"High Speed Rail" and other hot button issues.

Otto,

I trust that Dave, Tad and you are communicating as various threads heat up ... as Erik, Joe and I once did.

Within the boundaries set by the rules, I think there has to be communication amongst the mods, and discernment about when to step in. If folks want a free-for all, go create alt.amtrak on usenet or as a google group.

Well the other answer would be to send andy hsr discussion off to the high speed rail forum , where we never seem to have any problems .

mrsam wrote:It just so happens that I stumbled across the libertarian take on this issue: http://reason.tv/video/show/supertrain-2010. I was musing whether or not I should post this link here, the decision was made easier for me when I saw that this thread was already started.

I am not a libertarian, but I have to agree with Reason Foundation, here: high speed rail in the US is a pipe dream. We just can't pay for it, folks. We're broke. No mullah. We can't pay for it. If, on the other hand, we had a balanced budged and no debt, then, perhaps this would be a worthwhile investment for out tax dollars.

^ ^ ^
This is one of the sorts of "politics" which causes problems here -- ill-informed nonsense.

I'm not sure how to avoid it. This is just mind-bogglingly ignorant economics. There are even other people at Reason who will be happy to debunk this. (The trouble is probably that Reason is known for employing a couple of anti-train fanatics who will use any argument if it leads to "trains bad".) There is simply no such thing as being "broke" for a government which prints money and borrows in its own currency. There are other potential very serious economic problems, and if you want to talk about hyperinflation, loss of faith in the money, potential difficulty refinancing debt, tax rates which put pressure on competitiveness, "crowding out" of private investment, or plain wasteful spending, I would probably disagree that we are at seriously risk of those things here, but it's easy enough to discuss respectfully. Or if you suggested that the country as a whole (not the government) was broke, I would point out our huge real industrial and agricultural production, large (if crumbling) infrastructure, and large educated labor supply, but I would recognize it as a real long-term possibility.

However, when people talk utter, ignorant nonsense it is quite important to correct them. The only alternative is to prevent it from being posted in the first place.

In other words, the mods can either delete posts like the above summarily or they can leave my responses to them, but those are the only two reasonable methods of moderation.

The problem goes well beyond these boards, and speaks to lack of economics education or respect for it as a field.

All discussions of railroads are likely to lead into economics. The unfortunate fact is that economics has become politicized and even the well-understood parts (which aren't that many!) are being denied by people with vested interests. If someone suggests utter engineering nonsense ("trains can run on solar power from panels on the train -- we don't need any fuel or wires!"), they are politely corrected. It's important to do the same for economics lest this become a home for disinformation.

Sigh.

two things:

1) If you have a question about why or why not a specific topic was locked, just contact myself or one of the mods and we'll explain in painful detail. Same goes if you want to have a thread reopened or split off. That's been our standing policy since day one, since we don't always have time to leave a full explanation when we take an administrative action.

2) I'd like to explain a concept I call the "reach" topic. It's a split off the "what-if" hypothetical. They generally involve stringing together concepts until it seems to appear to be related to the topic at hand ("What kind of potato chips should Amtrak serve in the Amcafe?"). They are sometimes disguised as invitations into a shared hallucination ("What if Amtrak ran steam engines to Oregon on the Pioneer?"). Kind of like the railroad version of Mad Libs. Merely tacking the word "Amtrak" onto a question does not make it an Amtrak topic. I generally like to avoid "reach" topics when possible.

I've been reading every comment posted here, and it's all good stuff. Keep it coming.

-otto-

djlong wrote: One thing I think *might* help are a series of FAQ links. For example, the first one could be to a locked "Turboliner" page that would look like a combination Wikipedia entry and *edited* Q/A session from the series of arguments that have long since been locked. The same could hold true for topics like the Boston North/South Rail Link.

Would it help moderation if people could be redirected to a page links to FAQ pages?

This can be quite effective for certain topics. Over in NJ Transit, the Lackawanna Cutoff would be the classic example. In the CTA forum, the pointers to the slow zone maps probably effectively replace a vast amount of discussion with no complaint.

David Benton wrote:Well the other answer would be to send andy hsr discussion off to the high speed rail forum , where we never seem to have any problems .

Actually, this is another concern I have about this website (outside the amtrak forum).

All online forums are presented with the class question of how to divide up subforums. Having "Freight rail" and "Passenger Rail" would be bad because there would be too much going on in one place. On the other end, having "MBTA Blue Line", "MBTA red line" etc would be a problem because there's not enough discussion.

I think this website has done a pretty good job of creating the right level of subforums....but it's not perfect. I've seen many instances where people arent sure where to post.

Example topic:
High speed rail between Worcester, Mass and Albany, NY
(Let's assume such service is in the planning stage)

Would it go in the MBTA forum, the Metro north forum, the high speed rail forum, the amtrak forum, or the new england rail forum?


So bringing that back to Amtrak, I dont understand why we have a high speed rail forum. Presumably, all these rail lines will be operated under an existing agency, either branded as amtrak (such as Amtrak California) or branded with a local regional agency.

I think the level of discussion, and fluidity for the forums could be improved if these discussion would be brought into one place. One example where this was done successfully is by including CDOT with Metro North. So perhaps the Amtrak forum could become a more general Inter-Urban discussion encompassing all existing Amtrak service and upcoming high speed rail?

I'll be one more voice to support what I sense is a common sentiment:

1) I am grateful that RR.net exists. I enjoy and learn from its forums daily. The time put in by the creators and moderators is appreciated.

2) Personal attacks ('name-calling' in OP) are never appropriate, and moderators are perfectly correct to quash these immediately. I think you should silence the offending poster(s), not the thread.

3) BUT: I wish the moderators would stop locking civil discussions. Does it really disrupt some grand universal order if a topic drifts slightly, or if mention is made of unfunded ideas, an accident, a fare, or (horrors!) my favorite trainset? Why not allow some fanciful proposals to be discussed? The moderators here stifle potentially interesting discussions just to appease the few whose delicate sensibilities are offended by theoretical, 'stretching,' or expensive ideas. I'd rather the forum simply proclaim: "please just ignore topics which you don't like...live and let live".

James Sinlcair , i see your point , but take a look at the high speed rail forum . not one locked topic . i cannot recall one epsidoe of name calling , or other abuse that came close to needing to inform admin . ( there' something else missing from the hsr forum , i wonder how many pick it up ) .
Sure the traffic is way less than the Amtrak forum . but it is also missing the political signifigance of Amtrak . Amtrak is a political creature , and it stirs feelings in posters that they can't help but express . I , and i'm sure most other regulars , could tell you the political leaning of all other regular posters .Everyone has an opinion on Amtrak politics . HSR is relativly apolitical .
It becomes obvious when a topic is heading for a lock , and again , I , and i'm sure others , think , oh well might as well have a bit of fun before this one is locked . or it becomes a race to get the last political jab in before its locked . you have to wonder about course and effect .
so , that is my answer to the question , if it concerns HSR , ship it off to the HSR forum . I think youll find it suddenly becomes alot less political .

I appreciate the wide variety of opinions and topics presented at rr.net. I'm geographically isolated from most of the action and this forum is a great way to see the world's railroad industry without having to spend a lot of time away from home. The moderators do a good job of keeping this forum interesting to a broad range of contributors and also from preventing this forum from degenerating into a "ready-aim-fire" site. Too many online forums degenerate into flame wars between the extreme 5% on the right and the extreme 5% on the left, leaving the other 90% of the readers uninterested and uninvolved. Thank you!

I don't have a problem with the "flights of fantasy" threads as long as there is a recognition that railroads are expensive and that funding is usually subject to political oversight and control. There are a few topics that have been beaten to death (Sunset East, What's the Point of Amtrak?, HSR to Everywhere); if someone wants to add something new to those discussions, I'll be glad to read their post. But, if we're just going to rehash the same old information, why bother?

I do get tired of threads and post that are "flights of fallacy", however. If someone is using incorrect, outdated or irrelevant data to discuss the current state of affairs at Amtrak, it makes it more difficult to move the discussions toward any sort of meaningful end. Why do we spend any time discussing Amtrak's fares compared to specially negotiated contract airfares? The Turboliners have no relevance to modern, 21st century railroading and if anyone thinks that the Cascades trains between Eugene and Portland only carry 40 people per trip, there is empirical evidence to refute that claim. But it gets tiresome to trying to set the record straight.

I come to this forum mostly to learn. There are a few times that I have the answers, but mostly I want to hear other people's questions and learn what other people are seeing and thinking. I'm here to talk about ideas, the threads that devolve into "Jane, you ignorant sl#t..." tantrums need to be stopped. Maybe we need an unmoderated sandbox or Octagon thread where people can go to have their hissy fits and call each other (and their mamas) all sorts of ugly names. But let's keep the personal attacks and ugliness out of the main threads. Thanks.

TomNelligan wrote:One person's opinion, for what it's worth..

First, I salute and thank Otto and the other Railroad.Net principals for keeping this thing going and for attempting to keep the discussions respectful and reasonably on topic.

I second that e-motion. I also appreciate the fact that the moderators are willing to listen to constructive suggestions. I've been peeved a few times, and I've PM'd whoever was responsible for a reason, and more often than not, the issue that peeved me was explained to my satisfaction.

John_Perkowski wrote:Tad and Dave are doing a superb job of moderating the toughest forum here at railroad.net. It's not easy. GBN had his style, Eric, myself, and Joe worked hard during our tenure, I don't think there was more than 3 days in two years we weren't emailing each other and Otto about something.

...If you want an education, ask Otto to be Mod here. You'll get one, I promise.

Stay the course, Otto, Tad, and Dave It's a good forum

Again, I second that e-motion. It's like politics in a way.....we all complain about politicians, but are any of us willing to serve? I taught training classes in the military for over 10 years, and I could tell you that the people who were sharp-shooting me would bail the minute they were asked what THEY WOULD DO or to demonstrate HOW THEY WOULD DO IT. And they were usually sitting in the back row (which is why when I taught I always made them move to the front row!).

justalurker66 wrote:A quick thought on moderation: Complaining about moderation is like walking into someone's house, peeing on the carpet, then complaining about the smell. This isn't my house ... I appreciate the fact that I've been allowed to come in the door. And since it isn't my house I'm not going to pee on the carpet or complain!

Amen, brother. I've gotten into a few peeing contests here (or more correctly, on the MNRR forum 67). I certainly have challenged some of the experts and moderators. I've also come to know (at least as far as this forum goes) some of the folks on here, and have apologized on ocassion in public and private. I've engaged in some baiting and attacking, and taking the bait. Hey, we're all sinners, right? But I do try to follow some simple rules (to get this back on to Otto's original post/request):

1. The internet is, or can be, anonymous, with the use of pseudonyms and alias'. It's easy to attack (flame) on here. The same goes for email, although email can be worse in that it can be forwarded to the wrong people. See my above admission. So do this: Don't post something on here that you woudn't say to the person's face, whether it be for lack of courage, presence of others, politeness, or just for plain fear that the person you flame will beat the living bejeezus out of you.

2. Have a problem with another person? Try toning it down. Ignore it. Take it "off-line". Yeah, that's easier said than done. I've PM'd or been PM'd by a few of my buddies over on MNRR who I've had issues with or who have had issues with me. Sometime's it's hard to read intent in a post (see above rant on email). If the post is abusive, report it. And don't cherry-pick. If you're going to quote someone, try to keep it in context (although it annoys me when people unnecessarily quote someone's entire post when it's obvious they're responding to that post, or to a specific part of that post, as I've selectively quoted above).

3. Have a problem with the moderation? Do the same thing: take it off-line. Like I've said, I've been PO'd by the moderators; once we explain ourselves, it usually goes away. And remember this creed: always avoid public criticism (although it's been asked for here in this thread). It's one of the things I learned as a leader: praise publicly, criticize privately. If you must criticize publicly, try to do it broad-based (i.e. a team) and don't make it personal. And, if you must criticize, avoid ad hominem attacks (like posting dictionary definitions that you think apply to someone you disagree with, as just happened in another forum), and stick to the facts, or rebut the criticisms. Limit the criticism to the actual act. These guys work hard, and it's not polite to publicly criticize, especially when they provide a free service. The only time I ever got into it with a subordinate in public was when I was publicly challenged, and was forced to publicly respond, or risk losing respect, and that was after I tried to walk away.

Again, I haven't always practiced these on here, but hey, my meds needed an adjustment.

Interesting discussion. I'm not exactly a lurker, I follow the forum fairly regularly and post from time to time, though I am in no way an industry insider and, alas, only rarely have the opportunity even to ride.

I strongly agree with the many, many posts saying that the moderators are far too aggressive at locking threads because, in their opinion, "it's run its course." If the discussion has run its course, it will die a natural death, no need for euthanasia. Of course, deleting un-civil and inflammatory threads is entirely appropriate, and I've always found the mods to be civil and even-handed via PM, I just fail to see why terminating otherwise polite threads is ever needed.

On the other hand, it's also true that the mods (presumably) represent the ownership of the site, which since it's free means the rest of us are nothing more than guests. Maybe what we need to see is some thoughts from the owners and/or mods as to what THEY think the site and forum are for, and as to what THEY think they don't want to see, it would be useful guidance for all.

Regarding politics. Unfortunately, it is absolutely impossible to have any useful discussion on any level about railroading in the US without instantly involving politics. Even asking about the brand of chips sold in the cafe might logically extend into questions of union work rules and funding constraints.

This is even more true with high-speed rail. Even a privately-funded high-speed rail line, not that I think one is likely, would still need heavy government support to get the right-of-way via eminent domain.

It's a simple fact that, as a very wide generality, Democrats tend to support government spending on Amtrak and Republicans less so. That's the reality of the world; if these threads are to stay rooted at all, how can we not talk about that, both for good and for ill? It's already been said that we should avoid pie-in-the-sky Utopian fantasies.

A lot of posters here believe the problem with American passenger rail is lack of committed government funding, and they are perfectly entitled to that opinion since it's a fact that so far as I know, all the other high-speed passenger rail lines in the world were constructed more or less at government expense. It's also a fact that the American rail system was mostly constructed by private enterprise, with government subsidies directly tied to mileage built; we don't do that anymore, and we also hardly build or improve our rail network as a system anymore. If we'd like to see improved passenger trains, much less revolutionary new technology, how can we not consider political and economic history in how existing networks came into being?

Considering that we live in a 50/50 nation, I'd guess that heated political disagreements are all but unavoidable. Why shouldn't we let those debates be hashed out, AS LONG AS civility is maintained, facts are presented, and arguments at least attempt to be logical? The issue was raised of a recent debate that degenerated into personal attacks; I don't think anyone would dispute the wisdom of the mods interfering with that sort of thing.

The reason we have a "High Speed Rail Forum" separate from Amtrak is for the simple reason that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation is not and will not be the only operator of such services and equipment. There's also lots of discussion of "concepts" that are all great ideas, but have nothing to do with Amtrak. The high-speed rail moniker usually refers to services in excess of 100mph operated on dedicated right of ways. At least, that's the definition I'm working with.

CNJ wrote:

railaw wrote:

CNJ wrote:That you disagree with the operation of Amtrak is fine...that's your opinion. I and others reading here respect that. But in fairness, you should also allow a greater variety of contrarian views as to why Amtrak should be allowed to continue to operate.

I hardly think there's an imbalance of too many posters saying Amtrak spends too much.

I would disagree with your generalization.

I think what I should have said in the first place is that I don't think that a particular line of argument should be discourage because many people agree with it. That is, the number of people who agree with a proposition doesn't make it any more or less true, (though perhaps more or less likely to be true) and therefore I don't see a connection between frequency of a general position and moderating activities.

neroden wrote:This is one of the sorts of "politics" which causes problems here -- ill-informed nonsense.

I'm not sure how to avoid it. This is just mind-bogglingly ignorant economics.

I presume that if you were actually responding to the post you quoted, you'd state your reasons why you think it's so. I suspect that the 'discussion' that would ensue could quickly deteriorate, especially if judgments like the above are expressed, because of the inference (whether intended or not) that the speaker is therefore mind-bogglingly ignorant. Yet I agree that others should have the opportunity to respond to such an assertion (constructively). At the same time, the post could go quickly to an argument about fundamental ideas way outside the scope of the topic. I think this is ok, IF the posters who led the line of argument conclude the argument and bring the results back to the topic at hand. However, I have noticed that this doesn't always happen. In the end I think its just a judgment call for the moderators to decide how far to let a side point go, though I do think that they should warn when their patience is growing thin, so to speak. Which I have seen done in the past.

It's probably not clear from my posts, but I don't have any grievance with the moderators. I think these ideas are interesting and worth talking about though, to help the 'real' discussion be more fruitful.

Can I say something about politics, in general?

It's one thing to say, "The Roosevelt administration is going to spend $50 on new napkins for all diner cars in 2011." It's another thing to draw a conclusion from that. "it's about time!" or "what a waste" are all valid reactions. But then to delve into some drawn-out conversation with charts and graphs and statistics from the Congressional Reporting Service... Frankly, that's where you lose me.

It's one thing to find some supporting facts. "According to ProgressiveNapkin magazine, the Roosevelt administration has cut its napkin spending in half for dining cars." Okay. "Comparitively, airlines tripled their napkin spending. What's more, the Federal Highway Administration is advocating napkins being placed in all rest stops." Well, you've certainly done your research. Here's what kinds of responses it tends to draw:

1) "They should make the truckers pay for napkins in rest stops! Why, there's at least 50 trucks a day that go through my town! No one's made a law against that!"

2) "The B&O never spent that much on napkins. Not since they enacted the Federal Napkin Tax."

3) "You know, if they only used the kinds of napkins that they had on the RF&P, there'd be no need to replace them year after year. Why, I remember when my grandfather would bring home napkins from work. Did I ever tell you about the time nickels had buffaloes on them?"

4) "I think Amtrak should buy red-white-and-blue napkins."

5) "What's your favorite napkin? If you were in charge of Amtrak, what kinds of napkins would you get?"

6) "China has high-speed napkins, it's absurd that we do not. Thanks for nothing, [politician name]!"

7) "We don't need high-speed napkins. It only makes sense in Europe where the population is denser. Besides, high speed napkins wont work on our conventional dining car tables. It's a waste and another boondoggle by the Roosevelt administration!"

8) "HOW DO I APPLY FOR A JOB AS A NAPKIN FOLDER????!!!! I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A JOB AS A NAPKIN FOLDER BUT NO ONE AT AMTRACK WILL CALL ME BACK???!!!!"

9) "[Fourteen pages of political rant supported by charts and graphs].

10) "What are we talking about again? -otto-"

Otto,

Thanks for creating this topic. With regard to ideas or proposals that are entirely member generated I think having a 'Fantasy Island' forum might be useful. To a certain extent you may have indicated that the High Speed Rail forum serves this purpose for certain proposals invovlving high speed rail and even Maglev, but there are many other ideas that have no relation to high speed rail at all which many people would like to discuss. I understand creation of this forum might initially seem to be a daunting burden of future moderation but in the end it will probably make moderating the Amtrak forum and others easier.

Simple criteria for this forum would be if there is no published source dicussing the topic as proposed then it qualifies for placement in the "Railroad Ideas" forum which could be under the "Railfanning, History and Technology" Category on the Board Index. Having an 'incubator' if you will for these ideas might allow individuals who would like to discuss really outlandish or completely new proposals a space to do so without having to take up space, energy and time in forums that are clearly designed for discussion of actual railroading, either current or proposed (by a published source). I would support permanently hosting a Turboliner thread in that forum, and that forum only.

I think you are right to protect the integrity of the Amtrak forum (and others) with comprehensive discussion moderation. I suspect that when you indicate that the forum is read by the industry you are not saying based only on IP tracking etc. Either way the Amtrak forum and others that deal with present day operations have tremendous significance far above and beyond simple discussion of the topics at hand. The forum itself is an instrument of democracy. With the greater prominence of Internet based media, of which Railroad.net is an excellent example, in public policy, the influence of discussion from members on policy is undoubtedly stronger today than even five years ago. I don't take this fact lightly in my posts as do many others. I do believe that to a certain extent in the future this website may be shown to have had a substantial impact on the NPRC as a conduit for feedback on operations and an open forum for discussion of policy. The fact that it is moderated as carefully as it is has an exponential effect on its influence. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in discussions that are relevant to leadership.

In regards to politics the answer I think the answer is very simple. If the discussion becomes a matter of first principles, liberal vs. conservative, that is the domain of other websites but if the discussion is about principles of railroad policy or operations, perhaps from a liberal or conservative point of view then you should be able to allow the discussion. I am certainly aware of the difficulty in making this determinaion but once the topic strays from railroad policy and operations to political principles then the discussion is better suited to another website. This shift is usually something that is self-evident. To be clear I strongly believe that modal discussions (that include rail) are well within the domain of this website and its forums. To believe otherwise would eliminate one of the areas of discussion from which I (and probably many others) have learned the most.

My sincere thanks to you and the other moderators for making it possible for us all to be heard and linked together through this website.