what I think would be cool to see in sets — I've never been more than a casual train fan, so I'm typically WAY out of my depth whether it's electronics know-how, model train know-how, or ACTUAL train know-how! The only time I can even hazard a guess about this sort of manufacturing-related stuff is when it aligns with stuff I've learned or observed about LEGO sets and themes more broadly.

But I'm very grateful to folks like you who are willing to share your knowledge about this stuff, especially when it's in terms that a layperson like me can get the gist of.

5 hours ago, Vilhelm22 said:

Did you not get 7938 from 2010?  That had a brick built nose.

I think 7398 is actually the only LEGO train my siblings and I ever got for our own use. Our dad is the biggest LEGO train fan in our family, so usually if we get any train sets it's as a gift for him — although sometimes he allowed us to help build them or set up tracks for them. Now that I've moved away from home, though, I'm becoming more interested in possibly getting more City sets or train sets in the future — at least enough to set up a small "tabletown".

Right now, my wife and I don't really have display space in our apartment except on bookshelves, so for now I've only gotten a few packs of road plates to experiment with until I have a good idea of how best to make room for any larger sort of display. But I'm trying to keep an open mind about what my collection might look like going forward.

52 minutes ago, paul_delahaye said:

Now that there is no longer a need for a IR Receiver, it means that Lego should be able to go back and make a smaller Diesel style shunter engine cargo set.  There is no need for the 32 stud long style trains every time.  I wonder if we will ever see a return to this style of engine in a set?

That could certainly be a nice change of pace! I think the last set with a locomotive of that sort was 4563 over 30 years ago! For that matter, I can't remember the last time we saw a tugboat in a set to perform a similar function in a harbour setting.

A traditional diesel or diesel-electric shunter could certainly be a viable option since I think they're still the most widely used, though in the long run, it'd also be interesting to see a set with a battery-electric shunter, particularly with how trendy electric vehicles seem to be these days and how many have featured in recent City sets.

Edited January 9, 20223 yr by Aanchir

I think 7938 looks really bad to me. I actually prefer the big pieces. Plus I see no way LEGO will go back to brick built because of cost. The current big piece is only like $1.50 on Bricks and Pieces. Having it brick built will just increase the cost even more. At a certain point LEGO will out price Trains out of sales.

6 minutes ago, Maple said:

I think 7938 looks really bad to me. I actually prefer the big pieces. Plus I see no way LEGO will go back to brick built because of cost. The current big piece is only like $1.50 on Bricks and Pieces. Having it brick built will just increase the cost even more. At a certain point LEGO will out price Trains out of sales. 

I think it depends at least somewhat on the style of train. For high-speed passenger trains, a more streamlined look is pretty essential to make them look convincing. But for local metro/light rail trains a brick-built look could potentially still be viable, especially with how many more curved pieces there are now than there were back in 2010 when 7938 came out. Some metro trains even have nearly flat fronts, with no more streamlining than a bus or European-style container truck.

That said, I think a "bullet train" style would be a better choice for a new City passenger train than that sort of local metro train in the immediate future, since it'd stand out better from the snub-nosed design of 60197.

6 hours ago, Vilhelm22 said:

I think another level crossing and station are highly likely, this being the case.

 

Did you not get 7938 from 2010?  That had a brick built nose.

Both a station and a level crossing are overdue. 

@Aanchir, thank you very much for your very kind words - it is really just sharing thoughts, though. I have no clue what is going on, on the other side of the LEGO boxes ;) Sometimes I sit here and think: Oh my, maybe one of the TLG folks is reading your blurb and laughs his, uhm, tush off ;) 

I have said it before: I really enjoy (and learn) from your always politely, knowledgeably and very nicely phrased posts on EB, using the entire width or better volume of the English language. I really do enjoy that reading.

20 hours ago, Toastie said:

I believe this is what makes it far less attractive for TLG adding PUp lights, but certainly not the cost of the lights.

I guess this was far less clearly phrased - I am German - my teacher in high school, some 40 years ago, used to call me out:  "Language, Mister". Well, he was German as well ;)

Now what I wanted to say was that economically, it makes much more sense for TLG selling the lights separately than putting them into a set "for free" - or - as you said, increase the price for the set to a level, that makes it unattractive for those, who just want to run a train. Hmmm. Difficult. TLG's current train sets are not necessarily in the low cost price range ... I am unsure whether the max. +$2 (for TLG!) would make the targeted train set customer population unhappy. I believe TLG is simply better off asking for $10 at S&H or in any store (where people may even consider getting something else ;))

Oh well, what does a chemist know about marketing ...

All the best,
Thorsten

1 hour ago, Aanchir said:

I think it depends at least somewhat on the style of train. For high-speed passenger trains, a more streamlined look is pretty essential to make them look convincing. But for local metro/light rail trains a brick-built look could potentially still be viable, especially with how many more curved pieces there are now than there were back in 2010 when 7938 came out. Some metro trains even have nearly flat fronts, with no more streamlining than a bus or European-style container truck.

That said, I think a "bullet train" style would be a better choice for a new City passenger train than that sort of local metro train in the immediate future, since it'd stand out better from the snub-nosed design of 60197.

It's not the issue with pieces, LEGO has insane amounts of pieces, it's LEGO trying to keep Trains 'cheap'. All the passenger trains in the last 10-15 years have been high speed. 

The nice thing is most Trains bring in a new system of how they are powered. However LEGO did release some new things for the current system back in the fall. So here's to hoping they just keep the current system which is the best we can ask for.

 

15 hours ago, Maple said:

All the passenger trains in the last 10-15 years have been high speed. 

But only for city. There have been a few passenger steam locos in other categories.

15 hours ago, Maple said:

The nice thing is most Trains bring in a new system of how they are powered. However LEGO did release some new things for the current system back in the fall. So here's to hoping they just keep the current system which is the best we can ask for.

 

LEGO will stay with powered up at least 5 more years. They made official announcements regarding that.

A 2-in-1  train could be so cool (LEGO does 2-in-1 for technic, and LEGO Movie 1/2 had some 2-in-1 as well so it's not just Creator)

The only train set I have/had (old pre 2001 sets are stored) is 4559: Cargo Railway,  alternate instructions weren't provided back then for suggestions on the box/manual.

But the steam locomotive they showed in the instruction picture looked very set-like, and not too different from the limited "Classic Train" that appeared 2 years later in 1998 .

And this is considering this still came from a train that used some large pieces for the original main train cockpit, but then again the set did have almost 900 pieces, many of them regualr slopes, bricks and plates.

I posted this before but here it is again Alternate suggested build from 4559: Cargo Railway (1996) from instructions.

Another suggested build was a yellow train with a simple crane to pickup / lay down rails , using the window from the truck instead.

I know 9v allowed more compact motorized builds compared to battery boxes but for a steam loco the battery could still be in a coal tender type of wagon.

That said, I know people make their own alternate builds all the time, with surprising results, but making a steam loco out of a modern train certainly will be easier if the set uses proper colors/pieces instead.

Edited January 10, 20223 yr by TeriXeri

Two trains projects are through on ideas - can't wait to get another sitcom...

Regarding earlier comments I am quite suprised that TLG didn't utilise the additional space from PU in the 2018 city sets. The passenger train has lots of space in the locomotive which could have been used for seats/baggage storage but just does nothing. This year I really hope the cargo train set is smaller and cheaper than the passenger train set. As a kid I had the 2006 RC trains and I prefered the cargo train because you could play with it more, intergrate with other sets etc. With LEGO continually raising prices, if they did a big cargo set this year it would be even more expensive and out of reach for even more children/parents than usual. With Powered Up TLG should make a small and "cheaper" (or at least no more expensive than 2018) cargo set, with an 0-4-0 shunter and 2 small wagons. It's possible to make decent looking 0-4-0 diesels with powered up, even more so if you can change the battery box colour

City set list has leaked: 60337 - High Speed Passenger Train - 764 pieces.

No cargo train 

Hmm interesting. So from 2 trains they scale down to one train? Hope we will get a second one in another line at least. Passenger + cargo has always been a 'standard' also in Duplo.

On 1/10/2022 at 8:57 AM, Tcm0 said:

 

LEGO will stay with powered up at least 5 more years. They made official announcements regarding that.

I didn't know that. That's good. The last three City Trains all had different systems each time.

Looks like no Cargo Train this year and my guess is the passenger train will be $200 as it has 7xx pieces.
I wouldn't worry too much with no Cargo Train. City is getting one Wildlife set, Stuntz is continuing again this summer. We are getting Farm sets. Maybe next year there will be a Cargo train with a Cargo subtheme.

Edited January 11, 20223 yr by Maple

In that list of sets, the High Speed Passenger Train is listed as 60337.  But there are gaps in the numbering of the sets before and after, so there's still hope of a Cargo Train.   Historically, the Cargo trains in the past have been the next consecutive number higher than the Passenger.   However, one of the leaks suggested that 60338 might be something else.  I didn't find anything listed for 60334-60336.   Let the speculation and outright-guessing commence.  :-)

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-city-summer-return-to-farms-and-trains

My suspicion is with the set numbers 60336 will be the freight train as 60338 onwards occupied by Stuntz etc.

60334-60337 could all be trains, hence 60334 - accessory 1, 60335 accessory 2, 60336 freight train, 60337 passenger train. 

Edited January 11, 20223 yr by Matt Dawson

1 minute ago, Matt Dawson said:

https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-city-summer-return-to-farms-and-trains

My suspicion is with the set numbers 60336 will be the freight train as 60338 onwards occupied by Stuntz etc.

60334-60337 could all be trains, hence 60334 - accessory 1, 60335 accessory 2, 60336 freight train, 60337 passenger train. 

I reckon there will be a train station somewhere, maybe a engine shed but who knows 

Thank you very much for the information, @samsz_3!

Like the majority of you I hope, too, that there'll be more than only this one train set - a decent train station is since long overdue and maybe we get it and a special train (like track repair train or fire fighting train) as exclusive City sets. But since the recent cargo train won't be EOL in summer, I highly doubt that we'll get another regular cargo train.

Hopefully this means a bigger train, or maybe an included station, a more complete train would be welcome as we've never had a City one that is either complete in one set or more than three carriages.