Re: Railway Digest (again)

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

James Brook wrote in message <38571C3D.866FA0FE@ozemail.com.au>...
>Dave, I think you are being a bit pedantic here. Magazines like Railway
Digest
>rely on railfans contributing information like this and sometimes it is
bound to
>be wrong.

Undoubtedly.

>I sometimes contribute to Rail News Victoria and I try to make my
>contributions as accurate as possible but there will probably be some
people who
>don't make much of an effort to do this.

True with anything.

>With the number of contributions an
>editor gets every month for a magazine like this some small errors are
likely to
>slip through.

And small errors I can excuse, and even ignore. THis was not a small error
though.

>Also you have to remember that the editor does have a life apart
>from the magazine.

I have a life away from my job. I am still expected to do my job properly
though.

> So he can't spend every minute of every day checking up on
>every little report that comes in. If you look hard enough you will find
small
>errors like this in just about every railway magazine in Australia.
Personally I
>think Railway Digest is one of the leading Australian railway magazines and
I
>think Derek Rogers does an excellent job. If you think you can do better
than
>him, why don't you start up a magazine?

Again, this was not a small error, and it should have been immediately
obvious to him that it was wrong. We are talking about a 23 hour difference
here. The report said the train arrived at 2040 Thursday, when it was
scheduled to arrive at 2140 Wednesday (and actually arrived at 2240
Wednesday).

The actual time does not matter, the day does, and it should have been
obvious to him.

Dave