| |
With the help of a friend (thanks Tim), I decided to try out posting a
Quicktime movie of a LEGO train (the 4565) traveling on my bridge
structures. I choose the smallest I had but it's still 9.5MB (sorry about
that).
Enjoy
Adrian
|
|
| |
Opps, I forgot to post the address.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3160
"Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:G8Cz6r.70r@lugnet.com...
> With the help of a friend (thanks Tim), I decided to try out posting a
> Quicktime movie of a LEGO train (the 4565) traveling on my bridge
> structures. I choose the smallest I had but it's still 9.5MB (sorry about
> that).
>
> Enjoy
>
> Adrian
>
>
|
|
| |
very cool, and good quality! I wish I had such a great bridge for my
traintrack (lack of bricks I'm afraid).
Maybe you can make the filesize of your movie smaller. I don't see anything
happening in the movie the first two seconds or so and the last few seconds.
Why not cut these seconds off to make your movie shorter and your filesize
smaller? Just a thought.
Saskia
Adrian Egli <aegli@san.rr.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
G8D09M.94K@lugnet.com...
> Opps, I forgot to post the address.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3160
> "Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:G8Cz6r.70r@lugnet.com...
> > With the help of a friend (thanks Tim), I decided to try out posting a
> > Quicktime movie of a LEGO train (the 4565) traveling on my bridge
> > structures. I choose the smallest I had but it's still 9.5MB (sorry • about
> > that).
> >
> > Enjoy
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| |
Thanks for the thoughts. Tim Courtney said the same and said he's going to
try to get TLC to bring the Technic beams into bulk sales. I must admit,
I'm new to the movies and would like to trim some of my others so they
weren't so big. If you (or anyone) knows a good tutoring site, could you
send me a line??
Thanks,
Adrian
"Doesdigitals" <info@doesdigitals.nl> wrote in message
news:G8E79B.LnF@lugnet.com...
> very cool, and good quality! I wish I had such a great bridge for my
> traintrack (lack of bricks I'm afraid).
> Maybe you can make the filesize of your movie smaller. I don't see • anything
> happening in the movie the first two seconds or so and the last few • seconds.
> Why not cut these seconds off to make your movie shorter and your filesize
> smaller? Just a thought.
>
> Saskia
>
>
>
>
> Adrian Egli <aegli@san.rr.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> G8D09M.94K@lugnet.com...
> > Opps, I forgot to post the address.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3160
> > "Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:G8Cz6r.70r@lugnet.com...
> > > With the help of a friend (thanks Tim), I decided to try out posting a
> > > Quicktime movie of a LEGO train (the 4565) traveling on my bridge
> > > structures. I choose the smallest I had but it's still 9.5MB (sorry • about
> > > that).
> > >
> > > Enjoy
> > >
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Adrian Egli writes:
> Thanks for the thoughts. Tim Courtney said the same and said he's going to
> try to get TLC to bring the Technic beams into bulk sales. I must admit,
> I'm new to the movies and would like to trim some of my others so they
> weren't so big. If you (or anyone) knows a good tutoring site, could you
> send me a line??
Maybe someone in lugnet.publish.cinema can help.
(Cross posting and setting FUT.)
BEN GATRELLE
> > Maybe you can make the filesize of your movie smaller. I don't see anything
> > happening in the movie the first two seconds or so and the last few seconds.
> > Why not cut these seconds off to make your movie shorter and your filesize
> > smaller? Just a thought.
> >
> > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3160
> > > > With the help of a friend (thanks Tim), I decided to try out posting a
> > > > Quicktime movie of a LEGO train (the 4565) traveling on my bridge
> > > > structures. I choose the smallest I had but it's still 9.5MB (sorry
> > > > about that).
|
|
| |
"Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:G8EAo5.62L@lugnet.com...
> Thanks for the thoughts. Tim Courtney said the same and said he's going to
> try to get TLC to bring the Technic beams into bulk sales. I must admit,
> I'm new to the movies and would like to trim some of my others so they
> weren't so big. If you (or anyone) knows a good tutoring site, could you
> send me a line??
Yes - I'm headed to LEGO Direct this weekend (more on that later) and I will
mention the beams pack to them and try to find out more about bulk ordering and
their plans. I can't say very much about what I'm doing there because of the
NDA I've signed, though.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
|
|
| |
My Win98 does not play it...
what are the bridges like? Amny pictures?
Sonnich
Adrian Egli <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:G8D09M.94K@lugnet.com...
> Opps, I forgot to post the address.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3160
> "Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:G8Cz6r.70r@lugnet.com...
> > With the help of a friend (thanks Tim), I decided to try out posting a
> > Quicktime movie of a LEGO train (the 4565) traveling on my bridge
> > structures. I choose the smallest I had but it's still 9.5MB (sorry • about
> > that).
> >
> > Enjoy
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| |
> Maybe you can make the filesize of your movie smaller. I don't see anything
> happening in the movie the first two seconds or so and the last few seconds.
> Why not cut these seconds off to make your movie shorter and your filesize
> smaller? Just a thought.
>
> Saskia
If you are going to use Quicktime, the Sorenson Codec is the best. Just cut
the bit rate down fairly low. You can get it with Quicktime Pro.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in news:G8EAo5.62L@lugnet.com...
> > Thanks for the thoughts. Tim Courtney said the same and said he's going to
> > try to get TLC to bring the Technic beams into bulk sales...
> Yes - I'm headed to LEGO Direct this weekend (more on that later) and I will
> mention the beams pack to them and try to find out more about bulk ordering
> and their plans. I can't say very much about what I'm doing there because
> of the NDA I've signed, though.
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
Hmm. You couldn't drop some hints about tan train windows and brown 1xn
bricks whilst you're there too? So many European and colonial* steam-era
trains had this sort of colour scheme, and you just can't get the bits in
LEGO to do a decent job. And large wheels too... and connecting rods...
and... and... and... Seriously though, it would be nice to know how close
LEGO Direct are on delivering their plans for ordering any part, what with
the Service Packs having been out of action for some time now.
Anyway, Adrian - pretty good quality footage. It's a bit of a waste when
1/3 of the playtime is just a static view of the bridge though! Thanks for
the offer of e-mailing the footage, but I'd much rather download it on my
own than clog up the mail server. Attachments actually get expanded in
e-mail btw.
I'd love to see the trains using the spiral too. Are you planning to put
some more up?
Jason J Railton.
*e.g. UK, Germany, India and a little rebellious colony known as 'America' :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> > "Adrian Egli" <aegli@san.rr.com> wrote in news:G8EAo5.62L@lugnet.com...
> > > Thanks for the thoughts. Tim Courtney said the same and said he's going to
> > > try to get TLC to bring the Technic beams into bulk sales...
> > Yes - I'm headed to LEGO Direct this weekend (more on that later) and I will
> > mention the beams pack to them and try to find out more about bulk ordering
> > and their plans. I can't say very much about what I'm doing there because
> > of the NDA I've signed, though.
> >
> > Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> Hmm. You couldn't drop some hints about tan train windows and brown 1xn
> bricks whilst you're there too? So many European and colonial* steam-era
> trains had this sort of colour scheme, and you just can't get the bits in
> LEGO to do a decent job. And large wheels too... and connecting rods...
> and... and... and... Seriously though, it would be nice to know how close
> LEGO Direct are on delivering their plans for ordering any part, what with
> the Service Packs having been out of action for some time now.
Hmm...well, I'm not a train guy really, I don't know if the Train Summit
mentioned those or not. I'll try to print this out though and take it. I
don't even know what I want for my top bulk items yet....got a lot of
thinking to do between now and this weekend :)
xpost -> lego.direct
-Tim
|
|
| |
"Jason J. Railton" <j.j.railton@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:G8G2wy.KHv@lugnet.com...
> Anyway, Adrian - pretty good quality footage. It's a bit of a waste when
> 1/3 of the playtime is just a static view of the bridge though! Thanks • for
> the offer of e-mailing the footage, but I'd much rather download it on my
> own than clog up the mail server. Attachments actually get expanded in
> e-mail btw.
Yea, it's those static parts I don't like either. I'm going to see if
there's a Win. version of that movie editing program that Tim mentioned.
> I'd love to see the trains using the spiral too. Are you planning to put
> some more up?
As a matter of fact, I do. They're better but are larger (12MB) and have
less static scenes. I'll make some space on my Brickshelf address and
remove the first movie I put up so I won't be hohgging up so much space.
Adrian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > Hmm. You couldn't drop some hints about tan train windows and brown 1xn
> > bricks whilst you're there too? So many European and colonial* steam-era
> > trains had this sort of colour scheme, and you just can't get the bits in
> > LEGO to do a decent job. And large wheels too... and connecting rods...
> > and... and... and... Seriously though, it would be nice to know how close
> > LEGO Direct are on delivering their plans for ordering any part, what with
> > the Service Packs having been out of action for some time now.
>
> Hmm...well, I'm not a train guy really, I don't know if the Train Summit
> mentioned those or not. I'll try to print this out though and take it. I
> don't even know what I want for my top bulk items yet....got a lot of
> thinking to do between now and this weekend :)
>
> xpost -> lego.direct
> -Tim
Gosh, thanks. I wasn't sure whether I could expect that sort of lobbying to
be taken seriously! And I've clearly not been into trains for long enough
or I would have remembered to mention _matching_brown_doors_. :)
I'm a bit disappointed with TLC's support for steam trains actually. I know
that they want to be a global brand, and so they take a fairly generic
approach in all their models, including trains. It's then very difficult to
create a steam locomotive that won't look blatantly specific to one country
or another. It's also difficult to build a large model not based on long
wagon bogeys that can still take corners. But couldn't they try? I seem to
remember the faked pictures of 'new' sets had a fairly impressive
not-too-parochial steam engine.
Lately we've seen an influx of more subdued colour bricks (tan, brown, dark
green, dark grey) for more realistically coloured models - and less of
everything in primary colours. Could we not see this extended to trains
too? Not all models, obviously - I expect primary colours are part of the
appeal to children, and are also part of what we expect from LEGO sets.
But, it is a bit childish. The first thing many AFOLs do is take the sets
apart and build their own on the bases.
Was there much call for steam models at the Train Summit? Most of the
pictures I saw where of diesel and electric designs. I know there are
plenty of people out there valiantly forging driving wheels out of technic
gears and hubs, which they then have to keep well away from points and
crossings.
Jason J Railton.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> Was there much call for steam models at the Train Summit? Most of the
> pictures I saw where of diesel and electric designs. I know there are
> plenty of people out there valiantly forging driving wheels out of technic
> gears and hubs, which they then have to keep well away from points and
> crossings.
I'm under NDA so can't discuss exactly what was said about what we want.
But what do you think? You wouldn't expect that we would have asked for
things way different that what we asked for publicly in this group and
elsewhere, would you? If you did, you'd be confused. We were in part taking
what everyone said and reading it back, in part drawing on our surveys of
train club members, of the NMRA, of talking to hobbyshop owners, etc. (Yes
it was an honor to have been asked to go but it also was a lot of work)
Except for J2 (just kidding, sort of), we did our level best to leave our
emotions out of it and represent what we knew everyone wanted.
I'm under NDA so can't discuss what the responses from LD were.
But, look at the prior speculation on what sorts of development and
manufacturing costs TLC is likely to incur for various things, how many
people it takes to run a molding machine (I think we came up with somewhere
around .02-.1 person per machine), what sorts of runs are needed to amortise
tooling, etc, etc, etc... all stuff that we publicly speculated on, going in.
Then put that together with the fact that I made a big deal out of thanking
people for the high quality speculation. Do that and you might be able to
guess how accurate that speculation was.
I'll say this. We *thought* going in that new parts are harder to justify
than new colors for existing parts which are in turn harder than using the
old part in a previously used color. Now I *know* how hard new parts are.
Especially when you amortize across fairly small runs. Think about how many
copies of the landspeeder sold and you'll have an idea of what a fairly
large run is for a part.
Train drivers, I am sure you would admit, are likely to be small run items
compared to landspeeders. Even amortized over many years. Even if every
single AFOL buys 100 of them, which ain't gonna happen.
But do not abandon hope. As I said repeatedly before we met with LD, change
in large organizations happens incrementally. Prove the early steps and you
get more authority to do the more radical later steps. There was no doubt in
my mind that I'd be right about that before we met, and I'm just as certain
now as I was then.
Hopefully this answers your question AND Jon Kozan's too.
++Lar
|
|
| |
"Jason J. Railton" wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > > Hmm. You couldn't drop some hints about tan train windows and brown 1xn
> > > bricks whilst you're there too? So many European and colonial* steam-era
> > > trains had this sort of colour scheme, and you just can't get the bits in
> > > LEGO to do a decent job. And large wheels too... and connecting rods...
> > > and... and... and... Seriously though, it would be nice to know how close
> > > LEGO Direct are on delivering their plans for ordering any part, what with
> > > the Service Packs having been out of action for some time now.
> >
> > Hmm...well, I'm not a train guy really, I don't know if the Train Summit
> > mentioned those or not. I'll try to print this out though and take it. I
> > don't even know what I want for my top bulk items yet....got a lot of
> > thinking to do between now and this weekend :)
> >
> > xpost -> lego.direct
> > -Tim
>
> Gosh, thanks. I wasn't sure whether I could expect that sort of lobbying to
> be taken seriously! And I've clearly not been into trains for long enough
> or I would have remembered to mention _matching_brown_doors_. :)
>
> I'm a bit disappointed with TLC's support for steam trains actually. I know
> that they want to be a global brand, and so they take a fairly generic
> approach in all their models, including trains. It's then very difficult to
> create a steam locomotive that won't look blatantly specific to one country
> or another. It's also difficult to build a large model not based on long
> wagon bogeys that can still take corners. But couldn't they try? I seem to
> remember the faked pictures of 'new' sets had a fairly impressive
> not-too-parochial steam engine.
>
> Lately we've seen an influx of more subdued colour bricks (tan, brown, dark
> green, dark grey) for more realistically coloured models - and less of
> everything in primary colours. Could we not see this extended to trains
> too? Not all models, obviously - I expect primary colours are part of the
> appeal to children, and are also part of what we expect from LEGO sets.
> But, it is a bit childish. The first thing many AFOLs do is take the sets
> apart and build their own on the bases.
>
> Was there much call for steam models at the Train Summit?
Hey, don't get us wrong-- we shot for the moon! But Rome wasn't built in a
day, and everything we wanted won't be produced tomorrow, and maybe never. But
the Romans are breaking ground;-)
LTCs and LTDs (LEGO Train Dudes) caught the interest of LD and the ball is
starting to roll-- it's going to be up to us to support what LD will do, and
more will forthcome. Think snowball effect (easy for me; I am in the middle of
a 3 day snowstorm...;-()
-John
> Most of the
> pictures I saw where of diesel and electric designs. I know there are
> plenty of people out there valiantly forging driving wheels out of technic
> gears and hubs, which they then have to keep well away from points and
> crossings.
>
> Jason J Railton.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I'll say this. We *thought* going in that new parts are harder to justify
> than new colors for existing parts which are in turn harder than using the
> old part in a previously used color. Now I *know* how hard new parts are.
> Especially when you amortize across fairly small runs. Think about how many
> copies of the landspeeder sold and you'll have an idea of what a fairly
> large run is for a part.
>
> Train drivers, I am sure you would admit, are likely to be small run items
> compared to landspeeders. Even amortized over many years. Even if every
> single AFOL buys 100 of them, which ain't gonna happen.
>
> But do not abandon hope. As I said repeatedly before we met with LD, change
> in large organizations happens incrementally. Prove the early steps and you
> get more authority to do the more radical later steps. There was no doubt in
> my mind that I'd be right about that before we met, and I'm just as certain
> now as I was then.
One thing I would take as giving some hope to getting a new type of
train driver is that TLC has created special parts which have so far
only showed up in a single set, and not even a high volume set. I
suspect that if TLC gets a good feeling that a good steam locomotive
would benefit the whole trains line. Lets say they sell 1% as many steam
locos as lanspeeders, and lets say they don't even break even on the
development cost of the new part(s), but what happens to their bottom
line when many of those buyers are new customers? They could easily make
up the revenue from the other sets they sell those new customers a bunch
of other higher volume, more profitable sets.
Does this mean that a steam loco is likely for this year, probably
pretty unlikely. Probably not even next year, but perhaps 2003 will see
one IF TLC sees the potential.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> I'm under NDA so can't discuss what the responses from LD were.
Can I ask if something was discussed?
I have been thinking about the studios line. Every store is selling the
accessory sets, which I think are rather limiting in appeal if you don't
have the main set.
Why can't they do this with the train line, I would think that the train
line would have more cross appeal than the Studios line.
So was increasing the local availability of the train line discussed?
Rose
|
|
| |
"Jason J. Railton" <j.j.railton@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:G8G99D.BtE@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> > Hmm...well, I'm not a train guy really, I don't know if the Train Summit
> > mentioned those or not. I'll try to print this out though and take it. I
> > don't even know what I want for my top bulk items yet....got a lot of
> > thinking to do between now and this weekend :)
> >
> > xpost -> lego.direct
> > -Tim
>
> Gosh, thanks. I wasn't sure whether I could expect that sort of lobbying to
> be taken seriously! And I've clearly not been into trains for long enough
> or I would have remembered to mention _matching_brown_doors_. :)
Well, I'll do what I can, I've done lobbying for trains before, but I don't know
what I can do beyond the scope of what was discussed at the Train Summit. Plus,
I know I won't find out stuff about trains to the level of detail to what was
discussed last week, I'm there for an entirely different purpose. But, then
again, I have a lot to talk to them about with the broader community in mind
(not my specific niche) which I would like to be more informed/involved with in
the future. I've got a copy of your message printed with a few other materials
in prep for the meeting.
Even though I'm going there for a specific purpose, I know it will wind up being
a very educational experience as well. Unfortunately, from what I've heard
secondhand, Brad will be out of town :-( This will be the second time I've
barely missed him, oh well.
> I'm a bit disappointed with TLC's support for steam trains actually. I know
> that they want to be a global brand, and so they take a fairly generic
> approach in all their models, including trains. It's then very difficult to
> create a steam locomotive that won't look blatantly specific to one country
> or another. It's also difficult to build a large model not based on long
> wagon bogeys that can still take corners. But couldn't they try? I seem to
> remember the faked pictures of 'new' sets had a fairly impressive
> not-too-parochial steam engine.
Again, Train Summit fodder, and NDA'ed.
> Lately we've seen an influx of more subdued colour bricks (tan, brown, dark
> green, dark grey) for more realistically coloured models - and less of
> everything in primary colours. Could we not see this extended to trains
> too? Not all models, obviously - I expect primary colours are part of the
> appeal to children, and are also part of what we expect from LEGO sets.
> But, it is a bit childish. The first thing many AFOLs do is take the sets
> apart and build their own on the bases.
I like the realistic colored bricks. I especially like the gray and dark gray,
and of those colors especially plates, all shapes and sizes. I'm a
spacehead...and my larger space MOCs rely on large gray plates for surfaces,
etc. There's a great selection in Star Wars, but I'd like to see em available
bulk too. SW won't be on clearance forever...
> Was there much call for steam models at the Train Summit? Most of the
> pictures I saw where of diesel and electric designs. I know there are
> plenty of people out there valiantly forging driving wheels out of technic
> gears and hubs, which they then have to keep well away from points and
> crossings.
That'd be great if there was, and given the group of guys I'd imagine so. We'll
just have to wait and see :-)
-Tim
|
|
| |
r2 wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> > I'm under NDA so can't discuss what the responses from LD were.
>
> Can I ask if something was discussed?
>
> I have been thinking about the studios line. Every store is selling the
> accessory sets, which I think are rather limiting in appeal if you don't
> have the main set.
>
> Why can't they do this with the train line, I would think that the train
> line would have more cross appeal than the Studios line.
You are correct about the cross appeal of trains, which is one reason why
LD is interested in them.
> So was increasing the local availability of the train line discussed?
One point of fact-- remember, LD is about *direct* marketing to consumers,
bypassing the retail channel (I assume that is what you mean by "local
availability")
-John
>
>
> Rose
|
|
| |
John Neal wrote in message <3A832BFD.F599C578@uswest.net>...
> One point of fact-- remember, LD is about *direct* marketing to consumers,
> bypassing the retail channel (I assume that is what you mean by "local
> availability")
Yea, I'm just one of those people that likes to ogle over a set in person.
Rose
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> Well, I'll do what I can, I've done lobbying for trains before, but I don't
> know what I can do beyond the scope of what was discussed at the Train
> Summit. Plus, I know I won't find out stuff about trains to the level of
> detail to what was discussed last week, I'm there for an entirely different
> purpose. But, then again, I have a lot to talk to them about with the
> broader community in mind (not my specific niche) which I would like to be
> more informed/involved with in the future. I've got a copy of your message
> printed with a few other materials in prep for the meeting.
I'm very grateful, but I don't intend to cause any problems, particularly so
close following the Train Summit. It was just another suggestion, one among
many I'm sure. But, I would like to see those elements in those colours,
and I'm sure a lot of other people have their own ideas of elements in
certain (existing) colours they'd like to see. So, if those specific ones
get taken forward as a suggestion then great! For me, and for anyone else
who's trying to build in tan/brown 1xn. Thank you.
> > I'm a bit disappointed with TLC's support for steam trains actually...
> Again, Train Summit fodder, and NDA'ed.
Well, this probably was raised at the Train Summit, and satisfactory replies
may well have been given, and those attending may have come away with grins
from ear to ear, but they're unable to tell anyone any details. Does this
mean that from now on any discussion in lugnet.trains is immediately shot
down with the letters 'N.D.A.'? You might as well close the group down, if
that's the case. I'm not aiming this at you, Tim. Please don't take
offence. These are open messages to anyone reading the group. I also don't
mean to be bitter (despite having had a lousy couple of days). But, it
kills any discussion when a select few know some of the answers and just say
'I can't discuss that'. Don't then. But don't stamp on the discussion.
It's unlucky timing that my suggestions came after this event, but I'm not
going to apologise for them. Even if we all had been told everything that
TLC/LD has planned, we'd still want to discuss what's coming after that.
So what else is there left to discuss? Well, it took me a while to get into
trains because of the high start-up cost of a train set. Two decades ago
you could get a push-along engine, then some track if you wanted, then
motors, points, whole trains etc. if it really grabbed you. Nowadays, you
either spend a huge wad on a full set, or you go without. Every other theme
has small starter sets - the only small train sets are accessories to larger
ones. I'm sure there'd be more take-up if parents could buy something
simple, then get more if their kids get hooked.
Discuss.
Jason J Railton.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> Tim:
> > Jason:
> > > I'm a bit disappointed with TLC's support for steam trains actually...
> > Again, Train Summit fodder, and NDA'ed.
>
> Well, this probably was raised at the Train Summit, and satisfactory replies
> may well have been given, and those attending may have come away with grins
> from ear to ear, but they're unable to tell anyone any details. Does this
> mean that from now on any discussion in lugnet.trains is immediately shot
> down with the letters 'N.D.A.'?
I certainly don't think so! Discussion is great. Asking questions is great.
Intelligent speculation using what is publicly known and what business
literate people know about how businesses run is great. And you can divine
some remarkable things using just those techniques, if you're grounded in
reality.
It's just that certain things are off limit for certain people, that's all.
I know we all are trying to tell everyone as much of what we know as we can
without revealing things "before their time" or stealing LD's (well
deserved) thunder for announcements that they by rights ought to be the
first to announce.
But as someone said, while the discussion was wide ranging, we still don't
know everything, or all that much, even, in some areas.
Time will reveal all. (and change some of it. Think incremental and iterative)
> You might as well close the group down, if
> that's the case. I'm not aiming this at you, Tim. Please don't take
> offence. These are open messages to anyone reading the group. I also don't
> mean to be bitter (despite having had a lousy couple of days). But, it
> kills any discussion when a select few know some of the answers and just say
> 'I can't discuss that'. Don't then. But don't stamp on the discussion.
If my posts came off as "stamping on the discussion" (and I don't think they
did, but if...) I apologise, that was not at all my intent.
I am more excited than ever and am just bursting. But a lot of what we
"learned" we already knew. It was discussed here in advance. Certain people
derided the steps to reach the conclusions, but it was accurate enough.
> It's unlucky timing that my suggestions came after this event, but I'm not
> going to apologise for them.
Nor should you.
> Even if we all had been told everything that
> TLC/LD has planned, we'd still want to discuss what's coming after that.
Indeed.
> So what else is there left to discuss? Well, it took me a while to get into
> trains because of the high start-up cost of a train set. Two decades ago
> you could get a push-along engine, then some track if you wanted, then
> motors, points, whole trains etc. if it really grabbed you. Nowadays, you
> either spend a huge wad on a full set, or you go without. Every other theme
> has small starter sets - the only small train sets are accessories to larger
> ones. I'm sure there'd be more take-up if parents could buy something
> simple, then get more if their kids get hooked.
> Discuss.
I think that you're spot on in that sentiment. I dunno how much market there
is for push trains, though. If you assume power, you have a certain barrier
to entry in that you have fixed costs (a circle of track, controller, motor)
that any starter set has to have.
But the current line (at 6 items, all targeted at the same age range, plus
track/controller/parts) isn't broad enough and it isn't deep enough. By that
I mean it's targeted at a certain age level, and it doesn't have a lot of
items in it. I'd like to see both those things fixed. Time will tell if I
get my wish. LD, I know, is aware of our perception of the lack. That's in
part why we were there and why they pore over this group and support shows
and all the other stuff they do.
I don't expect LD to fill all the gaps "at once". I don't expect LD to fill
the gaps we want filled (the most) as the first gap filling they do. But
many small steps are easier than giant leaps. Think iterative and
incremental and remember you have to justify every step. Dislike it if you
want, but that's reality.
> Jason J Railton.
PS I never did say what a neat last name you have, you should have been a
trainhead from birth, you know...
++Lar
|
|
| |
Jason J. Railton wrote:
> So what else is there left to discuss? Well, it took me a while to get into
> trains because of the high start-up cost of a train set. Two decades ago
> you could get a push-along engine, then some track if you wanted, then
> motors, points, whole trains etc. if it really grabbed you. Nowadays, you
> either spend a huge wad on a full set, or you go without. Every other theme
> has small starter sets - the only small train sets are accessories to larger
> ones. I'm sure there'd be more take-up if parents could buy something
> simple, then get more if their kids get hooked.
Well, right now, you could put yourself a "push" train the following
way:
$45 3 3737 Train Accessories
$26 2 4520 Eight Curved Rails
-----------------------------
$71
You then use your existing collection to build an engine and two cars.
Unfortunately this points out the real flaw in the new Train
Accessories, with the old accessory packs you could have done:
$12 4 5304 Two Wheelsets
$9 3 5303 Buffers, Magnets, and Couplers
$2 1 5302 Two Bogie Plates
$3 1 5309 Wagon Plate
$26 2 4520 Eight Curved Rails
-------------------------------------
$54
This builds you 2 4 wheel cars and 1 8 wheel bogie car.
It would be a heck of a lot better though if a push train set was sold.
I suspect for $70, TLC could offer a push train with an engine and two
or three cars (mostly 4 wheel), an oval of track, and a few minifigs (a
good set would be to take 3225 and replace the train motor with two
wheelsets and an oval of track, which could probably be sold at
basically the same price).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > Well, right now, you could put yourself a "push" train the following
> way:
>
> $45 3 3737 Train Accessories
> $26 2 4520 Eight Curved Rails
> -----------------------------
> $71
>
> You then use your existing collection to build an engine and two cars.
>
> Unfortunately this points out the real flaw in the new Train
> Accessories, with the old accessory packs you could have done:
>
> $12 4 5304 Two Wheelsets
> $9 3 5303 Buffers, Magnets, and Couplers
> $2 1 5302 Two Bogie Plates
> $3 1 5309 Wagon Plate
> $26 2 4520 Eight Curved Rails
> -------------------------------------
> $54
>
> This builds you 2 4 wheel cars and 1 8 wheel bogie car.
>
> It would be a heck of a lot better though if a push train set was sold.
> I suspect for $70, TLC could offer a push train with an engine and two
> or three cars (mostly 4 wheel), an oval of track, and a few minifigs (a
> good set would be to take 3225 and replace the train motor with two
> wheelsets and an oval of track, which could probably be sold at
> basically the same price).
Excellent analysis, Frank! I just have to question whether people will pay
75 for a push train when for 60 more they can have the excitement of powered
operation.
Why did Duplo go powered? When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when
she was 2) it was unpowered. If they went powered for Duplo, I suspect that
the window for kids that can handle system but can't handle power is pretty
small. But I could be wrong...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > It would be a heck of a lot better though if a push train set was sold.
> > I suspect for $70, TLC could offer a push train with an engine and two
> > or three cars (mostly 4 wheel), an oval of track, and a few minifigs (a
> > good set would be to take 3225 and replace the train motor with two
> > wheelsets and an oval of track, which could probably be sold at
> > basically the same price).
>
> Excellent analysis, Frank! I just have to question whether people will pay
> 75 for a push train when for 60 more they can have the excitement of powered
> operation.
>
> Why did Duplo go powered? When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when
> she was 2) it was unpowered. If they went powered for Duplo, I suspect that
> the window for kids that can handle system but can't handle power is pretty
> small. But I could be wrong...
I suspect that an unpowered train wouldn't exist to serve the 'system OK,
power bad' market segment, but rather the 'train set under $120 (US)'. If
LEGO were able to release a complete train set (more than 1 car, and track
oval) for significantly under $100, this would, IMHO, significantly boost
the visibility of the train theme; for a few reasons...
A <$100 train set, especially around the $60 mark would be less of a risk
for the stores, so would be stocked better (I have yet to see a store other
than Zellers have more than 2 4561's on the shelf at any one time). Right
now, if I went down to my local TRU and bought a train, it would likely be
several weeks, if at all, before another one showed up on the shelf. Large
toy retailers are more willing to carry multiples of smaller sets; A $60
dollar set would probably have a shelf density of 3 or 4, making it much
less likely to disappear for long stretches of time.
As soon as a toy hits 3 digits (and for most families, well before that), it
pretty much leaves the realm of 'impulse buy'. Very few parents are willing
to spend $120 on a toy without having some reasurance that it will be around
the toy room for a while. That reasurance often comes in the form of
something similar, but cheaper.
At $60, a train set is within (although barely) the buying power of many
children, although it would typically be a 'save up for' thing. $120 leaves
the kids behind, and means a train set isn't very likely to happen without a
birthday or Christmas.
An unpowered train can be entrusted entirely to a child, without having to
check if the controller is actually off, or if the motor is left running on
the track all night. Any toy that involves plugging in is less attractive
to a parent, for any number of reasons.
James
|
|
| |
"Jason J. Railton" <j.j.railton@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:G8Hw6M.409@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Tim Courtney writes:
> > Well, I'll do what I can, I've done lobbying for trains before, but I don't
> > know what I can do beyond the scope of what was discussed at the Train
> > Summit. Plus, I know I won't find out stuff about trains to the level of
> > detail to what was discussed last week, I'm there for an entirely different
> > purpose. But, then again, I have a lot to talk to them about with the
> > broader community in mind (not my specific niche) which I would like to be
> > more informed/involved with in the future. I've got a copy of your message
> > printed with a few other materials in prep for the meeting.
>
> I'm very grateful, but I don't intend to cause any problems, particularly so
> close following the Train Summit. It was just another suggestion, one among
> many I'm sure. But, I would like to see those elements in those colours,
> and I'm sure a lot of other people have their own ideas of elements in
> certain (existing) colours they'd like to see. So, if those specific ones
> get taken forward as a suggestion then great! For me, and for anyone else
> who's trying to build in tan/brown 1xn. Thank you.
I'll see - but from what I've heard about who will be attending, it doesn't look
like its very possible. Causing problems - hmm, I doubt you'd cause problems
with a bulk parts request. I am saying though that I don't have very much to do
with trains (besides the fact that I like them), when there was a whole group of
serious trainheads there last weekend.
> > > I'm a bit disappointed with TLC's support for steam trains actually...
> > Again, Train Summit fodder, and NDA'ed.
>
> Well, this probably was raised at the Train Summit, and satisfactory replies
> may well have been given, and those attending may have come away with grins
> from ear to ear, but they're unable to tell anyone any details. Does this
> mean that from now on any discussion in lugnet.trains is immediately shot
> down with the letters 'N.D.A.'? You might as well close the group down, if
> that's the case. I'm not aiming this at you, Tim. Please don't take
> offence.
I understand, and no offense taken. I think Lar's reply to this was good.
He said that he is very excited about the meetings as well, but also think in
his shoes (and those of the others in attendance) he can't say anything about
it. I know that's a tough position to be in cause I'm in the same place right
now. I'll have to slap the letters N.D.A. on a few future posts and replies as
well (when replying to questions people have asked me), but that doesn't mean
discussion about those subjects get shot down.
> These are open messages to anyone reading the group. I also don't
> mean to be bitter (despite having had a lousy couple of days). But, it
> kills any discussion when a select few know some of the answers and just say
> 'I can't discuss that'. Don't then. But don't stamp on the discussion.
Well that's something I'll try to avoid.
> It's unlucky timing that my suggestions came after this event, but I'm not
> going to apologise for them.
You don't have to.
> So what else is there left to discuss? Well, it took me a while to get into
> trains because of the high start-up cost of a train set. Two decades ago
> you could get a push-along engine, then some track if you wanted, then
> motors, points, whole trains etc. if it really grabbed you. Nowadays, you
> either spend a huge wad on a full set, or you go without. Every other theme
> has small starter sets - the only small train sets are accessories to larger
> ones. I'm sure there'd be more take-up if parents could buy something
> simple, then get more if their kids get hooked.
I'm one of those who have gone without. I don't really have the money for a
train right now, and I'd much rather build spaceships, which is what I've been
into for many years now. Maybe someday when I have the money and trains are
more readily available and cheaper to enter, I'll get some. Between now and
then, I'm content to help out and go to train shows where LTCs are.
-Tim
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > It would be a heck of a lot better though if a push train set was sold.
> > I suspect for $70, TLC could offer a push train with an engine and two
> > or three cars (mostly 4 wheel), an oval of track, and a few minifigs (a
> > good set would be to take 3225 and replace the train motor with two
> > wheelsets and an oval of track, which could probably be sold at
> > basically the same price).
>
> Excellent analysis, Frank! I just have to question whether people will pay
> 75 for a push train when for 60 more they can have the excitement of powered
> operation.
> Why did Duplo go powered?
While we're asking, why did *Brio* go powered?? To me, Brio was the last hold
out of the old-school, traditional toy train. But have you seen Brio lately?
(Have you seen Brio *prices* lately?;) Not what we played with as kids! And
look at the knock-offs! Brio must be fighting for its proverbial life against
such inroads as the TtTE wooden trains. Heck, check out these:
http://www.woodentrain.com/subcat2results.tpl?cart=981739522132471&catsuid=4&category=Whittle%20Shortline%20Railroad&page=1
Movement is very seductive; and, generally speaking, I think kids prefer it
over push. We can say that we didn't have powered this or that when we were
kids, but I think it's due to technological advancements more than anything. I
think I would have enjoyed my Brio to be powered when *I* was a kid!
> When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when
> she was 2) it was unpowered. If they went powered for Duplo, I suspect that
> the window for kids that can handle system but can't handle power is pretty
> small. But I could be wrong...
Remember, much of marketing to kids means marketing to parents. If a parent
thinks it's cool, they'll buy it for their kid, no matter how inappropriate. I
have been guilty of this many times (started buying Model Team stuff for my
newborn daughter;-D
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > ...it kills any discussion when a select few know some of the answers and
> > just say 'I can't discuss that'. Don't then. But don't stamp on the
> > discussion.
>
> If my posts came off as "stamping on the discussion" (and I don't think they
> did, but if...) I apologise, that was not at all my intent.
It's not exactly the tone. I guess it's just that no-one else can really
follow an answer along the lines of 'I know, but I can't tell'.
> > ...
> > I'm sure there'd be more take-up if parents could buy something
> > simple, then get more if their kids get hooked.
>
> I think that you're spot on in that sentiment. I dunno how much market there
> is for push trains, though. If you assume power, you have a certain barrier
> to entry in that you have fixed costs (a circle of track, controller, motor)
> that any starter set has to have.
> > Jason J Railton.
>
> PS I never did say what a neat last name you have, you should have been a
> trainhead from birth, you know...
>
> ++Lar
Well, thanks Larry. I've always had model trains, just not LEGO ones
because they're too expensive. Of course, you're forgetting our very own
_night_ train head:
In lugnet.trains, James Brown writes:
> A <$100 train set, especially around the $60 mark would be less of a risk
> for the stores, so would be stocked better
Good point. I don't know of any stores around the South of the UK that
stock trains.
> An unpowered train can be entrusted entirely to a child, without having to
> check if the controller is actually off, or if the motor is left running on
> the track all night. Any toy that involves plugging in is less attractive
> to a parent, for any number of reasons.
Yes! Get 'em hooked as young as possible (sorry to re-order your post, but
I'll take this one last...).
> At $60, a train set is within (although barely) the buying power of many
> children, although it would typically be a 'save up for' thing. $120 leaves
> the kids behind, and means a train set isn't very likely to happen without a
> birthday or Christmas.
Pardon?!? I know you're said to have more disposable income in the US, but
I find it hard to believe that's the norm for kids. Now, Frank's analysis
of the cost of a push-along train was pretty good, but I did originally say
'Engine'. Something along the lines of <set:133> I had one without any
track - you can quite happily push it along the carpet. This would be
around the 15 quid / $20 point, which is what I mean by an affordable
startup. You could then get, say, a couple of wagons for the same price,
then go for the track. Then you get the motors, controller and other stuff.
Then, you can go on to some big unique full set as your save up / Christmas
/ Birthday blag.
Jason J Railton.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > At $60, a train set is within (although barely) the buying power of many
> > children, although it would typically be a 'save up for' thing. $120 leaves
> > the kids behind, and means a train set isn't very likely to happen without a
> > birthday or Christmas.
>
> Pardon?!? I know you're said to have more disposable income in the US, but
> I find it hard to believe that's the norm for kids. Now, Frank's analysis
> of the cost of a push-along train was pretty good, but I did originally say
> 'Engine'. Something along the lines of <set:133> I had one without any
> track - you can quite happily push it along the carpet. This would be
> around the 15 quid / $20 point, which is what I mean by an affordable
> startup.
This would be a great way to break in, and an even more affordable price point.
As to the income thing...That's what I meant by saying "barely" - 60 bucks
is a lot of money to a kid, but can be done; a $5 a week allowance is not
uncommon, I think (although I freely admit I might be out to lunch), so a
kid that was willing to save for a couple months (ie: *really* wanted that
train) could do it - right now, the cheapest a train can be had is $120,
which is way beyond the reach of your average kid, instead of being a stretch.
James
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Well, right now, you could put yourself a "push" train the following
> > way:
> >
> > $45 3 3737 Train Accessories
> > $26 2 4520 Eight Curved Rails
> > -----------------------------
> > $71
> >
> > You then use your existing collection to build an engine and two cars.
> >
> > Unfortunately this points out the real flaw in the new Train
> > Accessories, with the old accessory packs you could have done:
> >
> > $12 4 5304 Two Wheelsets
> > $9 3 5303 Buffers, Magnets, and Couplers
> > $2 1 5302 Two Bogie Plates
> > $3 1 5309 Wagon Plate
> > $26 2 4520 Eight Curved Rails
> > -------------------------------------
> > $54
> >
> > This builds you 2 4 wheel cars and 1 8 wheel bogie car.
> >
> > It would be a heck of a lot better though if a push train set was sold.
> > I suspect for $70, TLC could offer a push train with an engine and two
> > or three cars (mostly 4 wheel), an oval of track, and a few minifigs (a
> > good set would be to take 3225 and replace the train motor with two
> > wheelsets and an oval of track, which could probably be sold at
> > basically the same price).
>
> Excellent analysis, Frank! I just have to question whether people will pay
> 75 for a push train when for 60 more they can have the excitement of powered
> operation.
>
> Why did Duplo go powered? When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when
> she was 2) it was unpowered. If they went powered for Duplo, I suspect that
> the window for kids that can handle system but can't handle power is pretty
> small. But I could be wrong...
Of course the powered DUPLO train is battery powered. They do still have
a push train (though it doesn't come with track - a good decision for
DUPLO I think, at that age, kids may not need a track).
One thought I have is that many LTCs could probably put together low
cost "starter" sets to offer at shows (doing so would depend on the
ability for people to sell items from layout displays, or being able to
arrange with the sponsor to have the starter sets sold at a regular
dealer table [or in the case of one Raleigh show which is run by a club,
the sets could be sold on their club table]). I for example would be
able to contribute a motor or two. Someone else might be able to
contribute a controller. Wheels and some large plates or train plates
would be relatively easy to come up with. A circle of track of course is
trivial to come up with. We could possibly put together starter sets
which could be sold unpowered for $40-50 and powered for $70-90 or so.
Of course another thought would be for LTCs to as a club buy a handfull
of $60 train sets when the clearances occur, and then pass these along
at close to cost. I bet a $60 4565 or 4561 would be a pretty easy sell
at a train show...
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal wrote:
> One point of fact-- remember, LD is about *direct* marketing to consumers,
> bypassing the retail channel (I assume that is what you mean by "local
> availability")
I thought they were about direct contact, not just direct marketing.
Steve
|
|
| |
Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal wrote:
>
> > One point of fact-- remember, LD is about *direct* marketing to consumers,
> > bypassing the retail channel (I assume that is what you mean by "local
> > availability")
>
> I thought they were about direct contact, not just direct marketing.
> I didn't say "only";-) But all seriousness aside, you are correct,
> obviously. They also run CA. (although I am by no means an expert on the
> roles of LD)
-John
>
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
This may want to followup somewhere other than trains, but I can't decide
where...
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Why did Duplo go powered?
>
> John Neal wrote:
>
> While we're asking, why did *Brio* go powered?? To me, Brio was the last hold
> out of the old-school, traditional toy train. But have you seen Brio lately?
> (Have you seen Brio *prices* lately?;) Not what we played with as kids! And
> look at the knock-offs! Brio must be fighting for its proverbial life against
> such inroads as the TtTE wooden trains. Heck, check out these:
> http://www.woodentrain.com/subcat2results.tpl?cart=981739522132471&catsuid=4&category=Whittle%20Shortline%20Railroad&page=1
I gotta admit, these are really beautiful. And non-powered, btw.
> Movement is very seductive; and, generally speaking, I think kids prefer it
> over push. We can say that we didn't have powered this or that when we were
> kids, but I think it's due to technological advancements more than anything.
> I think I would have enjoyed my Brio to be powered when *I* was a kid!
I think you'd be wrong there. You think you'd enjoy it, but you wouldn't.
Because after turning the train on, what is there to do? Nothing, really.
Powering trains removes an entire level of interaction, and kids get bored
because they're no longer in control. This was confirmed to me anecdotally
by a fellow PNLTC member, who bought three powered engines for his three
boys, and found they completely stopped playing with Brio.
Yes, kids prefer to *buy* powered over push. But they prefer to *play* with
push over powered. Look at the sales of Hot Wheels vs. slot race sets. For
anyone who owned both, think back to how much time you spend crashing Hot
Wheels cars together, and how little time you spent with slot cars after you
got the set and played it a couple times. (No flames from slot car fans,
please...)
> > When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when
> > she was 2) it was unpowered. If they went powered for Duplo, I suspect that
> > the window for kids that can handle system but can't handle power is pretty
> > small. But I could be wrong...
>
> Remember, much of marketing to kids means marketing to parents. If a parent
> thinks it's cool, they'll buy it for their kid, no matter how inappropriate.
The other side of that is that if a kid thinks the advertisement or box is
cool, he'll want it, even if he'll never actually play with the actual toy
past the first week.
There's a real conflict in trying to create toys that are appropriate for
both kids and adults. For adults, more detail and more realism is important.
But for kids (and especially for young kids), realism decreases imagination.
A toy that makes engine noises will keep kids from going "Vroom vroom!" On
the other hand, Connor, my four-year-old, takes two 2x8 plates, makes a
cross, and plays with his new "airplane" for hours at a time. He imagines
passengers, crashes, sound-effects, and even dog-fights.
<short soapbox speech:> I think it's part of a parent's responsibility to
lead their children to toys that they will enjoy and/or learn from, and to
not just buy the toys they want. That's often a hard call. It's not unlike
LEGO's marketing data showing that kids want to buy Juniorized sets. LEGO
can certainly sell more this way, but that doesn't mean kids will play with
them more. <getting down from soapbox>
I feel like there's more to say about this, but I'm out of words.
Rick Clark
I was recently reminded of an excellent quote by Neil Gaiman, that seems
appropriate here:
"The cost of getting what you want is having what you once wanted."
|
|
|
