Is it just me or wouldn’t it be nice to have more than one railcam selection on the Trains.com website? Also… wouldn’t it be nice for someone to put lights on the Rochelle, Illinois junction so that those of us who can’t watch the railcam during the day can catch some web-based train watching?
The trouble with lighting it at night is that it would need a LOT of light (the webcam actually sits back pretty far from the rails). From a strictly bean-counter approach, that would be pretty expensive, whereas I doubt the Railcam costs much to run at all.
Additionally, I doubt crews would really like being “daylighted” like that when they got to Rochelle merely to allow virtual railfanning at night.
Just my [2c] of course.
I would enjoy railcams from many different places. I hope it happens.
…My question I have related to rail cams…The one on the Mississippi river near that rotating bridge {can’t think of the name right now…}, has a much larger picture displayed…I wonder what the difference is from that one to the Rochelle cam in picture size…The Rochelle one being much smaller…Is it cost…?
I think it has to do with Bandwidth. I think Bergie posted a question asking if we wanted more refresh rates for fewer users, or some such awhile back, so I think they probably have limited Bandwidth they can commit to the Webcam right now. Just my guess of course…
Chris
Windy Denver, CO
Plus the safety issue of having lights in your face on eastbounds.
I’m not sure the residents would be too thrilled with floodlights in their back yards either. Perhaps a night vision camera?
I would also like to see other webcams of this quality, but lighting up the tracks at night seems a bit much, as does having a night vision camera.
If my model RR club had an internet connection, or even a phone line, I would set one up o people could watch the UP action here in downtown Rock Springs.