| |
Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
Gary
BLTG
Brisbane Lego Train Group
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
>
> Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
>
> Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
>
> Gary
> BLTG
> Brisbane Lego Train Group
I agree that express switches are a good idea - no need to slow down too much to
switch tracks. The important thing is that it should be easy enough to make a
crossover. I see that your plan allows this by having 40 studs length and 8
studs width offset in the curved track centre, so that two straights added to
each switch will allow two parallel tracks 16 studs apart to have a crossover.
Once they're approved, the next step is to have a diamond crossing and possibly
a double slip that are compatible with the new switch shape.
I'm not so sure about the curve radii. The important thing here is that any new
curves have the same tricks available as the existing curves:
Four curves make a quarter circle.
Two curves and two reversed make a double bend that lines up length and width to
a multiple of 8 studs.
If two existing 40-stud radius curves are superimposed on a straight with the
one curve on each end sleeper of the straight, bending outwards in opposite
sides, a straight superimposed diagonally will line up perfectly with the free
ends of the curves. This should be true for new curves, with a number of
straights, which may be 1.25 or 1.5 if quarter and half straights are made
(please TLC!).
A new curve should turn an express switch curved track onto a parallel straight
in the same ay that the existing curve does for the existing switch.
You have to consider that most people don't have a lot of space. In the UK we
have to convert our attics as we don't have basements. The majority of Lego
train customers will use their trains on the living room floor or on a table, so
larger radii are only for AFOLs, giving a smaller market and hence greater cost.
I've made the best of it by spacing out to 80 or 120 studs radius with
straights. 80 studs requires 8ft x 6ft for a layout and 120 studs requires 16ft
x 12ft for a layout. The reduced market affects shorter straights too. These
would otherwise allow radii of any multiple of 10 studs to be constructed, but
lining up with each multiple of 8 studs sideways after a quarter circle. (4
curves + a half straight between each = 40 + 16.11 = 56.11 studs, with the 0.11
being taken up in the tlerance at that distance).
I suggest that a pack of half straights (8 per pack?) is the option with the
greatest potential market, since they are useful for other things than just
producing 56 stud radii:
Half straights would be useful in yards, allowing switches to be placed closer
together when making a fan of sidings (with a pack of two switches, try putting
one on the curved end of the other - the lever frame overlaps the straight
track; a half straight alleviates this).
Half straights would also make for tidier conventional layouts, allowing those
who run tracks 8 studs apart to line up their quarter circle curves precisely
(half straight at each end).
Half straights would also allow more double bend schemes to be used, bringing
them into line with multiples of 16 studs.
If any wider radius curve is ever approved and produced, it must not be dark
bley. I don't want metallic sleepers! Light bley would be better as that's
like concrete. I might bury the sleepers anyway because landscaped track beds
are evolving.
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
| |
Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
investigate the possibilities! Can’t hurt to try.
|
No, it can’t, but this topic isn’t new. Check out the ILTCO library for a
presentation by Ben Fleskes about
track
geometry. He served up everything TLG would need to proceed with this idea
years ago. I believe that TLG will never make the intellectual leap from LEGO
trains as a toy to LEGO trains as a hobby. It’s too radical. (which sounds
kind of silly, given some of the stinker ideas with which TLG has decided to run
(ahem, Galidor, Znap, to name a few)
JOHN
|
|
| |
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:IGJnyJ.1rEv@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
> >
> > Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
> >
> > Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> > investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
>
> No, it can't, but this topic isn't new. Check out the ILTCO library for a
> presentation by Ben Fleskes about
> <http://iltco.org/library/?PHPSESSID=1058e043ee0a5c5f3b1a073054254af9 • track
> geometry>. He served up everything TLG would need to proceed with this • idea
> {years ago}. I believe that TLG will never make the intellectual leap • from LEGO
> trains {as a toy} to LEGO trains {as a hobby}. It's too radical. (which • sounds
> kind of silly, given some of the stinker ideas with which TLG has decided • to run
> (ahem, {Galidor}, Znap, to name a few)
I agree. The idea is good, but the problem is simple - the market is narrow
for these. Yes we would buy it, but just look at the new containercars - and
the dicussion about whether there should have been doors instead of bricks.
The answer was simple - it cost too much for a model for a market that small
(basically S@H and some other places).
Just thinking of cars are selling better than switches - I doubt they will
come.
And - the new curves - lego is a toy, and making it too complicated for
children is not always good (sorry to see children getting more stupid, I
think it would have worked 20 years ago).
BR
S
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
>
> "John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:IGJnyJ.1rEv@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > > Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
> > > Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> > > investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
Too true Gary
> > . Check out the ILTCO library for a
> > presentation by Ben Fleskes about
> > <http://iltco.org/library/?PHPSESSID=1058e043ee0a5c5f3b1a073054254af9 track
> > geometry>. He served up everything TLG would need to proceed with this idea
> > {years ago}. I believe that TLG will never make the intellectual leap from LEGO
> > trains {as a toy} to LEGO trains {as a hobby}. It's too radical. (which sounds
> > kind of silly, given some of the stinker ideas with which TLG has decided to run
> > (ahem, {Galidor}, Znap, to name a few)
Silly is perhaps not strong enough (try stupid)
They have not seen the potential that we see at train shows from the true
hobbiests that would like to try it. I am sure that the same thing ould be said
in the USA.
> Just thinking of cars are selling better than switches - I doubt they will
> come. • Mate too much negitivness won't help either
>
> And - the new curves - lego is a toy, and making it too complicated for
> children is not always good
Who is talking about new items for the kids here? there is so muh "Crap" on the
shelves for them now that the shops can't get rid of now (Bionicles) We (AFOL's)
are probably the bigger side of the spending group by far.
How about we hear from the famous Jake McKee about his thoughts and perhaps
Leoo's on this one
Anyhow that's my 20c worth and I agree with Gary keep yelling and see what it
does.
Jake how about something from you (support)
Regards
Peter
#348
BLTG
"Trains Rule"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
| |
Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
investigate the possibilities! Can’t hurt to try.
|
No, it can’t, but this topic isn’t new. Check out the ILTCO library for a
presentation by Ben Fleskes about
track
geometry. He served up everything TLG would need to proceed with this idea
years ago.
|
That’s my point, maybe one posting every few years doesn’t really constitute a
real need to TLG, they might need a more blatant approach.
| |
I believe that TLG will never make the intellectual leap from
LEGO trains as a toy to LEGO trains as a hobby. It’s too radical. (which
sounds kind of silly, given some of the stinker ideas with which TLG has
decided to run (ahem, Galidor, Znap, to name a few)
|
If they would of put that money into new track geometry they probably would
recouped their costs, and possibly made a few dollars as well.
Thanks John, keep it going!
Gary
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
>
> "John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:IGJnyJ.1rEv@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > > Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
> > >
> > > Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
> > >
> > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
> > >
> > > Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> > > investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
> >
> > No, it can't, but this topic isn't new. Check out the ILTCO library for a
> > presentation by Ben Fleskes about
> > <http://iltco.org/library/?PHPSESSID=1058e043ee0a5c5f3b1a073054254af9 track
> > geometry>. He served up everything TLG would need to proceed with this idea
> > {years ago}. I believe that TLG will never make the intellectual leap from LEGO
> > trains {as a toy} to LEGO trains {as a hobby}. It's too radical. (which sounds
> > kind of silly, given some of the stinker ideas with which TLG has decided to run
> > (ahem, {Galidor}, Znap, to name a few)
>
> I agree. The idea is good, but the problem is simple - the market is narrow
> for these. Yes we would buy it, but just look at the new containercars - and
> the dicussion about whether there should have been doors instead of bricks.
> The answer was simple - it cost too much for a model for a market that small
> (basically S@H and some other places).
It's called bread and butter marketing. Keep producing the goods that pay the rent, expand on them if your gaurenteed sales. They pay for themselves and help pay the rent. That way you can then venture out and try other things that are unknown and see it they make you rich. (ie STAR WARS, SPIDERMAN), Also consisdering that Lego hobbyists will probably buy a good quantity of them means you have a ready market.
> Just thinking of cars are selling better than switches - I doubt they will
> come.
>
> And - the new curves - lego is a toy,
That depends on your perspective. I wonder when Marklin or other hobby
manufacturers changed from being toys to hobby suppliers. It's more of a mind
set more than anything. The dictionary definition of hobby is 'Favourite subject
or occupation that is not one's main business' seems to mean that Lego is a
hobby to one very large group of people. I'll keep working on my hobby and let
others play with their toys:)
> and making it too complicated for
> children is not always good (sorry to see children getting more stupid, I
> think it would have worked 20 years ago).
Seems TLG also thought this way but has recognised the error of that line of
thought, now that thier new marketing stratergy is to go back to basics. Anyway,
new curves just allows children to experiment a bit more and possibly ask their
parents for some help if they get stuck. Which, speaking as a dad is a great way
to get children and parents doing fun things togteher. I'm sure TLG sees the
positives in this, as the more the parents enjoy it as well the more they are
likely to buy more for thier kids. Even my wife has sat down with the kids and
built with lego. Trains tracks weaving in and out of the furniture is fun for
all the family. And if you have curves that can be used instead of having to
move the furniture, it's even more fun.
>
> BR
> S
Thanks, keep the faith
Gary
|
|
| |
I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something LEGO
should do...
Bryan
"Gary Quinlan" <gquinlan@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:IGIw8n.24vn@lugnet.com...
> Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
>
> Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
>
> Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
>
> Gary
> BLTG
> Brisbane Lego Train Group
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
> I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
> announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something LEGO
> should do...
I agree, I think the subject line could have been chosen a bit more clearly.
I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? Are these
new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If they're new,
how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit given to
Ben and to the others he based his work on?
That aside...
I would love to see LEGO step up and play trains with the big boys by enhancing
the track line. I just don't see it happening, but I would love it. I think we
fool ourselves when we think this market is big enough to support the tooling by
LEGO under current ROI assumptions (we assume they're using). It's not,
according to my guess work. That's not to say it couldn't be profitable if we
were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to sell more
successfully.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
| |
That’s not to say it couldn’t be profitable if we
were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to sell
more successfully.
|
That’s my huge hang-up. Why is it so impossible and dangerous to make an
investment into the Trains line, yet at the same time some completely clueless
individual or group convinced the right people in TLG that a huge investment
into Galidor would some how, some way make $$$ for TLG. It just doesn’t make
sense to me.
Both situations seem like no-brainers, although exactly opposite of the
decisions TLG has made (Go with Galidor, sit on Trains).
At the very least, a trains-line bomb is better than a Galidor-line bomb.
Interest in trains will go away. Galidor was gone virtually before it arrived
(although the embarrassment of Galidor may never go away;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
Interest in trains will go away.
Sorry. Meant to say, “Interest in trains will NOT go away”
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Peter Parsons wrote:
> > > kind of silly, given some of the stinker ideas with which TLG has decided to run
> > > (ahem, {Galidor}, Znap, to name a few)
>
> Silly is perhaps not strong enough (try stupid)
Trainheads want their new track geometries. Spacers want to see 3vil and PCS
turned into official sets. I don't read castle, but I'm sure they have their own
hang ups....
> Who is talking about new items for the kids here? there is so muh "Crap" on the
> shelves for them now that the shops can't get rid of now (Bionicles) We (AFOL's)
I'll have you know I was myself surprised when Kelly McKeirnan told me that
BZPower (Bionicle fan site, like LUGNET, worth a visit) has 25,000 members. I'd
say instead of being 'crap', it's actually 'gold' (Financially anyway)
> are probably the bigger side of the spending group by far.
Strongly doubt that's true.
> Anyhow that's my 20c worth and I agree with Gary keep yelling and see what it
> does.
Agree.
> "Trains Rule"
:-D
Legoswami
|
|
| |
> > I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
> > announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something LEGO
> > should do...
>
> I agree, I think the subject line could have been chosen a bit more clearly.
>
> I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? Are these
> new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If they're new,
> how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit given to
> Ben and to the others he based his work on?
>
> That aside...
>
> I would love to see LEGO step up and play trains with the big boys by enhancing
> the track line. I just don't see it happening, but I would love it. I think we
> fool ourselves when we think this market is big enough to support the tooling by
> LEGO under current ROI assumptions (we assume they're using). It's not,
> according to my guess work. That's not to say it couldn't be profitable if we
> were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to sell more
> successfully.
Well I suppose I should not expect LEGO to make any moves towards providing
tracks that would, I think, be a worthwhile investment. Silly of me to expect
others on LUGNET to agree that new track geometry would be something worthwhile
and asking for a show of support. Instead there has been a majority of replies
basically saying that it's old news not worth really responding to. I'm reminded
that I'm a fool and that the niceties of posting on Lugnet are more important
than getting some sort of ground swell happening.
Not being a seasoned writer of posts on lugnet I was not aware of just how
quickly you get the feeling that your point of view is not really appreciated.
Yes, it is true that if we did a poll on what LEGO should make there would a
list that could stretch from earth to the moon. And I probably don't have a clue
how LEGO decides what they will market and what really sells. What I do know is
that I've been using Lego for over 40 years and I have steered many young people
into appeciating the wonders that can be done with the plastic brick. And I know
I'm not alone, as I have also spoken to many others just like me (actually
spoken face to face) and we often scratch our heads and wonder why LEGO never
quite seems to get the idea that there is actually a fairly large group of us
out there (I'm including the silent majority here). But I have this sinking
feeling that to actually get a bit of support is not that easy to do. Maybe I
should leave it to others to let me know what I want out of my hobby.
This post will probably get ridiculed and rubbished and I will rightly go back
to lurking, where I should of stayed in the beginning.
Gary
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
>
> Well I suppose I should not expect LEGO to make any moves towards providing
> tracks that would, I think, be a worthwhile investment. Silly of me to expect
> others on LUGNET to agree that new track geometry would be something worthwhile
> and asking for a show of support.<
No Gary not silly at all we have just echoed what the general public ask us at
our train shows (how many was it 120,000 over 3 days) I would imagine that the
Melbourne Train show get the same questions. not to mention the States as well.
<Instead there has been a majority of replies
> basically saying that it's old news not worth really responding to. I'm reminded
> that I'm a fool and that the niceties of posting on Lugnet are more important
> than getting some sort of ground swell happening<
What niceties?? what is for sale in "Myers" or that 25% off at Target or is
there 4589 pieces in kit Bla Bla bla.
>
> Not being a seasoned writer of posts on lugnet I was not aware of just how
> quickly you get the feeling that your point of view is not really appreciated.<
mate as a member of Lugnet your point is as appreciated as the next member
remember we all paid our membership and have the right to post as well and to
have our opinion.
> Yes, it is true that if we did a poll on what LEGO should make there would a
> list that could stretch from earth to the moon. And I probably don't have a clue
> how LEGO decides what they will market and what really sells. What I do know is
> that I've been using Lego for over 40 years and I have steered many young people
> into appeciating the wonders that can be done with the plastic brick. And I know
> I'm not alone, as I have also spoken to many others just like me (actually
> spoken face to face) and we often scratch our heads and wonder why LEGO never
> quite seems to get the idea that there is actually a fairly large group of us
> out there (I'm including the silent majority here). But I have this sinking
> feeling that to actually get a bit of support is not that easy to do. Maybe I
> should leave it to others to let me know what I want out of my hobby.<
No Gary let your feelings be known about your hobby and our hobby (I speak for
other so called "Train Heads"
>
> This post will probably get ridiculed and rubbished and I will rightly go back
> to lurking, where I should of stayed in the beginning.
You don't have to lurk mate this way we break up the garbage of hearing what
sales are on where and who is getting the most "Posts" on the net. I think
"Train Talk ruled for about 2 weeks now not bad for 1 subject.
>
> Gary
Cheers mate keep the faith
Peter
#348 for anyone who wants to know my member no
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > > I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
> > > announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something LEGO
> > > should do...
> >
> > I agree, I think the subject line could have been chosen a bit more clearly.
I still think this is a valid observation, helping readers figure out what
something is about is a good idea.
> > I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? Are these
> > new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If they're new,
> > how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit given to
> > Ben and to the others he based his work on?
I am still interested in the answer to this question.
> > That aside...
> >
> > I would love to see LEGO step up and play trains with the big boys by enhancing
> > the track line. I just don't see it happening, but I would love it. I think we
> > fool ourselves when we think this market is big enough to support the tooling by
> > LEGO under current ROI assumptions (we assume they're using). It's not,
> > according to my guess work. That's not to say it couldn't be profitable if we
> > were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to sell more
> > successfully.
>
>
> Well I suppose I should not expect LEGO to make any moves towards providing
> tracks that would, I think, be a worthwhile investment.
Unfortunately, I think you shouldn't expect that, for reasons that have been
given, until they become a different (my view: better) company with respect to
how they serve smaller market segments. Which they haven't yet done to the level
we'd like.
> Silly of me to expect
> others on LUGNET to agree that new track geometry would be something worthwhile
> and asking for a show of support.
No, it's not at all silly of you, per se. And you have gotten that very support
that you seek, in my view. My read is that the posters all agree it would be a
good thing if it happened. Don't confuse "would be a good thing" with "ready to
march on Billund with pitchforks in hand" though, that's all that's being said.
> Instead there has been a majority of replies
> basically saying that it's old news not worth really responding to. I'm reminded
> that I'm a fool
Didn't see any of that at all. And if anyone said that its inappropriate.
> and that the niceties of posting on Lugnet are more important
> than getting some sort of ground swell happening.
Or of that. Don't confuse suggestions that observing the niceties (like giving
credit where it may be due) is important with the idea that they are
overarching.
> Not being a seasoned writer of posts on lugnet I was not aware of just how
> quickly you get the feeling that your point of view is not really appreciated.
Or of that. All points of view ought to be appreciated. But don't confuse
appreciation for a point of view with adulation for presenting something.
> Yes, it is true that if we did a poll on what LEGO should make there would a
> list that could stretch from earth to the moon. And I probably don't have a clue
> how LEGO decides what they will market and what really sells.
Neither do any of the rest of us. All I do know is that they only sometimes make
what I want (the TTX set being a good example, I want more of that sort of
thing, and good sets with no new parts are doable on a relative shoestring), and
they often do things that confound most AFOL's ideas of what a good thing to do
might be (Galidor being a good example, bad sets with a lot of new parts with
huge flashy promotional backing are the antithesis of "shoestring").
> What I do know is
> that I've been using Lego for over 40 years and I have steered many young people
> into appeciating the wonders that can be done with the plastic brick.
Me too, although unlike (I'm guessing) you, I had a dark ages. but I'm back and
promoting/playing/enjoying LEGO with a vengeance.
> And I know
> I'm not alone, as I have also spoken to many others just like me (actually
> spoken face to face) and we often scratch our heads and wonder why LEGO never
> quite seems to get the idea that there is actually a fairly large group of us
> out there (I'm including the silent majority here).
Me too. We ARE a fairly large group in absolute numbers or dollar sales, just
not a RELATIVELY large group compared to the total market. But LEGO apparently
hasn't figured out how to create products that require this level of tooling for
markets that they feel are 5% or less (that's where they peg the entire AFOL
market) of their market, much less 1% (my guess is trains is at best 20% of the
TOTAL market that AFOL's take up).
OTHER companies have figured it out and made money at it. But until LEGO does,
showing that there's a groundswell of support, while interesting, IS old news in
that it's been done already. Doesn't make it wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't
post it, just means that you shouldn't expect everyone to greet it as a brand
new revelation that's never been heard of before. Especially when you won't
answer where you got the images from...
> But I have this sinking
> feeling that to actually get a bit of support is not that easy to do. Maybe I
> should leave it to others to let me know what I want out of my hobby.
Hardly! You should do what you want to do. Just don't expect to tell others what
THEY should get out of the hobby, it goes both ways.
> This post will probably get ridiculed and rubbished and I will rightly go back
> to lurking, where I should of stayed in the beginning.
Ridiculing is not appropriate behaviour here and it should not happen. I'm glad
you're posting but you need to take input on board, that's all...
FUT set to just trains.
|
|
| |
Gary,
Don't get all disappointed. It was me who originally made the post about the
subject of the message. I was catching up on emails, LUGNET posts, etc and
saw the "New Lego Track!" subject. Of course it was not what I expected it
to be. If my post offended you, I apologize.
I understand your frustration with the state of trains. I for one want to
see automated points, lights, etc in the style of the 80s 12V system.
It is a well publicized fact that the LEGO company is in a dire financial
situation. So I think it is easy to see why LEGO has not taken the 9V Train
system to the next level. It is a big risk.
And yes, it is even more frustrating to deal with when we see new products
introduced with a lots of expensive new molds and a big marketing push.
But look on the bright side - LEGO continues to release new train engines
and rolling stock. We got a train shed last year. And they have the "Thomas
the Tank Engine" license. (9V Thomas, please....)
I think these are sure signs that the Train line is here to stay. My
suggestion, when you place your order for the new 10170 TTX car, make sure
the quantity is for at least 2 sets.
Let LEGO know you care about the train line.
-- Bryan
"Gary Quinlan" <gquinlan@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:IGMK52.n8q@lugnet.com...
> > > I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
> > > announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something • LEGO
> > > should do...
> >
> > I agree, I think the subject line could have been chosen a bit more • clearly.
> >
> > I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? • Are these
> > new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If • they're new,
> > how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit • given to
> > Ben and to the others he based his work on?
> >
> > That aside...
> >
> > I would love to see LEGO step up and play trains with the big boys by • enhancing
> > the track line. I just don't see it happening, but I would love it. I • think we
> > fool ourselves when we think this market is big enough to support the • tooling by
> > LEGO under current ROI assumptions (we assume they're using). It's not,
> > according to my guess work. That's not to say it couldn't be profitable • if we
> > were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to • sell more
> > successfully.
>
>
> Well I suppose I should not expect LEGO to make any moves towards • providing
> tracks that would, I think, be a worthwhile investment. Silly of me to • expect
> others on LUGNET to agree that new track geometry would be something • worthwhile
> and asking for a show of support. Instead there has been a majority of • replies
> basically saying that it's old news not worth really responding to. I'm • reminded
> that I'm a fool and that the niceties of posting on Lugnet are more • important
> than getting some sort of ground swell happening.
>
> Not being a seasoned writer of posts on lugnet I was not aware of just • how
> quickly you get the feeling that your point of view is not really • appreciated.
> Yes, it is true that if we did a poll on what LEGO should make there would • a
> list that could stretch from earth to the moon. And I probably don't have • a clue
> how LEGO decides what they will market and what really sells. What I do • know is
> that I've been using Lego for over 40 years and I have steered many young • people
> into appeciating the wonders that can be done with the plastic brick. And • I know
> I'm not alone, as I have also spoken to many others just like me (actually
> spoken face to face) and we often scratch our heads and wonder why LEGO • never
> quite seems to get the idea that there is actually a fairly large group of • us
> out there (I'm including the silent majority here). But I have this • sinking
> feeling that to actually get a bit of support is not that easy to do. • Maybe I
> should leave it to others to let me know what I want out of my hobby.
>
> This post will probably get ridiculed and rubbished and I will rightly go • back
> to lurking, where I should of stayed in the beginning.
>
> Gary
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
>
> Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
>
> Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
>
> Gary
> BLTG
> Brisbane Lego Train Group
How about if lego provided just 3 things for us:
1. Bulk rail material that we can cut to length, as we need
1. A new 2x8 sleeper part to hold the new rail
2. A new half-sleeper to connect to existing 9V track parts
This would obviously be a move to woo the more serious hobbiest, but it would
help fulfill the need for curves in multiple radii and lengths.
Steve
|
|
| |
Bryan Kinkel wrote:
> I understand your frustration with the state of trains. I for one want to
> see automated points, lights, etc in the style of the 80s 12V system.
Those were deemed too complicated and that's why they're not in the 9V
system anymore.
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
Too complicated for adults? Or too complicated for children?
Did LEGO determine that the automated parts were too complex for their
target audience (children?)
Assuming it is *financially viable*, why can't LEGO have introductory train
sets for children and more complex electronic sets for teenagers and adults?
Isn't that what LEGO does with their current product line?
Bryan
"Jan-Albert van Ree" <javanree@vanree.net> wrote in message
news:IGn44A.16DJ@lugnet.com...
> Bryan Kinkel wrote:
>
> > I understand your frustration with the state of trains. I for one want • to
> > see automated points, lights, etc in the style of the 80s 12V system.
>
> Those were deemed too complicated and that's why they're not in the 9V
> system anymore.
> --
> Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
| |
It is a well publicized fact that the LEGO company is in a dire financial
situation. So I think it is easy to see why LEGO has not taken the 9V Train
system to the next level. It is a big risk.
|
How’s this for a “big risk”: I say, scrap the 9 volt system, and produce
specialized train parts (from the trucks on up) that are to scale with “O”
gauge. Have AFOLs use existing trucks, motors, couplers, and track currently
used (and already produced) in “O” gauge. The scale of O is 1:48, so the
minifig would fit in just fine. That way, TLG could concentrate on producing
bricks, and not sink their precious resources into reinventing the (train)
wheel. As it is now, they farm out a lot of that stuff anyway.
Heck, we could do that anyway.
Heck, that’s just about what I’m going to do!
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
| |
Assuming it is *financially viable*, why can’t LEGO have introductory train
sets for children and more complex electronic sets for teenagers and adults?
Isn’t that what LEGO does with their current product line?
|
They already do that. Duplo trains for children, 9 volt for those up to 11 or
so. After 12, it’s all rock ‘n roll, girls, and video games, and girls.
“Adults” are supposed to move on to model railroading;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
| |
Assuming it is *financially viable*, why can’t LEGO have introductory train
sets for children and more complex electronic sets for teenagers and adults?
Isn’t that what LEGO does with their current product line?
|
They already do that. Duplo trains for children, 9 volt for those up to 11
or so. After 12, it’s all rock ‘n roll, girls, and video games, and girls.
“Adults” are supposed to move on to model railroading;-)
|
Been there, done that... didn’t like it, came here instead.
|
|
| |
> "Adults" are supposed to move on to model railroading;-)
I have a stack of Lionel & RailKing catalogs that I use for building
inspiration.
If I start ordering things from those catalogs, I will be in real deep with
my wife!
-- Bryan
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:IGn5KE.1HJ0@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
>
> > Assuming it is *financially viable*, why can't LEGO have introductory • train
> > sets for children and more complex electronic sets for teenagers and • adults?
> > Isn't that what LEGO does with their current product line?
>
> They already {do} that. Duplo trains for children, 9 volt for those up to • 11 or
> so. After 12, it's all rock 'n roll, girls, and video games, and girls.
>
> "Adults" are supposed to move on to model railroading;-)
>
> [JOHN]
|
|
| |
Bryan Kinkel wrote:
> Too complicated for adults? Or too complicated for children?
>
> Did LEGO determine that the automated parts were too complex for their
> target audience (children?)
Adults weren't even considered a market in those days...
> Assuming it is *financially viable*, why can't LEGO have introductory
> train sets for children and more complex electronic sets for teenagers and
> adults? Isn't that what LEGO does with their current product line?
Logistics, cost, risk and it not being a core market. Nothing else.
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
| |
| |
“Adults” are supposed to move on to model railroading;-)
|
I have a stack of Lionel & RailKing catalogs that I use for building
inspiration.
If I start ordering things from those catalogs, I will be in real deep with
my wife!
|
You mean to say that, given your LEGO habit, you aren’t there already???
Slacker. :-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Been there, done that... didn’t like it, came here instead.
|
Degenerate. ;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
| |
Assuming it is *financially viable*, why can’t LEGO have introductory train
sets for children and more complex electronic sets for teenagers and
adults? Isn’t that what LEGO does with their current product line?
|
They already do that. Duplo trains for children, 9 volt for those up to
11 or so. After 12, it’s all rock ‘n roll, girls, and video games, and
girls.
“Adults” are supposed to move on to model railroading;-)
|
Been there, done that... didn’t like it, came here instead.
|
Yep-did HO for years--too much time and not enough fun.
I’ll stick with the “L” gauge now :)
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bryan Kinkel wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Don't get all disappointed. It was me who originally made the post about the
> subject of the message. I was catching up on emails, LUGNET posts, etc and
> saw the "New Lego Track!" subject. Of course it was not what I expected it
> to be. If my post offended you, I apologize.
Accepted, I'm somewhat less disappointed now!
> I understand your frustration with the state of trains. I for one want to
> see automated points, lights, etc in the style of the 80s 12V system.
Yes, and a good start would be a larger radius curved track (had to add my plug)
> It is a well publicized fact that the LEGO company is in a dire financial
> situation. So I think it is easy to see why LEGO has not taken the 9V Train
> system to the next level. It is a big risk.
I don't think its a risk rather than a lack of will (only my opinion)
> And yes, it is even more frustrating to deal with when we see new products
> introduced with a lots of expensive new molds and a big marketing push.
True, and may I add frustrated hobbyists are not a good marketing stratergy.
> But look on the bright side - LEGO continues to release new train engines
> and rolling stock. We got a train shed last year. And they have the "Thomas
> the Tank Engine" license. (9V Thomas, please....)
>
> I think these are sure signs that the Train line is here to stay. My
> suggestion, when you place your order for the new 10170 TTX car, make sure
> the quantity is for at least 2 sets.
I'll probabaly be buying a few more than that, I'd say you would need at least 5
to make a decent container train. (and I'd also buy a hell of a lot of larger
radius curves if they were available)
>
> Let LEGO know you care about the train line.
I would say Shop@home already know that! (so does my credit card)
>
> -- Bryan
Thanks for your response Bryan, it's much apprecieated.
Gary
Member #162
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
> >
> > Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
> >
> > Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> > investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
> >
> > Gary
> > BLTG
> > Brisbane Lego Train Group
>
> How about if lego provided just 3 things for us:
>
> 1. Bulk rail material that we can cut to length, as we need
> 1. A new 2x8 sleeper part to hold the new rail
> 2. A new half-sleeper to connect to existing 9V track parts
Oh yes! why are you not a marketing consultant for LEGO
> This would obviously be a move to woo the more serious hobbiest, but it would
> help fulfill the need for curves in multiple radii and lengths.
>
> Steve
Thanks Steve, keep the dream alive
Gary
Memeber #162
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > > I was a bit bummed when I realized this message thread was not an
> > > > announcement of new track but rather another discussion of something LEGO
> > > > should do...
> > >
> > > I agree, I think the subject line could have been chosen a bit more clearly.
>
> I still think this is a valid observation, helping readers figure out what
> something is about is a good idea.
>
> > > I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? Are these
> > > new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If they're new,
> > > how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit given to
> > > Ben and to the others he based his work on?
>
> I am still interested in the answer to this question.
I was sent an email from somebody not associeated with Lugnet. It was a
brickshelf reference about something that was repeatedly talked about by members
of the public at our recent public train display. I don't know about you but
juggling the time between work, family, kids, building and posting I didn't have
enough time to back track and figure out who originally posted the images. If
Ben did well all I can say is thank you, I'm not alone, good work. If he didn't
well then who ever did I say the same. Or just maybe more than one person is
able to come up with the same good idea completely independently of others.
> > > That aside...
> > >
> > > I would love to see LEGO step up and play trains with the big boys by enhancing
> > > the track line. I just don't see it happening, but I would love it. I think we
> > > fool ourselves when we think this market is big enough to support the tooling by
> > > LEGO under current ROI assumptions (we assume they're using). It's not,
> > > according to my guess work. That's not to say it couldn't be profitable if we
> > > were willing to pay higher prices, or if LEGO could figure out how to sell more
> > > successfully.
> >
> >
> > Well I suppose I should not expect LEGO to make any moves towards providing
> > tracks that would, I think, be a worthwhile investment.
>
> Unfortunately, I think you shouldn't expect that, for reasons that have been
> given, until they become a different (my view: better) company with respect to
> how they serve smaller market segments. Which they haven't yet done to the • > level we'd like.
>
> > Silly of me to expect
> > others on LUGNET to agree that new track geometry would be something worthwhile
> > and asking for a show of support.
>
> No, it's not at all silly of you, per se. And you have gotten that very support
> that you seek, in my view. My read is that the posters all agree it would be a
> good thing if it happened. Don't confuse "would be a good thing" with "ready to
> march on Billund with pitchforks in hand" though, that's all that's being said.
I just wanted to see how popular this line of thought was, seeing it was often
commented on and a recent public display, didn't expect a stampede (but now that
you mention it, what's everybody doing friday night?)
> > Instead there has been a majority of replies
> > basically saying that it's old news not worth really responding to. I'm reminded
> > that I'm a fool
>
> Didn't see any of that at all. And if anyone said that its inappropriate.
Thanks, I appreciate your stance on this.
> > and that the niceties of posting on Lugnet are more important
> > than getting some sort of ground swell happening.
>
> Or of that. Don't confuse suggestions that observing the niceties (like giving
> credit where it may be due) is important with the idea that they are
> overarching.
>
> > Not being a seasoned writer of posts on lugnet I was not aware of just how
> > quickly you get the feeling that your point of view is not really appreciated.
>
> Or of that. All points of view ought to be appreciated. But don't confuse
> appreciation for a point of view with adulation for presenting something.
>
> > Yes, it is true that if we did a poll on what LEGO should make there would a
> > list that could stretch from earth to the moon. And I probably don't have a clue
> > how LEGO decides what they will market and what really sells.
>
> Neither do any of the rest of us. All I do know is that they only sometimes make
> what I want (the TTX set being a good example, I want more of that sort of
> thing, and good sets with no new parts are doable on a relative shoestring), and
> they often do things that confound most AFOL's ideas of what a good thing to do
> might be (Galidor being a good example, bad sets with a lot of new parts with
> huge flashy promotional backing are the antithesis of "shoestring").
On that we agree
>
> > What I do know is
> > that I've been using Lego for over 40 years and I have steered many young people
> > into appeciating the wonders that can be done with the plastic brick.
>
> Me too, although unlike (I'm guessing) you, I had a dark ages. but I'm back and
> promoting/playing/enjoying LEGO with a vengeance.
>
> > And I know
> > I'm not alone, as I have also spoken to many others just like me (actually
> > spoken face to face) and we often scratch our heads and wonder why LEGO never
> > quite seems to get the idea that there is actually a fairly large group of us
> > out there (I'm including the silent majority here).
>
> Me too. We ARE a fairly large group in absolute numbers or dollar sales, just
> not a RELATIVELY large group compared to the total market. But LEGO apparently
> hasn't figured out how to create products that require this level of tooling for
> markets that they feel are 5% or less (that's where they peg the entire AFOL
> market) of their market, much less 1% (my guess is trains is at best 20% of the
> TOTAL market that AFOL's take up).
>
> OTHER companies have figured it out and made money at it. But until LEGO does,
> showing that there's a groundswell of support, while interesting, IS old news in
> that it's been done already. Doesn't make it wrong, doesn't mean you shouldn't
> post it, just means that you shouldn't expect everyone to greet it as a brand
> new revelation that's never been heard of before. Especially when you won't
> answer where you got the images from...
This seems to be an interesting dilema, the number of people at the Model train
shows who come up to us and express their interest in lego trains is amazing.
Many of them are not members of Lugnet and don't know of Lugnet. The BLTG train
display is put into a traditional model train display, there are about 60
traditional model train displays in all, and we are the only lego train layout
there. The organisers of the show are impressed that our display is one of the
most popular. In fact it is so popular that we need 3 viewing sides and take up
a large section of the display area so as to allow the crowds to comfortable see
the display, but their still 2 or 3 deep. We have been doing this show for the
last 4 years but in total we have probably put on up to 10 to 12 shows in
various formats, but still basically Lego trains. And we keep getting the same
questions and responses, that is, 'I have lego trains at home but I never knew
lego still made trains, where can I get lego Trains? Is that track able to be
used with the track I already have?' (12V mainly). Sometimes others, who have a
traditional model layout on display at the show we are at, come up to us and
confess they have a lego train at home just like the one on our Lego layout.
(Each year more and more pluck up the courage to confess) Of these many on them
quiz us about the track and if it comes in different sizes. Well you can see my
dilema. We speak to more people about lego trains than I have ever seen posting
on Lugnet, and some say I live is a small insignificant backwood of the world
(I've been lurking for awhile).
I believe that the interest for lego trains is an unknown quantity, especially
to The LEGO Company. In this we are agreed that they have not yet figured out
how to capture this ready market. Maybe you can make them see the light with
whatever conatcts you have.
>
> > But I have this sinking
> > feeling that to actually get a bit of support is not that easy to do. Maybe I
> > should leave it to others to let me know what I want out of my hobby.
>
> Hardly! You should do what you want to do. Just don't expect to tell others what
> THEY should get out of the hobby, it goes both ways.
>
> > This post will probably get ridiculed and rubbished and I will rightly go back
> > to lurking, where I should of stayed in the beginning.
>
> Ridiculing is not appropriate behaviour here and it should not happen. I'm glad
> you're posting but you need to take input on board, that's all...
>
> FUT set to just trains.
Here in Australia we probably have a unique case in that you can't easily
purchase many lego Trains items from many retailers. TLG is a franchise here and
mainly operates with the larger retailers like Kmart. Their after volumes sales
only with limited shelf space. (Megablocks has similar shelf space in some
stores) We have lots of HP, bionocle, Star Wars, etc, etc, but not much in
trains. As an example last year in 2004 in Brisbane (population 2 million)
straight track was put on the shelves in Jan 2004 and was sold out in Feb 2004,
it was not restocked until Jan 2005. I don't know how many people asked us at
the Brisbane Model Train Show in May 2004 if we had straight track for sale, I
only wish we did, as we would on made a handsome profit, the few boxes we had
sold in the first few hours and were sold for 20% more that the Shop@Home price.
(we probably could of sold them for more but felt too guilty about it)
So maybe I was a bit sensitive and a bit too quickly disappointed. Here in
Australia the situation is obviously different to that in the US. I was assuming
Lugnet was a thermometer to a Lego Train question, I was probabaly looking in
the wrong place. (It should be that Lugnet is not a thermometer but a thermostat
but alas this is not so) There seems to be a differing opinion to what is posted
in Lugnet and what is said on the street. (or at the Model Train Shows I
attended to be more accurate).
So Larry we seem to agree on some issues but not all, and that's probably a good
thing. Thanks for this reply as it has eased my agnst and (as can be seen from
this post) not left me lurking in the shadows. But I still think that Lego
should produce a different radius curved track and their fools not to do so!
and I know I speak for many who can't, don't and won't post on lugnet.
Gary
Member #162
PS Is there any third party out there somewhere who is able to produce lego
track if lego won't?
|
|
| |
I've snipped all the rest away because I agree with it, close enough, and I want
to focus on one thing...
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Gary:
> > > Larry:
> > > > I also have a question about the images of the different radii track? Are these
> > > > new images or just recolors of the images that Ben Fleskes did? If they're new,
> > > > how do they differ from Ben's work? If they're Ben's work, was credit given to
> > > > Ben and to the others he based his work on?
> >
> > I am still interested in the answer to this question.
>
> I was sent an email from somebody not associeated with Lugnet. It was a
> brickshelf reference about something that was repeatedly talked about by members
> of the public at our recent public train display. I don't know about you but
> juggling the time between work, family, kids, building and posting I didn't have
> enough time to back track and figure out who originally posted the images. If
> Ben did well all I can say is thank you, I'm not alone, good work. If he didn't
> well then who ever did I say the same. Or just maybe more than one person is
> able to come up with the same good idea completely independently of others.
THe following is my view but I believe it's pretty widely shared.
LUGNET is (especially when it's working right) a meritocracy. You get respect
here through merit, through contribution, through what YOU'VE done. In some ways
it's a gift economy. (if you don't know what I am talking about, read some Eric
S. Raymond, try using Google to search a bit, you'll find it)...
An important part of a meritocracy, an important part of a gift economy, is
giving thanks and credit where it's due, when it's due, without being prodded.
If you want respect from the community, you can't pass work of others off as
your own. This is pretty important to internalise if you want to be successful
at presenting ideas here, people will call you on even the slightest inadvertant
infraction of this, an improperly attributed throwaway quote is enough to set
some people off, as I myself have learned.
Your first post presented images, images that clearly took a LOT of work, as if
they were your own. When politely asked about it, you evaded the question. It
was only when pressed that you admitted that they came from somewhere else, and
tried to justify passing them off as your own by saying you didn't have time.
Well, if you had time to post about it, you had time to do some sleuthing, or at
the very LEAST put in a sentence or two up front explaining that you got the
images somewhere else.
That's a pretty LARGE faux pas in LUGNET culture, in my view. Far larger than a
single line throwaway quote used in passing for humorous effect, mind you, you
were passing off (or appeared to be passing off, you were cavalier in your first
statement) a very significant body of work as your own.
What you SHOULD have done, to gain and keep respect was this: Instead of putting
the same images in YOUR BrickShelf folder (maybe with a recolor of them, I seem
to remember them being a different color) you should have GIVEN A LINK to the
originals, and said "Someone sent me this link, isn't it cool, I want to thank
whoever did the original work and I want to take the topic up again". WIth that
link someone would have quickly identified the author for you, I would expect.
It would also be clearer that you had done your homework and that you weren't
claiming to have suddenly come up with a brand new idea.
Even if you couldn't tell who they were by, at least you were giving credit in
the FIRST post. NOT the THIRD post after being pressed about it. That's not what
the gift culture requires, it doesn't require begrudging admission after being
badgered, it requires explicit and up front acknowledgement of the gifts of
others. Immediately.
You owe the original artist, the person whose gallery you saw (and near as I can
tell, copied without proper attribution), a more sincere effort to determine who
he or she is than you've given, a sincere and fulsome thank you and a heartfelt
apology for appropriating their work and passing it off as your own.
If you fail to deliver on those, there will always be a significant fraction of
people on LUGNET who won't respect your opinions because you're not doing things
the LUGNET way, you're not giving the proper respect to others yourself. So I
hope you see why I'm harping on this, it's because you say people aren't
listening to you as much as you want. This is part of why. To get respect you
have to give respect.
Think about it and do the right thing. I believe you'll benefit from it in the
long run.
Hope that helps.
FUT to .trains only.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
>
>
> Here in Australia we probably have a unique case in that you can't easily
> purchase many lego Trains items from many retailers. TLG is a franchise here and
> mainly operates with the larger retailers like Kmart. Their after volumes sales
> only with limited shelf space. (Megablocks has similar shelf space in some
> stores) We have lots of HP, bionocle, Star Wars, etc, etc, but not much in
> trains. As an example last year in 2004 in Brisbane (population 2 million)
> straight track was put on the shelves in Jan 2004 and was sold out in Feb 2004,
> it was not restocked until Jan 2005. I don't know how many people asked us at
> the Brisbane Model Train Show in May 2004 if we had straight track for sale, I
> only wish we did, as we would on made a handsome profit, the few boxes we had
> sold in the first few hours and were sold for 20% more that the Shop@Home price.
> (we probably could of sold them for more but felt too guilty about it)
>
> So maybe I was a bit sensitive and a bit too quickly disappointed. Here in
> Australia the situation is obviously different to that in the US. I was assuming
> Lugnet was a thermometer to a Lego Train question, I was probabaly looking in
> the wrong place. (It should be that Lugnet is not a thermometer but a thermostat
> but alas this is not so) There seems to be a differing opinion to what is posted
> in Lugnet and what is said on the street. (or at the Model Train Shows I
> attended to be more accurate).
>
> So Larry we seem to agree on some issues but not all, and that's probably a good
> thing. Thanks for this reply as it has eased my agnst and (as can be seen from
> this post) not left me lurking in the shadows. But I still think that Lego
> should produce a different radius curved track and their fools not to do so!
> and I know I speak for many who can't, don't and won't post on lugnet.
>
> Gary
> Member #162
>
> PS Is there any third party out there somewhere who is able to produce lego
> track if lego won't?
Australia is definitely not the unique case, but more likely the typical case.
In the US, most consumers can only buy Lego trains online or from S@H. During
the holiday shopping season, TRU may carry trains, but other than that, trains
are non-existent on retail shelves in the US.
In the US at model train shows, what I typically hear is first, that nobody knew
that Lego made trains (no questions about 12V to 9V conversions: 12V was never
introduced in the US). Second, the interest is pretty high. Third, the entry
cost is rather high for a model train. Nevertheless, if a vendor at a train
show started selling Lego trains, I imagine that they'd sell quite well (our
train club doesn't sell, mainly because we don't want to go through the hassle
of becoming a vendor).
I'll agree that the interest in Lego trains is an unknown quantity, mainly
because the vast majority of consumers don't KNOW about Lego trains. How can
you have an interest in something you have no idea exists? So to increase the
train line choices (accessories, more types of track, more car offerings), the
market has to be increased. And TLG either isn't interested or doesn't know how
to do this. I'm hoping that TLG is interested, and that once they are earning a
profit again, they'll make a significant push (personally, I think 2005 has the
potential to be a good year for TLG, due to the SW movie).
Also, remember that our view of the market is rather skewed; we see a lot of
people who are interested in trains, but if you add all the interested attendees
of train shows throughout the world, I think it'd be only 1 or 2 million at
best. That's still a rather small market for TLG to pander to, considering that
the market for SW Lego is probably around 20 or 30 million in the US alone.
The views posted on Lugnet are different than what you hear at a train show not
because the desires are different, but because the views have been tempered with
knowledge of the business reality of the toy industry. Maybe if TLG starts
viewing the Lego train line not as a toy, but as a hobby, then the market for
trains could grow. But that would take a visionary marketer, and currently, TLG
is focused on making a profit again, not on taking visionary risks.
So what you're hearing on Lugnet are realistic views, meaning that yes, we'd
like to see more variety in track, more rolling stock, rail accessories; but we
know that trains are an extremely small segment of their market, and until TLG's
financial outlook changes for the better, trains will remain so (hopefully,
though, trains are a profitable line).
In the meantime, it's still good to have these conversations online. They do
get read by a few Lego employees, and they do get passed along to the
higher-ups. They may die there, but persistance is key. One of these days, the
timing will be right, and progress will be made.
John
P.S. When I first read the original subject, I thought that Lego track had
finally been found in the new greys. So, to be honest, I was actually relieved
to find out that wasn't the case. Phew!
|
|
| |
> Australia is definitely not the unique case, but more likely the typical case.
> In the US, most consumers can only buy Lego trains online or from S@H. During
> the holiday shopping season, TRU may carry trains, but other than that, trains
> are non-existent on retail shelves in the US.
The big question is, why arent LEGO trains available on the retail shelves?
I suspect part of it is because LEGO trains as a rule are expensive.
Expensive compared to other LEGO sets (due to the cost of the electrics)
And more to the point, expensive compared to other toy train sets.
Heck, if trains were more redily available here in australia I know I would
buy more :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Riley wrote:
<snip>
>
> P.S. When I first read the original subject, I thought that Lego track had
> finally been found in the new greys. So, to be honest, I was actually relieved
> to find out that wasn't the case. Phew!
They are in the new greys--I bought the Harry Potter motorized Hogwarts
package--the track that come in the Hogwarts box are the new dark grey. The
funny thing is I bought the 'big package' from Costco (Price Club, whatever) at
Christmas in which they added two boxes of track--1 straight and 1 curve box,
and those bundled boxes were the old dark grey.
So picture the scene--kid gets this bundled box for Christmas. Puts the train
together and starts laying track. It's completely obvious that the track pieces
are differeent colours--"Hey daddy! Santa made a screw-up!!"
Eh, that's all I have to say about the colour.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > Australia is definitely not the unique case, but more likely the typical case.
> > In the US, most consumers can only buy Lego trains online or from S@H. During
> > the holiday shopping season, TRU may carry trains, but other than that, trains
> > are non-existent on retail shelves in the US.
> The big question is, why arent LEGO trains available on the retail shelves?
> I suspect part of it is because LEGO trains as a rule are expensive.
> Expensive compared to other LEGO sets (due to the cost of the electrics)
> And more to the point, expensive compared to other toy train sets.
Is this actually true? I think you need to compare to LGB, Lionel, or quality HO
or N gear rather than comparing to Bachman or Tyco stuff (or the equivalent low
quality Oz brands). In that case LEGO stuff is cheaper. At least the starter
sets are... the track, on the other hand is way more.
That said, while *I* think it's a valid comparision to compare against quality
brands, perhaps that's not what the mundanes are comparing against... they are
probably comparing against BRIO knockoffs.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
(snip)
See also this (completely unscientific, but interesting) poll:
http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=3
Poll number 3 means it was set up *quite* a while ago, back when polling was
first unveiled on LUGNET. It's gotten 200 votes so far and the vast majority of
voters do see track geometry as an issue, as something that LEGO really ought to
address. If any of you haven't voted, you still can (and should)... FWIW, I
think I voted "showstopper"... or at least "extremely inconvenient", anyway.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > > Australia is definitely not the unique case, but more likely the
> > > typical case. In the US, most consumers can only buy Lego trains
> > > online or from S@H. During the holiday shopping season, TRU may
> > > carry trains, but other than that, trains are non-existent on
> > > retail shelves in the US.
> > The big question is, why arent LEGO trains available on the retail
> > shelves? I suspect part of it is because LEGO trains as a rule are
> > expensive. Expensive compared to other LEGO sets (due to the cost of
> > the electrics) And more to the point, expensive compared to other
> > toy train sets.
>
> Is this actually true? I think you need to compare to LGB, Lionel, or
> quality HO or N gear rather than comparing to Bachman or Tyco stuff
> (or the equivalent low quality Oz brands). In that case LEGO stuff is
> cheaper. At least the starter sets are... the track, on the other
> hand is way more.
Hmm, you need to be careful in including Bachman in the list of cheap
trains... Bachman has remade itself and is now a purveyor of reasonable cost
high quality trains...
I agree though, LEGO trains are of comparable cost to comparable quality
trains. What it really comes down to however is that toy stores pretty much
don't carry trains anymore. Sure, they carry some really cheap stuff (not
even as good as the Bachman of old). During the Christmas season, it's
possible they carry a set or two, but I think they're pretty much gone.
On the other hand, our local independant toy store (Finnegans for those in
the Portland OR area) right now has a rather extensive line of LEGO trains:
Santa Fe, one Santa Fe car [the observation car set], 3 My Own Train cars,
track, the engine shed, the station, the level crossing, and maybe one or
two other things I missed. Definitely no BNSF though - I might have
purchased one if they had it. Oh, they also had a train set or two (at least
the new passenger train, and they have had the new freight train in the
recent past if they don't currently have one). I should note that this
occupies 20-25% of their LEGO shelf space! In fact, no other theme has
nearly as complete a selection (well, perhaps the new Star Wars does). They
have pretty consistently at least carried a train set or two. Interestingly,
although their Playmobil section is at least twice as big as the LEGO
section, I couldn't find any Playmobil trains in the store.
Frank
|
|
| |
I've also snipped all the rest away because I agree with it, close enough, and I
want to focus on certain things
But if I get it right, what your trying to say is that posting in newsgroups etc
is easily overlooked and taken for granted so it is important to recognise
credit where it is due, at let the authors get the glory they deserve. With that
I agree as would most others. (just not in as many words)
But just to get the record straight there are just a couple of facts in your
posting that need to be corrected
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Your first post presented images, images that clearly took a LOT of work, as if
> they were your own.
Not once did I say they were mine, you improperly assumed this
> When politely asked about it, you evaded the question. It
> was only when pressed that you admitted that they came from somewhere else, and
> tried to justify passing them off as your own...
I don't recall doing this
> What you SHOULD have done, to gain and keep respect was this: Instead of putting
> the same images in YOUR BrickShelf folder (maybe with a recolor of them, I seem
> to remember them being a different color) you should have GIVEN A LINK to the
> originals, and said "Someone sent me this link, isn't it cool, I want to thank
> whoever did the original work and I want to take the topic up again". WIth that
> link someone would have quickly identified the author for you, I would expect.
> It would also be clearer that you had done your homework and that you weren't
> claiming to have suddenly come up with a brand new idea.
The link to Brickshelf is not my folder, (in fact I don't have any folders on
Brickshelf at all) It IS the original link from the author ,gm(80), who I assume
made the images.
But, you are right and originally I should have done that, and in future I will.
> Think about it and do the right thing. I believe you'll benefit from it in the
> long run.
>
> Hope that helps.
In future I will give credit were is is due. Didn't intentionally go out to
mislead or take credit for anything, just wanted to start a discussion.
Definitely succeeded there, not the discussion I originally set out to have but
interesting none the less. You lived up to your reputation Larry. And with that
I suggest the topic is closed (about the images) and we can get back to letting
Lego know we want new curved track! so with that all I can say is.............
Someone sent me this link, isn't it cool, I want to thank
whoever did the original work and I want to take the topic up again.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
Thanks
Gary
|
|
| |
> I've also snipped all the rest away >
Beause it is just getting BORING
> Someone sent me this link, isn't it cool, I want to thank
> whoever did the original work and I want to take the topic up again.
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
>
>
> Thanks
> Gary
Cheers Champ well done
"Trains Rule"
Peter
#348
|
|
| |
FLEXITRACK ! Yah !
Cheers
Oliver
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IGMyLJ.1zC1@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Gary Quinlan wrote:
> > Fellow Lego Train Enthusiasts
> >
> > Check out the link to see ideas for a new geometry of Lego Tracks,
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28054
> >
> > Maybe with enough chatter on Lugnet and other sites Lego might decide to
> > investigate the possibilities! Can't hurt to try.
> >
> > Gary
> > BLTG
> > Brisbane Lego Train Group
>
> How about if lego provided just 3 things for us:
>
> 1. Bulk rail material that we can cut to length, as we need
> 1. A new 2x8 sleeper part to hold the new rail
> 2. A new half-sleeper to connect to existing 9V track parts
>
> This would obviously be a move to woo the more serious hobbiest, but it
> would
> help fulfill the need for curves in multiple radii and lengths.
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
> Bryan Kinkel wrote:
>
> > I understand your frustration with the state of trains. I for one want to
> > see automated points, lights, etc in the style of the 80s 12V system.
>
> Those were deemed too complicated and that's why they're not in the 9V
> system anymore.
Complicated --- hrm. I was a child in the 80's and absolutely loved those. They
certainly weren't too complicated - and remember that they were provided with
the same kind of instructions (excellent, that is) as other Lego sets. If
remote-controlled turnouts, grade crossings and signals are to be discontinued
because they are complicated, then why carry the Technic line at all? It
certainly is way more complicated.
The point is that the "complicated" features are a *learning* tool. One learns
a huge deal about electricity, electronics, and logic while tinkering and
experimenting (yes, even with such a basic system as Lego's). Now, all the 12 V
turnouts and signals were manually controlled and nothing was interlocked, so
signals could not depend on turnout positions, or vice versa; although I don't
know if the turnout motor would have withstood being controlled with constant DC
from the signal controller... hmm... I still have some 12 V gear, I might give
it a try... ;) The interlocking would have made many things possible (like REAL
signalling). THAT might have been too complicated for a 7-year-old; then again,
it might well have kept a 13-year-old nicely busy...
In fact, Lego trains were one of the things that led me to model railroading,
and directed my interest into operations and signalling. I was enormously
disappointed about the new 9 V system's lack of any advanced features whatsoever
- it was "just another toy train". Heck, you can have wireless (infrared) remote
control for trains and turnouts and even automatic train control features with
Brio wooden trains! (that's for 5-year-old kids!!! not when I was 5!!!) Why not
Lego?
Yep, here's an idea for Billund: drop the analog control and go straight to DCC
(control signals mixed with track power; components are readily available) or IR
or radio remote control (full DC power always on track, train is controlled with
an IR or radio remote; IR requires line-of-sight to receiver, is more prone to
runaways, but doesn't depend on national radio regulations; either of these may
be easier to implement and operate than DCC.) Either way, just add a receiver
/controller box in the locomotive and separate the track pickup output from the
motor input in the motor unit. (with IR, add an IR sensor; with radio, add an
antenna.)
Each receiver could be paired with a controller, able to control one or more
motor units (in parallel, for REALLY powerful locomotives). Signals could be
axle counters that would be wired together (entry point wired to exit point)
with simple two-wire (one-cable) connections to create elementary block
signalling.
Additional sensors (Mindstorms sensors?) could be used to create ATO functions
(autostop, autoreverse, timer stop...) if installed on the train, wired into the
receiver box (having a few inputs for this purpose) and activated by trackside
blocks.
All that is required is a) a modified motor block with separate input and output
circuits, and b) a remote receiver/motor controller. The latter could be powered
either from the track or a battery pack (or both, if desired?) and could be
produced in a DCC version if desired (with the ATO functions remaining).
Oh yes, of course: the IR or radio controlled version, when powered with a
battery pack, could control pretty much anything with a motor! Wouldn't this be
a hit? Wireless control for your Technic model! Yay! Cool! In fact, give it 3 or
4 channels and make it a "universal remote controller". Just make sure that a)
it fits either inside or under a locomotive (between the trucks in the latter
case) and b) it has enough power to control two train motors in parallel.
Release the modified train motor at the same time and I'm pretty sure quite a
lot of people will take an interest in one or both.
Sorry if I got somewhat carried away. But seriously, the above ideas are free
for use if somebody (Lego or someone else) feels like producing them. I'd just
like to be able to buy the products in a toy store or online. (I don't know if
Lego reads LUGNET, but they should :)
Why not use the Mindstorms unit? a) it's too expensive (this application doesn't
need *that* kind of flexibility) b) it's too large (redundant battery pack) c)
no remote control (without HiTechnic parts).
My other daydream is to find a huge pile of 12 V train stuff somewhere and be
able to build a big 12 V Lego train layout, with signals and stuff... ;)
--Juhana Siren -- a lifetime Lego fan--
|
|
| |
Juhana Siren wrote:
[SNIP]
> My other daydream is to find a huge pile of 12 V train stuff somewhere and
> be able to build a big 12 V Lego train layout, with signals and stuff...
> ;)
It's easy to get by in Europe, I know several folks who are switching to 9V
to be able to participate in events. But the signals usually don't change
hands, since those can be modded to work on 9V too ;)
As for the snipped part : remember target market! Many of today's kids can't
properly use a hammer or something like that. Common sense got lost with
the introduction of the "squared-eye" fenomenon it seems. I remember being
around 7 and playing with electrics and electronics (nearly electrocuting
myself on several occaisions :D :D ) Most kids these days hardly know how a
lamp with switch works! Times are changing, and LEGO's changing along.
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
> Juhana Siren wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > My other daydream is to find a huge pile of 12 V train stuff somewhere and
> > be able to build a big 12 V Lego train layout, with signals and stuff...
> > ;)
>
> It's easy to get by in Europe, I know several folks who are switching to 9V
> to be able to participate in events. But the signals usually don't change
> hands, since those can be modded to work on 9V too ;)
Yep; just change the one resistor... oh well... no such events in .fi, although
you do see some Lego trains in the bigger stores...
> As for the snipped part : remember target market! Many of today's kids can't
> properly use a hammer or something like that. Common sense got lost with
> the introduction of the "squared-eye" fenomenon it seems. I remember being
> around 7 and playing with electrics and electronics (nearly electrocuting
> myself on several occaisions :D :D ) Most kids these days hardly know how a
> lamp with switch works! Times are changing, and LEGO's changing along.
And it's a damn shame, when Lego could be changing the times instead... :P
OR at least they could be addressing a new target market: adults! :)
The interesting part is that Brio is in fact producing the following items for a
target market of _3 to 5-year-olds_ (approximately):
- remote controlled turnouts (with IR remotes)
- remote controlled locomotives (with IR remotes)
- automatic grade crossings
- automatic locomotives (that react to specific track components by whistling,
slowing down, stopping, reversing...)
And these appear to sell. They are carried by major toy stores and toy
departments in Finland (don't know about elsewhere, haven't looked).
(sarcasm on)
So, either Finnish kids are exceptionally smart so that the idea of a train
responding to commands from a remote controller doesn't immediately scare them
off, or the R&D at Lego just hasn't come up with this idea yet.
(sarcasm off)
--idealist me--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Juhana Siren wrote:
> The interesting part is that Brio is in fact producing the following items for a
> target market of _3 to 5-year-olds_ (approximately):
> - remote controlled turnouts (with IR remotes)
> - remote controlled locomotives (with IR remotes)
> - automatic grade crossings
> - automatic locomotives (that react to specific track components by whistling,
> slowing down, stopping, reversing...)
LEGO had remote controlled locomotives back in 1968. Blow the whistle
(included in the trainset) and the train went forward. Blow the whistle,
the train stops. Soon a new version was introduced, which also supported
the train going backwards. That was all with 4.5V LEGO trains.
As soon als LEGO started with 12V trains in 1969, the turnouts were
remote controlled. I believe it was discontinued around 1972.
Remote controlled stuff was reintroduced in 1980 with the new gray 12V track.
(new for track, not new for gray ;-) )
Niels
|
|
|
