Mike, You bring up an interesting point. For those of us weened on guys like Morgan and Ingles, there seemed to be a greater unification of knowledge in the railfan press. Actually, the difference was that it didn't seem like the railfan press, it seemed like good, solid press. What you elude to is really just laziness, and in this age of empowered railfan journalism, what you get all too often is one shutterbug's view, rather than a researched approach more in line with legit media. Trains still does it well, but evenn they do they "this is the blue engine I saw on this neat line" thing too often. The saddest example came this year, where an e-mail about glaring errors in a recent article (magazine not named, but it's a biggie) was met with an attack from the editor about how everything they print is right, and if it isn't that's tough 'cause no reader expects full accuracy. Well, I do. That's not how it used to be. No retraction was printed, and thus a string of erroneous facts is now part of the public record. That's how things like Baby Trainmaster get watered down. May I suggest that we could use more guys like you (back) in the press? Rob In a message dated 11/2/99 2:09:27 PM, "MDelvec952_@_aol.com" writes: << There was a time when calling the H16-44 a Baby Train Master would be like calling the GP7 an SD7. It was unheard of in the 1960s and no editor would accept it. But as we move further from the generation that had to live with these units and knew the difference first hand, such usage seems to be getting more and more loose. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net ------------------------------
This HTML page is © 2000-2009 Blue Moon Online System and The Railfan Network
This page and the data contained therein may not be reproduced
for any form of commercial use without the explicit permission
of J. Henry Priebe Jr. or his duly authorized agent.