To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trainsOpen lugnet.trains in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / 8684
8683  |  8685
Subject: 
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:20:24 GMT
Reply-To: 
johnneal@uswest.netANTISPAM
Viewed: 
988 times
  
Mike Walsh wrote:

"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A32A16E.30CC5580@uswest.net...
Some questions which I would like all LTDs (LEGO Train Dudes) to ponder
and discuss:

What if the guy/gal in charge of designing LEGO trains posted here and
asked, "Should we continue to design LEGO trains 6 wide or begin to
design them 8 wide?"  What would be your response?  Would you care
necessarily?  What if he/she also said, "We're also going to offer
larger radius track curves, new points, DCC; eventually the works."
Would that influence your preference between 6/8 wide?

Or, if TLC just out of the blue started producing 8 wide trains, how
would you feel about it?  Would you just accept it and build from there,
or would you feel that 6 wide was better and consider it another bad
move by TLC?  Or would you just be happy that TLC was producing more
trains again-- 6 wide, 8 wide--whatever?

I have a sense of how people feel about the subject, but I wanted some
direct feedback to see whether or not I am all wet.  These are purely
hypothetical questions:-)

-John


I'd prefer them to stay 6-wide.  Moving to 8-wide would likely mean at least
a 33% more bricks to build a train which means the cost would go up a fair
amount.  There are a lot of good 6-wide designs, I not sure I see any real
benefit to TLC for moving to 8-wide.  I suspect that staying with 6-wide
will be a better business decision for TLC and allow them to serve a larger
market.  When "toys" get in the three digit price range there are a lot of
people who won't even consider them as a purchase.  Now if TLC wants to go
after the model railroading market then changing to 8-wide probably makes
sense but that would be a divergence from their primary business.

This is my whole point!  Are people happy with TLC producing "toy" trains, or
would people like to see a move on the part of TLC to go to the next level of
detail and sophistication in the trains theme!  I hear a lot of people saying
that they want a larger radius curves, DCC, motorized points, etc.  But if you
are satisfied with LEGO trains as "toys", why desire "model railroad"
appointments?  This seems a little inconsistent to me.

And BTW, I am not considering the benefits or "business decisions" of TLC; I am
asking about what is most beneficial *to us* as consumers.  If it is a
divergence from their primary business, it will be because that is what *we*
wanted, not what *they* want.

-John

I'd rather see TLC put some resources into better track configurations,
flexible track, multiple radius curves, "X" crossings, and points that allow
parallel tracks to lie closer to one another (like the 12V points).  I'd
also like to see LEGO release individual cars as just complete trains.  If
they were available in regular retail stores at a $20-$40 price range
(depending on complexity of course), I imagine my impulse buying would
result in a lot more total train expenditures than I currently do.

Mike - mike_walsh@mindspring.com



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
 
In lugn (...) Because no one else even comes _close_ to the price that Lego have for a 1/4"-1/2" model range. Old Hornby O goes for astronomical prices, new Lionel is just about as bad! (I mean, the current production hudsons are $500 USD...not in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
  Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
 
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A33E582.4335F9...est.net... (...) least (...) fair (...) real (...) larger (...) of (...) go (...) makes (...) or (...) of (...) saying (...) you (...) As someone who builds 'toy trains', I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
 
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A32A16E.30CC55...est.net... (...) I'd prefer them to stay 6-wide. Moving to 8-wide would likely mean at least a 33% more bricks to build a train which means the cost would go up a fair (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)

42 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR