Size of the RO

A forum for the discussion of railway related topics
Train Spotter
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:33 pm

Size of the RO

Post by Train Spotter » Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:51 am

When is the editor or somebody from MC going to mention that they would like to alter the size of the RO to make it larger in size

User avatar
pdeaves
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Size of the RO

Post by pdeaves » Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:31 am

The editor has, very publicly, in the front of the November RO.

D3796
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:33 pm
Location: BY (1E)

Re: Size of the RO

Post by D3796 » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:06 am

Train Spotter wrote:When is the editor or somebody from MC going to mention that they would like to alter the size of the RO to make it larger in size
I don't know about increasing the size of RO the following extract from November RO states:-

"This will increase the size of the RO from the present
A5 (14.5x21.0mm) format to a B5 (17.5x25.0mm) format enabling us to adopt a
significantly larger font size throughout the magazine which will benefit all
readers - in particular those with diminishing eyesight"


17.5 mm x 25.0 mm !!
Regards

David - D3796 (08 629)

Peter Hall
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:51 am

Re: Size of the RO

Post by Peter Hall » Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:58 pm

I did think the issue of changing the size of the RO had been kicked into the long grass a few years ago. Certainly whilst I was Chairman of the Sheffield Branch it was discussed at the regional meetings but never progressed.

I presume the current proposal was fully explained at the Offices Conference in Grange-over-Sands and has been fully relayed at subsequent Branch meetings - or was it and has it? The first Branchless and those not able to attend Branch meetings became aware of the proposals was when the November RO dropped onto doormats, that is unless they read it online.

Interesting that the editor requests members views by email and by the end of the month. No suggestion of an alternative for those not on line or who do not communicate by email. This reflects a concern I have which goes far beyond the Society. This being the presumption that everyone is online and that they are willing and able to comprehend and participate in all that is involved. A significant percentage of the British population are not and have no intention of ever being. I know and have contact with many in that position and I would suggest that many are happier and more content than many who embrace the internet and all that goes with it. Some of these are Society members. Does the MC have data on what percentage of the membership we are talking about? These members should not be considered any less than those whose life is dictated by a screen and keyboard. Recent comments regarding the RO Index suggested that they are already considered to be outcasts.

Is it, like with the RO Index, that a decision has been taken to change the size of the RO regardless of what the members think and this will be implemented in January, thus the short period to express views.

THE RO size has been the same, give or take a few fractions of an inch, for as long as I can remember. OK there may be good reason for its changing but I do feel that this should not take place until the lay members have been given the opportunity to question the MC and vote on the issue at the AGM.

Ian Prince
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:42 pm

Re: Size of the RO

Post by Ian Prince » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:04 pm

Different size to be at odds with my collection of 40 years of ROs. :evil:

Yes it might help fit the photos, but the RO has never been a 'picture book' type magazine. More storage space requirements are also relevant.

It will be just another magazine, and I have largely finished with the high street press these days anyway for its inaccuracies and delays in getting instant news which comes from the web.

(Just my tu'pence).

Bevan Price
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:59 pm

Re: Size of the RO

Post by Bevan Price » Sat Nov 26, 2016 4:27 pm

Personally, I do not favour an increase in the R.O. page size - mainly for practical reasons. I am already finding problems with storage of R.O. and other magazines, and anything that needs even more storage space is unwelcome.

And since photographs have been mentioned, I wish the team would stop printing photographs across 2 pages. Having a paage fold (or staple) across the middle of a photograph totally spoils the visual impact in my opinion.

(And if anyone views the on-line R.O., having a photos spread over 2 separate "pdf" pages looks visually absurd - sorry, Editors, I appreciate you take a lot of your time for the benefit of members, but this is one area that needs to be reconsidered. )

User avatar
pdeaves
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Size of the RO

Post by pdeaves » Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:45 pm

Bevan Price wrote:(And if anyone views the on-line R.O., having a photos spread over 2 separate "pdf" pages looks visually absurd - sorry, Editors, I appreciate you take a lot of your time for the benefit of members, but this is one area that needs to be reconsidered. )
Did you know that you can set Acrobat/Adobe Reader to view two pages side by side, with single first page (to emulate what the printed magazine would look like) and with or without gaps between the pages?

Unfortunately I cannot quote exactly where to find the setting for Windows (I am at home now and use Windows at work). If you use Mac, it's view -> page display -> 'two page view' and 'show cover page in two page view', deselect 'show gaps between pages'. Preview can do the same, it's view -> two pages.

Bevan Price
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:59 pm

Re: Size of the RO

Post by Bevan Price » Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:40 pm

pdeaves wrote:
Bevan Price wrote:(And if anyone views the on-line R.O., having a photos spread over 2 separate "pdf" pages looks visually absurd - sorry, Editors, I appreciate you take a lot of your time for the benefit of members, but this is one area that needs to be reconsidered. )
Did you know that you can set Acrobat/Adobe Reader to view two pages side by side, with single first page (to emulate what the printed magazine would look like) and with or without gaps between the pages?

Unfortunately I cannot quote exactly where to find the setting for Windows (I am at home now and use Windows at work). If you use Mac, it's view -> page display -> 'two page view' and 'show cover page in two page view', deselect 'show gaps between pages'. Preview can do the same, it's view -> two pages.

Thanks for the suggestion. I can't find any equivalent commands on my computer (Windows 10/Firefox), and in any case, on my monitor, text would be too small to read with two pages side by side, and I couldn't be bothered switching backwards/forwards between the two configurations. It is easier to wait for the "paper" R.O. to arrive.

(Not to mention my painfully slow broadband connection which is forever crashing - or proceeding marginally faster than electrification to Bristol .....)

MisterC
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: Size of the RO

Post by MisterC » Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:13 am

I rejoined RCTS last year and have opted not to receive paper copies of RO. The storage constraint is the main reason for that. I download the pdf each month and then use the Acrobat reader. That works ok for me and I'm on a 5 year old desktop pc running on Windows7.

For paper copy storage A5 has a huge advantage as shoeboxes can be used for storage!

I would agree with the comments about not spreading pictures over 2 pages.

Peter Hall
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:51 am

Size of the RO in 2017 - I need to know before renewing!

Post by Peter Hall » Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:55 am

I always renew my membership annually, not tempted by discounts for longer, you never know what direction the Society might take. I will certainly be renewing, my commitment to the Society website ensures that. I am though faced with a dilemma. While ever the RO is available in printed form at the current size I will remain on printed membership. If its size changes I will immediately switch to digital. Thus, I need to know what size the January printed RO is going to be. It does not appear to have been made clear when the change will take place if it takes place at all. On the presumption that MC members know the answer could one of them post it on here please.

Looking at the posts in this thread it appears to be a fifty/fifty split between retaining the current size and a preference for the current size. Thus the pollsters would say overwhelming support for staying as it is. However, that's four out of what ever the total membership currently is. We do not of course know how many have responded by email and their opinions.

My hunch is that the MC or the majority of the MC wish to change the size, however are they in touch with the views of the membership? Is this such a fundamental change, like that of charitable status, that the full membership should be asked to vote on it? My understanding of the new constitution is that this is by way of the AGM but I am sure those more a tune to legal clauses can elaborate.

Something that disappoints me about the forum is that when Society matters are debated their appears to very little MC input, particularly where clarification and background information is lacking as to why things have come about. Does not appear any MC member has commented yet in this thread unless they call themselves something different.

Anyhow, whilst appreciating the consultation period has a few days to run, I would like to know what size the printed January RO is going to be as soon as a final decision is taken.

Post Reply