TrainsMag.com Reader Poll – February 9, 2004

[halifaxcn]

I say keep it as is.
But why not get a few more cameras out there? How about speaking with the City of Dolton, IL and mounting a camera on their City Hall. This is a GREAT hot spot with a never ending parade of trains! Then again how about Elmhurst, IL, LaGrange, IL, Palmer, MA.
All it takes is money!

Anyway, it is my dream to see a Dolton web cam.

Happy & safe railfanning!
Frank San Severino
Attleboro, MA.

[Anonymous]

Technology is great, but at the price of reducing availability? Definitly keep it like it is!
[soapbox]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mikeyuhas

QUOTE: Originally posted by hhuubb

when I 1st found this web cam, a person could see traffic running on HI-WAY, behind the warehouse, so someone has change angle to camrea,maybe change back to way it was that would give wider angle, what say trainmag. HUB

The camera position has not changed since startup in May 2000, and we have no plans to change it now.

I think the user meant your other cam site , When I started from a different computer at my inlaws house about two years ago. You had another web cam wich is nolonger in use. Thank You for your time.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I wouldn't mind if the image rate was increased, but then I'm usually viewing when most of your other viewers are asleep. More sites would be great, as would sound, and other camera angles

[Anonymous]

I say keep it as it is, 'cause sometimes your turn is only a couple minutes long.[#ditto][soapbox]

[Anonymous]

Keep as is!

[Anonymous]

keep it the way it is. now! if they could just add some light for nighttime viewing

[Anonymous]

As a UK viewer, I usually log on during the early hours of the morning, US time, when there are't that many viewers on line. I'd like to see the faster rate, but if it means that less folk would be able to enjoy the action, probly best to keep it as it is.

[Anonymous]

Its fine the way it is, but a 1.5 sec frame rate would be nice. I rarely watch the cam for more 10-15 minutes anyways, so if I was kicked off after that amount of time it wouldn't matter to me. How do long do other people generally watch it? How long would it be before one would be "bumped" off, if the frame rate was 1.5 sec?

[Anonymous]

Double the B/W. I can't get on now anyhow.

[Anonymous]

I am very pleased with all of the replies on Rochelle. Sound being included, more camera sites, leave the setting alone were great. Too bad we could be forewarned about the arriving trains to the diamonds. Global3 operations drive me nuts because you don't if the train is switching or going thru. When I saw a train going between the roads (on the left side of the screen) I could not believe it. Saw the tracks, but finally saw them being used. Finally to the train man in Texas-I heard the trains when I was in the dorms. It helped me cope. Now I live further east and have to strain the ears to hear the horns. Somethings never change.

[JoeUmp]

Keep the settings the same.

[Overmod]

Perhaps somebody can enlighten me on a couple of points:

Last time I looked, a set of streamed frames from a Webcam was just that: a STREAM. Multicast protocol and all that. There ARE no restrictions on the number of 'simultaneous users' who can access a multicast stream... just the number of users that correspond to ports on a single server to which the Webcam appears to be connected. Now, I'm not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth... but better answers might be available.

A change in the protocol used, or in the service provider(s) who make the digital stream available to the Web, might be better 'better answers' to consider, both 'before' and 'in place of' the rather contrived 'double the frame rate'. Perhaps a single-port stream uplinked to one of the streaming-media companies might represent a reasonable solution; you would then download a small .ram (or similar) file, which whenever clicked would provide the settings and links to connect you to the streaming service (RealNetworks for a .ram file).

I also see comparatively little trouble with scalable bandwidth if you elect to increase the 'pipe' capacity between the camera and whatever is putting the pix on the Web. Please enlighten me on the 'bottlenecks' between camera and server (as I find it very difficult to believe that a Webcam image every three seconds, or 1.5 seconds either, is straining the capacity of an ISP.

Anyway, if you update the camera link so it can send .75fps at whatever resolution, you can always opt to 'send less data' to give the current 1/3fps. Run at high resolution until whatever cockamamie software is kicking the longest user off reports that it is kicking people off. Then scale to lower resolution (for a period of time), send a message to the users that it's happened and why, etc. Or request that some users disconnect 'gracefully' before the rate has to be changed. Yes, even railfans may be polite and savvy enough to be trusted with user-interface decisions... ;-}

Of course, use of a better compression protocol, at or near the camera, might allow an increase in the effective displayed frame rate without losing any real information. I'm currently developing this for wireless medical devices, to be able to compress and then 'interleave' multiple sensor inputs such as EKG trace on a single narrowband connection and then restore them to continuous stream with some (acceptable) latency via buffering and decompression.

When I was in school in Manhattan, I would drive my father to his office very early in the morning -- before the morning paper was delivered. I noticed my father very avidly reading the paper one morning. It was yesterday's paper: he pointed out that it was just as much fun, and he really didn't much care that the news was a bit out of date.

Let me ask this related question: Do Webcam users really care if they're watching a train at the precise instant it passes the camera, or ten seconds later in realtime? (Aren't delays in the Internet fabric likely to impose similar delays anyway?)

And, if the answer is that you really don't care if your stream is a few seconds later than 'reality' -- would you accept the later timing if it gave you a higher frame rate and/or better rendered picture quality at no additional cost?

That seems to me to be a better question than the one that's been posed...

[Anonymous]

I've been to Rochelle, nothing beats being on scene and feeling the trains. BUT I also live 400 miles away and since I can't get there often enough viewing the cam is next best. Don't cost me time by doubling the bandwidth, I can live with 3 seconds. If you could add scanner traffic or other sites I can't get to you'd only enhance my viewer experience

[GRR7315]

I say double; it's a spot to enjoy NOT LIVE AT. Take advantage of the action, then let someone else enjoy as well.

[Noah Hofrichter]

Does any body know how many people can watch the webcam at the same time[?] I just wanted to know.

Thanks, Noah[:P][8D][:)][:P][;)]

[mikeyuhas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by hhuubb

when I 1st found this web cam, a person could see traffic running on HI-WAY, behind the warehouse, so someone has change angle to camrea,maybe change back to way it was that would give wider angle, what say trainmag. HUB

The camera position has not changed since startup in May 2000, and we have no plans to change it now.

[Anonymous]

when I 1st found this web cam, a person could see traffic running on HI-WAY, behind the warehouse, so someone has change angle to camrea,maybe change back to way it was that would give wider angle, what say trainmag. HUB

[ernwes]

Share the wealth...1.5 sec vs. 3 sec isn't worth blocking half the viewers.

[Anonymous]

WOULD ENJOY MORE SITES IF POSSIBLE

[lhrfan]

Keep it the way it is. A larger picture would be nice, but bandwidth limits may again be an issue. How about a camera on top of the shopping center overlooking 69th st. in North Bergen NJ. 6 or 7 tracks crossing this busy street with NYSW, CSX, & NS constantly moving across with locals, switching, and thru trains. Always busy.

[Anonymous]

[:I] I just very carefully watched my clock to see exactly how long 3 seconds are and then timed 1 1/2 seconds. In my not so humble opinion there simply is not enough difference in the timing to make a big difference - at least not enough
to make a change. Leave as is. As for those who can't tell which way the train is going - I would put an really big question mark here. I could always tell, even from childhood, what the front of the trains looked like. Adios y'all
Irish Pat

[ajpaschal]

Keep it the wway it is

[Train Guy 3]

Leave it the way it is, it works for me.

[Anonymous]

I voted to leave everything as is. Let's not get greedy; give everybody a chance to use the web cam. I have never been to Rochelle, don't live anywhere near it-probably just like most readers. The net is our only source to this opportunity to view the trains. As is is GOOD!!!

[Anonymous]

Well .....I voted : "keep it the way it is"....It would be nice to see a better frame rate but, Not at the viewers sacrafice. I'm not a hightech computer wizzard , But possibly would another camera or two mounted next to the other camera be added & , Let's say have a choice which camera we could go to, Camera A, B, or C. With a counter for the amount of users per camera. But then your looking at an extra cost also. "Just a thought" . Like they're saying "If it aint broke don't fix it " & another cam site would be neat , How about the Chicago area , For example like near the old Conrail yard on the south side , Or along the rail corrider along the John F. Kennedy expressway where there is alot of Passenger & Freight trains.

[DennisHeld]

Looks like a lot of people are looking for sound, signal or scanner info or more webcams, as am I. If you could use bandwidth to go from 3 to 1.5 seconds, could you use that bandwidth to get sound and keep the 3 seconds?? Here's another thought for any railroad PR people who may read this: I 've read that the Rochelle webcam is sponsored by the city of Rochelle. It would be great if a railroad, or two, or three, would sponsor their own webcams. They could be put on signal towers. Overlooking a yard. Takers????

[Anonymous]

Unless there is a security issue, keep it the way it is. Sure it would be great to see the trains move with less of a gap, but not at the expense of loosing viewers. Keep up the good work. ?? more cams??

[Anonymous]

Hi to ALL Rail Buffs.Being in New Zealand (down the in south Pacific) Its great to watch the U.S.A TRAINS on your webcams! PLEASE KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS! It is of no great advantage to go 3sec, to 1.5sec,. The only way to go better whold be 25 f.p.s LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is comeing to the home computer world.IT is used now in the Film world.
Cheers to One & All Thank You. See You Down Trackside Oneday Soon.Russruio,RRGW.

[kb5yrk]

I love the web cam from Rochelle, especially since I went to college near there and now live in Texas. If increasing the speed from 1.5 to 3.0 seconds means half the people get to see the camera, would decreasing the frames from 3 to 6 seconds mean double the people could see it from the present number? Just a thought....