Railway Herald iss 16 just out now.. well worth a look...

to contact  railway.herald@lwmailcentre.com

web address:-  http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/

and its FREE!

It's just a shame about the spelling mistakes and dark pictures.

And why does Alrewas Level Crossing Signal Box need a capital for each
word - it was not the way I was taught. Similarly in a caption on page
2, tall ships should be capitals.

Plus a final moan - page 2 has some apology from "the editor" (why no
capital E for Editor?), yet no where does it tell us who the mystery
editor, sorry Editor, is.  Let's have his name in print so he can be
recognised when out and about. And his email address appears three
times on that page.

It's a great concept but let down by poor use of English - such as
"Runaway damages Loch Rannoch". Other passages of text could be better
written too.

On a first read it implies that something has run away into Loch
Rannoch, not that the loco named Loch Rannoch itself ran away. And
should Loch Rannoch not be in quotes?

As for spelling badly "badley" - and what is an ensamble?


Err, back to the classroom Mr Editor.

"Grumpy Old Man"  wrote in message

How apt is that pseudonym then?

Grumpy Old Man wrote:


> On a first read it implies that something has run away into Loch
> Rannoch, not that the loco named Loch Rannoch itself ran away. And
> should Loch Rannoch not be in quotes?


No, in italics.

Charlie

Grumpy Old Man wrote:


> And why does Alrewas Level Crossing Signal Box need a capital for each
> word - it was not the way I was taught.


It largely depends upon what was on the sign; some boxes had the term
'Signal Box' included in the name ('Pepper Hill Signal Box', for
example).


> Similarly in a caption on page2, tall ships should be capitals.


And in your posting, 'tall ships' should be in quotes...

SNIPPED

>
> Err, back to the classroom Mr Editor.


Dear Grumpy;

So you read it all the way through then........

Sorry, should have put a question mark there?

Did the content rather than the grammar mean anything to you?

You could always unsubscribe....

Regards...SFS

>
> Did the content rather than the grammar mean anything to you?


Always interested on any comments upon the content of Issue 16....

turbo wrote:

> Always interested on any comments upon the content of Issue 16....


Very good as always, the bit about Wabtec was interesting and is was good to
see the first pictures of 150009 in there, just a small note though the
editor missed out replacing the Xs with the correct numbers when referring
to the number of 317s which will be overhauled there.

Although I'm not complaining, its truly excellent publication (even more so
because its free) I'm sure there are a lot of people who are grateful to
the editor for doing this in his spare time.

"turbo"  wrote in message
news:hfnOe.93991$G8.8788@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> Always interested on any comments upon the content of Issue 16....


As always it's a cracking good read. I'm normally equally picky on spelling
and grammar but, given the timescales involved and the fact that the Editor
has other priorities, I can forgive most of the errors! A "Railway Herald"
with a handful of spelling or grammatical errors is better than no RH at
all.

Jack Taylor wrote:

>  A
> "Railway Herald" with a handful of spelling or grammatical errors is
> better than no RH at all.


Agreed, even a Railway Herald with a page of spelling mistakes is better
than a /LIAR/

Or, as I recall calling it in my long-ago student days, The Beano!

On 22 Aug 2005 03:02:34 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
 wrote:


>It's just a shame about the spelling mistakes and dark pictures.
>
>And why does Alrewas Level Crossing Signal Box need a capital for each
>word - it was not the way I was taught. Similarly in a caption on page
>2, tall ships should be capitals.
>
>Plus a final moan - page 2 has some apology from "the editor" (why no
>capital E for Editor?), yet no where does it tell us who the mystery
>editor, sorry Editor, is.  Let's have his name in print so he can be
>recognised when out and about. And his email address appears three
>times on that page.
>
>It's a great concept but let down by poor use of English - such as
>"Runaway damages Loch Rannoch". Other passages of text could be better
>written too.
>
>On a first read it implies that something has run away into Loch
>Rannoch, not that the loco named Loch Rannoch itself ran away. And
>should Loch Rannoch not be in quotes?
>
>As for spelling badly "badley" - and what is an ensamble?
>
>
>Err, back to the classroom Mr Editor.



Line 6:    Nowhere is one word not two!

turbo  wrote in message
hfnOe.93991$G8.8788@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk

>> Did the content rather than the grammar mean anything to you?
>
> Always interested on any comments upon the content of Issue 16....


Yes - where is it exactly?  I haven't had an e-mail about it yet and I can't 
find it...

-- 
Ian McMillan
ian@NOSPAMimcmillan.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotrail - Scotland's online railway group
http://www.railpic.co.uk - now updated with regular mobile snapshots

>
> Yes - where is it exactly?  I haven't had an e-mail about it yet and I 
> can't find it...


I think you need the original and first post in this thread for the 
details.....

"Stu"  wrote:


>
>SNIPPED
>>
>> Err, back to the classroom Mr Editor.
>
>Dear Grumpy;
>
>So you read it all the way through then........
>
>Sorry, should have put a question mark there?
>
>Did the content rather than the grammar mean anything to you?
>
>You could always unsubscribe....



.... or ask for a refund!

;-)

turbo  wrote in message
dFqOe.94212$G8.2626@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk

>> Yes - where is it exactly?  I haven't had an e-mail about it yet and
>> I can't find it...
>
> I think you need the original and first post in this thread for the
> details.....


I have seen and read that - I think you need to re-read my post.

-- 
Ian McMillan
ian@NOSPAMimcmillan.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotrail - Scotland's online railway group
http://www.railpic.co.uk - now updated with regular mobile snapshots

>> I beg to differ. The version currently sitting in my mailbox is 5.5MB.
>> The overheads are considerably more than you realise.
>>
>> This size is clearly not a problem for me, but it will be for some.



Hi Gang;

Size is not a problem for me either....(no tittering!!)

Copy 16 in my mailbox is 5.710MB...

Don't know how long it took to download...I'm on 'always on' BroadBand..

Regards,,,SFS

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:31:47 +0100, "Ian McMillan"
 wrote:


>turbo  wrote in message
>0BCOe.94544$G8.5078@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>>>> The URL to view the latest edition.
>>>
>>> Not available on line, only available as a PDF file, as it has been
>>> from issue 1,  http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/  gives full details
>>> of how to receive the current issue, no 16, by free subscription.
>>> Back issues of up to about iss 13 are available by a series of links
>>> on the site.
>> If you want, I'll happily email you a copy to the email address you
>> give  in this group, if subscribing causes any problems. Its about
>> 4MB this time because it is 17 pages. Normally its about 2MB or less
>
>I think you still misunderstand!  I *DO* subscribe, but I haven't had any 
>e-mail telling me where the latest edition is, or with it attached.  I have 
>received every previous copy since I subscribed.


Likewise I also haven't received my email yet as a subscriber,
probably because of the size of the email. I'm sure many people would
prefer not to receive emails of this size, but instead receive an
email including a URL allowing them to download the file at a time and
location suitable for them.

Keep up the good work with the newsletter though.

Duncan

> Likewise I also haven't received my email yet as a subscriber,
> probably because of the size of the email. I'm sure many people would
> prefer not to receive emails of this size, but instead receive an
> email including a URL allowing them to download the file at a time and
> location suitable for them.
>
> Keep up the good work with the newsletter though.
>

Those comments, and similar previous posts have been noted, sorted and 
suggestions submitted to the Editor. Can't promise anything though, because 
the entire production is done for zilch.

turbo  wrote in message
0BCOe.94544$G8.5078@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk

>>> The URL to view the latest edition.
>>
>> Not available on line, only available as a PDF file, as it has been
>> from issue 1,  http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/  gives full details
>> of how to receive the current issue, no 16, by free subscription.
>> Back issues of up to about iss 13 are available by a series of links
>> on the site.
> If you want, I'll happily email you a copy to the email address you
> give  in this group, if subscribing causes any problems. Its about
> 4MB this time because it is 17 pages. Normally its about 2MB or less


I think you still misunderstand!  I *DO* subscribe, but I haven't had any 
e-mail telling me where the latest edition is, or with it attached.  I have 
received every previous copy since I subscribed.

Anyway, I've since found out I'm now restricted to e-mails under 5Mb, and 
this edition is over 5Mb, which is a shame!

Something for the editor(s) to consider, I think most people would have 
problems receiving e-mails of such a size.

-- 
Ian McMillan
ian@NOSPAMimcmillan.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotrail - Scotland's online railway group
http://www.railpic.co.uk - now updated with regular mobile snapshots

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:15xttqg19e2p3$.1klkajybgzbt4$.dlg@40tude.net...

> turbo wrote:
>
> > Issue 16 is 4,165KB, + the overheads in an email approx 2K, so its well
> > under 5MB
>
> I beg to differ. The version currently sitting in my mailbox is 5.5MB.
> The overheads are considerably more than you realise.
>
> This size is clearly not a problem for me, but it will be for some.


Fortunately my ISP has recently increased the maximum limit, otherwise I
might also have had a problem if that was the size.  In any case, for those
of us on dial-up, the extended download time can be a nuisance - especially
when doing one of those 'quick e-mail checks before I go out', only to find
an attachment that takes 20 minutes to download!

In view of the fact that the back issues are available from the website for
download on demand what would stop the same function being provided to
subscribers, password-protected? The advice e-mail would then only need to
contain the password for downloading the current edition, allowing
subscribers to choose when they take the download.

turbo  wrote in message
tjDOe.94564$G8.79381@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk

>> I think you still misunderstand!  I *DO* subscribe, but I haven't
>> had any e-mail telling me where the latest edition is, or with it
>> attached.  I have received every previous copy since I subscribed.
>>
>> Anyway, I've since found out I'm now restricted to e-mails under
>> 5Mb, and this edition is over 5Mb, which is a shame!
>>
>> Something for the editor(s) to consider, I think most people would
>> have problems receiving e-mails of such a size.
>>
> Issue 16 is 4,165KB, + the overheads in an email approx 2K, so its
> well under 5MB and is something that has been already considered-
> Issue 9 was 4.5MB as a single file and was split into two parts for 
> distribution
> for that very reason. Issue 16 is not added as a 'back issue' for a
> few weeks. Drop the editor an email if your copy has not been
> received.



  <railway herald's correct email address>
    SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT
    TO:<railway herald's correct email address>host pmin.vip.spray.net
[212.78.207.193]: 550 reverse connect to MXs failed

:-(

-- 
Ian McMillan
ian@NOSPAMimcmillan.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotrail - Scotland's online railway group
http://www.railpic.co.uk - now updated with regular mobile snapshots

Tony Picketts wrote:


> Nowhere is one word not two! 


Is that true now, here?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683841.html
(158 832 at Manchester Piccadilly, 22 Jul 2004)

> I have seen and read that - I think you need to re-read my post.

>Yes - where is it exactly?  I haven't had an e-mail about it yet and I 
>can't

find it...

What is it you need that the email address, website address, doesn't provide 
to answer your question?

turbo  wrote in message
MoCOe.94535$G8.75663@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk

>> I have seen and read that - I think you need to re-read my post.
>
>> Yes - where is it exactly?  I haven't had an e-mail about it yet and
>> I can't
> find it...
>
> What is it you need that the email address, website address, doesn't
> provide to answer your question?


The URL to view the latest edition.

-- 
Ian McMillan
ian@NOSPAMimcmillan.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotrail - Scotland's online railway group
http://www.railpic.co.uk - now updated with regular mobile snapshots

>
> The URL to view the latest edition.


Not available on line, only available as a PDF file, as it has been from 
issue 1,  http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/  gives full details of how to 
receive the current issue, no 16, by free subscription.
Back issues of up to about iss 13 are available by a series of links on the 
site.

>> The URL to view the latest edition.
>
> Not available on line, only available as a PDF file, as it has been from 
> issue 1,  http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/  gives full details of how to 
> receive the current issue, no 16, by free subscription.
> Back issues of up to about iss 13 are available by a series of links on 
> the site.

If you want, I'll happily email you a copy to the email address you give  in 
this group, if subscribing causes any problems. Its about 4MB this time 
because it is 17 pages. Normally its about 2MB or less

>
> I think you still misunderstand!  I *DO* subscribe, but I haven't had any 
> e-mail telling me where the latest edition is, or with it attached.  I 
> have received every previous copy since I subscribed.
>
> Anyway, I've since found out I'm now restricted to e-mails under 5Mb, and 
> this edition is over 5Mb, which is a shame!
>
> Something for the editor(s) to consider, I think most people would have 
> problems receiving e-mails of such a size.
>

Issue 16 is 4,165KB, + the overheads in an email approx 2K, so its well 
under 5MB and is something that has been already considered- Issue 9 was 
4.5MB as a single file and was split into two parts for distribution for 
that very reason. Issue 16 is not added as a 'back issue' for a few weeks. 
Drop the editor an email if your copy has not been received.

turbo wrote:


> Issue 16 is 4,165KB, + the overheads in an email approx 2K, so its well 
> under 5MB


I beg to differ. The version currently sitting in my mailbox is 5.5MB.
The overheads are considerably more than you realise. 

This size is clearly not a problem for me, but it will be for some.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14104757.html
(59 005 and 59 003 at Merehead, 26 Jun 1994)

"Stu"  wrote in message
news:decuud$6ed$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> SNIPPED
> >
> > Err, back to the classroom Mr Editor.
>
> Dear Grumpy;
>
> So you read it all the way through then........
>
> Sorry, should have put a question mark there?
>
> Did the content rather than the grammar mean anything to you?
>
> You could always unsubscribe....
>
> Regards...SFS
>
>

I see you adhere to the current educational thinking - it doesn't matter how
grammatically incorrectly you write  some prose so long as it expresses your
creative thinking. The only thing wrong with this line of thought is that
employers and others don't like it because they know that sooner or later it
will lead to misunderstanding and confusion.

Another dreary old fogey.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:07:39 +0100, "M.J.Whitson"
 wrote:



>I see you adhere to the current educational thinking - it doesn't matter how
>grammatically incorrectly you write  some prose so long as it expresses your
>creative thinking. The only thing wrong with this line of thought is that
>employers and others don't like it because they know that sooner or later it
>will lead to misunderstanding and confusion.


Instead all writing should be forced into a rigid Powerpoint slide or
box-ticking format. That way you get the same misunderstanding and
confusion, but you can be sure that this month's corporate logo is the
right colour. 


-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

M.J.Whitson wrote:


> I see you adhere to the current educational thinking - it doesn't matter how
> grammatically incorrectly you write  some prose so long as it expresses your
> creative thinking. The only thing wrong with this line of thought is that
> employers and others don't like it because they know that sooner or later it
> will lead to misunderstanding and confusion.
> 
> Another dreary old fogey.


You can't be *that* old, otherwise you would know the proverb about not
looking gift-horses in the mouth, which, rather than any educational
polemic, seemed to me to be the reason behind the posting. (And with
which I entirely agree, FWIW.)
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632848.html
(33 050 at Salisbury, 1985)