Re: Australian Railway Magazines which is best

["David Proctor" <daproc@bigfoot.com>]

Nic Doncaster wrote in message <6dtbjo$95b$1@pinah.connect.com.au>...
>Unlimited screeds of crap re train details does not interest me, but it
pisses
>me off when the editors do not get it right.
>
>There is An example of a local rag publishing some crap about a "Special
train"
>a few years ago that the editor made up, as the event was so close to his
>deadline. He failed to account for the crappy track, a big derailment
occoured,
>his "Special" did not run, and yet depsite photographs to the contrary in
two
>separate magazines, no retraction or correction was made.
>
>Anyway the point is, yes editors do accidently publish errors, despite
cross
>referencing, however it is up to them to correct these errors as soon as is
>practicable.


And sometimes they make the silliest errors possible - two examples, both
from Railway Digest:

1. A report that NT1 arrived in Brisbane one July morning at 0600, over an
hour late - if the correspondent was referring to the Daylight Saving
timetable, it would actually have been 55mins late, but as it was it was 5
mins early (this was when it arrived at 0605) - a simple check of the
timetable would have elicited this information.

2. A report that WL2 went through Pendle Hill at 0830 (I think - not sure of
the exact time, but close enough), then was followed 2  hours later by WL34
from Broken Hill - WL2 arrives in Sydney on Mondays and Thursdays, and WL34
on Fridays - a same day arrival was impossible unless WL2 was running
24hours late, yet it quite categorically stated that this Thursday was a
busy one through Pendle Hill!

These are just two examples of how basic journalism (checking facts - in
this case, through an easily accessible public timetable) would have
revealed that the reports were incorrect.

Regards

David Proctor
daproc@bigfoot.com