Subject:
|
Re: Train Purity (was Got NMRA? (was....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:52:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswestANTISPAM.net
|
Viewed:
|
1690 times
|
| |
|
|
Dan Parker wrote:
> In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
>
> ....whether or not someone would accept non-LEGO
> > components <snip> or would they continue to remain "pure".
>
> > -John
>
> Hey, the concept of 'purity' itself could be greatly debated. What's the
> difference between string supplied in the Pirate sets and track used for train
> sets? Don't both support construction-use-operability of the set in question
> equally well? What is so "LEGO" about the string? If I could use an non-LEGO
> equivalent here, couldn't I use an equivalent track such as O-gauge? If not
> merely a replacement, would non-LEGO elements be acceptable if they
> actually 'improved' playability?
>
> One could also compare a rumored demise against the plight experienced by
> Standard Gauge toy trainers (the real big trains from the early part of the
> century). Hey, these guys mix/match stuff from various manufacturers, often
> with a great measure of freedom -- and as an accepted norm.
>
> Iow, 'purity' is a sliding line, and I'd support adapting O-equipment if TLG
> bailed on us.
Wow, Dan, I am pleased and surprised by your response. For some reason, I got
the feeling that the PNLTC would be "pure" to the end, no matter what the outcome
(or perhaps yours is a minority voice?).
I have a feeling that the sentiments of AFOLTs will be mixed-- half considering
LEGO trains just "toys" and therefore the pursuit of components and capabilities
beyond the production of TLC unnecessary. I would feel that way as well, if we
were talking about, say, Duplo trains. Now, *that's* a toy in my mind (BTW I
find it ironic that the coolest train hood ever made by TLC came out this year in
*Duplo*-- 8 wide, too;-)
The other half are probably either AFOLTs who have been involved in some way in
model railroading, or AFOLTs who have been turned on by the MOCs of these AFOLTs
over the past few years. These folks know how cool trains can be and the joys of
prototype modeling. These people are attempting to creatively combine 2 distinct
and separate hobbies, and the results are very pleasing, IMO.
It's too bad in my mind that TLC cannot recognize the potential here, because all
things being equal, I'd certainly opt to stay "pure" (meaning if TLC produced the
things we wanted and other companies produced the things we wanted, I'd buy
TLC's). But I'm afraid this will not be the case (that TLC will produce the
things we want, or even continue producing at all).
-John
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Train Purity (was Got NMRA? (was....
|
| I may well be a unique voice within PNLTC but one never knows..... Actually, PNLTC is nearly 30 members now and thus many opinions are represented. We concur on many issues. Btw, I view it as currently convenient to model 6- wides (maybe it's the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Train Purity (was Got NMRA? (was....
|
| In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes: ....whether or not someone would accept non-LEGO (...) Hey, the concept of 'purity' itself could be greatly debated. What's the difference between string supplied in the Pirate sets and track used for train (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
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
|
|
|
|
