Subject:
|
Re: The Future of Trains
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:01:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15628 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Remko Stift wrote:
> ...In making TLC happy one should keep
> in mind that every product needs to earn its keep. Therefore I do not support
> the “lego trains are such good marketing tools” statement. So I drew up my wish
> list with keeping profit in mind. • ...
> Track:
> Plastic track which is downwards compatible and can be “electrified”. The 9v
> track is too expensive to produce because of the production step in which the
> conductive strip is clipped onto the plastic track. Lego can simply reduce costs
> by letting the AFOL clip the conductive strip onto the plastic track. OK, maybe
> a little redesign is necessary to make it easier to clip or slide them on but
> the strips themselves cost about 10 eurocents per 100 to make and could be sold
> in bulk bags. Funny thing is that I never understood why Lego designed new
> RC-track rather than producing 9V track without metal strips! Unless the 0,4 mm
Remko had a great idea about off-loading the "attaching metal strips to the
rail" to the user. Too bad that ship has likely sailed.
First, in defense of battery power, while a few folks have pointed to the
powered rails and said, "when we had powered rails we were like the other
modelers." I believe many garden railroaders are moving toward battery power, so
at least there is president (and perhaps lessons already learned).
Unless the battery trains are to-die-for, I suspect in the long run I'll either
stick with the old 9v (at least as long as I still have working 9v motors) or
see what sort of work-arounds people come up with to power the trains from the
track. I like big, heavy trains and I am only building 6 wide (my heaviest
needed 5 motors to pull it). But I am a little curious about the possibility of
bypassing the power loss from the rail.
In addition to the points raised in this thread already, I am a little concerned
about the prospect of the batteries for two more reasons. The first is recharge
time, could the batteries be recharged in about the same amount of time it took
to discharge them? (I'm sure for some batteries yes, others no) At a show it
would be no fun to have to charge the train for 3x longer than the run time you
had from it. Obvious solution, buy more batteries... but that leads to the
second concern, cost. One year ago, if I wanted to build a powered locomotive at
retail prices, it would have cost me:
US$25 for the motor
US$15 for the train wagon base
plus whatever decoration I may come up with (e.g., another $20 for the BNSF or
Super Chief)
Two years from now, I would likely have to buy similar to the above, plus a
battery pack. If it is a high performance battery pack, it could be as much as
US$50. Doubling the base cost of a locomotive. If the entry cost were that high
when I started, I probably would never have gotten into Lego trains.
I suspect Lego will have to lean towards expensive batteries, but I hope they
balance it by trying to keep the cost of the motors down. In other words, keep
the cost of the trains close to what they were and consider the profit model
from AFOLs playing with trains to come from all of the additional lego we buy to
decorate our layouts, etc. (give away the handles and make the profits on the
razor blades... well, okay, do better than break even, but don't go expecting a
bionacle-like profit from the train heads).
Benn
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Future of Trains
|
| Hi Bryan, A survey based on wish lists could help Holger and Steve communicate with TLC especially if the results of the survey not only show products which will make the Lego train fan happier but also products which will be profitable for TLC. (...) (17 years ago, 17-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
124 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
