"High Speed Rail" and other hot button issues.

[Otto Vondrak]

We need everyone in the RAILROAD.NET community to weigh in.

I've noticed an increasing air of hostility on this forum and others as the "debate" over "high-speed rail" continues to erupt into circular rounds of name-calling and other "excited utterances." A discussion of the facts and issues is welcome, but all too often we seem to descend into diatribes and impassioned testimony regarding politics and political figures.

First and foremost, this is a railroad enthusiast community. Our interest is in the operations and policies of railroads. When it comes to topics like Amtrak and passenger rail, it is inevitable that some political discussion will ensue, as these operations depend on government support to operate. The gray area emerges when we begin to discuss things that "could" happen, or we "wish" would happen. The concepts of "high-speed rail" and expanded corridor routes and new equipment orders are all very tempting topics because it is clear that Amtrak is in the midst of considering many new projects. Our imaginations take flight as we can already see in our minds new trains operating on new routes, possibly at higher speeds than we enjoyed before. After years (generations?) of living with a limited "basic" system that has seen little growth over the years, it seems like we may be poised to see the true first expansion of passenger rail nationwide in more than 20 years. There's a lot to be excited about!

That said, Amtrak is just one operator with a fixed budget with specific line items for all of its spending. There are many new and exciting developments to discuss. Where do we draw the line between a well-thought-out proposal and a flight of fantasy that has no basis in reality? At what point are we discussing the parameters of an actual plan versus an academic discussion of what could be done?

Regarding politics, it is one thing to bring up facts and figures and review policies and proposals. At what point have we left the conversation relating to railroads and get into a round-and-round debate about spending and government in general? When we start comparing the funding of other modes and the difference in revenue models, where does it all end?

I think I've made my stand on politics known over the years: I can't stand political discussions. You never get anywhere trying to convince another guy his beliefs are wrong. I frankly don't care what your personal political stand is. It's none of my business. I personally believe that such discussions do not have a place on a railroad enthusiasts' community such as ours. We are creating a hostile environment that I find somewhat unpleasant. We need to change our tone.

RAILROAD.NET is the oldest enthusiast community on the Internet, going back to 1996. We make no apologies for being one of the most tightly moderated forums around. Our Amtrak Forum in particular is one of the most widely-read and reviewed in the industry. By that, I mean industry professionals observe and read our debates and discussions daily. Our site has reach beyond the enthusiasts who contribute to our site. How can we remove the hostility and vitriol and continue with engaging, relevant conversations?

The floor is open. Please add your input.

-otto-

[Otto Vondrak]

I can't believe that there have been 48 views and none of you have a comment?

[FatNoah]

Unfortunately, I think the only answer is continued moderation. The issues are something people are passionate about and, like it or not, are tied into politics and government spending so it's hard to divorce that from railroading. Personally, I feel that the moderators generally do a great job. When compared to other discussion sites, even the most contentious issues here rarely devolve into ad hominem attacks or other uncivil behavior.

[Ridgefielder]

It is difficult to avoid veering into politics when we are talking about publicly-funded animals like Amtrak and the various commuter agencies.

Perhaps us members should be reminded to think before we post-- i.e., hit the "Preview" button and read your post twice before you hit "Submit," and always bear in mind that no matter where you post something electronically, it's as public and permanent as it would be on the front page of The New York Times.

Perhaps also, Otto, firm, clearly-stated definitions of what does and does not constitute acceptable political discussion in the context of this forum would be of assistance. For example-- would discussing a state's financial situation in the context of a proposed service expansion be "off the reservation", so to speak?

It's not the easiest solution, I know, but I think it's the most workable in the long run.

[justalurker66]

I'm new here so I try not to interfere too much with long standing policies and feelings that I have not yet discovered. It can take a while to get the feel of a place.

I don't see a problem with moderation ... there are times that things are missed and other times that things go too far, but I know that is just part of a large moderated forum. Sometimes things are not seen as quickly as the moderators want to see them. Sometimes the hope that bad posts will pass without moderation encourages moderators to let things ride. It is a gamble. But on balance this site does well and the Amtrak forum isn't broken.

As for the issue at hand ... I do see an issue with mixing truth with reality. "Fan fiction" and "wishful thinking" when presented too often MAY be read by some as actual plans that Amtrak or other official agencies put forth. It should be noted when a plan is the poster's idea or some other dream vs something that has been officially suggested by those in a position to actually do something. Otherwise the forums could easily become fantasy rail forums. Can we keep it real?

Politics is hard to ignore ... when the government is involved there will always be political motivations somewhere in the backdrop. It is hard to ignore the fact that money is going to states that play an important part in national elections. The important part about political discussions is to make your point and move on. If it takes a poster 10 posts to get their point made they are not doing a good job. If a poster keeps posting the same point over and over they are not doing a good job. Politics are part of discussing the government ... but there is more to Amtrak and HSR than politics. Don't forget to move on.

Nobody likes to read the same old stuff over and over. When the forum gets repetitive people turn away. We all bear the responsibility (even us new people) of making the forum better by shelving egos and posting like adults in a rational discussion not hecklers on the street corner. If everyone does their part the forum will do fine.

[Matt Johnson]

I can't believe that there have been 48 views and none of you have a comment?

I'm not sure what to say - the minute I mention the word "Turboliner" it gets a thread locked, so I feel like even civil discussion on certain subjects is frowned upon. (And past is prologue, so I think previous failures and boondoggles are relevant in establishing credibility as we discuss future taxpayer funded investments.) I haven't found the environment to be as bad as you describe, personally, though perhaps I've missed some arguments that have been deleted back.

[mrsam]

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.

But that's a pipe dream. Any politician that waxes on, and on, about high speed rail this, or high speed rail that, is just pandering to you. And I'm being a bit mild, with this characterization.

If we really, really manage to scrounge together a few bucks in our pocket, to spend on the railroad infrastructure, it would be better spent fixing what we already have, before everything goes to pieces. I'm just sitting here, keeping my fingers crossed that the Portal bridge won't turn to dust before its replacement is ready. And after Portal's done, methinks that Dock's going to be the next batter up. It doesn't look to me like it's in much better health than Dock, I tell you.

[TomNelligan]

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. All things considered, this site is far saner than some others I follow, both rail-oriented and otherwise, and as a longtime member I appreciate that. Politics is relevant to Amtrak, commuter, and transit operations, and should be discussable in that context, but I hope general political rants remain out of place. And trolling, name-calling, and general idiocy should continue to be deleted by the moderators.

Second, maybe a new forum specifically devoted to intelligent speculation, hopeful fantasizing, and such would both allow that sort of discussion to go on freely but also separate it from general Amtrak topics.

Finally, in reading this and any other discussion board on this Inter-Net thing, I always keep in mind the tongue-in-cheek disclaimer printed on the masthead page of a music magazine to which I frequent contribute: The opinions expressed within this magazine are solely those of the author, and may or may not correspond with the thoughts of a sane individual.

[TREnecNYP]

I think clearly separating hard facts from opinion, and opinion from new original ideas on the topic would be useful. I mean, meshing the 3 together obviously is causing arguments, so how about dividing one's posts making it clear what is being posted, be it fact, opinion, or idea. Examples:

Passenger rail is a difficult political issue in some areas... This is a fact.

I don't like that passenger rail is a difficult political issue in some areas.... This is an opinion.

They could create a proper venue for residents and potential customers and vendors of various services such as snow shoveling/plowing, maninence contracts for plumbing and so on at stations bla bla bla.... This is an idea.

See what i mean? I think it could work.

- A

[jstolberg]

Railroading in the US is changing and changing probably faster than any time in the past 70 years.

Three things are driving that change.
1. The Obama administration's willingness to speed billions on rail through a variety of programs including transit, TIGER, and High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grants,
2. Positive Train Control regulations, and
3. A tripling in the size of the Panama Canal (which is really a freight issue).

Over $100 billion in state-sponsored high speed rail grant applications and Amtrak's $23 billion fleet strategy plan have led to some wild speculation (some of which I have engaged in). I appreciate the civil discourse that has been maintained on this site and understand how it can easily get out of control. In order to keep some semblance of order and reality, when it comes to issues requiring millions of dollars to be spent, it may be best for us to limit ourselves to discussions of proposals put forth by authorities such as railroads and governments without making more of our own.

That would put the following topics off limits:

• Routes not advocated by Amtrak or any of the states,
  Equipment not in service or proposed for purchase by any state or railroad,
  Track upgrades not proposed by any state or railroad.

[Otto Vondrak]

I'm not sure what to say - the minute I mention the word "Turboliner" it gets a thread locked, so I feel like even civil discussion on certain subjects is frowned upon.

I feel the need to comment on this specifically. We had to prohibit discussions of Turboliner because certain people on this forum could not accept the fact and reality that Amtrak has retired and stored the equipment, and it will not operate again under their watch. Certain people on this forum are not capable of a rational discussion of the technology, even as a historical discussion. Therefore, we made the difficult decision to ban the topic for discussion on this site. Please PM me or email me if you have questions specific to that topic.

-otto-

[Ridgefielder]

I think clearly separating hard facts from opinion, and opinion from new original ideas on the topic would be useful. I mean, meshing the 3 together obviously is causing arguments, so how about dividing one's posts making it clear what is being posted, be it fact, opinion, or idea.

That would put the following topics off limits:

Routes not advocated by Amtrak or any of the states,
Equipment not in service or proposed for purchase by any state or railroad,
Track upgrades not proposed by any state or railroad.

Both of these ideas sound fair enough to me. Perhaps there should be one forum for discussion of current and planned operations, excluding the things Mr. Stolberg notes, and another one for foamer speculation?

[Otto Vondrak]

I tend to discourage "flights of fantasy" because while they are fun a a relative few, they seem to spawn a reaction within the membership to see who can come up with the more elaborate scheme. Those kind of threads also seem to be an invitation to join a shared hallucination (they usually start with, "Wouldn't it be great if...") which I respectfully decline. It's one thing if you're sitting around with your buddies and you throw a few wild ideas back and forth, but I don't think we need to carry that over to our forums. I think this also extends to the vauge "When will Amtrak _________?" That blank can be "order new equipment" "buy new locomotives" "expand Train XX to station/route/state" etc. etc. If they were doing it, they would announce it, right?

That said, if a railroad or governing body put forth a proposal for a new or expanded service, or an RFP for equipment, then I believe that would be a valid topic of discussion.

-otto-

[Greg Moore]

Hmm, where to begin...

I'll start with a simple request: you claim this is one of the most widely read and reviewed forums in the industry. I would love to know the basis for that claim. (not saying I disagree, I'm genuinely curious).

I have to find it ironic that people are asked for their opinions. I've found generally that opinions that differ from the norm are not overly welcome here.

And you are right, you do make no apologies for being one of the most tightly moderated forums. I already left once and have considered multiple times since returning of leaving again. I've never been a big fan of moderation, however I do see the need for it in some areas. However, I find that here it is often capricious and I can often find no rhyme nor reason behind why some discussions are locked for topic other than personal whim of the moderator.

For example, there was a discussion on the possibilities of a Viewliner 2 purchase that was locked for no reason given other than "paused for review" and never reopened. First, it was never clear what needed reviewing and second, it seems like the "pause" has become permanent.

When I PM'd to ask if it could be re-opened, I was told to give a reason. I'm sorry, but I thought "to continue discussing the topic at hand" was obvious. It's your place Otto, but reactions like that make me less inclined to participate.

And obviously rather than address individual posters or even trying to keep individual discussions on hand, you'd rather ban them outright. So, any mention of Turboliners is verboten to the point where it has become a joke among the regulars. Even a historical discussion of them is off-topic according to you.

And I have to strongly disagree with your stance on politics. Politics is part and parcel of any discussion on a national rail system, high speed or not. Yes, it is possible to keep it civil and unfortunately some are incapable of that. But simply stating something like, "The Obama Administration seems more predisposed to supporting HSR than the Bush administration" IS a political statement. And it's a far cry from saying, "Republicans hate HSR." But apparently even the former is far to political for your blood.

And yes, it is possible to discuss politics civilly and even to change someone else's mind on specific views. I've done it.

You tend to discourage "flights of fantasy" discussions because they're fun to a relative few. That must be why I often see the most posts in them.

Honestly, it's your forum and I can choose or not to participate and I will say more and more likely I am less inclined to do so. And that is more due to what I consider capricious moderation than the actual content of the posts themselves. If particular regulars want to make jerks of themselves, I find myself very quickly ignoring anything they have to say. i.e. they make their own reputations, moderation or not.

As for another comment you made about us going round and round and where does it end? Honestly, I think that's fact of nature. There's probably a fixed number of topics that come up (other than the rare new items) and they get discussed and then dropped. Once dropped, they get pushed down to the bottom of the screen and then on to the next screen.

Then someone new comes along and wants to discuss the topic and fails to find it in the list of topics and starts a new one. Same old discussion gets rehashed and then dropped.

It's like the old joke about the new guy who walks into a prison and hears the inmates shouting numbers at each other and then laughing. He asks what's up and his cellmate tells him they've told the same jokes so many times, they've given up and gone to shorthand and assigned each one a number.

So the new guy shouts out 17! No one laughs. He asks why and his cellmate responds, "well it's all in how well you tell it."

Discussions here (and really anywhere else) tend to get recycled. Partly out of laziness. And honestly, because sometimes I find the search capabilities of phpBB to be less than ideal (this is also true of at least one other forum I'm on that uses phBB).

I guess in closing I would echo what a few others appear to have said.

As long as this will continue to be a moderated forum, spell out exactly what the standards are.
When locking a discussion, provide more rational whenever possible.
Focus on changing when possible, individuals behavior, not banning entire classes of topics.

(oh and can we get a favicon file? would help me find this in my tabs in my browser).

[djlong]

Personally I think it's a hard job - trying to moderate all this without being TOO heavy-handed because you have one factor that really impacts this severely.

Time.

How long does it take for something to go from an idea to it's implementation in this industry? How long was the New Haven to Boston NEC stretch 'planning' to be wired - and how long from the time the first check was cut to the time the first Acela ran? How long before they even lay the first pound of rail from Tampa to Orlando? How long before they even put out the first contract to bid?

So we fans sit on our hands here with nothing but time to speculate, discuss and (periodically) argue.

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?