This set has a part likened to an older, unhappy person who listens to hard music.

Very detailed set title!

Very charming vintage set.

What does that print mean? Is it Metric vs. Imperial? Is it total weight for the car, but then the car itself can pull additional weight via the connections? Train Experts, gimme your lore!

I...kinda feel like it would not end well if you tried to load even a single ton on that little thing.

@MCLegoboy said:
"What does that print mean? Is it Metric vs. Imperial? Is it total weight for the car, but then the car itself can pull additional weight via the connections? Train Experts, gimme your lore!"

I’m no expert, but I think “L” is for load and “T” is for tare.

One more set I liked back then, but I didn't have.

I am still amazed by the geometry that have the hinged plates fit together to compose the crane arm.
(Other sets: see 643, 654)

Shame there’s no white pieces in the set or we could have it all the stripes in that little colour box next to the logo

@chefkaspa said:
"I am still amazed by the geometry that have the hinged plates fit together to compose the crane arm.
(Other sets: see 643, 654)"

I recently built 337-2 from a vintage job lot. That is a nice example too.

Great bit of vintage. I don't have that set, but I do have the almost identical crane in 355-1 and the same weight print in 124-1.

Only downside was the one piece train base... Yuk. Not proper Lego!

Nowadays with 60 pieces you don't even build the wagon's wheels

@el_garfio said:
"Nowadays with 60 pieces you don't even build the wagon's wheels"

All the modern train wheels I have are single moulded pieces, or three if you have an axle and two wheels.

This one I pieced together, only I used trans-neon green slopes rather than trans-clear to go with my M:Tron build of 723.

@AustinPowers:
While molds and elements may have always been dimensioned in metric, it seems the height of coincidence that the System adheres so closely to Imperial, with 32x32 baseplates being 10”x10”. But they could have dimensioned it in terms of grains of sand, and I don’t think anything would have changed, since the basic dimensions were inherited from Kiddiecraft.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickbuilder0937 said:
" @MCLegoboy said:
"What does that print mean? Is it Metric vs. Imperial? Is it total weight for the car, but then the car itself can pull additional weight via the connections? Train Experts, gimme your lore!"

I’m no expert, but I think “L” is for load and “T” is for tare."
I'd say so too. I mean, real goods train wagons have far more facts printed on them if course, but load and tare are always part of them.
And I'm sure it's metric, since I don't think LEGO have ever used imperial measures.

In any case, even though it's from way before my time, I think it's a very good set for its day. "

Weren''t the old Trains sets limited to continental Europe anyways, because they wanted to avoid the power plug chaos that exists?

And a few non-train sets had region specific stickers available to them as well, so their probably are a few stickers with imperial measurements on them out there.

I also find it a bit funny how the crane's control cabin seems to be very out of scale compared to the train wagon...

@PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers:
While molds and elements may have always been dimensioned in metric, it seems the height of coincidence that the System adheres so closely to Imperial, with 32x32 baseplates being 10”x10”. But they could have dimensioned it in terms of grains of sand, and I don’t think anything would have changed, since the basic dimensions were inherited from Kiddiecraft."
Sure, the dimensions of the 2x4 brick invented by Kiddicraft and copied by LEGO (and hence in effect the entire LEGO system) are based on the imperial measures, but LEGO is still a continental European company, and at the time this set came out, Germany was LEGO's largest market. I would therfore bet the measurements on the train wagon are based on the metric system.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers:
While molds and elements may have always been dimensioned in metric, it seems the height of coincidence that the System adheres so closely to Imperial, with 32x32 baseplates being 10”x10”. But they could have dimensioned it in terms of grains of sand, and I don’t think anything would have changed, since the basic dimensions were inherited from Kiddiecraft."

It's not the height of coincidence, it's the height of delicious irony. Kiddicraft's smallest unit was the half-brick (2×2 studs), which measured 5/8" × 3/8". Lego swiped the brick from Kiddicraft, inheriting both the English dimensions and the power-of-two precedent. Powers of two weren't just some freak measurement hassle foisted on us by the Romans, they have actual advantages. Those natural advantages were well-suited to expanding Lego's part inventory, so now most Lego pieces have stud dimensions based on powers of two. Multiplying their physical lengths cancels out the power-of-two denominator of their approximate inch dimension, leaving us with nice round inches.

One must wonder: if the most fundamental attribute of the Lego system hadn't been invented by a British man using an inch ruler, would the Lego system even exist? Would metric thinkers have have chosen random metric measurements that didn't fit together well? If the Lego system had been based on an 8mm × 10mm brick (instead of 9.6mm), the fundamental ratio would have been 4:5, which would have completely ruined the use of one-third-height plates in SNOT. They might also have been disposed to naturally-less-convenient multiples of 5 for bricks. Either way, the System could have failed to develop as naturally as it did.

It's also possible they would have chosen cubes as the base unit, which also would have solved a lot of problems—the 5:6 ratio can be read directly off the dimensions of a single Kiddicraft stud (5/16" × 6/16").

Either way, history is strange!

@namekuji said:
"Metal crane crank!"

That’s what I said!