Subject:
|
Re: Got NMRA? (was Re: New Interurban/Trolley model, perfect for those downtown scenes)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:30:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4062 times
|
| |
|
|
Even though I agree that we (LTCs) don't "need" the NMRA, I do enjoy attending
the meetings here locally. I find it very educational and really pick up a lot
of good ideas that I might have missed.
I do understand that a good bit of the topics and workshops don't apply to
LEGO trains, but I don't really find it a waste of time.
At first they were very reluctant when I brough in LEGO trains to some of
the "show in tell" sessions, but now it seems they look forward to seeing what
I bring. Every month they have a "theme of the month" and I try to find or
build the a LEGO model to go with the theme. Last month I was at a loss, I
just couldn't figure out how to make a weathered boxcar and keep it "pure".
jt
In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> >
> > To your point about the NMRA and AFOL sentiment, I think you may be on to
> > something. I don't think John Neal was a model railroader, although I could • be
> > wrong. Or Mike Poindexter either, and those are the names that come to mind • as
> > thought leaders in the "we don't need the NMRA" camp.
>
> I was never formally associated with the NMRA, although I grew up with model
> trains (my dad had a Marklin table layout) along side of LEGO. Never really
> remember seeing a LEGO train until about 1986.
>
> But as far as the NMRA goes, here is my feeling. If TLC decides to step up to
> the bat and invest some serious effort into the Trains theme, then I think • that
> we would be okay on our own and wouldn't need the NMRA. We could become a • SIG I
> guess, but would keep to ourselves and continue to show at NMRA and
> other model railroad shows.
>
> BUT, if TLC bails on Trains, then I think we should kiss the NMRA on the lips!
> If TLC refuses to produce the basic elements needed to sustain a LEGO train
> hobby, then I'd be the first one on the horn to Kadee to try and convince • them to
> produce LEGO compatible trucks, couplers, and track. I would lobby heavily to
> all Train AFOLs to adopt "0" scale, which would instantly make it easier for
> manufacturers to produce components for us.
>
> For instance, Kadee could modify an existing O scale truck to accept a 2x2 • plate
> with pin on top-- no need to worry about tubes and studs and patents and all- • -
> we would just superglue it and viola!- new LEGO element. It would then • behoove
> us to toss around any influence we have as a group to convince manufacturers • who
> normally cater to model railroaders that we are a viable market-- we're • dealing
> with a toy, kids will be drawn to the hobby, the NMRA is graying, blah, blah,
> blah, etc.
>
> Of course, this would be a huge step in a very different direction from where
> most of us are now, especially with respect to purity issues.
>
>
> > Hm... wonder if we could get Kevin L to make it a survey topic.
>
> Yeah, that's a great idea-- poll whether or not someone would accept non-LEGO
> components designed to be used with LEGO if TLC discontinued the Trains
> theme, or would they continue to remain "pure".
>
> <pause> And the real crime here is the TLC could do all of the things we want
> *so* easily! I'm thinking, what if all of the time and energy that was • expended
> on ZNAP had been directed into Trains.... {:~^(
>
> -John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
70 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
|
|
|
|
