John Isherwood

There is a dedicated thread for the Advertising debate - from which I am now excluded for voicing politically incorrect sentiments. You have been warned! CJI.

Several had the running gear removed; were filled with concrete; had a bufferbeam mounted halfway up the end; and were used as bufferstops! A practical use for an out-of-period / poor running Ratio kit? John Isherwood.

Me too - brought up on the Midland Mainline, and spotting in the early 60s at Rugby, Nuneaton and Birmingham (New Street and Snow Hill), Mk1s were the staple of the principle trains - ie. the one's that attracted most attention, due to the prestige of the locos at the head of the train. John Isherwood.

I'd rather hoped that there would be other MRJ subscribers here who might press AGREE - thereby letting anyone here with a connection to MRJ that there was some depth of feeling on the subject. Apparently, I misjudged the mood! John Isherwood.

To those who do run MRJ - NOT Simon, You have a lot of loyal support amongst MRJ subscribers - but it is unsustainable nowadays to have no electronic point of contact. Moreover, it would seem that your refusal to do so is not only inconveniencing the readership, but also an unconnected third party. It seems that Simon went above and beyond to assist you at a difficult time; the least that you can do is to relieve him of this unwonted burden. John Isherwood, (A reader / subscriber since Issue 0, but somewhat disappointed in MRJ's current business practices).

I'm surprised that they let you contact him in the secure unit. CJI.

DELETED

Do these designers actually consider the routes that the future users are likely to wish to take? I spent 40+ years designing similar schemes, and the first thing that I considered were the 'desire lines' for the various categories of road users. I despair !! CJI.

Errrr? All over Scotland - at a stretch - but surely very uncommon in England and Wales; at least during the BR period? Checking - all bar one were in Scotland in 1961, and the single exception was at Carlisle! CJI.

One has to ask - what is it doing there in the first place? Wh is ever going to maintain it? Thoughtless design, IMHO. CJI.

If you ever need to renumber WD / LMR locos or stock, I can supply the transfers - see Sheet BL161 at https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm . John Isherwood.

4mm. CJI.

On that showing, it could be worse I suppose - but not much! CJI.

Why? CJI.

The latter two photos were almost certainly taken during WW1 in France or Belgium; note the military presence and the Continental rolling stock. CJI.

A link within a link, published on RMweb, led me to this : - https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4960216 ...... and that caused me to research the prototypes - LMS Diagrams 1669, 1893/4 & 1941/2 iron ore hoppers; (also used by BR at least for limestone traffic). As a direct consequence I present my latest addition to the Cambridge Custom Transfers range :- I will be posting full details at https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm within the next few minutes. John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

I have received a BACS payment from a P. Read, but no covering email. If you are the P. Read in question, or think that you know that person, please PM me, or contact me at cctrans@hotmail.com or cctransuk2020@gmail.com . John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

A further authorised photo of the completed model with Cambridge Custom Transfers applied. John Isherwood.

Needs another bollard between the kerb and the trench in the footway. CJI.

I shall not pursue the matter further - either at this time or in future; it's a waste of my time. Suffice to say that, as I use Firefox, I have adjusted the setting to block trackers - which should also block the advertisements. CJI.

I have received a BACS payment from a B. C. Baker - but no accompanying e-mail order. If you are the B. C. Baker in question, or know that person, please contact me via PM, or at cctrans@hotmail.com or cctransuk2020@gmail.com . John Isherwood, Cambridge Custom Transfers.

Nothing more than I anticipated. BRM acquired RMweb - a non-subscription, non-advertising forum for commercial reasons; to raise the profile of BRM. Of course, such an acquisition would come with recurring costs over and above the deal reached with the former forum owner. In order to offset these recurring costs, BRM introduced more and more adverts and a premium subscription service. I do not believe that any of the above is other than a true reflection of fact. A further fact is that some forum members object to the introduction of the latest tranche of intrusive advertisements, which are also displayed contrary to the conditions stated by the person responsible for their introduction. I do not feel that, in the light of the above, it is unreasonable to express some dissatisfaction. ..... and no, I do not wish to rescind my forum membership; I clearly set down the condition under which I might do so. John Isherwood.

Simple - I like to discuss model railway related matters with like-minded individuals. I wouldn't pay a subscription to join a club to do this, and if RMweb became subscription-only, I would rescind my membership. If a model railway forum was run by a person with no commercial interest in the subject, I might well contribute to the running costs. BRM did not acquire RMweb for altruistic motives - it saw commercial possibilities and made a commercial decision to become involved. Fine - but now that they find that they have made a rather expensive acquisition, I do not feel under any obligation to subsidise them. CJI.

Biting off more than you can chew? CJI.

Why is it that the owners of RMweb regularly feel the need to alienate as many members as possible in the shortest possible time? In common with many other members, I am disinclined to pay a subscription for a forum that was acquired for commercial reasons. It is clearly apparent that these regular attempts to generate more revenue from RMweb are aimed at offsetting the inevitable costs of owning such a website. Surely, a little due diligence prior to acquiring the forum would have given an idea of the costs that would be incurred. ..... or perhaps the acquisition was intended from the outset to be an opportunity to generate revenue from the membership via a subscription and / or advertising? Whatever, current policy is doing nothing whatsoever to enhance the public image of BRM and its publishers. Food for thought? CJI.