Ed­i­tor Nigel Har­ris re­sponds:

Rail (UK) - - Open Access | Letters -

A fas­ci­nat­ing crop of let­ters! First, the pub­li­ca­tion of Mr Creed’s let­ter proves how far off-tar­get his com­ments are.

RAIL is do­ing noth­ing dif­fer­ent to­day than it has rou­tinely done for the 21 years of my ed­i­tor­ship - not only re­port­ing what is hap­pen­ing phys­i­cally on the rail­way, but to of­fer anal­y­sis, com­ment and opin­ions on ev­ery as­pect of its strat­egy, man­age­ment and de­vel­op­ment. It is naive to sug­gest that you can ig­nore pol­i­tics, which are - and al­ways have been - in­ex­tri­ca­bly in­ter­wo­ven with rail­way plan­ning and man­age­ment and op­er­a­tion.

So yes, the EU ref­er­en­dum can­not be avoided - in­deed, many read­ers keen to un­der­stand the full pic­ture told us very clearly they wanted to find out more.

Brexit will have a big im­pact on our rail­ways, so to ig­nore it would have been to have failed in our big­gest re­spon­si­bil­ity. And so the ref­er­en­dum/Brexit in­evitably - and quite rightly - came un­der the scru­tiny of all our opin­ion writ­ers. It would have been ridicu­lous for this not to have been the case, given the po­ten­tial (and cur­rently un­known) im­pact on our rail­way.

One last thing - when crit­ics say “it’s too po­lit­i­cal” or sneer at a rea­soned ar­gu­ment as “a rant”, what they usu­ally mean is: “I dis­agree vi­o­lently with what’s said so I shall try and en­sure such views are ex­cluded in fu­ture.”

I don’t think so. If I felt like that and acted on it, many of our opin­ion pieces (es­pe­cially from Wol­mar!) and all these let­ters would never have ap­peared - Ed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.