What's up with railfans who hate trains?

IMHO, being a railfan does not necessarily mean one should advocate trains for the sake of having trains. I'm a railfan, but I'm also - first and foremost - a taxpayer, and I don't want to see my money thrown away more than anyone else does. Of course I would oppose a rail project if it were wasteful and nonsensical. I'd also back to the hilt any rail project that is well planned, well executed, and provides a tangible benefit. There are a lot of rail services that are very good, and a lot of solid plans for more. Unfortunately, for every one good idea there seems to be two or three dream schemes out there that are studied to death at great expense and to no avail, because they are infeasible right from the beginning. It's things like that which provide yet more fodder to those who like to use the wide brush and paint any rail funding as a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Oh, even non-users get a benefit from sensible rail service... whenever I drive along the highway and see a rush hour commuter train go by on the adjacent rail line, I think of the several hundred additional cars that aren't all around me thanks to that train.

As to mine RR's, I think that they are comparable to access roads on property. They are effectively subsidized by their owners.

As to railfans who like to collect poorly-written signs or signs with mistakes, it may be for the entertainment value. Sort of like the pictures at http://failblog.org/

Also, some people are just plain contrarians, wanting to advocate some contrary viewpoint. I've had experience with a few people like that in some other contexts.

madcrow wrote:I've noticed something very interesting: self-identified railfans who seem to hate trains. Seriously, how can somebody say that they like trains and then spend most of their time trolling against rapid transit and commuter rail operations as "too expensive" or "unpopular"? What gives?

I am a fan of WELL RUN railroads. Fortunately the ones I care the most about are well run, so you won't see me complaining.

As railfans, IMHO, we must all acknowledge one basic fact--- rail systems, particularly urban rail transit systems, are the most expensive form of urban public transportation to put into place. It is relatively easy to institute a new bus route, or even a new bus system. You simply secure whatever authorization you need to operate over the streets or highways you wish to use, buy the vehicles, train the operators, do a few other things, and begin operating your routes. And if you find that one or more routes is in the wrong place, you simply alter the route, and use a different set of streets, etc. Rail lines require much more in that you must secure ROW, whether in public streets, or on private ROW, secure authorization, not simply to operate, but to actually build, especially if you're going to use public streets, actually construct your line, or system, which involves laying track, probably building bridges and over passes, possibly stations, or at least platforms if private ROW is used etc etc etc. Then, if you find that you built in the wrong place, you're stuck with a line or system that probably won't last very long, and will cost somebody an awful lot of money. With these considerations, it is not "hating trains" to suggest that certain proposed projects are a waste of money. One of the problems with the old interurbans was that many of them simply should not have been built in the first place-- they were very cheaply constructed, and often were built in the wrong place. In those cases, it didn't take long for the money to run out, and the ill advised interurban to be abandoned. This was a frequent occurance in the early 20th Century. And, keep in mind-- these were all privately owned and privately financed enterprises. Many of the more sucessful interurbans--- those whose initial construction made sense at the time they were built---, wound up being abandoned, as railroads, when the development of the gasoline and later the diesel bus gave the operators a much cheaper way to provide their services---no more expendature of increasingly limited funds maintaining that rail infrastructure.

In today's world, almost all of the transit services that were provided by private companies are now provided by some form of government, usually in the form of transit authorities. This developed because it became impossible to operate any fixed route transit system, whether rail or bus, at a profit, and this came to include commuter railroads. Because of this it has been more than 60 years since any private entity built a major urban rail system, of any kind. These are the facts that face anyone who proposes a new rail system---- it is gratifying to see the number of new light and heavy rail systems that have been built in the last 40 or so years in spite of all of this, however none of them would have been built if we had to depend on the private sector to do it. Under these circumstances, questioning certain proposed projects makes sense-- even though we all would love to see many more rail lines and systems than we have today.

madcrow wrote:I've noticed something very interesting: self-identified railfans who seem to hate trains. Seriously, how can somebody say that they like trains and then spend most of their time trolling against rapid transit and commuter rail operations as "too expensive" or "unpopular"? What gives?

This certainly appears to be an interesting query posed by Mr. Madcrow and is worthy of being X-referenced to other passenger rail Forums at this site.

First, we should note that passenger revenues comprise not more than 2% of Total Railway Operating Revenues; also we should note that the total of Amtrak contract payments made to the Union Pacific comprise less than one percent (< 1%) of its ROR; in short, there are railfans (foamers, industry observers, whatever), and many more rail employees ("rails"), who have no contact whatever with passenger trains.

Somehow, and yet I note with respect, that when Mr. Madcrow uses the term "trains', he is addressing that small microcosim of industry affairs - 'passenger trains'.

Speaking for, again, the microcosim of myself, I am often considered to be "anti-Amtrak'; this is of course from the factions who hold that Amtrak is all about operating and expanding the Long Distance trains - that short distance Corridor services are simply like commuter trains 'are there". I have long held, likely since long about A-Day (May 1, 1971), that the Long Distance trains are there for political expediency, i.e. "no Yuma, no moolah", and are hardly about providing any meaningful service to meet 21st century passenger transportation needs. Yet I enjoy a ride from time to time on an Amtrak LD, and is why earlier this month, after I realized that this year, it was not likely I was going to have occasion to use Amtrak to get from here to there, i took a joyride to Jackson MS and return. But I have had to listen to "Mr. Norman, if you hate Amtrak so much, why do you ride them?".

Finally, as others such as Mr. Nelson have noted at this topic, I want to see passenger rail $$$$ spent wisely to enhance railroad transportation's capacity towards providing service to meet 21st century needs. While every interest group out there loves to "chase funding' from the public trough - and rail passenger advocates are no exception - the "$8B for HSR" provisions under ARRA '09 are ludicrus and are going to set 'the cause' back - especially when Obama leaves office. That $8B should have been allocated to the sure bets out there - and that means the Northeast Corridor. so far as I'm concerned ,the large allocation made to the McCoy (Orlando Airport) - Tampa HSR is simply going to end up as a lane expansion to I-4 - and paid for with rail money!!!

There's a difference between being a railfan (someone who likes to look at/chase trains), and someone who demands rail service anywhere/everywhere with no basis for why.

There are many people out there who LOVE steam locomotives, but could care less about anything modern. There are folks who love urban rail (streetcars/light rail/subways) but could care less about freight rail or even intercity passenger rail. There are many folks who like all things rail, except Amtrak.

Personally: I try to see the value of a given transportation mode and determine what is the best mode of transport. I could be described as a "railfan" but I also like aircraft, ships, cars and buses too. I enjoy a trip to the local aviation museum or the airport as much as the railroad museum or the train yard. I enjoy watching big ships sailing up and down the Columbia River, or antique cars on old U.S. 99, or an antique Routemaster going up the road (I actually saw one today, while riding in a Gillig Phantom.) I even like monorails. Just because I enjoy railroads as a hobby does not mean that I am biased towards rail as a mode of transport nor believe that rail is the best/the only option in a given situation.

RussNelson wrote: I just want money that is taken forcibly from citizens to be spent on one and only one thing: keeping anybody ELSE from forcingly taking money from citizens (or any other kind of violence). Every other kind of relation between ourselves we can arrange voluntarily.

This is an astoundingly naive point of view, and I would just start by noting that you should probably stop using US Mint coins and Federal Reserve Notes (which are government-funded projects) for your money if you really believe that. Enjoy your barter using weighed gold nuggets and voluntary local scrip -- it's quite feasible.... for a while, until you rediscover the reasons why money is government-sponsored. Transportation is government-sponsored for similarly sound *network effect* reasons, and so is the Internet.

There is a world of difference between something that EVERYBODY (yes, I mean that exactly as it says) benefits from...

versus something that relatively few people benefit from but comes at a large cost.

Example: TriMet (here in Portland, Oregon) built two rail projects - the Green Line MAX, and the WES Commuter Rail. However, TriMet at the same time was in the midst of a huge budget crisis and could not afford to maintain even its current (pre MAX/WES) level of service. Instead of halting the new construction projects (which would have a zero ridership impact), they began the two rail projects - AND cut numerous bus services (including the bus that I have ridden for years).

It's much easier to see why there are "railfans who hate trains". I do not eat, drink, sleep trains. I am an ordinary person that has a life - a job that requires reliable transportation so I can earn money to support a household, maintain my home, support my child, so on and so forth. Trains are a hobby, but if I can't even get to work and back - who cares about a hobby?

I like trains, but at what cost? I don't particularly like riding the bus but it's the mode of transport that gets me from point 'A' to point 'B'. I am not going to sacrifice all and take a round-about route to work just for the sake of riding a choo-choo train (actually, three trains - WES to Beaverton, MAX Red or Blue Line to Pioneer Square, MAX Yellow or Green Line to Portland State University or Portland Streetcar from Library/Galleria to PSU). I've done it before (when my bus didn't show up) and it added 30 minutes of travel time. My work does not take kindly when I am late to work.

Meanwhile, the WES train is "red carpeted" with plush seats, "free" Internet access, shelters and Transit Tracker signs and art at every stop. My bus stop has what can barely be considered a shelter and that's it. Why should I pay the <i>same</i> fare, yet get less service.

neroden wrote:until you rediscover the reasons why money is government-sponsored. Transportation is government-sponsored for similarly sound *network effect* reasons, and so is the Internet.

Depressingly ignorant you are, sir. The amount of money in circulation is a function of lending by private banks. The Federal Reserve (itself a set of private banks) is only special because it's allowed to lend out money that never existed before. It's self-sponsoring, not government sponsored as you think. The Internet is not at all government-sponsored (ARPANet was created by the U.S. military and eventually became MILnet, but the Internet was created by private enterprise).

Transportation is just one example of linear infrastructure (think wires and pipes also). It is difficult to supply in the proper quantity no matter whether your markets are completely government-controlled or completely customer-controlled, or anything less than that. Customer-driven linear infrastructure has different characteristics from the government-driven linear infrastructure with which you only seem familiar. Different; not worse, not perfect. Unless, of course, you think the FRA is (or ICC was) doing a perfect job?

RussNelson wrote:

neroden wrote:until you rediscover the reasons why money is government-sponsored. Transportation is government-sponsored for similarly sound *network effect* reasons, and so is the Internet.

Depressingly ignorant you are, sir. The amount of money in circulation is a function of lending by private banks. The Federal Reserve (itself a set of private banks) is only special because it's allowed to lend out money that never existed before. It's self-sponsoring, not government sponsored as you think.

Demonstrably false: FRB: FAQs: Federal Reserve System
It was created as a result of the FRB: Federal Reserve Act
Yes, http://www.federalreserve.gov itself.

The Internet is not at all government-sponsored (ARPANet was created by the U.S. military and eventually became MILnet, but the Internet was created by private enterprise).

Demonstrably false. History of the Internet - Wikipedia -- most of the Internet's predecessor networks were noncommercial, though several of them were arguably non-government. Run by universities and research labs and the like. In fact, commercial use of the Internet's predecessors was officially frowned upon. That changed in the early 1990's, however.

So Heroes of Capitalist Labor did not develop the Internet. Instead, they developed proprietary online services like CompuServe, AOL, Delphi, GEnie, and Prodigy -- and never tried to network them. The Internet drove them out of business because one could reach much more with it.

Transportation is just one example of linear infrastructure (think wires and pipes also). It is difficult to supply in the proper quantity no matter whether your markets are completely government-controlled or completely customer-controlled, or anything less than that.

I don't see how shared infrastructure can be "customer-controlled", unless the customers are also owners of it, either full owners of small pieces of it or part owners of large pieces of it. I've never heard of any road companies or electricity companies or whatever where the customers are automatic stockholders or whatever.

Moderator's Note: Psst: I'm still watching.

The Federal Reserve and ARPAnet have very little to do with why railfans don't like trains, beyond the government sponsorship. Keep your comments focused, please - the thread is already on thin ice.

wigwagfan wrote:Example: TriMet (here in Portland, Oregon) built two rail projects - the Green Line MAX, and the WES Commuter Rail. However, TriMet at the same time was in the midst of a huge budget crisis and could not afford to maintain even its current (pre MAX/WES) level of service. Instead of halting the new construction projects (which would have a zero ridership impact), they began the two rail projects - AND cut numerous bus services (including the bus that I have ridden for years). ...

I respect your concerns, but that's likely to be impractical.

Stopping and restarting construction can be awkwardly expensive, it must be said. It's not like laying off some bus drivers and then rehiring them -- lots of construction stuff must be put away, and then remobilized. However, work is usually contracted out in pieces, and what's likely to happen is finishing up the contracted parts but not the parts without construction contracts.

Furthermore, construction usually has separate money allocated for it, meaning that one cannot save much money there. So it's not like it's all coming from the transit agency's bank account.

As to thinking that some rail systems are poorly motivated or are otherwise failures, I agree that that's a legitimate concern. In fact, I once started a thread on urban-rail failures.

Going further, it's possible to be interested in trains and rail transport in general while regarding it as a lost cause or even as something uneconomical or technologically obsolete or impractical or inelegant or whatever.

I'll be gracious and ignore your "demonstrably false" mistakes. As the moderator points out, they're not particularly on-topic.

lpetrich wrote:

Transportation is just one example of linear infrastructure (think wires and pipes also). It is difficult to supply in the proper quantity no matter whether your markets are completely government-controlled or completely customer-controlled, or anything less than that.

I don't see how shared infrastructure can be "customer-controlled", unless the customers are also owners of it, either full owners of small pieces of it or part owners of large pieces of it.

CSX is a customer controlled business. For example, look at the current topic here on the St. Lawrence subdivision. Bridge service is being transferred to another branch because the customers demand it. CSX makes money for its stockholders when it pleases its customers, and loses money when it doesn't. New York City's MTA is a government-controlled railroad. Customers be damned, everything about it is controlled by the NYC government. If it's responsible to anyone, it's responsive to taxpayers. The MTA always loses money and doesn't please its customers, because the customers aren't paying for it -- the taxpayers are.

I've never heard of any road companies or electricity companies or whatever where the customers are automatic stockholders or whatever.

In many communities in the midwest, electricity is provided by a consumer cooperative.

I'm a diehard train nut, and though I tend to like the old stuff and am left cold by the modern, anything with rails and steel wheels gets me excited. My politics trend left, from idealistic New Dealer to off the grid anarchist, depending on my mood. Yet I cringe at some of the passenger train projects being built or proposed in this country.
For instance, I was just down in Austin, Texas to visit my family. I've visited or lived there since the late 60s and was excited that the long awaited light rail system was finally opening. The reality, of course, was a big letdown. After years of delays and cost overruns, what Austin has is a rinky dink line with about as much commuter usefulness as the Seattle monorail but of course now they can brag that "we have light rail!". At best it will get a few yuppie commuter's cars off the road but it seems to serve no practical purpose and has little potential for expansion. The money would have been much better spent on (yawn) buses, something that might actually benefit the mostly working class people who actually ride mass transit.
I recall that back in the late 70s, a light rail initiative narrowly failed in Austin. Maybe then it would have done some good and the godawful sprawl that turned a beautiful compact city into another sunbelt mess would have grown up around light rail lines a la Pacific Electric in LA. Too late...
That's my sad conclusion for passenger rail in this country. We're so sprawled out and so addicted to the private automobile that trains will never make a difference. More importantly, we lack the will in this country to build any kind of meaningful infrastructure. The only thing that gets built anymore are sports arenas and scammy real estate pyramid schemes and if we're lucky, some little light rail theme park ride to serve them. Exhibit A: we virtually gave away the LIRR's Vanderbilt Ave. yard to a developer with a long track record as a corporate welfare deadbeat, for what? a shoddy arena for the worst team in the NBA and some "luxury" condos. Oh, but now the MTA is broke, so they're laying off workers, including returning war vets, and I have to pay more to ride to work on trains that are state of the art for 1930...
Guess I'm feeling cynical this morning. Ok, all you right wingers, give me some colorful robber barons who'll start laying track, the public be damned. And all you statists, where's that Robert Moses figure who will actually get something built? I'm not holding my breath. This kind of stuff only seems to happen in Europe with warm and cuddly socialism or in China with the not so nice kind. As an American and a railfan, I'm ashamed.