Subject:
|
Re: LEGO trains...The Future of Model Railroading?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 05:37:02 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(johnneal@uswest)avoidspam(.net)
|
Viewed:
|
846 times
|
| |
|
|
Jim Rorstrom wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> >
> >
> > Jim Rorstrom wrote:
>
>
> > > It would be interesting to hear from someone modeling N scale back in the 60's
> > > when it was considered a toy by the model railroad establishment. It would
> > > really help if the NMRA recognized us (BIG STEP).
> >
> > What exactly did you have in mind?
>
> Have Lego listed as a special interest group, for example.
>
> > The president already told the GMLTC that what
> > we were doing was just as valid as what anyone else was doing at the NMRA
> > convention and personally invited all of us to join the org.
>
> Has anyone joined. Will be interesting to see how the membership reacts.
>
> > > We are in a unique position in model railroading having only 1
> > > supplier.
> >
> > Very unique. In fact, what if Mega Blocks came out with trains tomorrow? Would we
> > rush to buy them? I think a lot of us (including me) would have a juicy dilemma.
> > There is something to be said for an *ALL* LEGO layout. Stray too far from that,
> > or stray at all, and then the purpose becomes muddled-- if you want all of that
> > other stuff in model railroading, then why not stick to model railroading?
> >
> > > Other
> > > scales/types have at least limited competition. As frustrating as it is for us
> > > Lego is not compelled to be responsive to our needs and desires. If I were the
> > > a manager of Lego I would think it would make long term bussiness sense,
> > > however. The fact is if Lego is not responsive there is no one to pick up the
> > > ball and do it better. Therefore we should continue to do what we are doing (I
> > > hope to do) with Lego train clubs, GATS and so on. If we continue to increase
> > > our visibility in a positive way Lego should eventually respond.
> >
> > Should, but let's not hold our breath. And let's keep as "pure" as we can.
>
> Did I suggest that there should or would be another supplier? No. It is
> simply a fact of life. Lego can have a like it or leave it attitude and there
> is little we can do about it.
You are right. And that is only because we as AFOLs have decided that we will build
with LEGO exclusively which, IMO, severely limits our bargaining power. They know we
will keep coming back regardless of what they do. But that is *our* choice.
> Hopefully, of course, this won't be the case.
> My statements were in reponse to what John Clark wrote concerning Lego's
> marketing stratagy (attitude 2) so, I'm not sure where the "if you want the
> other stuff in model railroading..." statement comes from. If I put this
> together with "let's keep as "pure" as we can" I get a picture of an exclusive
> club where everyone sits around discussing how exclusive they are. The very
> thing I hope we are trying to get away from (attitude 1).
I'm sorry if I was being obtuse:-( What I meant by the "other stuff" comment was
this: we are severely constrained by the product TLC puts out. Some have decided to
"augment" their LEGO trains with DCC controllers, etc and other such non-LEGO ideas.
What I am saying is that I would like to see LEGO train clubs stick to what is
available from TLC and work *within* those confines, however unpleasant and limiting at
times that can be. If you want to be able to remotely uncouple, or run separate
engines at the same time, or whatever, figure out how to do it with LEGO, not with help
from existing MRR gear. *That's* what I mean by "pure" -- using only LEGO items. It
wasn't meant as a description of attitude or exclusivity.
> > >
> > > This may be a sensitive topic for those without kids but I think involving kids
> > > is pivotal for the success of Lego trains. They are the trump card we hold
> > > when compared to most other scales/types. I think the kid's areas are a great
> > > idea. Better yet would be for adult train club members to involve their kids
> > > and possibly friends in the design and operation of these kids areas. I
> > > realize this would be a bit of a streach for those not used to working with
> > > kids but, I think we have a unique opportunity here. I would be interested in
> > > positive and negative experiences LTC members out there have had with kids
> > > involvement.
> >
> > For the GMLTC, it is *always* positive.
>
> Not the issue, I never thought overwise, read above. I'm interested in
> feedback from LTC members that have worked with kids.
Are you talking about having kids as members? If that is the case then I think that is
not a good idea at all for a myriad of reasons. I do, however, bring my son (age 10)
to shows and he loves it. He has built with the GMLTC and even has served as gopher
for the great Larry, but to have a kid like him participate as a regular club member
would seem to me impossible.
Our focus at the GMLTC is directed at the kids *at the shows*. We try to light the
fire, it is up to them to keep it burning.
-John
>
>
> - Jim
>
> ----
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO trains...The Future of Model Railroading?
|
| (...) Have Lego listed as a special interest group, for example. (...) Has anyone joined. Will be interesting to see how the membership reacts. (...) Did I suggest that there should or would be another supplier? No. It is simply a fact of life. Lego (...) (25 years ago, 22-Nov-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
