| |
Hi Eric,
Hi Bryan,
Hi all,
you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
positive or negative about the train announcement.
We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
others are new for us.
It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts. This was and will
be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
elements.
Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
Holger
|
|
| |
Holger,
Thanks for your reply. I am glad to hear from an insider even if you can't say
anything. I do realize you are only a conduit for information and can't
actually make the decisions.
I would personally be happy to setup something as a repository for suggestions
and then setup periodic polls to try and figure out what the desires of the
majority are and what might not be quite as critical.
I have been talking with a lot of folks about this and I do think it is
important to get everyone in the community talking in a public forum about their
needs so that those of you on the inside can take some direction from the
community at large.
In this way maybe we can influance a few aspects of the design in a way that
helps everyone.
-Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Hi Bryan,
> Hi all,
>
> you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> positive or negative about the train announcement.
>
> We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> others are new for us.
>
> It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
>
> All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts.
Point of view? I enjoy working with my LEGO trains. I put out a lot of work in
'abusing' my trains to do a show, both for the visitor and mine own pleasure.
The model Railroad Hobby is the largest Hobby in the world. It is done almost in
every country and by trainheads of every walk of life. Do we, as model train
operators consider that we are 'abusing', even in a positive way,the trains we
run? Do we consider that we are 'abusing the manufacture of our model trains
when we purchase large amounts of scenery and building material to give our
layouts a life-like appearance? Do we 'abuse' the manufacture when we do shows
for the public to enjoy?
The challenge for the future of trains is to have a place in this world wide
Hobby. Plastic, battery powered trains IS considered a 'toy' by the model
railroad clubs. It took us many years of 'abuse' and hard work to get into and
be recognized by Model Railroading. Has all this been for nought? I thought we
had made our case about this, it seems it fell on deft ears. The profit on the
train componants is small compared to the other themes done by TLG, however, the
profit in the large amounts of LEGO purchased to build our layouts and man them
with minifigs and vehicles and customized trains should have brought up the
profit over all.
We have told TLG many times about the lack of advertizing the 9volt system. We
have asked that tha Railroad Hobby Shops be allowed to carry just the train sets
and accessories to place them in the buying public's view. None of this has
been done.
At our train shows we have consistenly been asked 'where can we get the trains'.
Now, officially, we can tell the viewing public that LEGO trains are no longer
available for another couple of years and at this time we do not know what will
be presented. We can watch person after person walk away to look at buying
other manufacture's products instead of starting many more home and public
layouts of LEGO trains. Keep in mind this also includes mass purchasing of LEGO
products to add to their layouts. I would be willing to bet other manufactures
are pleased with this announcement. They will enjoy the profits TLG is giving
away.
And finally, I feel that it would have been in TLG's best interest to continue
supporting the 9volt system to keep up this interest in LEGO trains until the
new system is in production and has a good track record to at least compare to
the 9volt system. Leaving a two year+ gap will probably cost TLG a lot in
non-sales and it will mean starting all over to build up the trust in LEGO
Trains, both with AFOL's and the public.
These are my concerns, about one of my favorite hobbies and my favorite
company...
Don Cox GtwLUG Lugnet#1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
> This was and will
> be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
> elements.
>
> Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
> know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
> then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
>
> Holger
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> Point of view? I enjoy working with my LEGO trains. I put out a lot of work in
> 'abusing' my trains to do a show, both for the visitor and mine own pleasure.
> The model Railroad Hobby is the largest Hobby in the world. It is done almost in
> every country and by trainheads of every walk of life. Do we, as model train
> operators consider that we are 'abusing', even in a positive way,the trains we
> run? Do we consider that we are 'abusing the manufacture of our model trains
> when we purchase large amounts of scenery and building material to give our
> layouts a life-like appearance? Do we 'abuse' the manufacture when we do shows
> for the public to enjoy?
>
> The challenge for the future of trains is to have a place in this world wide
> Hobby. Plastic, battery powered trains IS considered a 'toy' by the model
> railroad clubs. It took us many years of 'abuse' and hard work to get into and
> be recognized by Model Railroading. Has all this been for nought? I thought we
> had made our case about this, it seems it fell on deft ears. The profit on the
> train componants is small compared to the other themes done by TLG, however, the
> profit in the large amounts of LEGO purchased to build our layouts and man them
> with minifigs and vehicles and customized trains should have brought up the
> profit over all.
>
> We have told TLG many times about the lack of advertizing the 9volt system. We
> have asked that tha Railroad Hobby Shops be allowed to carry just the train sets
> and accessories to place them in the buying public's view. None of this has
> been done.
>
> At our train shows we have consistenly been asked 'where can we get the trains'.
> Now, officially, we can tell the viewing public that LEGO trains are no longer
> available for another couple of years and at this time we do not know what will
> be presented. We can watch person after person walk away to look at buying
> other manufacture's products instead of starting many more home and public
> layouts of LEGO trains. Keep in mind this also includes mass purchasing of LEGO
> products to add to their layouts. I would be willing to bet other manufactures
> are pleased with this announcement. They will enjoy the profits TLG is giving
> away.
>
> And finally, I feel that it would have been in TLG's best interest to continue
> supporting the 9volt system to keep up this interest in LEGO trains until the
> new system is in production and has a good track record to at least compare to
> the 9volt system. Leaving a two year+ gap will probably cost TLG a lot in
> non-sales and it will mean starting all over to build up the trust in LEGO
> Trains, both with AFOL's and the public.
>
> These are my concerns, about one of my favorite hobbies and my favorite
> company...
Well put Don. Better than I could have done. Every time I started to write
something up I had trouble containing my anger and writing something
constructive.
Right now my hope lies not with the LEGO company, but with fans, finding ways to
repair the 9v motors when they break down, how to add metal rails to plastic
track. This will work for me and my club, but we'll be left telling the public
that LEGO doesn't care about the model railroading hobby. Go somewhere else, buy
some other product, or be prepared for a lot of custom non-lego building work.
Jason Spears MichLUG Lugnet#478 St. Joseph, MI. USA
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > Hi Bryan,
> > Hi all,
> >
> > you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> > positive or negative about the train announcement.
> >
> > We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> > into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> > others are new for us.
> >
> > It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> > system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> > poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
> >
> > All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> > positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts.
>
> Point of view? I enjoy working with my LEGO trains. I put out a lot of work in
> 'abusing' my trains to do a show, both for the visitor and mine own pleasure.
> The model Railroad Hobby is the largest Hobby in the world. It is done almost in
> every country and by trainheads of every walk of life. Do we, as model train
> operators consider that we are 'abusing', even in a positive way,the trains we
> run? Do we consider that we are 'abusing the manufacture of our model trains
> when we purchase large amounts of scenery and building material to give our
> layouts a life-like appearance? Do we 'abuse' the manufacture when we do shows
> for the public to enjoy?
Yes you do 'abuse' the system in the sense that Holger means. LEGO trains are
designed for children, not hobby use. As much as this may be frustrating and
there may be good reasons for TLG to support the 'abuse' of their system they
are not a niche manufacturer and cannot do it when it is underprofitable.
I understand that a lot of us have a lot of emotional and physical capital
invested in 9V trains and the hobby aspects of them. This does not mean we
should forget what TLG's primary purpose is: selling *toys* to children.
> The challenge for the future of trains is to have a place in this world wide
> Hobby. Plastic, battery powered trains IS considered a 'toy' by the model
> railroad clubs. It took us many years of 'abuse' and hard work to get into and
> be recognized by Model Railroading. Has all this been for nought?
--snip--
> Don Cox GtwLUG Lugnet#1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
From my understanding there are plenty of people running 'antiquated' systems in
Model Railroading. With LEGO you are still getting new options from the rest of
the range, just not directly for the motors and track (which haven't been
developed for many, many years anyway). Undoubtadely running 9V trains will
become harder as motors need to be replaced and other electrical components
require maintenence but the quality of LEGO products is typically high enough
that this maintenence should be minimal.
We can sling mud all we like or, far preferably, we can try to work out how we
can move forward. The decision has been made and no amount of complaining or
sideline justiification is going to change it. It is now time to look to the
future.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Holger Matthes wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Hi Bryan,
> Hi all,
>
> you are right, we are under NDA and I will not comment on any posting either
> positive or negative about the train announcement.
>
> We AFOL insiders will read all theses posts and we will transport any suggestion
> into our internal forums. And yes, some thoughts and ideas sound familiar and
> others are new for us.
>
> It would be helpful, if we can set up a public "wishlist" for the new train
> system where only uncommented wishes are posted. Later someone could set up a
> poll to find out the most desired components for a new train system.
>
> All, remember we are still talking about a toy train which is abused (in a
> positive way) by LEGO fans to set up huge model-train layouts. This was and will
> be the challenge when AFOLs use LEGO elements and especially LEGO train
> elements.
>
> Please remember, AFOL insiders are consultants and not decision makers. As I
> know it from the Hobby Train Project there is always a bigger number of requests
> then solutions coming to the shelfs in the end.
>
> Holger
Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new
train system.
Benn
On the batteries:
-I am concerned that the weight of batteries could limit long trains. So the
battery weight will be just as important as it's lifespan.
-For buildability (especially in 6 wide) Battery size will be important, ideally
2xNx4 so that it could be built inside a 4 wide hood on a locomotive. Failing
that, 4xNx4 so that we could at least fit it in a 6 wide car or locomotive.
-Ease of charging is important, should be able to charge the batteries without
taking the model apart.
On the motors:
-The ability to add as many motors as one likes to a train (provided one also
has sufficient batteries, etc.) and start and start all of the motors as a
single unit.
On control:
-The ability to set stop-and-continue, stop-and-reverse, sound-your-horn, and
other functions triggered by trackside markers.
-The ability to set trackside objects that are triggered by the train (e.g.,
small motors and lights for grade crossings)
-If the line is successful (i.e., not on day 1, but maybe in year 3) the ability
to add real block signals that respond to the trains and actually control
movement (a dynamic "stop-and-continue" controlled by a trackside object that
responds to the train)
-The ability to add remotely controlled functionality on-board the train, e.g.,
a secondary motor powered by the controller to decouple cars.
-Motorized switches with remote control
-RF communication from controller to train (not IR) with at least 40 channels or
motor id's.
On the track:
If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with the
metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-piece
track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface with the
9v and IR train track)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> with the 9v and IR train track)
Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> > On the track:
> > If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> > the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> > piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> > with the 9v and IR train track)
>
> Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
> based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
> couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
I've got a number of 4.5v/12v sleeper that have lost their clips (the
little vertical pieces that click into the track), so Im' not wild about
going back to that kind of track. If the design could be fixed, so the
part that holds onto the track strongly isn't prone to snapping off then
that would be a reasonable alternative. Nevertheless, I've got so much
9v rail, and don't see myself running out and buying a bunch of plastic
rail regardless of it's design.
Chris
--
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new train system.
>
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with the
> metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-piece
> track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface with the
> 9v and IR train track)
My point is that TLG should continue with the 9volt system until a new system is
developed and available. Showing off our train layouts at train shows and
telling visitors that it is discontinued for 2+ years will turn off the buying
public and they will go to other manufactures for their trains and accessories.
In 2+ years, they will have invested enough in their train layouts at whatever
guage, that when they visit our shows, they will enjoy the display, but go and
buy from other manufactures the items they need to expand or 'abuse' their
existing layouts. TLG will lose out in train purchases and all the LEGO people
would have bought to decorate their layouts.
My questions are: If the new system is electrical as stated in the announcment,
how will this operate an electric train on plastic non-metal track? Will the
new track, plastic or metal-capped, be of the same dimension as 9volt and the
current RC track? Will we be able to convert existing 9volt engines to the new
'electric' system and run our trains on both plastic and the Metalized track we
currently own?
If you look on page 6 of the Holiday 2006 catalog, there is a sample 9volt oval
that is advertized as 27"x33" and is made up of 8 curved track pieces per end.
In that same issue, on page 11, there is a oval of the RC plastic track that is
28"x37.5"... where is the 1" difference? Is the curved pieces a different
radius? Not having any of the plastic track, I am not able to tell. So, again,
my question is, will the track for the new system be compatable? And to which
system?
My 2¢ worth...
Don GtwLUG Lugnet #1239 St. Louis, Mo. USA
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Don Cox wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
>
> My point is that TLG should continue with the 9volt system until a new system is
> developed and available.
Maybe (big 'maybe' of course) there is 2 years or so of stock left of current
track and motors and all. They are still selling track in old dark grey
afterall - quite a while after the color change has happened. This doesn't
appear to help the whole situation in the long run of course. (AFTER the two
years)
> If you look on page 6 of the Holiday 2006 catalog, there is a sample 9volt oval
> that is advertized as 27"x33" and is made up of 8 curved track pieces per end.
> In that same issue, on page 11, there is a oval of the RC plastic track that is
> 28"x37.5"... where is the 1" difference? Is the curved pieces a different
> radius? Not having any of the plastic track, I am not able to tell.
I'd bet this is just lousy editing in the Lego catalog.
Jonathan
|
|
|
