Following on from various discussions on here regarding
old-fashioned loco-hauled relics vs exciting new trains,
I was struck by the photographic and editorial content
of the current issue of RAIL magazaine, claimed to be
the magazine for the high-flyers of the rail industry.

There are 21 Photographs of very traditional-looking
loco-hauled passenger trains, plus a few HSTs, and just
three shots of the post-privatisation passenger fleet:
1 Meridian, 1 HT turbostar and 1 Pendolino
(57-hauled!) Two 67s and one 66 are vastly outnumbered
by BR-built freight diesels.

37 406, 37 408, 37 411 and 37 416 (twice) make an appearance
out of the surving EWS fleet of nine, there's an article
about Class 20-hauled diversions years ago and one about
the old-fashioned signalling on Teesside. The book
reviews all cover heritage diesel traction ...

No.1 in Britain! As I said, modern trains are just _not_
so interesting ...

Charlie

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:dc2uqb$fv3$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...

>
> Following on from various discussions on here regarding
> old-fashioned loco-hauled relics vs exciting new trains,
> I was struck by the photographic and editorial content
> of the current issue of RAIL magazaine, claimed to be
> the magazine for the high-flyers of the rail industry.
>
> There are 21 Photographs of very traditional-looking
> loco-hauled passenger trains, plus a few HSTs, and just
> three shots of the post-privatisation passenger fleet:
> 1 Meridian, 1 HT turbostar and 1 Pendolino
> (57-hauled!) Two 67s and one 66 are vastly outnumbered
> by BR-built freight diesels.
>
> 37 406, 37 408, 37 411 and 37 416 (twice) make an appearance
> out of the surving EWS fleet of nine, there's an article
> about Class 20-hauled diversions years ago and one about
> the old-fashioned signalling on Teesside. The book
> reviews all cover heritage diesel traction ...
>
> No.1 in Britain! As I said, modern trains are just _not_
> so interesting ...
>
> Charlie
>
>

Stopped buying it when it went to 3.00.

4sub wrote:


> 
> Stopped buying it when it went to 3.00. 
> 
> 


That final 5p was the last straw then ;-)

Charlie

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:dc2vbv$g4b$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...

> 4sub wrote:
>
>>
>> Stopped buying it when it went to 3.00.
>
> That final 5p was the last straw then ;-)
>
> Charlie
>
>

Strange, that was it really. :)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:09:48 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>4sub wrote:
>
>> 
>> Stopped buying it when it went to 3.00. 
>> 
>> 
>
>That final 5p was the last straw then ;-)
>
>Charlie

Dont buy,  just subscribe, the discounts they give are worth having
Ive just paid 49.60 for a full years subscription of two mags a month

It's not a serious magazine for people interested in rail transport but
largely for people who love trains, or specifically *some* (i.e. older)
trains.

I believe it used to be called Rail Enthusiast. I remain to be
convinced that dropping the word 'enthusiast' was appropriate.

I often do a photo check and find about 85% of the photos in the
magazine are of trains. However, the current issues has only about 70%.

A third of the 'journalistic' content of the magazine is about
individual trains rather than rail travel.

If they didn't put the TOPS numbers of the trains against every photo
then I might possibly believe the photos are to illustrate the story
rather than to be cut out and stuck into a book.

Despite all these criticisms, I do (often) buy it. Some of the news
articles are relevant to me.

Jerry

"Jerry"  wrote in news:1122313928.595145.114240
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


> It's not a serious magazine for people interested in rail transport but
> largely for people who love trains, or specifically *some* (i.e. older)
> trains.


That would sum up most of the rail magazine titles.


> I believe it used to be called Rail Enthusiast. I remain to be
> convinced that dropping the word 'enthusiast' was appropriate.


Many people here take the opposite view. They don't read it (or claim not 
to read it) precisely because they no longer see it as an enthusiasts' 
magazine.

Rick.

Why should 100% of the photos be of trains? There is a hell of a lot
more to Railways than the trains themselves. There should be many more
photos of track components, engineering work, signalboxes (and not just
the outsides), control centres, on board photos, stations, etc. etc.
OK, so a nice scenic photo and a train in the shot looks great, but
anyone can go out and see that. Not everyone has access to the bits of
the railway that actually make it work.

Give me Modern Railways anyday, but that said, I get the lot, except of
course the photo magazines which seem rather pointless really.

regards
HN28

Hi HN28

I think you may have misunderstood me.

I actually think that 80% of photos being about trains is TOO MUCH.

My interest is rail travel - how trains enable people to travel, and
freight to be carried, in a way that is less harmful to the environment
and is available to as many people as possible.

I'm more interested about how good the train in terms of comfort, the
quality of the stations (incl. toilets, waiting rooms), car parking,
station forecourts, walking routes and so on.

I'd like to see a magazine in the shops that had the focus of Railwatch
[http://www.railwatch.org.uk], the magazine of Railfuture.

Jerry

On 25 Jul 2005 10:52:08 -0700, "Jerry" 
wrote:


>It's not a serious magazine for people interested in rail transport but
>largely for people who love trains, or specifically *some* (i.e. older)
>trains.
>
>I believe it used to be called Rail Enthusiast. I remain to be
>convinced that dropping the word 'enthusiast' was appropriate.
>
>I often do a photo check and find about 85% of the photos in the
>magazine are of trains. However, the current issues has only about 70%.
>
>A third of the 'journalistic' content of the magazine is about
>individual trains rather than rail travel.
>
>If they didn't put the TOPS numbers of the trains against every photo
>then I might possibly believe the photos are to illustrate the story
>rather than to be cut out and stuck into a book.
>
>Despite all these criticisms, I do (often) buy it. Some of the news
>articles are relevant to me.
>
>Jerry

You have got that the wrong way round,  its the mag which left
enthusiasts much to their disgust many years ago and became the leader
for business men and the government.   Just look who arrive at
Harris's desk for interviews from government when anything big is
going on.  There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
to keep up with the latest information.

Martin WY wrote:


> You have got that the wrong way round,  its the mag which left
> enthusiasts much to their disgust many years ago and became the leader
> for business men and the government.   Just look who arrive at
> Harris's desk for interviews from government when anything big is
> going on.  There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
> to keep up with the latest information.


So we can therefore assume they are all heritage traction fans!

Charlie

Charlie Hulme schrieb:

> Martin WY wrote:
> 
>> You have got that the wrong way round,  its the mag which left
>> enthusiasts much to their disgust many years ago and became the leader
>> for business men and the government.   Just look who arrive at
>> Harris's desk for interviews from government when anything big is
>> going on.  There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
>> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
>> to keep up with the latest information.
> 
> 
> So we can therefore assume they are all heritage traction fans!
> 
> 

may be you will be better off reading railway interiors international 
(www.railwayinteriors-expo.com) its all about the passenger focus. Those 
conventional rail magazines as well as a lot of newsgroups  care to much 
about loco painting, steam and grease...
keep that direction even without tracks ;-)

G.fried

Thanks Martin

Well, I think Nigel Harris is taking the middle ground and satisfying
no-one.

I prefer Rail professional but it's only monthly, hence the reason I
buy RAIL.

As I'm not an enthusiast I daren't think what it would be like if it
didn't try to appeal to business men and the government!

Jerry

"Martin WY"  wrote in message 
news:d64ae1dgjnacd3ulcoji43mb1ko1j03na1@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:09:48 +0100, Charlie Hulme
>  wrote:
>
>>4sub wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Stopped buying it when it went to 3.00.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That final 5p was the last straw then ;-)
>>
>>Charlie
> Dont buy,  just subscribe, the discounts they give are worth having
> Ive just paid 49.60 for a full years subscription of two mags a month



Or save money, go to your local library and read it (free).

Bevan

Martin WY  wrote in 
news:ggeae114bt7mklei22q5hflctuki1tf1hb@4ax.com:



> There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
> to keep up with the latest information.


What stops them posting here, anonymously if necessary?

Rick.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:51 +0100, Rick Hughes 
wrote:


>Martin WY  wrote in 
>news:ggeae114bt7mklei22q5hflctuki1tf1hb@4ax.com:
>
>
>> There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
>> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
>> to keep up with the latest information.
>
>What stops them posting here, anonymously if necessary?
>
>Rick.

The info they post is only known to a limited few of the TOC being
talked about or NR, its very easy to find them, even using the DNS

Martin WY  wrote in 
news:90nae1dofon1ll5607jb287g6d6m10dgbb@4ax.com:


>>> There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
>>> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
>>> to keep up with the latest information.

>>What stops them posting here, anonymously if necessary?

> The info they post is only known to a limited few of the TOC being
> talked about or NR, its very easy to find them, even using the DNS


But they're not posting any info. Are they forbidden from making any 
comment at all? Can't they just join in the general chat, or is any 
interaction with the public at all frowned upon? 

Rick.

On 25 Jul 2005 11:48:03, hn28_signal@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


>Why should 100% of the photos be of trains? There is a hell of a lot
>more to Railways than the trains themselves. There should be many more
>photos of track components, engineering work, signalboxes (and not just
>the outsides), control centres, on board photos, stations, etc. etc.


.....but NO penguins!   ;-)

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

Rick Hughes wrote:

> Martin WY  wrote in
> news:90nae1dofon1ll5607jb287g6d6m10dgbb@4ax.com:
>
>>>> There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
>>>> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy
>>>> Rail to keep up with the latest information.
>
>>> What stops them posting here, anonymously if necessary?
>
>> The info they post is only known to a limited few of the TOC being
>> talked about or NR, its very easy to find them, even using the DNS
>
> But they're not posting any info. Are they forbidden from making any
> comment at all? Can't they just join in the general chat, or is any
> interaction with the public at all frowned upon?
>


Perhaps they simply prefer not to put themselves in a position where they
divulge something they're not supposed to.

Alternatively, perhaps they prefer to discuss things in a less pubescent
hormone charged atmosphere.

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> I was struck by the photographic and editorial content
> of the current issue of RAIL magazaine, claimed to be
> the magazine for the high-flyers of the rail industry.

>
> No.1 in Britain! As I said, modern trains are just _not_
> so interesting ...



Perhaps the 'modern rail managers' are too busy dealing with complaints
from other photgraphers prevented from taking pictures to take pictures
themselves of modern trains leaving it to the 'enthusiast' of the
original title of the rag ?


--
Nick

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:46:38 +0100, Rick Hughes 
wrote:


>Martin WY  wrote in 
>news:90nae1dofon1ll5607jb287g6d6m10dgbb@4ax.com:
>
>>>> There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
>>>> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy Rail
>>>> to keep up with the latest information.
>
>>>What stops them posting here, anonymously if necessary?
>
>> The info they post is only known to a limited few of the TOC being
>> talked about or NR, its very easy to find them, even using the DNS
>
>But they're not posting any info. Are they forbidden from making any 
>comment at all? Can't they just join in the general chat, or is any 
>interaction with the public at all frowned upon? 
>
>Rick.

with a lot of Tocs and Frocs  = frowned upon, as it is taken they are
commenting on fellow T & Fs.  There is not much general chat usually
on here that does not require a comment about N R  or another Toc Froc
etc. in one way or another.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:51:34 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
 wrote:


>Rick Hughes wrote:
>> Martin WY  wrote in
>> news:90nae1dofon1ll5607jb287g6d6m10dgbb@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>> There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
>>>>> are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this and also buy
>>>>> Rail to keep up with the latest information.
>>
>>>> What stops them posting here, anonymously if necessary?
>>
>>> The info they post is only known to a limited few of the TOC being
>>> talked about or NR, its very easy to find them, even using the DNS
>>
>> But they're not posting any info. Are they forbidden from making any
>> comment at all? Can't they just join in the general chat, or is any
>> interaction with the public at all frowned upon?
>>
>
>Perhaps they simply prefer not to put themselves in a position where they
>divulge something they're not supposed to.
>
>Alternatively, perhaps they prefer to discuss things in a less pubescent
>hormone charged atmosphere.

Now You understand it,  and got it in one.

Martin WY  wrote in 
news:112be1hohcot48pnjnbts930vfb3quc3t5@4ax.com:


> with a lot of Tocs and Frocs  = frowned upon, as it is taken they are
> commenting on fellow T & Fs.  There is not much general chat usually
> on here that does not require a comment about N R  or another Toc Froc
> etc. in one way or another.


Forgive me for digging deeper, but I find this puzzling. You say (with 
apparent certainty) that amongst the readers of this group are 
"businessmen and rail industry lurkers," who are forbidden from joining 
in the discussion. I can understand why they wouldn't want to disclose 
sensitive information, or why their companies might try to gag them from 
making injudicious remarks. But, if they are really amongst us, what do 
they hope to learn from uk.railway, especially if they can never comment 
on even the most innocuous of subjects? Is uk.railway worth reading, but 
not worth posting to? Or are these high-flyers so unsure of their own 
communication skills that they can't trust themselves not to give away 
secrets? I suppose one explanation could be that, if company policy is 
against unauthorised public statements, these lurkers are too loyal to 
disobey. Yes, that must be the answer ...

If RAIL prints a critical article on a TOC or other rail company, very 
often there's a letter from some bigwig at the company concerned, printed 
in the next edition, answering the criticisms, accomplished without 
knocking other companies. So seemingly they're allowed to make some 
public comments. But not here, not even anonymously. Well, not unless 
some of the regulars are really industry insiders, posting using 
carefully-constructed alter egos.

Perhaps they're not really lurking at all ...

Rick.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:14:53 UTC, Martin WY  wrote:

: There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
: are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Ian
--

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message 
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-8el92EHDyQsw@localhost...

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:14:53 UTC, Martin WY  wrote:
>
> : There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
> : are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this
>
> Do you have any evidence for this claim?
>
> Ian
> -- 
>

Well I'm in rail industry. 29 years service..
Not sure about posting using real name though.

On 26 Jul 2005 19:38:41 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote in
<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-8el92EHDyQsw@localhost>, seen in uk.railway:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:14:53 UTC, Martin WY  wrote:
> 
> : There are more businessmen and rail industry lurkers who
> : are not allowed to reply on here, who do read this
> 
> Do you have any evidence for this claim?


I don't know about managers, but I am aware that a number of the
traincrew types who used to post in here have been taken aside and (at
best) "advised" not to. 

As Martin has said, it's a miracle that nothing has been said to me
yet, although it could be said that what I post here is as nothing to
what is said about the company by the staff to the pax when the latter
ask questions, and nothing is done about that either.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

Rick Hughes wrote:



> Forgive me for digging deeper, but I find this puzzling. You say (with 
> apparent certainty) that amongst the readers of this group are 
> "businessmen and rail industry lurkers," who are forbidden from joining 
> in the discussion. I can understand why they wouldn't want to disclose 
> sensitive information, or why their companies might try to gag them from 
> making injudicious remarks. But, if they are really amongst us, what do 
> they hope to learn from uk.railway, especially if they can never comment 
> on even the most innocuous of subjects? Is uk.railway worth reading, but 
> not worth posting to?


People from the rail industry do read this group - I know
because several of them have told me! Not, perhaps, at
TOC MD level, but senior enough to matter. Some of the
people who do post are clearly from the 'industry', too,
in one way or another.

But generally, anyone who does post risks breaching their contract
of employment, so they don't, espcially if their own  company
is the subject under discussion.


> Or are these high-flyers so unsure of their own 
> communication skills that they can't trust themselves not to give away 
> secrets? I suppose one explanation could be that, if company policy is 
> against unauthorised public statements, these lurkers are too loyal to 
> disobey. Yes, that must be the answer ...


Loyalty, or the risk of disciplinary action!


> So seemingly they're allowed to make some 
> public comments. But not here, not even anonymously.


The letters you see have been vetted before submission.


> Well, not unless 
> some of the regulars are really industry insiders, posting using 
> carefully-constructed alter egos.


Correct.

Charlie

Ross wrote:


> I don't know about managers, but I am aware that a number of the
> traincrew types who used to post in here have been taken aside and (at
> best) "advised" not to.



Doesn't that prove that the managers do read it, if only to
look for any of their staff misbehaving?

Charlie

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:26 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Rick Hughes wrote:
>
>
>> Forgive me for digging deeper, but I find this puzzling. You say (with 
>> apparent certainty) that amongst the readers of this group are 
>> "businessmen and rail industry lurkers," who are forbidden from joining 
>> in the discussion. I can understand why they wouldn't want to disclose 
>> sensitive information, or why their companies might try to gag them from 
>> making injudicious remarks. But, if they are really amongst us, what do 
>> they hope to learn from uk.railway, especially if they can never comment 
>> on even the most innocuous of subjects? Is uk.railway worth reading, but 
>> not worth posting to?
>
>People from the rail industry do read this group - I know
>because several of them have told me! Not, perhaps, at
>TOC MD level, but senior enough to matter. Some of the
>people who do post are clearly from the 'industry', too,
>in one way or another.
>
>But generally, anyone who does post risks breaching their contract
>of employment, so they don't, espcially if their own  company
>is the subject under discussion.
>
>> Or are these high-flyers so unsure of their own 
>> communication skills that they can't trust themselves not to give away 
>> secrets? I suppose one explanation could be that, if company policy is 
>> against unauthorised public statements, these lurkers are too loyal to 
>> disobey. Yes, that must be the answer ...
>
>Loyalty, or the risk of disciplinary action!
>
>> So seemingly they're allowed to make some 
>> public comments. But not here, not even anonymously.
>
>The letters you see have been vetted before submission.
>
>> Well, not unless 
>> some of the regulars are really industry insiders, posting using 
>> carefully-constructed alter egos.
>
>Correct.
>
>Charlie

Once again you are totally correct charlie as our lodger who has just
arrived back from work , read your comments, and said.  ' its nice to
know someone has some common sense on there'

>
>
>

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:54:03 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Ross wrote:
>
>> I don't know about managers, but I am aware that a number of the
>> traincrew types who used to post in here have been taken aside and (at
>> best) "advised" not to.

As our very good friend Nev!

>
>Doesn't that prove that the managers do read it, if only to
>look for any of their staff misbehaving?

No , they read it to glean any updated information that may be on
which they wish to know about.  This 'manager' roaming around left at
05am this morning for journey to work and 12 hour shift , so they miss
a lot, and its one way of finding out updates,  ( its often faster
than the 'news' :-)

>Charlie

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:07:19 GMT, Martin WY  wrote:


>As our very good friend Nev!


Shame.  His postings were always informative and interesting, and
never (that I could see) defamatory of the company he worked for.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Charlie Hulme  wrote in
news:mmxFe.6015$Aw4.3929@newsfe5-win.ntli.net: 


>> Well, not unless 
>> some of the regulars are really industry insiders, posting using 
>> carefully-constructed alter egos.
> 
> Correct.


So, come on, admit it - you're really a PRO for Virgin? I won't tell, and 
no-one else is looking ...

Rick.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:54:03 GMT, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<LpxFe.6016$Aw4.5382@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> 
> > I don't know about managers, but I am aware that a number of the
> > traincrew types who used to post in here have been taken aside and (at
> > best) "advised" not to.
> 
> Doesn't that prove that the managers do read it, if only to
> look for any of their staff misbehaving?


Well, someone reads it. 

Whether it is the managers or someone who reads it and then passes on
juicy bits is something else, but as only certain operators actually
take action against people posting here, I suspect it is managers. 

Possibly not even that senior; IMX senior managers are far more
laissez-faire about what their staff are doing and saying (unless it's
blatantly prejudicial to the business) than the lower level managers
who have images and empires to protect.


I did have a sort-of run in a with a (now ex) junior manager who
objected to my posting on traindriver.co.uk with the tagline "Today I
have mostly been driving dogboxes in Lincolnshire. Again". Strangely
he wouldn't actually challenge me directly, perhaps because he
realised that he'd lose face as well as the argument.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

Rick Hughes wrote:


> 
> So, come on, admit it - you're really a PRO for Virgin? I won't tell, and 
> no-one else is looking ...
> 


You've noticed the bias in my postings then ;-)

Charlie

> > --
> >
> Well I'm in rail industry. 29 years service..
> Not sure about posting using real name though.


Exactly, how are management going to stop people posting anonymously.