I just realized that you seem to be addressing the actual details of renting the facility.



pretty much limited to whether or not the credit card you use for the deposit clears... That's really all most public venues care about, presuming you agree to follow the facilities guidelines regarding damage to the facility and illegal activities etc.

We routinely have a model railroader / logging history fan organization meet here in the Pacific NW. Nobody outside of the niche has heard of these guys, and they couldn't care less. The response is not "Well, who's speaking and what's the meeting about?" it's "The meeting room is $700 per day, $500 if your group rents x number of rooms, sign here and give me your credit card..."

You could have two 12 years debating the merits of Star Trek for all they care!

I say go for it. Have the debate. What can it hurt? Get as many people to watch it as possible. It would be like a big jury trial. Maybe there would even emerge a consensus. For that matter, let the audience vote their preferred course of action after hearing both sides make their case. It might be surprisingly constructive overall. It might even reveal possible approaches that have not yet been thought of. This topic can be debated on forums, but there is no enforcement of continuity and too much opportunity for evasion, so there is no conclusion. Have the real face to face debate.

What would be even more constructive is if Steamtown had funding equal to what was paid out in salaries to just one of the past administrators of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last night one of the radio talk show hosts was reading a list garnered from public records of the compensation that had been paid to the political appointee administrators of these quasi-public organizations over the course of their employment, and some of the individuals had managed to walk away with almost as much money as Steamtown has been appropriated over its entire existence.

Yes, hundreds of millions of dollars to run a mortgage firm lending out money that probably would never be repaid.

And thanks to these people it is now very difficult to borrow money to finance any kind of a business startup. So if you did go on the street with an RFP for Steamtown, it could be very difficult for any of the bidders to find funding support.

PC

Let's not devolve into silliness here. I've laid down several conditions I believe are very reasonable/achieveable and superheater is clearly not willing to meet them so there will be no event. So be it.

As to Bob Harbisons repeated question of what possible good could come of a public debate I say you never know.

If (perhaps a big if) a debate got the leadership of Lackawanna County, the City of Scranton and others to take a serious look at the lost opportunity S'towm represents in terms of potential visitors vs. todays reality and that resulted in giving birth to a serious movement to convince Sen's. Specter&Casey to lead the Dep't. of the Interior to directing the NPS to outsource the operation at Scranton then a debate would have proven very worthwhile.

From what I hear from sources in Scranton the article that ran in the Scranton Times and other papers has gotten a serious conversation started that may well result in the subject getting a serious hearing at both the municipal and county levels. That will be a healthy thing if it comes to pass.

My offer stands so that if superheater should have a change of heart and meet my simple conditions, I'm ready to go!!

Thanks, Ross Rowland

Bob and Len:

Wilburs fine, thanks. Get that all the time, goes with the territory. I do prefer Mr. Ed to the other nickname given to me when I was a bit younger (and thinner), Wild Man. Had something to do with my hairdo at the time.

Later!
Mr. Ed

I think it is good to discuss the ideas, and a debate of sorts will compress and intensify the discussion such that hopefully it will get away from the name calling and such which has happened here and on other boards, in the past. I do have a few concerns about how this could happen, and I have a few of my own ideas to mull over.

First, I am concerned about the discussion staying on topic. If some outside subjects come up, they are important to hear, however if the discussion wanders endlessly, it is a waste of time.

Second, there should be fairness in hearing different sides. So for one person with a commandeering voice to dominate the discussion, that would not be right.

Third, there are different aspects to the question at hand, as we have seen posted in this and the previous thread. These ideas need to be distilled into the distinct problems that they are and addressed.

Fourth, I believe that the volunteers of Steamtown need to be included. If Superheater can do this himself, that is fine, but perhaps there is a key person we are forgetting inadvertently.

Fifth, I believe a qualified outside participant, such as a past representative of the bi-state commission for the C&TS, or a former director of Cass Scenic, should attend. They can present feedback regarding governmental agency-operated tourist railroads in remote regions. Maybe a private operator such as Mr. Kyle, or Mr. Harpur?

Sixth, I do see the roles of others besides Ross and Superheater as being able to confirm or respond to the ideas the two debaters present, rather than introduce new discussion, however the additional participants should be permitted to have their say at the end.

So my ideas about this are that some sort of moderation may be necessary, it may need a semi-structured format to permit adequate and fair discussion yet stay within time constraints. And it should generally be inclusive in nature, even if it is really a debate between two hot heads with strong opinions.

It is my sincere hope that we find a stable governmental-nongovernmental structure for railroad museums, or other historic/culturally significant sites in public ownership. I know I have seen failures in the relationship between agencies/policies/bureaucracy and volunteer groups, resulting in stagnation for both organizations. It might be true that a three-way partnership with a company could work when government is short of funds, but it depends on the company. Unless it is a rare, ethical corporation (usually due to the personality of its owner/CEO) I tend to think the better solution is to have a healthy non-profit take leading roles in operating the facility. Hopefully in a manner that is not over-regulated by governmental policy (e.g. a requisition form to buy paint, lost linkages between active projects and fund raising).

O. Anderson

I challenged Ross Rowland to a debate (between him and me).

He “accepted” but ADDED the following conditions. Participation by 1.) the mayor of Scranton and 2.) the Superintendent. That’s a “material modification” of terms and a counterproposal, not an acceptance. In sales its known as a "smokescreen objection".

While I have NO OBJECTION TO THEIR PRESENCE OR PARTICIPATION and invited ROSS to (attempt to) obtain the presence of those HE considers essential participants. Instead, its “I want these two guys and I want YOU to get them.” Note the subtle dynamic here of attempting to make the other party to do Ross’ bidding.

I don’t know the mayor, I don’t reside in Scranton and my relationship with Steamtown is such that when I am there, Superintendent Hagen is my boss, not the other way around. Quite frankly, I respect the man and his office to much to even think about approaching him to participate in a debate where one of the participants is going advocate the termination of his career.

Still if Ross thinks he can persuade either of these two men to participate, then by all means HE can go for it. I will not object but I’m not doing HIS bidding either. I suspect he knows the answer would contain the phrase “other obligations”. I will be gathering data and getting cozy with Excel and Powerpoint.

The fact is, Ross wants to be on record as having said “I accepted” but he will not. Sort of like “sure, you can run an excursion, but we need $100 million in liability coverage.” In the latter case, it’s at least rooted in fiduciary prudence.

I suspect that Ross doesn’t have any plan let alone pro formas, investors, at least not the kind that would survive due diligence. If he did, he'd already have a sustained operation. I think its fair to question viability, where's the ACE 3000, where's that Canadian Operation that was going to use G-5 Pacifics (or was it Chinese stand ins) and where's the yellow ribbon express?

His track records is clear, and apart from his personal acumen,its because the economics is so adverse and immutable. One by one, the big engines have gone cold (1522, 819, 611), with a few exceptions (261).

When challenged to present his “plan” here two and a half years ago, he said he’d release it “when the time was right”. Hate to be blunt, Ross, Tempis Fugit, Memento Mori. NOW is the time. I call. Lets see your cards in public.

Certainly, a moderator or panel would be fine. As for volunteers, I am a volunteer, obviously, others might attend just to see the fracas.

I stand firmly by my stated position. If as or when superheater has a change of heart, if ever, then we'll proceed!!

Ross Rowland

It seems to me that Mr. Rowland has not accepted your challenge.

I think this thread should be locked. I feel both SupperHeater and Ross are acting like a bunch of bratty kids. and this is not the way you should show younger rail fans to act. I'm by far a big time railroader, but I been rail fanning for close to 30 years, and to have this kind of thing going on a Railroad Preservation web forum, I feel is uncalled for.

This kind of thing is not going to bring people into Steamtown , it's going to push people away.

Start acting your age people and lets get back to trying to preserve railroading of yesterday years.

Leonard F. Shaner, Jr.
Pottstown,PA.

I don't really think there's much more to this thread, honestly.

Ross has been wildly sucessful at what he does, because he has been able to personally control the outcomes. One should not underestimate the fact that he has put on major excursion programs, including the Freedom Train. Was he perfect in all of his dealings with all the players? Maybe not, but so it is.

Superheater works in a sensitive portion of state government. As he has said previously, he cannot operate his public persona here as it would effectively kill his career (sorry, food on the table trumps trains). He would be willing to lay it on the line, for a face to face meeting, in debate format, with Ross. His driving argument is that if privatization of Steamtown is such a good thing, where is it? What is the plan?

But the debate probably will never happen. I suspect Ross would not want to be in an uncontrolled environment, not of defending his complaints about Steamtown, but in needing to defend a business plan supporting privatization. After all, if privatization was as lucrative as it might appear on the face of it, I am sure Ross would have done something with it by now.

Ross's strength is in building collaborative projects with diverse sponsorship to make things happen. In a fashion it is all about leveraging, but leveraging is not a popular thing right now and won't be for quite some time. Until things do settle down, the players who will be listened to the most are the ones who bring their money (and lots of it) to the table.

In any instance, nothing is going to happen. The best thing that could happen would be an object oriented foundation that could operate under NPS auspices to work on the equipment. It is working (albeit slowly) on the B&M project but could certainly (with money) operate more effectively elsewhere. You can substitute volunteers for money, but the management of the project is what will make or break any outsider's attempt to save Steamtown.

You gents (Ross and Superheater) have a good night.

My two cents, and I approve this message!

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

I concur with Ron.

Well said Mike. Enough is enuf!! Ross Rowland