Re: March Railway Digest

["Dave Proctor" <thadocta@spambait.dingoblue.net.au>]

Stuart Ellis wrote in message <38C86BC2.A3CA7BCA@zipworld.com.au>...

>I am intrigued to as what other Railfan  magazines in Australia you read.
>You
>talk about other magazines not being up to the standard of Digest.  Could
>you
>please tell us what your thoughts are.   I have heard a lot of criticisms
of
>
>various magazines over the years, and this is why Motive Power has
>evolved.

I love Motive Power, I think it is one of the best magazines in the
marketplace.

>I
>do realise some people are quick to complain or make out a point of
>something
>wrong, but I agree with Derek and support what he is saying about voluntary
>contributions. They are very important for the majority of Australian
>railfan
>magazines to exist. Whilst some of this information may not be correct from
>time to time, we cannot always check every piece of information that passes
>over our desks.

I am not suggesting that verything should be checked. I have also said that
some mistakes are worse than others.

The one I pointed out last month, and which someone else has brought up
again, was the Broken Hill report where WL33 arrived one night and WL1
arrived the following morning. Under the timetable, this is clearly
impossible, but someone reading the article in a few years time is faced
with three possibilities: timetable change that had not yet been reported;
operational difficulties resulting in WL33 being 24 hours late; or incorrect
information.

Whilst an incorrect loco number or slightly incorrect timings are
inconsequential, an error of this sort (24 hours error) is one that can lead
future historians to make all sorts of errors.

I regularly resort to old copies of Digest for informationfrom years past,
with particular reference to Black Thursday consists ex-Sydney, so that I
can compare Easter holiday capacities on country trains ex-Sydney. Digest is
a valuable historical reference for this sort of thing.

In 20 or 30 years time, an historian *might* be looking through Digest, see
the Broken Hill report I have mentioned, and conclude that something
happened which didn't.

>My message to those people who wish to point out mistakes or wrong
>information
>via newsgroups. Send in reports yourself or better still offer your
services
>to
>a magazine for proof checking.

Why, when there are paid people to do it? The people who are paid should do
what they are paid to do. This "produced by volunteers" excuse is a copout.
When I was paid to produce the publication I mentioned in 1991-93, I was
responsible for checking everything.

Again, nobody is suggesting that he should check every minute detail, but
some things are so major that they should really jump out to the editor of a
NSW magazine.

>This is not a go at anyone in particular, but to help some of you
understand
>
>that editing a magazine takes a lot of time and effort. and nothing worse
>than
>people talking behind your back about the mistakes, but will not help to
>solve
>some of these problems.

Nobody is talking behind Dereks back. He reads this newsgroup, it is right
in front of him.

>But on the other hand, if you find mistakes in a magazine, does this stop
>you
>from buying it in the future ??

I don't buy it. People give it to me as a Christmas present.

Motive Power, on the otherhand, is a publication that I choose to buy.

>Stuart Ellis
>Motive Power Publications

Dave