Miss Prism

I saw the purpose of this thread as being a useful and timely attempt to formulate some rules regarding RMweb imagery, and I think a lot of good progress has been made. Taking up Kenton's point though, a criticism I have of RMweb is that finding such rules involves wading through long threads like this, with its inevitable diversions into arcane territory. I hope this thread will not be locked until the concise version of the new rules, or at least a draft of them, has become available.

Martin has beaten me to the same question, but we also need to clarify any hotlinking etiquette in connection with the RMweb archive forum.

Where the uploader has allowed the sharing option, it seems logical that permission is implicit.

Try this for the hotlinking rule: "Except where an image has been uploaded to a site with provision for the onward use of that image without further requirement, a hotlinked image is not allowed unless the owner's consent has been obtained."

That's ok, as it is covered by Andy's "Hotlinking your own images from elsewhere (as long as any external site's rules permit this) is fine."

There is no dispute over the hotlinking of an RMweb-hosted image by another site where the image owner has given permission (and subject to the conditions of that external site of course). Where the image owner has not given permission and is unhappy about the situation is covered by my #7. Similarly, there is no dispute over the hotlinking on RMweb of an external image where the image owner has given permission, and in such cases it would be common courtesy to provide suitable attribution. (The first part of Martin's #17 takes the case a little further though.) Andy has clarified (#9) the hotlinking situation from another site where the image owner has given, by the nature of the site the image is posted on, an implied "permission in advance", and where the mechanisms of that site facilitate proper attribution. The grey area we are trying to clarify is a externally-hosted image hotlinked from RMweb and where that image owner has not given explicit prior permission. My apologies if I have broken current rules (reference please?), but to be clear, I have no strong feelings either way about a proposed rule on image hotlinking, although I feel RMweb would not be so 'content-rich' if a blanket ban were to be imposed. If it is not to be permitted (Andy's #3), then as I've already indicated (#4) I'm quite happy to amend such postings I've made to conform, but Andy's #9 clearly indicates a qualified retreat from that blanket edict. What we're trying to arrive at is an articulation that fits desirable/best practice. A couple of other observations: - RMweb's software doesn't help Andy's objectives. Currently, it's easier to hotlink an image than it is to do an inline image link. - To widen the subject, why the focus on images? Is not a thread on the 'Use of RMweb or external text' equally pertinent?

A fair point. That involves some judgement on the part of the poster though. What we are trying to arrive at here is whether the principle of hotlinking is acceptable, and, if it is, under what circumstances and conditions it is permissible.

Hmmm. So hotlinked images are ok provided they are properly attributed? (The fact that photobucket/flickr's syntax facilitates this mechanism is incidental and purely fortuitous.)

So the rule, in terms of what RMweb's responsibilities are, should perhaps be expressed as: "If other sites hotlink RMweb images without the consent of the original RMweb contributor, RMweb will support that RMweb originator in any request to remove copyright material."

(Miss P scuttles off to edit a thread.) I think a middle course might be preferable whereby someone else's hotlinked images are clearly marked as not being the owner of the hotlinker. The objective is understandable and fair, but unenforceable ("anyone"??) in practice.

Hotlinked images are a potential source of abuse. I hotlinked (note not 'uploaded') to a few (in a recent thread), and whilst copying the image url, or opening the url in a new tab, or inspecting its element, would reveal its source as not being mine, merely 'saving image as' would not. Guidance? Edit: the 3 images concerned have now been 'de-hotlinked'.

Nice to see the new Parkside Minks built up, Castle. Looking great. My only comment is about their axleboxes - I know the later 12T V14s had larger ones (9" x 4.5"), but those Parksides look the wrong shape and too big to me. (Also, check your s/c bufferhead diameter - should be 12".)

I'm not aware of available italic script transfers in any scale. (Unless your brakevan home happens to be a place called 'Tare' !) As for brakevan travels, I'm not qualified to judge. I think most modellers tend to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing, and just use whatever branding transfer they get in a kit. Brakevans were returned to their base depot to ensure the location didn't run out of them. Depots were usually the large mainline yards, and some locations are given in a file at the bottom of: http://www.gwr.org.uk/nobrakes.html For a branch line, the same brakevan was often used year in, year out, and might be branded e.g. 'Wenlock Branch'.

Depot branding appears on the 'middle section' of the van, on the plank adjacent to the midpoint of the bracing. It's shown on plate 624 of the Atkins et al GWR wagons bible. Here's a pic of Dave Perkins' 4mm model: http://www.gwr.org.uk/gallery3/dave011.jpg On this side of the van, the branding is on the right of the bracing midpoint - on the pic of your AA16 above, it would appear on the left of it. The original depot branding was an italic script. Quite when the later standard non-script lettering (as your AA3) was introduced on new vans is not clear, possibly 1900 (on AA1s), but there would have been no great rush to re-letter in-service vehicles of course. Incidentally, I couldn't find a 12039 in the AA16 diagram lists, but that doesn't mean to say there wasn't one.

My usual question, Ken: what does the loco weigh?

I've been concious of that for a while. Am awaiting several large round tuits. To be fair though, it is supposed to be "A beginner's guide to....", and is not supposed to cater for esoteric issues that obsess us nerds. It is difficult to strike a balance between what is readily digestable to a web viewer and the kind of detail contained in the reference books. It is even more difficult to present inferences, often contentious ones (!), from the reference books, so one has to tread cautiously.

Hartfield, Sussex. Toward the bottom of this page: http://www.derekhayw...HCJW6#!p=3&n=10 Click on the image and it can be enlarged. And count the bricks if you want!

Door strikers and bangers are a bit of a nightmare. For an early 04, I think they would have been fitted with round striker plates (on the 2nd plank) and the short 'stubbie' door bangers. Later 04s got the longer door bangers, still spaced the same as the short stubbies, but with the round striker plates moved up the 4th plank (plate 357 of the bible shows the modification very well, if that wagon can be assumed to be an 04), or with later long-strapping striker plates (as per the kit, which is for an 04 depicted at a much later date). I think the only wagons with a single door banger were the old 4-plankers grouped together under diagram O21, but they probably got those bangers only when they were forced to incorporate double-sided brake gear, so I suspect your 4-planker would not have had a banger in 1907.

Thanks for that. I encountered that GNSR kit thread this afternoon. Ignoring the surface quality difference between Shapeways and CWR for the moment, would you say the 'flatpack' approach was the better strategy for that type of shape?

Admittedly not over railway tracks, but this twin archer might provide some inspiration: