Watson stop with the 3 letter stuff ok not everyone knows where you mean and its lazy.
Agreed, those that don't have the rail knowledge won't know what your talking about. The comments get read by newbies as well as those more informed of the industry remember
Gentlemen, may I draw your attention to the sections in
bold?
For a SYD-BHS-SYD daytrip, you have two options. Option number one: Dubbo XPT. Departs Sydney Central 0710, arrives Bathurst 1043; departs Bathurst 1707, arrives Sydney Central 2049. The timing is perfect for a daytrip, giving you six hours and a bit of time in Bathurst; you travel in reasonable comfort.
I would agree that my use of 'SYD' and 'BHS' would be inappropriate if they were used in isolation; in this case, however, I have explicitly spelt out both '
Bathurst' and '
Sydney Central'
more than once. This is in addition to the fact that this discussion is being held in a thread dedicated exclusively to the
Bathurst Bullet.
I also do not believe that being unable to decipher 'SYD-BHS-SYD' would inhibit the reader's understanding of the remainder of the paragraph, which explicitly states the departures and arrivals of the Dubbo XPT at both Sydney Central and Bathurst using the names 'Sydney Central' and 'Bathurst' anyway. Ignore/remove the 'SYD-BHS-SYD' string, and it still makes sense, does it not?
For a daytrip, you have two options. Option number one: Dubbo XPT. Departs Sydney Central 0710, arrives Bathurst 1043; departs Bathurst 1707, arrives Sydney Central 2049. The timing is perfect for a daytrip, giving you six hours and a bit of time in Bathurst; you travel in reasonable comfort.
I therefore assert a conclusion that my use of the three-letter station codes
in this case is indeed defensible; it was included to give a succinct qualification to the word 'daytrip' (
additional information - 'lazy'?) and because it was used in an appropriate context with alternative equivalent notation ('Sydney Central' and 'Bathurst'), I fail to see how it is objectionable.