Subject:
|
Re: PROPOSAL for new track (was Re: New Lego Track!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 May 2005 12:50:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1444 times
|
| |
|
|
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 It was me who originally made the post about the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
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: PROPOSAL for new track (was Re: New Lego Track!
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 17-May-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
| | | Re: PROPOSAL for new track (was Re: New Lego Track!
|
| (...) Accepted, I'm somewhat less disappointed now! (...) Yes, and a good start would be a larger radius curved track (had to add my plug) (...) I don't think its a risk rather than a lack of will (only my opinion) (...) True, and may I add (...) (19 years ago, 18-May-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
