| |
You missed one...
*Bring back the track connector that can be purchased separately!
-Rob
"Harvey Henkelman" <Ferroequus@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:H6o8FB.FH7@lugnet.com...
> My first too...
>
> http://members.lugnet.com/polls/ballots/?n=119
>
> -Harvey
|
|
| |
Harvey Henkelman wrote:
>
> My first too...
>
> http://members.lugnet.com/polls/ballots/?n=119
Interesting poll. I thought I'd share my rankings and reasoning:
1 steam engine wheels (a small number of parts would make a whole range
of nice models much easier to build)
2 new structures (model railroads are more than just track and trains)
3 working signals etc. (accessories are always fun)
4 small kits (give the kids something to buy with their allowance)
That's about the end of the things I think are vital for TLC to do
5 new track components (while these would be nice, and certainly high on
my priority, I'm just not sold on the need for TLC to do it, this is a
great opportunity for a third party to step in, however, if TLC is going
to do something in this area, one of the first things they should do is
talk to Ben Fleskes who has come up with (and made prototypes of) a new
set of turnout pieces which would require 4 new track parts, new left
and right turnout, 1/2 curve, special length short straight which allow
a turnout to either be configured as the existing ones, or to configure
like most low end model RR turnouts where the diverging track is a
segment of a curved track allowing a loop with passing track shaped
somewhat like a paper clip)
5 (oops put 2 5s and no 6s) 6 wheel train motor (a usefull part, but not
vital)
7 get trains into stores (well, Target's already doing that, this isn't
really under TLC's control)
8 DCC (a great thing for a third party)
9 knuckle couplers (another third party item)
10 more involvement of AFOLs in train design (I think it's cool that TLC
has reached out to the AFOL community, but I don't see AFOL design
involvement as being vital).
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Harvey Henkelman writes:
> My first too...
High on my list that isn't a choice would be another design for the wheels. It
got to the point for us (my son and I) where we needed to make our own design.
A TLC solution would be much more effective and so simple to do. With only a
few variations necessary to account for the slight difference in track gauges,
TLC could literary *copy* O scale trucks for their molds.
-John
|
|
| |
John wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Harvey Henkelman writes:
> > My first too...
>
> High on my list that isn't a choice would be another design for the wheels. It
> got to the point for us (my son and I) where we needed to make our own design.
> A TLC solution would be much more effective and so simple to do. With only a
> few variations necessary to account for the slight difference in track gauges,
> TLC could literary *copy* O scale trucks for their molds.
Yea, they could also ask lionel to put a couple studs on the tops of
their trains and call them LEGO...
While I truly appreciate the various models folks come up with, I really
don't want to see TLC put effort into things like more American looking
trucks. Why? Because where does it end then? If you want exact
prototypes, go play with real model trains.
I probably could be convinced about a wheelset with less detail though,
which might be easier to use in custom designs.
Frank
Who isn't going to give up his Bachman HO Cass 5 Shay because he doesn't
expect to ever see a LEGO model which does as good a job at modeling a
Shay.
|
|
| |
Short reasoning behind my vote:
1. Steam engine wheels. I posted about this before. The 'My Train' and the
HP train look ridiculous: top half steam train, bottom half diesel. Just
look at 7750....
2. 6-wheel train motor. Same story: to make more realistic models you need
6-wheel bogies.
3. Small sets. Not 'to give the kids something their allowance will afford',
but small sets to get them interested in trains.
4. Bring trains back to the shops. Once people are interested they should be
available.
The rest is all trivial to me....
Duq
"Harvey Henkelman" <Ferroequus@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:H6o8FB.FH7@lugnet.com...
> My first too...
>
> http://members.lugnet.com/polls/ballots/?n=119
>
> -Harvey
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> Yea, they could also ask lionel to put a couple studs on the tops of
> their trains and call them LEGO...
>
> While I truly appreciate the various models folks come up with, I really
> don't want to see TLC put effort into things like more American looking
> trucks. Why? Because where does it end then? If you want exact
> prototypes, go play with real model trains.
My point was that it would be a relatively simple exercise, as opposed to
something a bit more complicated like designing functioning crossing lights for
instance. Although again, if TLC's design team doesn't try and reinvent the
wheel every time, they could skip a lot of R&D by examining existing model
railroading products for tried and true ideas that already function.
As far as your question of where it ends, I think it ends where the market says
it ends. If TLC perceived a market that desired X, they would produce X. I
never said I wanted exact prototypes, and frankly, Frank, your admonition is a
bit harsh-- if I wanted TLC to produce exact prototypes, what would be wrong
with that?
> I probably could be convinced about a wheelset with less detail though,
> which might be easier to use in custom designs.
Why? So that MOCs could have the opportunity to look more *prototypical*? ;-)
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> Short reasoning behind my vote:
> 1. Steam engine wheels. I posted about this before. The 'My Train' and the
> HP train look ridiculous: top half steam train, bottom half diesel. Just
> look at 7750....
I was watching a movie set in Europe yesterday and I realized one of the
reasons they were so willing to go along with that was because that is how
some British trains look. They look like they're set on a baseplate, as
opposed to the seperate decks and drivers of American trains. Of course the
British steamer still had drivers, so TLC still needs to attend to that point.
> 2. 6-wheel train motor. Same story: to make more realistic models you need
> 6-wheel bogies.
Definitely. Preferably with a blind center wheel, I should prefer. Less
drag that way.
> 3. Small sets. Not 'to give the kids something their allowance will afford',
> but small sets to get them interested in trains.
Little depots and grade crossings, plus a small switch tower would all be
do-able (IMO) for under $20.
> 4. Bring trains back to the shops. Once people are interested they should be
> available.
Oh yeah! They seem to be doing just that though, thankfully.
-Stefan-
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.trains, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> > Short reasoning behind my vote:
> > 1. Steam engine wheels. I posted about this before. The 'My Train' and the
> > HP train look ridiculous: top half steam train, bottom half diesel. Just
> > look at 7750....
In lugnet.trains, Stefan Garcia writes:
> I was watching a movie set in Europe yesterday and I realized one of the
> reasons they were so willing to go along with that was because that is how
> some British trains look. They look like they're set on a baseplate, as
> opposed to the seperate decks and drivers of American trains. Of course the
> British steamer still had drivers, so TLC still needs to attend to that point.
Could you find any pictures on the net? I've never seen a train that looks
anything like the MOT wheel arrangments; certainly not the castle class
locomotive from Harry Potter.
Jason J Railton
|
|
|
