Jump to content
 

Prototype for everything corner.


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

I was looking for some pics of Deltics at Bradford Interchange and it seems that the King Cross to Bradford trains regularly had two restaurant cars (RMB & RU???) which seems a bit OTT for a train with only five passenger coaches!

 

55 007 'Pinza' races towards Peterborough on the 15.45 King's Cross - Bradford

 

55009

 

 

2 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 That doesn’t look like an RMB the windows are wrong, rather a fully seated Mk1 RSO(?) for meal service.

Mk1 RKB (kitchen and buffet) with probably an RUO for dining (48 loose seats in 2+1 layout).

There were RSOs around but the ER seemed to favour the RUO.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
38 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Facebook account needed.

 

Why not get a Facebook account then you can see the occasional item like this without having to broadcast to everybody that a Facebook account is needed with the implication that you ''Don't do Facebook" ?

 

If you don't like Facebook, it's not compulsory to use it for anything else.

 

 

Rant over ;)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmmm ................. why the rant? I don't do Facebook nor Twitter. I happen to prefer my privacy as I expect many others do who visit here. Just sayin'.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 15
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/04/2021 at 08:11, melmerby said:

Is it a train?

Is it a bus?

 

 

It's the "New Shuttle", a dinky little gadgetbahn tacked onto the sides of the Shinkansen viaduct from Omiya Station, to the north of Tokyo, see e.g.:

 

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ファイル:New_Shuttle_Ina_Line.JPG

 

First stop north of Omiya is the JR East railway museum: https://www.railway-museum.jp/e/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

Why not get a Facebook account then you can see the occasional item like this without having to broadcast to everybody that a Facebook account is needed with the implication that you ''Don't do Facebook" ?

 

If you don't like Facebook, it's not compulsory to use it for anything else.

 

 

Rant over ;)

Some of us have had to deal with the consequences of Facebook's indifference to the suffering it caused. Twice I've had to deal with almost suicidal students because of what appeared on it, and there was no help from Facebook. You use if you want; there are others who will not support such a mercenary which looks for profit out of young peoples' misery.

 

You get on with it, but don't preach to us.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 9
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Why not get a Facebook account

By consenting to use FB, you are consenting to allowing them to track you wherever you go on the Internet, even when you are not logged in to FB, which I personally find odious in the extreme - but obviously lots of sheeple don't...

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, Philou said:

Ummmmm ................. why the rant? I don't do Facebook nor Twitter. I happen to prefer my privacy as I expect many others do who visit here. Just sayin'.

 

14 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Some of us have had to deal with the consequences of Facebook's indifference to the suffering it caused. Twice I've had to deal with almost suicidal students because of what appeared on it, and there was no help from Facebook. You use if you want; there are others who will not support such a mercenary which looks for profit out of young peoples' misery.

 

You get on with it, but don't preach to us.

 

"Why the rant?"

 

Because posts that look down their nose at Facebook come across as very condescending, whether intended or not.

 

 

"Don't preach to us."

 

Those who tell us that they don't do Facebook are also preaching.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander. ;)

 

 

Facebook does not cause suffering. That is caused by those who misuse it.  A modern version of using Royal Mail to send nasty letters.

 

@MR Chuffer, the use of the word "sheeple" is rather insulting.

 

Anyway, back to model railways.

 

 

PS.  I don't do N gauge. Just saying. :)

 

Edited by Colin_McLeod
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Facebook does not cause suffering.

A misunderstanding promoted by FB to preserve their business model, their whole modus operandi is to capture eyeballs and keep them there which they do with clever algorithms, which often serve up images and content that causes suffering, as in terrorist content, violence and sexual imagery, etc. If it didn't cause suffering, why is the presence of the Alt Right so contentious in the US and similar extreme political views - left and right - such a bone of contention? If it causes no harm, why don't they just leave such content there?

 

Use of FB has been described as a form of gambling, triggering the same dopamine responses in the brain, the continual "scroll" at the bottom of the page is like another throw of the dice which is why so many people "lose" themselves in FB - its designed like that (according to papers I've read from my son's degree course, and he's being taught how to hook sheeple through these technologies).

 

But I've spent too much time on this already, this is your view so I'll let you get on with it, others, many others, choose not to.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about choices, people 'choose' to do whatever they think is right.

 

If one person's choices are not aligned with one's own, just move on and don't try to 'convert' - heaven knows (pun intended) the thread will drift into religion soon.....

 

fb.jpg

 

Now that would be a prototype........

  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes, I have seen them, but can all 50 shades of grey be right? :)

 

Or is it the 40 shades of green that really matter?   (BR, GWR, Hornby to name but three)

Edited by Colin_McLeod
typo
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

A misunderstanding promoted by FB to preserve their business model, their whole modus operandi is to capture eyeballs and keep them there which they do with clever algorithms, which often serve up images and content that causes suffering, as in terrorist content, violence and sexual imagery, etc. 

 

5 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

 

Use of FB has been described as a form of gambling, triggering the same dopamine responses in the brain, the continual "scroll" at the bottom of the page is like another throw of the dice which is why so many people "lose" themselves in FB - its designed like that (according to papers I've read from my son's degree course, and he's being taught how to hook sheeple through these technologies).

 

I use Facebook and have never seen any images of 'terrorist content, violence, sexual imagery, etc'; Perhaps because I don't go looking for such ? I belong to Groups catering to my interests, and I find Messenger invaluable for keeping in touch with family, friends and former work colleagues. I am well aware of FB's all pervading power and influence but used in the right way it is simply another means of communicating, and for me the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. I also find being described as a sheeple insulting. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

A misunderstanding promoted by FB to preserve their business model, their whole modus operandi is to capture eyeballs and keep them there which they do with clever algorithms, which often serve up images and content that causes suffering, as in terrorist content, violence and sexual imagery, etc. If it didn't cause suffering, why is the presence of the Alt Right so contentious in the US and similar extreme political views - left and right - such a bone of contention? If it causes no harm, why don't they just leave such content there?

 

Use of FB has been described as a form of gambling, triggering the same dopamine responses in the brain, the continual "scroll" at the bottom of the page is like another throw of the dice which is why so many people "lose" themselves in FB - its designed like that (according to papers I've read from my son's degree course, and he's being taught how to hook sheeple through these technologies).

 

But I've spent too much time on this already, this is your view so I'll let you get on with it, others, many others, choose not to.

 

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

 

 

I use Facebook and have never seen any images of 'terrorist content, violence, sexual imagery, etc'; Perhaps because I don't go looking for such ? I belong to Groups catering to my interests, and I find Messenger invaluable for keeping in touch with family, friends and former work colleagues. I am well aware of FB's all pervading power and influence but used in the right way it is simply another means of communicating, and for me the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. I also find being described as a sheeple insulting. 

 

Mr Chuffer is correct in thinking that Facebook works hard to keep your eyeballs on screen, the refresh of the news feed is deliberately set to create a dopamine induced reaction akin to gambling - you don't know what the result will be from the refresh and by inducing you to regularly refresh it gives you another dopamine hit.  Facebook in itself is not evil, unethical perhaps, but not evil, they don't set out to harm but unfortunately it has been a side effect of their modus operandi.

 

What Facebook wants is information, enough to be able to sell your behaviours to advertisers and it is there it makes it's money, it doesn't sell the data, that would be financially disastrous, it sells promises to advertisers of response rates based on it's intimate knowledge of it's users.

 

When it comes to free speech it is in a difficult place, if it doesn't censor then it can rightly claim itself to be a distributor of content only and in no way editorally responsible for what is shared, the moment it censors then it is editing it's content and it becomes something different that regulators can home in on and control it, which it doesn't want. 

 

Self harm imagery on Instragram (owned by Facebook), right wing media, left wing media and a certain President have brought all this to a head and Facebook, along with Twitter, have begun to act where they feel they need to, but all they have done is create a perfect storm for those being denied access to claim that it is politically motivated and now censoring free speech and potentially Facebook is now responsible for it's content making it come into the cross hairs of regulators.

 

The biggest issue as a user on Facebook is the newsfeed algorithm, it was meant to drive the dopamine effect and keep people staring at the screen by giving them more of what they like, all it did was create a massive echo chamber where you only hear the stuff you believe in, never challenging you and just cementing what you already believe.   This isn't an issue perhaps to those of us who simply use Facebook to stay in contact with people we know and like trains, but if you aren't so particular about who you share to and with then the echo chamber effect is disastrous and you are in danger of going down the rabbit hole.

 

Facebook does try to stem illegal content, there is software to look for sexual imagery, there are people who review content as well (who'd want that job) but people will always find ways, it's not just Facebook this happens to, all social media has an underbelly that the owners will be looking to remove but they just spring up again rather like whack a mole.  Facebook is about to standardise it's Messenger service based on the WhatsApp model with end to end encryption - for regulators that is a worry, but all Facebook is doing is following the other similar encrypted messaging services that exist, they are simply following the market.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2021 at 18:55, montyburns56 said:

041311  Ipswich Station 1986

 

Internal User 041311 . Ipswich Station . 04th-June-1986

 

 

Platform 1 was a bit short in those days! :)

 

EDIT: ...and (potentially) mobile. What are they storing in there that would warrant the use of a 'Shocvan'?

Edited by talisman56
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, talisman56 said:

EDIT: ...and (potentially) mobile. What are they storing in there that would warrant the use of a 'Shocvan'?

Photo from 1986 just after electrification to Ipswich - obviously the shock van is storing spare electricity. You can see a wire going top left to bottom right from the electrification stanchion into the van, and another wire coming out of the right hand side of the van (or is that a lightning conductor?)

Edited by eastwestdivide
added ref to fast ticket collector
  • Like 1
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

Mr Chuffer is correct in thinking that Facebook works hard to keep your eyeballs on screen, the refresh of the news feed is deliberately set to create a dopamine induced reaction akin to gambling - you don't know what the result will be from the refresh and by inducing you to regularly refresh it gives you another dopamine hit.  Facebook in itself is not evil, unethical perhaps, but not evil, they don't set out to harm but unfortunately it has been a side effect of their modus operandi.

 

What Facebook wants is information, enough to be able to sell your behaviours to advertisers and it is there it makes it's money, it doesn't sell the data, that would be financially disastrous, it sells promises to advertisers of response rates based on it's intimate knowledge of it's users.

 

When it comes to free speech it is in a difficult place, if it doesn't censor then it can rightly claim itself to be a distributor of content only and in no way editorally responsible for what is shared, the moment it censors then it is editing it's content and it becomes something different that regulators can home in on and control it, which it doesn't want. 

 

Self harm imagery on Instragram (owned by Facebook), right wing media, left wing media and a certain President have brought all this to a head and Facebook, along with Twitter, have begun to act where they feel they need to, but all they have done is create a perfect storm for those being denied access to claim that it is politically motivated and now censoring free speech and potentially Facebook is now responsible for it's content making it come into the cross hairs of regulators.

 

The biggest issue as a user on Facebook is the newsfeed algorithm, it was meant to drive the dopamine effect and keep people staring at the screen by giving them more of what they like, all it did was create a massive echo chamber where you only hear the stuff you believe in, never challenging you and just cementing what you already believe.   This isn't an issue perhaps to those of us who simply use Facebook to stay in contact with people we know and like trains, but if you aren't so particular about who you share to and with then the echo chamber effect is disastrous and you are in danger of going down the rabbit hole.

 

Facebook does try to stem illegal content, there is software to look for sexual imagery, there are people who review content as well (who'd want that job) but people will always find ways, it's not just Facebook this happens to, all social media has an underbelly that the owners will be looking to remove but they just spring up again rather like whack a mole.  Facebook is about to standardise it's Messenger service based on the WhatsApp model with end to end encryption - for regulators that is a worry, but all Facebook is doing is following the other similar encrypted messaging services that exist, they are simply following the market.

Let's keep the Facebook type discussions to Facebook.

I come on here to get away from all that.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...