Re: Australian Railway Magazines which is best

[Bob <gioia@fastlink.com.au>]

David Proctor wrote:

> 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.

How about 8244 was written off ! This mistake also has never been corrected.
Bob