Re: Railway Digest (again)

["Hoges" <pghogan@NOSPAMbigpond.com>]

I almost wonder if it's actually worth responding to this, but someone needs
to provide some balance to these pedantic and petty attacks.

I wonder if there is another agenda operating here, Dave?

 >>>>>>  "This is the reason I will not pay for it (although I encourage
others to gove (sic) me a subscription as a >>>>present.)"

 ie, you won't buy Digest, but are hoping someone will buy you a
subscription (small chance of that happening!).
But obviously you are prepared to read it, and apparently in very close
detail to pick up something like this.

>>> " It is inexcusable that someone paid to produce a magazine could let
something like this through"

Aha, do I detect a touch of jealousy? You're not happy that apparently, in
your view, someone is being paid to indulge their hobby and take photos and
generally gunzel about - things that you do with your own time and money. Is
that your real problem?

Let's have a reality check here. (And a disclaimer, yes I'm an RD
contributor and a friend of Derek's.)

 Digest, formerly a State based magazine, has grown from being a locally
distributed, black and white production(colour came progressively, starting
with the cover), largely made up from the voluntary contributions of its
readers. It is now a nationally distributed, full colour magazine, competing
in terms of production quality
and presentation with other commercially backed publications.  Yet it does
this with only one full time paid staff member, a tiny production office,
and the continued voluntary contributions of the subscribers.
Most special interest magazines (particularly colour monthly) of anywhere
near equivalent quality have a large budget and paid editors, production
staff ,writers and photographers backing them up.

 Derek faces a monthly production deadline in getting Digest to press, 12
months a year. Not much time for a holiday, is there?  Your implication that
he must also be infallible, with an encyclopaedic knowledge of every train
timetable and minute detail of the subject matter, is I think unreasonable.
Yes, errors occur, often serious ones, in every publication - have a look at
the press coverage of the Glenbrook tragedy if you want some examples of
careless or ignorant reporting.  And do the mainstream press acknowledge
these errors? Only when forced to apologise or retract, and then
begrudgingly.

 I would suggest that the type of error you complain about is hardly life
threatening, and Digest does happily publish corrections if they (or a
contributor or typesetter) have got something wrong.  Yes, I've heard the
"future rail historians will rely on this as a journal of record" argument,
and I challenge any of them to sift through a decade or so of back issues of
Digest or Catchpoint or Sunshine Express or any other rail periodical and
NOT find the odd error or two.

A magazine like RD will only ever be as good as the collective efforts of
its readers. Without voluntary contributions, it could not survive , as the
real cost of producing it could never be covered. Quite a few other rail
publications have found this out the hard way -  there simply isn't a big
enough market in this specialist hobby to support it.  If you don't want to
read it, or offer any positive contributions, that's your free choice.

But if you simply want to a "knocker" for the sake of proving a point, then
you're wearing the argument a bit thin. We'll live in hope of actually one
day seeing a Dave Proctor article or photo in print. :-)

(For the record, I believe the train in question was probably WL34, and it
was departing. Legal action will be taken against the Broken Hill
correspondent forthwith, and he'll be locked away for his own protection.)

Cheers (someone back me up , please!)

Paul


Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
8350kc$lu6$1@news1.mpx.com.au">news:8350kc$lu6$1@news1.mpx.com.au...
> This is the reason I will not pay for it (although I encourage others to
> gove me a subscription as a present).
>
> Page 35 of the December 1999 RD - Broken Hill:
>
> "On Thursday 28/10, a 1400 metre long 3PS6 Superfreighter passed through
> Broken Hill yard at 5.00pm behind NRs 46/31. (snipped, details of a
> SteelLink train) The SteelLink service was held in the yard until
11.00p.m.
> when it departed east. In the interim WL33 Broken Hill Passenger arrived
at
> 8.40p.m. with 8172 hauling the usual consist of two carriages and a power
> van. At 9.05a.m. the following morning, Friday 29/10, WL1 Indian Pacific
> arrived....."
>
> So what is the problem? WL33 runs on Wednesdays, not Thursdays. WL33 is
> scheduled to arrive at 2140 CTS, yet the one hour early arrival did not
rate
> a mention. It is not open to suggestion that the reporter merely got their
> date wrong, as it says quite clearly, in regard to the Indian Pacific
> report, "the following morning, Friday 29/10".
>
> And here is the real rub. I was on WL33 on Wednesday 27/10. I mentioned it
> in aus.rail just after I got back about delays at Parkes and other places
en
> route,and the lack of information provided to passengers (just so that you
> know I am not making it up now).
>
> WL33 arrived in broken Hill 60 minutes late, not the 60 minutes early, as
> reported in RD.
>
> But I grant you that people providing information can make mistakes, they
> can even make things up (I do not know which happened here, although I
have
> my thoughts).
>
> It is inexcusable that someone paid to produce a magazine could let
> something like this through. Granted, the editor would have no reason to
> doubt the arrival time, or the loco number, etc., but the wrong day of the
> week, for a once weekly service, should have jumped right out at him. One
> would expect the editor of a magazine such as Railway Digest to have at
> least a basic knowledge of the rail system, and I would have thought that
> such a knowledge would inlcude the day of the week that a once weekly
> service operates.
>
> Given this, how do we know what to believe in Digest?
>
> Dave
>
>