Constructing the Titanic
Posted by Huw,
When you buy 10294 Titanic you're committing to a lengthy building experience, so it's important that it's an enjoyable and absorbing one.
Thankfully, it is. As much care and attention was put into making it so as was expended on the design of the model itself.
I took photos at every stage of the process so if, once you've read my review, you're curious to see how it comes together, read on...
Box 1 - Front
As has become normal for large sets, parts are divided into numbered bags, which in this case go up to 46 which I think might be a record. Therefore, you never have to deal with more than a couple of hundred at once.
Box one contains bags numbered one to 12, containing parts to build the front third of the vessel.
The front third is further divided into two subassemblies which are constructed in succession.
Bag 1. I'm going to keep the words brief and let the photos do most of the talking.
Bag 2. Internal parts are colour coded to make it much easier to find them in the pile of bricks and notice them in the instruction steps.
Bag 3
Bag 4. There are five unique printed prices in the set: two tiles printed with the ship's name, which you can see above, a 1x4 brick with bow for the name at the stern, and two 2x4 curved slopes right at the front of the picture below which continue the bright orange line established by the row of plates to the tip of the bow.
At this point the forward section is put aside to begin on the second half of the front of the ship, which houses the boilers at the bottom.
Bag 5
Bag 6. The first decks are added to what will be the end of the front section.
Bag 7
Bag 8
Bag 9
Bag 10. I'll show how the funnel is built later on.
Bag 11. At this point the two sections are joined, and an angled section of hull clipped in place.
Bag 12 competes the section by firmly connecting the sections, adding details and lifeboats to the deck, and providing the first two of six stands upon which the vessel will rest.
Overall build time to this point: about 3 hours.
Box 2 - Middle
The central section is the most straightforward on account of the hull not having angled sides, but it still parts intense and involving.
Box 2 contains bags 13 to 28.
Once again the central third is subdivided into two separate builds that don't come together until the end, which means you're only ever working on a 24-stud long model.
Bag 13. Notice the ladders and boiler room details on the end.
Bag 14
Bags 15 and 16 build the two sides of the hull, which are fairly fiddly on account of the portholes.
Bags 17 and 18.
Bags 19 and 20. The front of the central section is now complete and put to one side.
Bag 21
Bags 22 and 23
Bag 24
Bag 25
Bag 26 and 27
Bag 28. The two halves of the central section are connected before it's joined to the front section in the matter described in the main review.
Overall build time to this point: about 7 hours.
Box 3 - Back
The rear section is the most complex, requiring 450 building steps and 18 bags of parts, 29 to 46
Bag 29
Bag 30
Bag 31
Bag 32
The horizontal row of windows just below deck level are the only part of the entire build that requires careful alignment of 1x1 pieces. There are over 20 of these, or similar, assembles to be built throughout construction.
Bag 33
Bag 34
Bag 35 adds the last of four exhaust stacks, which on the real ship was actually a dummy one added for aesthetic purposes only. A clever arrangement of Technic holes and pins hold it at the right angle within a small subassembly.
The front part of the rear section is now complete.
Bag 36 forms the lower part of the stern which houses three propeller blades. Axles connect them to the engines that will be fitted to the completed section above.
Bag 37
Bags 38 and 39 build the sides of the hull that are clipped onto the main assembly.
Bag 40
Bag 41
Bag 42
Bag 43
Bag 44, complete with minor building error. Can you spot it?
Bag 45. The two halves of the rear section are then loosely connected with axles before affixing tiles and slopes to hold them together
Finally, we get to bag 46. This contains parts for the reciprocal steam engines which are slid into the end of the rear section, connecting to the axles leading to the propellers.
The name plate and connector to hold the rear section to the middle are the last things to be built.
The engines are slid into position...
...before connecting the rear third to the rest of the vessel.
Overall build time: about 11 hours.
Verdict on the building experience
As I've said before, we are never told what LEGO is sending us to review other than a set number, although we had an inkling 10294 would be the Titanic since rumours had been circulating about it for some months. So, when it turned up, and it was evident how large a set it actually was, I was slightly apprehensive and wondered what I'd let myself in for, thinking it would be a boring chore to build, and one I'd have to reluctantly undertake to get it done before today's review embargo. (It arrived a week ago)
I could not have been more wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed it for several reasons:
- You are only ever working on manageably small sub-sections of the model, so its overall size is not apparent, and does not become a problem if you're building in a limited space, until the last few steps of construction
- There are 46 numbered bags, corresponding to 46 building stages. Each one takes around 15 minutes, so you can dip in and out of the build whenever you find the time
- There are no large repetitive sections to endure, unlike last year's 10276 Colosseum
- Mike Psiaki is one of the most talented designers working for the company at the moment and this model shows that he is at the top of his game. It's full of interesting building techniques and nice parts usage, which makes it both an enjoyable and educational experience
- When it all comes together right at the end, when its full splendour and size becomes evident for the first time, you get a real sense of achievement.
Additionally, it's the perfect set for three to build at the same time: it even comes with three brick separators, one in each box.
Quite simply, I don't think I’ve enjoyed a build quite as much ever before!
If you've not yet done so, take a look at my review and if you'd like to get the same buzz out of building it as I did you'll be able order it at LEGO.com on 1st November, where it'll be priced at €629.99, $629.99, £569.99, AU$999.99, CA$799.99. But, please, make sure you've worked out where you're going to put it before you do so!
Thanks to LEGO for proving the set for review. All opinions expressed are my own.
175 likes
48 comments on this article
Oooh 1x2 grill slope in tan, very interested in that. I mean I'd be more interested if they'd hurry up and make a slope that size without the grill texture, but still.
And good to see that new 1x2 concave slope brick getting recoloured (white here) already. Hoping to see a lot of that in the next few months
^ I wondered whether that 1x2 piece was designed specifically for this set.
Has a set ever reached number 46 on a bag? Impressive! Also very good that such a big build is split up into bags of ~15 minute builds
Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
@fanboys: No, of course you can't see the weird colours from the outside. No, it's unlikely the target audience will get creative and rebuild this into something else. Yes, it's still lame.
Impressive. Pity I have no place to put such a behemoth of a set.
I'm sure it's more fun to build that the World Map or the Colosseum! I loved the Colosseum but there's no denying it was an awfully repetitive and daunting build.
@jkb said:
"Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
@fanboys: No, of course you can't see the weird colours from the outside. No, it's unlikely the target audience will get creative and rebuild this into something else. Yes, it's still lame."
76023 The Tumbler from 2014, very much an AFOL set, was all black (or very very dark grey) on the inside. It is the set TLG CS received the highest number of complaints about ever because of "lost/missing" parts, all caused by AFOLs getting lost in all the black parts/misapplying them.
Since then TLG is very much focusing on making sure this never happens again with the help of more colourful interiors, no matter what some vocal minority of AFOLs say online.
@Huw said:
"^ I wondered whether that 1x2 piece was designed specifically for this set."
It is implied at the 32:44 timestamp of a video called "DESIGNER INTERVIEW for the LEGO Ideas Fender Stratocaster (21329)" by Youtuber Emmasaurus that the 1 x 2 inverted arch was created to solve shaping issues on the Stratocaster. Quote follows:
"Eventually, we had to resort to a new element there that you can see, that 1 x 2 inverted bow*, just to capture the shape right."
*he says bow, but is referring to the arch.
^ Interesting, thanks.
@stlux said:
" @jkb said:
"Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
@fanboys: No, of course you can't see the weird colours from the outside. No, it's unlikely the target audience will get creative and rebuild this into something else. Yes, it's still lame."
76023 The Tumbler from 2014, very much an AFOL set, was all black (or very very dark grey) on the inside. It is the set TLG CS received the highest number of complaints about ever because of "lost/missing" parts, all caused by AFOLs getting lost in all the black parts/misapplying them.
Since then TLG is very much focusing on making sure this never happens again with the help of more colourful interiors, no matter what some vocal minority of AFOLs say online."
It doesn't have to be all black on the inside. On the other hand, LEGO gave sets with predominantly black pieces white outlines in the instrctions. That was in the 80s, and kids were able to assemble them. So, I stay by my statement.
In the 80's most sets had 200 or 300 pieces and the average size of them was much larger than it is today.
Nice to see pearl gold propeller coming back
@seba25 said:
"Nice to see pearl gold propeller coming back"
A new version of them, at that! The old version was as thick as the height of a full brick and had a cross-axle hole blocking one side. The new version nixes the cross axle hole to shave it down to the thickness of the width of a 1x1 brick, which should be easier to fit into some tight builds. I'm very much looking forward to seeing this new propeller piece appear in more sets (so far it's been spotted in this and the new Creator Expert pickup truck).
I love that this build is so modular you could technically start with any bag and involve the whole family.
The construction seems to draw inspiration from modern large cruise ship construction, which are constructed in a similar fashion to this. I doubt the original Titanic was constructed that way.
Oh man, was really hoping for a better color consistency for such an expensive display model, but look at all the shades of dark red, especially that 1x4 arch brick and the 1x1 plates with clips on the rudder.
@R0Sch said:
"Oh man, was really hoping for a better color consistency for such an expensive display model, but look at all the shades of dark red, especially that 1x4 arch brick and the 1x1 plates with clips on the rudder."
Wouldn't be a Brickset comment section if people weren't complaining about the 6 pieces that look off out of 9k
To be fair, that 3659 Brick Arch 1 x 4 is a rather very different shade of dark red from the other pieces...
The dark red pieces covering the hull seem fine though.
Great article. I like all the colours. One reason I like all the colours is that when I look at this article's pictures I can readily see how the ship is constructed and don't have to try to work out which elements are used. I don't see any benefit at all to a narrower palette.
Now I have to ask: Is it possible to put the bow and stern together, without the middle section?
Big sets are my thing, I resisted the Colosseum after the reviews and comments about repetitiveness, I was cautiously optimistic about this looking at the leaked pictures, but @huw your review has me absolutely convinced this is the set for me!!!
My SW UCS collection is quaking in its boots, it might have to be ‘thinned’ to get me the £££ to buy it though!
@Huw said:
"In the 80's most sets had 200 or 300 pieces and the average size of them was much larger than it is today."
In the 80's we didn't have numbered bags, parts-per-step lists (except Technic) and teeny-tiny building steps. Did I mention numbered bags? This discussion could go on forever...
As for the model: The segmentation is a great idea and I'm impressed that they bothered to include built-up engines.
@Huw said:
"In the 80's most sets had 200 or 300 pieces and the average size of them was much larger than it is today."
And they looked like someone took an avatar pic here and used it as their desktop background. I have a fair bit of 80's sets and still love them, but it is a different time for sure.
@jkb said:
" @Huw said:
"In the 80's most sets had 200 or 300 pieces and the average size of them was much larger than it is today."
In the 80's we didn't have numbered bags, parts-per-step lists (except Technic) and teeny-tiny building steps. Did I mention numbered bags? This discussion could go on forever...
As for the model: The segmentation is a great idea and I'm impressed that they bothered to include built-up engines."
I mean yeah, you don't need numbered bags when you have 300 parts. That's why Huw said that.
You don't get to brag that you didn't need a calculator, if you're only doing beginner arithmetic
Typo?
"Bag 4. There are five unique printed prices..."
Should 'prices' be 'pieces'?
And solution to the bag 44 error is? Answer please. Thanks.
^ A 1x1 Technic brick oriented incorrectly, so a porthole is missing.
@Rob42 said:
"Now I have to ask: Is it possible to put the bow and stern together, without the middle section?"
Then it would just be called the TIC
@Huw said:
"^ A 1x1 Technic brick oriented incorrectly, so a porthole is missing."
Thanks.
@jkb said:
"Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
@fanboys: No, of course you can't see the weird colours from the outside. No, it's unlikely the target audience will get creative and rebuild this into something else. Yes, it's still lame."
Jeez. What climbed up your bilge pipe today?
@fakespacesquid said:
" @jkb said:
" @Huw said:
"In the 80's most sets had 200 or 300 pieces and the average size of them was much larger than it is today."
In the 80's we didn't have numbered bags, parts-per-step lists (except Technic) and teeny-tiny building steps. Did I mention numbered bags? This discussion could go on forever...
As for the model: The segmentation is a great idea and I'm impressed that they bothered to include built-up engines."
I mean yeah, you don't need numbered bags when you have 300 parts. That's why Huw said that.
You don't get to brag that you didn't need a calculator, if you're only doing beginner arithmetic "
No, but if you open one bag at once, you should be able to find your pieces quickly, even when they're all the same colour. Even when you're an unexperienced adult builder.
@Rare_White_Ape
Oddly-coloured pieces in a set like that =(
@jkb said:
"It doesn't have to be all black on the inside. On the other hand, LEGO gave sets with predominantly black pieces white outlines in the instrctions. That was in the 80s, and kids were able to assemble them. So, I stay by my statement."
Don't waste your time. Most commenters here appear to be of the same kind who complained about the Tumbler back then.
Just for comparison, 8880 was also almost all black and had instructions the size of a leaflet by comparison to modern set instructions, yet I never heard anyone complain. And even an average Eighties or Nineties kid was able to build it without problems.
But once you start dumbing down instructions, there is no turning back. People get used to these jokes of manuals and become incapable of building the way we used to. Shame really. Then again, thankfully TLG is the only manufacturer who does it that way.
I really appreciate how much thought has gone into making this set an interesting build. I probably won't get it myself because of the price, but have to stand back and admire all the work that's gone into the design, and the stunning end result.
@Rare_White_Ape said:
" @jkb said:
"Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
@fanboys : No, of course you can't see the weird colours from the outside. No, it's unlikely the target audience will get creative and rebuild this into something else. Yes, it's still lame."
Jeez. What climbed up your bilge pipe today?"
Germans on the internet, and I say that as one myself, love to complain. Even when there's no real good reason. Especially then.
@AustinPowers : Oh, whatever. We're not living in the past anymore. Things don't have to as austere, limited, or frankly crap as they often used to be, we can have nice things now. Like instructions where each step ISN'T an extended game of "spot the difference".
"Quite simply, I don't think I’ve enjoyed a build quite as much ever before!"
I do believe you!
I love these additional articles to add to the review article. It gives a great sneak preview into the building experience and shows what you’re getting into with these large sets.
Thanks @Huw for the work into this. Really wonderful.
Another advantage to building the ship in sections rather than ground up, something I've not seen mentioned, is it keeps the images in the instructions smaller. I'm not sure which motivation is LEGO's primary -- build enjoyment or instructions compression. The instruction manual of the Millennium Falcon in comparison has to be very large to fit the images and still only one image per page because you're often building across the whole footprint of the ship at once.
After seeing this article and pictures, this is probably one of the best sets of the year, maybe even in years. Very interesting and impressive building techniques indeed. Too bad it's too big and way out of the price range of many people. Would be better maybe as half the size and price but anyway definitely an eye opener, certainly not something I could say all the time about lego sets in recent years.
I've been going around in circles all year trying to decide whether to move house...I think this has decided it for me!
Is it just me or that If I had it on display, every time I would look at it, my mind would got to the hundreds that it facilitated to depart from this sore world, thus causing me a feeling of anxiety?
Regardless the build seems to be awesome and a great guideline and platform for people to build era appropriate steamships
@blackdeathgr said:
"Is it just me or that If I had it on display, every time I would look at it, my mind would got to the hundreds that it facilitated to depart from this sore world, thus causing me a feeling of anxiety?
Regardless the build seems to be awesome and a great guideline and platform for people to build era appropriate steamships"
A quick Google search reveals over 28 million hits for "Titanic Model Kit" so I guess there are plenty of people out there already who it wouldn't cause to react. I guess the same has to be said for every single military model kit, and indeed any other transport-related ones as this is not the only ship to sink, planes have crashed, cars run people over etc.
@TheOriginalSimonB said:
" @blackdeathgr said:
"Is it just me or that If I had it on display, every time I would look at it, my mind would got to the hundreds that it facilitated to depart from this sore world, thus causing me a feeling of anxiety?
Regardless the build seems to be awesome and a great guideline and platform for people to build era appropriate steamships"
A quick Google search reveals over 28 million hits for "Titanic Model Kit" so I guess there are plenty of people out there already who it wouldn't cause to react. I guess the same has to be said for every single military model kit, and indeed any other transport-related ones as this is not the only ship to sink, planes have crashed, cars run people over etc. "
I think in the case of the Titanic, it was how a massive marvel of technology tought us humans of failure and humility, what ads to the mythos.
@Rob42 said:
"Oh, whatever. We're not living in the past anymore. Things don't have to as austere, limited, or frankly crap as they often used to be, we can have nice things now. Like instructions where each step ISN'T an extended game of "spot the difference". "
Given the choice I would always prefer manuals that a) offer a bit of a challenge instead of focusing on the lowest common denominator and b) don't waste tons of paper unnecessarily.
And no, I don't prefer digital instructions, just ones that don't add only one or two pieces per page. That's just as annoying as it is ridiculous.
And contrary to you I don't feel the instructions of old were austere or "crap" at all.
^^ I do have to agree that the way instruction books are done these days is starting to feel like an issue to me.
I'm talking mostly from an ecological point of view; thinking about the sheer volume of paper that goes into them. In many cases unnecessary, because the builder doesn't require that many steps or the book doesn't get used at all (with sets that get parted out or builders that prefer the digi’structions).
Alas, I don't see a good solution to this problem...
One would think an 18+ set could do with a lower number of steps, but then again these sets do bring in a lot of new people that are not used to building (yet).
As with many things; how dumbed down does it need to get before it becomes plain stupid?
@Koend1999 :
I feel my comment already recognized that there are many different kinds of people that will have very different preferences when it comes to building instructions; hence my 'Alas, ...'.
However I hope you can agree that there is some slight wiggle room between the 5 (or even less) pieces that get added per step in current instructions and the 500+ you talk about...
I also think that the number of pieces on your table have more to do with how full the bags are and not with how the instructions are made. My argument isn't one against the numbered bags and their contents. Just against the bulk of paper and ink that’s used for instruction books.
@Koend1999 said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Rob42 said:
"Oh, whatever. We're not living in the past anymore. Things don't have to as austere, limited, or frankly crap as they often used to be, we can have nice things now. Like instructions where each step ISN'T an extended game of "spot the difference". "
Given the choice I would always prefer manuals that a) offer a bit of a challenge instead of focusing on the lowest common denominator and b) don't waste tons of paper unnecessarily.
And no, I don't prefer digital instructions, just ones that don't add only one or two pieces per page. That's just as annoying as it is ridiculous.
And contrary to you I don't feel the instructions of old were austere or "crap" at all."
In the words of Seinfeld: Yada yada yada yada yada
Maybe you could say something about the set itself (how it looks, how realistic it is, how it is built,...), or the fabtastic work of the Brickset crew providing us these pictures, instead of complaining about the colours inside or the instructions? Also, not everybody is as intelligent as you (sarcasm alert), so I fully understand why LEGO dumbs down instructions to appeal to the less intelligent common man (again, sarcasm alert) who is not building two LEGO sets a day. Newsflash: LEGO is after all a company that tries to appeal to the masses, and not these few complaining AFOLs who get upset about a red or blue brick here and there or a visible blue pin.
And finally: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most people complaining about colourful insides of LEGO sets and about simplistic instructions, are German. Could it be that a certain Youtuber from Frankfurt who prefers to sell cheap Chinese rubbish, with doors that flap, with bricks that do not alwas fit and with missing licenses (so they have to sell a Ferrari as an Italian sportscar, or cannot call a Star Destroyer what it is.... a Star Destroyer), has something to do with this?
"
"" @jkb said:
"Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
@fanboys: No, of course you can't see the weird colours from the outside. No, it's unlikely the target audience will get creative and rebuild this into something else. Yes, it's still lame.""
Do I really have to indulge into apologetic fanboi-yadda-yadda? You really haven't added anything @Koend1999, so how long will you drag on?
@Rob42: And sometimes you didn't spot the difference for a few steps and you were like, "When was that supposed to go on?"
Including three brick separators makes a little more sense now, but what really are the chances more than one is being used at the same time? This makes me wonder even more why TLG bothers to sell brick separators by themselves. I've inadvertently collected so many of them over the years I can’t find people to give them to.
It's a great looking model and I'd love to get it, but we just don't have room. Too many large sets I'd love to get.
@jkb said:
"Farbseuche inc.
LEGO management: Because even the dumbest adult builders need to have quick success.
Typical german comment. The only thing is to moan about the colour. Only repeating what a dumb "Held" says...."