Re: Railway Digest (again)

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@sd5.mailbank.com>]

Hoges wrote in message ...
>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?

Nope - no other agenda. I have met Derek (at Dennis Rittsons place) and
there is no animus between us.

> >>>>>>  "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!).

I get one every Christmas as a present.

>But obviously you are prepared to read it, and apparently in very close
>detail to pick up something like this.

I mostly scan through that section, but it jumped out at me, since it was
the same date that I caught the train.

>>>> " 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?

No - I do not indulge in photography. I regard watching paint drying or
rearranging my sock drawer as a more interesting pursuit.

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

No problem there. I would expect anyone who disagreed with me to do so,
reagrdless of friendships.


> 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.

Not every train, but on that only runs once a week, yes, I would expect him
to know which day of the week it operates.

>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 that reporting was from people who do not know any different. Derek
does.

>And do the mainstream press acknowledge
>these errors? Only when forced to apologise or retract, and then
>begrudgingly.

And again, they are not people who have knowledge in the area of rail
operations. Derek does, he is paid to.

> 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.

And it does not change the fact that the report was a blatant lie. This is
not Dereks fault, but the fault of the contributor. The contributor reported
that the train arrived an hour early. I know for a fact it was an hour late
(I was on it). The day given was wrong, and it cannot be excused as an
oversight, due to the statement "on the following morning, Friday 29/10".

>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.

As I said, I would not have expected Derek to know about the loco number, or
the arrival time. This is something that I know about because I was on the
train. If this was the only thing that was wrong, then I would not have said
a word.

But the day of operation of a once weekly train is something that should
have been picked up.

Suppose I was to send in a report that ST3 to Melbourne this morning did not
have XP power cars on it, but instead had 90 class locos at each end. This
is sufficiently unusal to warrant further checking. Similiarly with the
operation of a once weekly passenger service.

>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. :-)

There has been - about 4 years ago. I am not a prolific author and am not
interested in photography. When I do write something, I try to ensure it is
accurate (which is why I rang two guards and a Blacktown signaller - all
friends of mine - before writing the email to John Laws I have posted to
here).

>(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.)

If that is the case, then it is even worse for whoever wrote the copy, IMHO.
They have taken basic information - loco hauled passenger train, loco and
time - and without checking facts, decided it was WL33 arriving, rather than
WL34 depparting. In other words, they made up the details to fit in with
what they had. Very sloppy journalism.

>Cheers (someone back me up , please!)

Someone will. For what it is worth, I do not mind Railway Digest, it is just
that being of somewhat limited means, the quality that I get does not fit
into my budget. If I had somewhat more substantial means, then I would buy
it - that is why I encourage others to use it as a present.

I also do not mind some of the smaller errors. But glaringly obvious errors
like this one should not be allowed to go without comment. If people do not
keep on bringing this sort of thing to their attention, then it will
continue.

Dave