Re: Railway Digest (again)

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

Stuart Ellis wrote in message <38582B97.5F9C6FA2@zipworld.com.au>...
>Adding to Paul Hogans comments.  I totally agree with your points Paul, and
people
>must realise that an editor cannot check over every bit of information for
>correctness. This is totally impossible. If  Derek or myself were to check
every bit
>of news,  our magazines would never appear. So we do heavily rely on the
voluntary
>posting of information. But also bear in mind that persons who submit
sightings may
>not always have access to timetable or train running information that some
people
>do.

And as I mentioned before, if the report was that W999 arrived at Lithgow at
1730 (when it was due at 1720) on Wednesday 1/12 (when the report was
Thursday 2/12) then I would not even look at it sideways, even if I knew it
to be in error.

But this particular report was so glaringly wrong that it should have been
discovered.

But this is not the only example of this sort of error in RD - I pointed one
out to Derek a while back - the report was taht WL2 went through Pendle Hill
at a certain time, and was followed a few hours later by WL34 - they operate
on different days, so it is a physical impossibility.

In this particular incident, I am not overly concerned about the loco
number, or the arrival time, or anything else, apart from the fact that, as
the editor of Railway Digest, the day of operation of a once weekly service
should have been known to him.

Dave