Rail Express September 2012

[grahame]

That's a bit unfair Graham - Phil knows me from my Mostyn days and knows about my signalling interest, so he could have been in touch if he had so wanted, I would have written the article for the normal fees or proof read it for the usual consultancy fees.

A quick glance on here would show others who could assist and this isn't the only forum. At least one of the mistakes is so basic that a 30 second search and read would have prevented them - google is also an article writers friend.

 

There are plenty of examples of signalling within this forum where various people have helped others get their models (signals) right, people only have to ask to get assistance, it's not down to those of us who know about such things to hunt them out.

 

 

It may bit a bit unfair but I'm still in the dark about what the errors are.

 

I accept that others have had specific signalling queries answered on this forum but this thread is about REM and an article in it, and that is what I was referring to. I also agree that in writing the article it should have been checked for accuracy but the snag is that this one is in print (so it's not much help to me saying how they could have prevented the mistakes) and potentially likely to spead mis-information. And I certainly wasn't suggesting that people in the know hunt out mistakes (as you mention) but several people have commented about the article on this thread so it's a topic of conversation here at least.

 

Quite honestly I don't even know what the basic mistake is that could be corrected by a 30 second google search. It would be nice to know so at least I don't repeat it. Is there nothing of merit in the article and would it be best to completely ignore it or it is just a few particular mistakes?

 

G.

[griffgriff]

I think Grahame the best way of putting it is that this article got a E but the rest of his work are straight A's. Ignore this one and enjoy the other pieces instead.

[beast66606]

It may bit a bit unfair but I'm still in the dark about what the errors are.

 

And I'm still not here to correct errors in a magazine I'm afraid.

[The Stationmaster]

It may bit a bit unfair but I'm still in the dark about what the errors are.

 

Quite honestly I don't even know what the basic mistake is that could be corrected by a 30 second google search. It would be nice to know so at least I don't repeat it. Is there nothing of merit in the article and would it be best to completely ignore it or it is just a few particular mistakes?

G.

I've just checked back Grahame and the word I used to describe it (albeit among others) was 'rubbish'. Looking back at the original article I am inclined to amend that slightly as far as any of its references to the prototype are concerned and classify it as 'total rubbish' because that is what it is - indeed some of it isn't rubbish it's some sort of invented nonsense written by someone who clearly does not understand what he is writing about.

 

In fact in the bit which discusses the prototype it is not very easy to find much that is accurate and - as the proverbial Irishman is alleged to have said - if you are wanting to get there I wouldn't be starting from here. In other words if you want to know anything about signalling don't start with this article.