What's up with railfans who hate trains?

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?

You can be a railfan and still be against really stupid political wastes of money..

Im a railfan..but I also think New York state government is run by idiots..
and I think the proposed high-speed rail line across western NY is an absolutely stupid idea and huge waste of money..
especicially considerning NY state is virtually bankrupt, and no one wants or needs high speed rail..

So maybe thats what you are seeing..
just because someone is a railfan, doesnt mean they must automatically support any proposal that has to do with trains ..logic and reason has to play a part too!

I dont know what you are seeing against commuter rail..(I believe most commuter rail lines are wanted and needed.)
but that might be a factor..

(there is also the possibility they are in fact simply trolls..in which case all you can do is ignore them..)

Scot

I'm a rail fan, and above all a transit fan, but that doesn't win my unconditional loyalty for any given project.

My bias is pro-rail, but a rail project may be cockamamie. Or in the worst case, a deliberate boondoggle not intended to come to fruition.

As a railfan and passenger train advocate, I am naturally in favor of plans which expand and improve rail services, both intercity and commuter. Not all plans are needed or make sense, however, so I would certainly reserve the right to object to anything that is impractical, unneeded or a waste of money. There do seem to be a number of posters on this site who seem opposed to anything involving passenger rail improvements. Perhaps they're opposed to such expenditure on a policitical basis, which is of course is their perogative, but then what is the point of hanging around a rail fan site if all they going to do is argue? My favorite theory is that they are employees of organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute who are paid to roam these sites and argue against rail proposals. Is that you Randall O'Toole out there?

scottychaos wrote:You can be a railfan and still be against really stupid political wastes of money..

Im a railfan..but I also think New York state government is run by idiots..
and I think the proposed high-speed rail line across western NY is an absolutely stupid idea and huge waste of money..
especicially considerning NY state is virtually bankrupt, and no one wants or needs high speed rail..

Look, lots of people take Empire Service, lots of people want it to be faster and more frequent, what do you have against improving it? That is the "high speed rail" plan in western NY. (I'm not going to disagree about your assessment of New York state government in general, though I could name states with far worse government.)

Maybe what it is is that some railfans hate -- or more accurately, are *reflexively, invariably hostile to* -- certain *types* of trains. One might have decided that intercity trains are not useful (regardless of where they are or what cities they connect or what the data says on their popularity), for instance. That's a point of view, although I think it's really wrongheaded. Some, perhaps, hate passenger trains (this has been suggested to be corporate culture at a few railroads). I tend to hate stuff built to a non-standard track gauge, myself.

Of course, there's also genuine, specifics-based per-project hostility -- I've found almost no railfan in favor of San Francisco's Central Subway project. But that's not what the initial poster was talking about, clearly.

I think that what Madcrow is talking about is the so-called "fan" who actively tries to find fault with transit agencies or their equipment. I'm not talking issues such as safety issues, breakdowns, scheduling, or the like, but more like nit-picking such topics as aggressively trying to find signs that are not well written, "confusing", or misplaced, to photograph and publish as a series. Who cares ? I too have wondered what motivates such individuals to be looking at the glass half empty as opposed to being excited about the larger picture.

3rdrail wrote:I think that what Madcrow is talking about is the so-called "fan" who actively tries to find fault with transit agencies or their equipment. I'm not talking issues such as safety issues, breakdowns, scheduling, or the like, but more like nit-picking such topics as aggressively trying to find signs that are not well written, "confusing", or misplaced, to photograph and publish as a series. Who cares ? I too have wondered what motivates such individuals to be looking at the glass half empty as opposed to being excited about the larger picture.

That's part of it, but I'm also referring to the people who routinely talk about Intercity Rail as a money-wasting boondoggle or who try to claim that "people will never leave their cars, so why bother building mass transit systems" I'm genuinely interested in why there are people who think that trains are good enough for freight, but not good enough for people, despite whatever contrary evidence may be brought up.

CHTT1 wrote:what is the point of hanging around a rail fan site if all they going to do is argue? My favorite theory is that they are employees of organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute who are paid to roam these sites and argue against rail proposals. Is that you Randall O'Toole out there?

I doubt very much that the Cato Institute would do that, and Randall O'Toole has no trouble identifying himself.

Okay, so here's the thing: there is not an infinite amount of money in the world. Leftists seem to think that government can spend as much money as it wants with no negative effect (no, seriously, there's a website which maintains that governments can spend any amount of money they want, because it's not money until the government spends it). They're wrong, of course. If you spend money on one thing, you can't spend it on another. Thus, it well behooves us to spend our money frugally and wisely (which one can only hope and pray that Obama's replacement will do).

Thus, when I object to subsidizing trains (and roads and airports), I am just asking that the people who gain from something be the people who pay for it. We don't "all" gain from having trains. Or roads. Or airports. 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.

Do you love trains? I do, too. But I don't want anybody else to be forced to support my love of trains. I hope you feel the same way, and will be sad if you prefer that people be forced to pay for trains. Because if they're being forced to pay for trains, you can bet that they'll want to force you to pay for their love. And thus is the Road to Serfdom.

Some concrete examples past and present (my opinions):

Good if it really gets done
Second Avenue subway in NYC
Outer loop Chicago

Well meaning but cockamamie
Anything involving street running light rail in midtown Manhattan.

Boondoggle
The Obama administration's high-speed rail proposals. I do not believe there is any real intention of implementing these, only spending money to "study" it.

I think a critique of a project or a system is not necessarily "anti-train". Railfans are unique in that they travel on many systems, and a good idea on one may be just the ticket on another system. Poor signage (I found that in Boston, trying to connect from one Silver Line to another) is usually met with a positive correction or suggestion.

Transit and rail systems are not stand-alone solutions. For example, California's high speed rail system, if not built, will result in money spent on half a dozen additional runways in Northern and Southern California. The choice is not "Do we spend the money", it's "What do we spend it on?"

Air travel has a low level of invested capital. A plane ticket pays for mostly labor and fuel. The capital cost of the plane is a small part of the ticket. High-speed (or for that matter, any-speed rail) has a high capital component. Labor and fuel is much smaller. And, airplanes have a minimum speed - along with a minimum fuel consumption. But high speed rail can be run much slower for a lot less money. As such, it is possible to price off peak tickets at a discount, and still have a profitable system. The system is accessible to more people than aviation.

San Francisco's Central Subway does connect a number of important lines, as a stand alone system it is hard to justify, but linking Caltrain, BART, Chinatown and North Beach has a lot of merit. Ever been on the 30 bus? Don't tell me the ridership isn't there!

RussNelson wrote:Thus, when I object to subsidizing trains (and roads and airports), I am just asking that the people who gain from something be the people who pay for it. We don't "all" gain from having trains. Or roads. Or airports. 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).

And as soon as you manage to make any progress in cutting the much more massive spending on much more wasteful and much more forcible things (like, say, aggressive foreign wars) you might have some sort of a point.

Though I suggest you learn some real, empirically based economics, because your philosophy seems to make it completely impossible to build any transportation corridors at all. Due to the "rights thicket". No transportation route has ever been built without either (1) government interference to help acquire land, or (2) plain old "adverse possession", a.k.a. private actors just taking the land without permission.

(Of course, if you're a real radical and don't believe that land ownership is justified, I have to give you a different argument, but you sound like someone who's been hoodwinked by debunked "Austrian economics".)

Passenger wrote: Boondoggle
The Obama administration's high-speed rail proposals. I do not believe there is any real intention of implementing these, only spending money to "study" it.

Just FYI, in Washington State and in North Carolina, the money is being spent to build specific projects to improve Cascades and Piedmont service (respectively), and I can point you to the specific projects. Those two states got two of the larger pots of money. We'll see about the rest of the proposals, but these two are not vaporware.

Crappy paxrail is better than no paxrail.

- A

neroden wrote:No transportation route has ever been built without either (1) government interference to help acquire land, or (2) plain old "adverse possession", a.k.a. private actors just taking the land without permission.

(Of course, if you're a real radical and don't believe that land ownership is justified, I have to give you a different argument, but you sound like someone who's been hoodwinked by debunked "Austrian economics".)

Sorry, never seen Austrian economics debunked. Hard to debunk when there's no bunk. And I doubt very much your first statement. It's too unlikely to be true in every instance. Take, for example, mine railways. Oh, now you have to start qualifying your statement, don't you? So much for your concern about other people being full of bunk!