Reorte

Doesn't sound right, I'm not getting any of those with RMWeb whitelisted in the adblocker (unless there's a browser setting that's preventing them).

I can understand locking a thread when things are getting heated and tempers frayed. Whilst there's definitely a case of deleting a few posts when that happens locking the thread (at least temporarily, and it's fair enough not to expect mods to keep track of every one but instead only reopen upon request) gives a chance for things to cool down.

See numerous comments elsewhere in the thread and elsewhere from various people; I'm very much in the camp of would be quite happy to pay something but less for no adverts but aren't interested in the rest of what that buys (and as long as it's not just using intrusive in-the-way adverts to persuade people). Hell, I'd even pay a bit if it meant the adverts were for model rail stuff only; it's been said that that doesn't pay enough on its own buy maybe combined with a smaller payment, although I appreciate the admin and organisation of implementing that may well make it simply cost more to the site overall and hence not be worth it (I'd also prefer not to have it announced that I am a gold member if I did).

The impression generally given is one of being entirely happy to accept money from advertisers, criticise people who block them, and not be the slightest bit concerned as to whether it's a matter of overall gain or loss to the advertiser; the "we only get paid for what's delivered" overlooks that really internet advertising isn't actually all that targetted and unlike, say, TV advertising stands a much better chance than usual of missing the mark (but advertisers tolerate that due to being able to cast a wide net cheaply). I don't have a problem with it being a source of payment for a site but I do with double standards. Disagreeing does not imply an lack of understanding. Claiming such overlooks why some people block adverts in the first place - are those people really likely to respond positively? For people as a whole that may be a valid claim but it breaks down when having a go at people using adblockers. FWIW I have RMweb whitelisted (although Im trying to block the videos - yes, I know they're just a test, I've seen the banner).

As long as people respond positively and buy. There's a lot of "chuck adverts everywhere in the hope some will pay off" about it; they'll know that some will end up in places where it won't pay, it's only because it's impractical and will probably cost more than it saves that they won't narrow them down at not pay such places when it comes to online ads (because they don't buy advertising space on a per-site basis). But is there really much difference between taking advertising money that you know won't pay off the advertiser, and blocking adverts?

This is all making me feel I should get back to doing something...

Magazines don't cost zero to run, any more than a forum does.

For a site like this (not just this) to survive it needs a steady stream of new members. That'll probably reduce new members to a tiny trickle. Blanking the whole page won't make people turn off the adblocker, it'll make them go elsewhere (if the adblocker software hasn't worked a way around it). A level of that is tolerable (plenty of people just cost sites money anyway) but it won't survive like that. IMO the majority of people are happy enough to have advertising as long as it's not intrusive, so it's all just about hitting the balance. I think there's some irony in asking people to view ads so a site gets payment for showing an advert that's very likely to not get a positive response, so it's just costing the advertiser money...

I've been using contactless a lot throughout Covid but have pretty much drifted back to cash for small transactions now. It's good to have alternative options but I'm a firm believer in cash being the only one you can expect to be available (for the sort of prices we're talking about here).

Several roving bridges further down my local canal (the High Peak), although the junction near the top end of it (Bugsworth / Whaley Bridge end) just has an iron footbridge and a tunnel under the canal for the horses. The ramp down to the tunnel is now a handy access for Tesco. The story goes that the horses were so used to it that they could be unhitched and left to walk down, through, and back up the other side without being lead; presumably the crew had to drag the boat across by hand using the footbridge.

I think compression will be inevitable, it can be all about what you want to select from the prototype. Easier said than done of course, hard to get over the desire to somehow fit it all in in a way that would only be possible with a Tardis. The answer might be to invent something smaller and fictional based on the real-world examples that tweak your interest, that way there may be less of the nagging "it's not quite right because I've left this and that out" feeling.

There needs to be some level of balance. Any site like this will need a steady stream of newcomers if it is to have a long-term future, and even if they'll end up being happy to pay directly they still need some time before reaching the point where they decide it'll be worthwhile. Therefore I think free access is required, which has to be paid for somehow, and without it putting people off, which too much advertising can do. I'm sympathetic towards anyone having to try to find that balance.

Perhaps not quite what you're after but at Buxton the LNWR and Midland stations were right next to each other (and built to the same design, the LNWR one is the surviving current station). Ticks your urban terminus too.

Says it's the M25 at Colne Brook, so not a canal (although it might be a navigable river used as one for all I know), but nevertheless the OS shows a public footpath there.

Some irony in the name there!