Just having returned from the full length of the excellent Canyon Rails 2002 excursions, I was left wondering, "What level of contribution to the trip is actually made by those on the roadside photographing the consist as it whizzes by?"

Obviously, the train won't hold everyone, but I'm curious who chased it one direction and rode it the other, (a seemingly appropriate thing to do.) On both the inbound and outbound legs there were 2-1/2 empty 1st class cars. That lost additonal revenue could mean the difference between running similar future events or not running them.

I was appalled by "chasers" who lucked into locating runby locations and either parking in the field of view or kicked up dust fouling the "paying crowd's" photos. It's a free country, but with freedom comes responsibility.

I noted at least one well-known web site already published two pictures with credits of the 3751 en route. Did the photographer pay or support the event in any way? Maybe webmasters and magazines should ask that question befor publishing a photo from a particular event.

There were 12 historic passenger cars, a horse car, (converted for tool car use) and 1927 steam locomotive operating the way they were designed. It was a great living history event. What can we do to encourage the freeloaders to ante up?

wyld@sbcglobal.net

What can we do to encourage the
> freeloaders to ante up?

I can think of only a few practical things, none of which will solve the problem.

1. Sell affordable lineside photographer's badges (preferable in bright blaze orange dogtag form) for 10 or 20 or 50 bucks and try to create a "culture of shame" around those who won't ante up for them.

2. Hold the best runbys on private land far away from public roads (Ohio Central's clever solution)

3. If you are feeling really strongly about this, couple a diesel on the point except at designated runby sites (also a creative OCRR innovation).


Dallas Morning News
eledbetter@rypn.org

I think tha calling rail photography enthusiasts who follow an excursion from the roadside "freeloaders" is first, unnecessarily inflamatory, and second, somewhat innacurate at best. Most of the individuals I've known that chose to follow a train from roadside would very much like to ride the excursion, and as a result of economics, availability, or access cannot.

Whether we like this or not, one to two hundered dollar ticket costs are out of the price range of many working individuals. (And that seems to be about the cost of the cheap seats these days.) These prices are quite reasonable given the economics of the situation, (i.e. cost to opperate an excursion,) but we live in a market. The supply of two hundered dollar plus rail excursion tickets has clearly outstripped the demand for them. And no matter how much a fan might want to ride a train, if he cannot afford it, he won't.

Additionaly, there are issues of access. Many excursions are made exclusive to members of particulair organizations. The Canyon Rail excursion was probably such a one. If you aren't a member of the NRHS, you can't buy a ticket. And becoming a member on the spot adds that much more to the cost. Additionaly, some excursions do sell out, and then if you want to see it, you've no choice.

You say that there were two and a half emty first class cars. Was that perhaps two first class cars to many that could have been replaced with coaches that might have sold more tickets? What's the wisdom of filling up tonnage capacity on a trip like this with overnight compartments for an eight or ten hour round trip? Why are we following a steam locomotive? To ride an expensive car or to see, hear, smell, and feel a steam locomotive. The expensive car and it's sealed windows could actually detract from that experience. There's apprently more demand for a different product, and less for the one on that trip. How many coach seats were empty? That coach might actually generate more revenue, even thought the price of the seat is less, just because the capacity is higher, depending on the configuration of the car.

Another question that I would ask. Where is it that we get the idea that we have the right to any income generated from an image we did not create? Never before in the history of mankind would anyone have felt that they were being robbed if someone made an image of their property, and then sold that image. Take a church as an example. When a great master painted an image of a church, he did not seek the permission of the church to do so, nor did he pay the church afterwords from his profits. Do you believe that Monet paid Nord for the rights to paint _Le_Garre_du_Nord_? In what way is a photograph fundamentaly different? It is an image, made with some degree of artistry, whose quality is dependant on the person making the image. A bad photographer using an expensive camera will take a very poor picture. O. Winston Link, were he using a cheap disposable would take a much better picture.
I fail to see a fundamental difference, and yet we are offended if someone uses "our" image. This is good advertising. And it's free. They see our locomotive, and they say, "wow, that's really pretty. Maybe we can see that someday," because, "it's always better then the picture," of course. (Which if the photographer is skilled, is not necessarily so.)

The burden of responsability for the failure of excursion programs rests more upon the shoulders of our society, where it is necessary to carry huge liability policies, and where the premiums for those policies are so extreme, where freight railroads don't want us on their tracks, because we tie up their capacity, wear out their lines, and expose them to unnecessary risks. This is economics. Let us weep that a glorious episode is beeing born down under it, but let us not vilify those who are amongst our greatest supporters.

Lastly, all the individuals to whom I've spoken at any length who were following a train, have been in some sense supporting the hobby. These are people that go out and spread word of a trip to generate interest in it. They often support their local museum with what time and treasure that they can. They are not "freeloaders," ungratefull and unappreciative for the benefits they receive, and unwilling to work for them. Also, isn't the point to rail preservation and museums to make something available to those who would not otherwise see it? Numerous individuals made gifts to us when they GAVE these locomotives, or the funds to obtain them. When they gave their time to maintain or restore them. WE are benefitting from THEIR gift. Let us not be so uncharitable towards them, that we fain to give a little enjoyment to those less fortunate than we.

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

david_ackerman@yahoo.com

> I think tha calling rail photography
> enthusiasts who follow an excursion from the
> roadside "freeloaders" is first,
> unnecessarily inflamatory, and second,
> somewhat innacurate at best.

Please forgive my less than thoughtful catorization of those who cannot afford to ride or contribute $21 for the annual membership in NRHS. My intent was not to be so "broad brush."

And no matter how much
> a fan might want to ride a train, if he
> cannot afford it, he won't.

I agree. Affordability is an individual assessment. Add up the cost of the gas, food, vehicle wear/tear, film & processing costs; being on the train shooting out of a vestibule looks a bit more competitive.

> Another question that I would ask. Where is
> it that we get the idea that we have the
> right to any income generated from an image
> we did not create? Never before in the
> history of mankind would anyone have felt
> that they were being robbed if someone made
> an image of their property, and then sold
> that image. Take a church as an example.
> When a great master painted an image of a
> church, he did not seek the permission of
> the church to do so, nor did he pay the
> church afterwords from his profits. Do you
> believe that Monet paid Nord for the rights
> to paint _Le_Garre_du_Nord_? In what way is
> a photograph fundamentaly different?
The grand station in Paris is a public-access building as are churches (or at least they should be.) If you want to photograph Hearst's Castle in California, you gotta buy a ticket to get in. A pro sporting event is generally the same with even greater image restrictions.

The difficulty in making a train-run fully exclusive should not eliminate any right to do so.
However, I am not arguing for exclusivity, I am asking those who enjoyed the event from the sidelines and the few who may even get remuneration for their work, to drop a small donation to any of the groups involved. Heck, $5 or $10 each from even half of those photographed or videoed the train would go along way toward making something like this happen again sooner and perhaps even fund a lottery system for some subsidized low-cost seating.

> Lastly, all the individuals to whom I've
> spoken at any length who were following a
> train, have been in some sense supporting
> the hobby. These are people that go out and
> spread word of a trip to generate interest
> in it. They often support their local museum
> with what time and treasure that they can.
> They are not "freeloaders,"
> ungratefull and unappreciative for the
> benefits they receive, and unwilling to work
> for them. Also, isn't the point to rail
> preservation and museums to make something
> available to those who would not otherwise
> see it? Numerous individuals made gifts to
> us when they GAVE these locomotives, or the
> funds to obtain them. When they gave their
> time to maintain or restore them. WE are
> benefitting from THEIR gift. Let us not be
> so uncharitable towards them, that we fain
> to give a little enjoyment to those less
> fortunate than we.

This last stanza was your best point David, thanks for you thoughtful dialogue.

Corey

wyld@sbcglobal.net

David makes some good points, but I think his best point may be that in the end this is a market society, and for a whole slew of reasons the economics of the mainline excursion are now parlous at best.

I firmly beleive in the concept of offering lineside passes as a purely voluntary/self policing way of encouraging contrabutions from non-riders, but nothing in law or practice will prevent the fellow who wants to take a photo from public land from doing so, pass or no pass. He may be a student and not have much money, he may have only have a day of work, or he may spend 10,000k a year chasing excursions--its all the same in the end. And if fact, narrowly speaking there's nothing wrong with it.

More to the point is to rethink the way we operate large steam engines. To get back to beating one of my favorite dead horses, we need more operations like Steamtown or TVRM, where engines can romp on a good 20- to 60- mile length of track on a semi-regular basis, without getting in the way of the common carrier class 1s, or offering the public only an one-way all-day Death March ticket option.

Guaranteed access to track, a predictable schedule of several runs each summer, a high-quality but managable consist of 7-10 cars, and an affordable ticket price (say on the order of D&S's 50 bucks or so) are the ticket. Three to five such operations nationally (expanded programs at TVRM and Steamtown, plus something similar for the Brooklyn Roundhouse engines in the west, plus perhaps one or two others) would be ideal.

Pipe dream? No. Lots of work to do between here and there? Yes. Starting with getting those Brooklyn engines a permanent home.



eledbetter@rypn.org

Mr. Ackerman

I'll counter point each of your statements as they come up in your argument and preface it with stating that yes everone is entitled to their opinion know matter how shortsided and backwards it is. For an in depthand realistic reason into recent decisions reguarding another locomotive go to WWW.fisco1522.com and look at the FAQ page explaining their position and read the rest of this try and explain your position on the future of "fan" trips.

I think that calling rail photography
> enthusiasts who follow an excursion from the
> roadside "freeloaders" is first,
> unnecessarily inflamatory, and second,
> somewhat innacurate at best.

First, I think "freeloader" is understated and reserved. It also acurately describes what chasers do. In short they are getting their enjoyment and hobby for free without contributing to the expense or effort to make it happen. PERIOD!

>Most of the
> individuals I've known that chose to follow
> a train from roadside would very much like
> to ride the excursion, and as a result of
> economics, availability, or access cannot.

Second, most individuals who 'Follow", LOVE to "follow",and take pictures/video because thats what they love to do. I love to "follow" and if I can not participate in a trip that is what I prefer. I fully admit it. I also know what goes into a trip of this sort in money and effort and plan that into my expense.

> Whether we like this or not, one to two
> hundered dollar ticket costs are out of the
> price range of many wor king individuals.
> (And that seems to be about the cost of the
> cheap seats these days.) These prices are
> quite reasonable given the economics of the
> situation, (i.e. cost to opperate an
> excursion,) but we live in a market. The
> supply of t wo hundered dollar plus rail
> excursion tickets has clearly outstripped
> the demand for them. And no matter how much
> a fan might want to ride a train, if he
> cannot afford it, he won't.

BUT , he will certainly go and buy the camera equipment , the airline tickets , food , lodging, tape film , proccessing , car rental , gas AND NOT CONTRIBUTE A STINKING DIME TO THE GROUPS THAT ARE MAKING HIS MEMORIES A REALITY.

Furthermore, how are we going to have ANYTHING to "follow" if it is not supported. It is short sided to lay the blame on ticket prices as an excuse to "follow", if he can't afford to buy a ticket he shouldn't be able to cover the cost of following. The reality of ticket prices is what they are , the people who set up these trips are hoping for a minimum of profit to keep it going and can't afford ANY loss and are fully aware that there is no big money to be made and do thier best to keep the prices as low as possible.The scenario is make enough to keep up with maintenance,overhead and support trips in the future. Loss money and you are dead, finito , kapute end of show end of following!

> Additionaly, there are issues of access.
> Many excursi ons are made exclusive to
> members of particulair organizations. The
> Canyon Rail excursion was probably such a
> one. If you aren't a member of the NRHS, you
> can't buy a ticket. And becoming a member on
> the spot adds that much more to the cost.
> Additionaly, some excursions do sell out,
> and then if you want to see it, you've no
> choice.

Is the run to Grand Canyon one that could work on an irregular basis, I think it could, if promoted correctly to civilians and organized at the Williams end. It is a dam shame that this trip was targeted towards the 25% of the ridership bracket and statisical numbers heard before were proven to be fact. And they are, WE WON"T SUPPORT OUR OWN HOBBY. Despite everything NRHS did to make a great week of events, the railfan community chose to not assist in the financial responsibility of it. What does this mean, that in the future organizations planning trips are going to take a long look at the viability of it and some really nice events will probebly not happen because of people being cheap!

> You say that there were two and a half emty
> first class cars. Was that perhaps two first
> class cars to many that could have been
> replaced w ith coaches that might have sold
> more tickets? What's the wisdom of filling
> up tonnage capacity on a trip like this with
> overnight compartments for an eight or ten
> hour round trip? Why are we following a
> steam locomotive? To ride an expensive car
> or to see, hear, smell, and feel a steam
> locomotive. The expensive car and it's
> sealed windows could actually detract from
> that experience. There's apprently more
> demand for a different product, and less for
> the one on that trip. How many coach seats
> were empty? That coach might actually
> generate more revenue, even thought the
> price of the seat is less, just because the
> capacity is higher, depending on the
> configuration of the car.

Can't comment on that specifically. I don't know seating capcities,cost of car leases , deadhead costs, etc...... The increase in cost usually reflects the cost of decreased seating capacity and increased lease fees. BUt nicer ammenities and such. The Motto there is, if it sells, put it on.

> Another question that I would ask. Where is
> it that we get the idea that we have the
> right to any income generated from an image
> we did not create? Never before in the
> history of mankind would anyone have felt
> that they were being robbed if someone made
> an image of their property, and then sold
> that image.

WHAT !!!!!!
THAT reality IS HERE what rock did you just get out from under !!!

If you buy a ticket to a NASCAR event and photograph the race or and individuals car. YES , you do have to pay royalties to sell the images or use them in publications as they are the property of the event you paid to attend or the copywrite of the individuals creative and intilectual property. The legal grounds of which state your case are plenty.

IF , the SBRHS wanted to makes exclusixe rights to the publication and usage of the likesness of the 3751 in photo repoduction and on commercial items (hats,cups , mugs ,etc..) that are being used for commercial enterprise they could. The 3751 is in fact an object that is unique in and of itself in looks and labeling. In the case of two engines of the same class running or for that matter in existance both are exclusively identified by their number. Just like Dale Earnhardt,Jeff Gordon do for products of their cars and personal likenesses so could Steamlocomotive owners. As their equipment is just as unique and exclusive to themselves. Also the terms of operating that said equipment fits into the copywrite offices definition of a "PREFORMANCE" and has certain legal writes about the rebroadcast, accounts of events and public display of said events through all reproductive medias. Just like a sporting event,play/theatrical performance, music concert you can not do a video compilation of such without expressed writen consent of the "owners"of the property. Modeling/ clothing manufacturers have gotten their hands slapped quite a few times for producing unauthorized products of copywrited logos.

Am, I advocating the implementation of that, not necessarily. It would be difficult to implement and administer with limited rewards, but would also serve as a wke up call. I think there should be some responsibility bourn by the enterprising parties do to lowering the consession sales of the offended groups. Is it wrong to be compensated by parties that are lowering your revenue dollars , while we are the reason for them making money. That is fundementally poor business.

Take a church as an example.
> When a great master painted an image of a
> church, he did not seek the permission of
> the church to do so, nor did he pay the
> church afterwords from his profits. Do you
> believe that Monet paid Nord
( BTW : NORD means North )
for the rights
> to paint _Le_Garre_du_Nord_? In what way is
> a photograph fundamentaly different? It is
> an image, made with some degree of artistry,
> whose quality is dependant on the person
> making the image. A bad photographer using
> an expensive camera will take a very poor
> picture. O. Winston Link, were he using a
> cheap disposable would take a much better
> picture.

The question of public domain on some reproductions can be a long involved battle. Painting a picture of the Sears Tower as an idividual piece or reproducing it in a photograph of the skyline renders it public domain. Reproducing it exclusivly and in quantity for the porposes of commercial enterprise is something entirely different ( say a figurine or a postcard for tourist shops)

O. Winston Link had permission and authoorization from the N&W to do his photos and do with them what he pleased there is a big difference.

> I fail to see a fundamental difference, and
> yet we are offended if someone uses
> "our" image. This is good
> advertising. And it's free.

No , it is BAD advertising,the equipment in question is expensive to operate, it goes in front of a very limited audiance, and it promotes the need to not be present and pay for the event especially when it comes to videos. Unlike a news PR story that hits a large audience that get people want to attend. Running a trip is not free advertising it is the most expensive you could purchase.

> The burden of responsability for the failure
> of excursion programs rests more upon the
> shoulders of our society, where it is
> necessary to carry huge liability policies,
> and where the premiums for those policies
> are so extreme, where freight railroads
> don't want us on their tracks, because we
> tie up their capacity, wear out their lines,
> and expose them to unnecessary risks. This
> is economics. Let us weep that a glorious
> episode is beeing born down under it,

CORRECTLY STATED and entirely Agreed with till there.

but ( A "but" in a sentance negates all that preceeds it)

> let us not vilify those who are amongst our
> greatest supporters.

For clarification, the mear definition supporters are " Ones who provide for or maintain by supplying with monies or other necessities" : Webster's Dictionary.
Having a fondness or interest in steam and the photographing of it while it is running does not make someone a "SUPPORTER"

> Lastly, all the individuals to whom I've
> spoken at any length who were following a
> train, have been in some sense supporting
> the hobby. Thes e are people that go out and
> spread word of a trip to generate interest
> in it. They often support their local museum
> with what time and treasure that they can.
> They are not "freeloaders,"
> ungratefull and unappreciative for the
> benefits they receive, and unwilling to work
> for them.

I will refute that with , how would they feel about the same amount of people showing up at their museum and expecting to get in for free, or better yet just walking in and not paying. All would say" throw them the hell out". It's exactley the same except you can't control it out on the main line.
Also, isn't the point to rail
> preservation and museums to make something
> available to those who would not otherwise
> see it?

No , the point is to presserve the items in question and maintain them. IT doesn't make it free. The Smithsonian preserves alot of things and makes them avialable but they charge you to get in and see them.

Numerous individuals made gifts to
> us when they GAVE these locomotives, or the
> funds to obtain them. When they gave their
> time to maintain or restore them. WE are
> benefitting from THEIR gift. Let us not be
> so uncharitable towards them, that we fain
> to give a little enjoyment to those less
> fortunate than we.

Never in any of these threads are we banning people from coming out and seeing the train, we want that. We want to give people the expierience that we enjoy. To see people lined up along the tracks in the rain and late into the night is gives one of the best feelings in world about why we do it. Less fortunate people are not the ones out following every leg of a trip, are at every other crossing, are known by "theres that idiot we saw trying to pass..." . They are the ones who sit by the tracks for an hour and a half in anticipation, watch it go by in 45 seconds and go back home and say "wow,that was cool".

The call to arms is about the "professional followers" who feel it is their god given right to not financially support these trips under the mounting expenses to run them. To use the excuse that " Well , I volunteer locally by my house at a museum. I guess that absolves me from having to pay for it" doesn't fly either. I donate a freakin boatload in time expense and flat money, but never does it cross my mind that I could go to LA and follow the 3751 without helping NRHS or SBRHS make it happen. I would only be screwing over a group doing the samething I'm involved with, and what goes around , comes around.

I'm sorry there is just no way you can justify "following" without supporting it. NONE. The financial reality is here and if trips are not funded there won't be any trips at all. This is not saying we don't want people to "follow" or we hate "followers". It is saying that there will be nothing to follow if the "following"community doesn't step up and carry their own weight in the financial burden of making these trips happen.

This horse has been beaten to death and I love to see it come out every chance it can. If anything go and look at the WWW.frisco1522.com site under FAQ , print it off and distribute it to "followers" Now IS the time we need to change opinoin, raise awareness in our own group, stand up and be vocal about keeping our hobby and history running.

In closing to Qoute you Mr. Ackerman ( And well stated I might add)

"The burden of responsability for the failure of excursion programs rests more upon the shoulders of our society"

That should be the first line in the first amendment to the railfans Bill of Rights.

Rich A Youngˇ

ryoungceo@yahoo.com

There are some hysterical posts on Trainorders about chasers getting their just desserts in the desert!

Rob


Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

HOORAY! That needed to be said. I have two examples that stick in my mind ... When 611 was running from Bellevue to Columbus for the State Fair, the ROW was lined with interested folks and a lot of picture takers all the way to Columbus. The 'copters and the planes were out in full force. Shortly after I rode it, it was gone ...lack of interest in the same old ride. Our dinky tourist line came up with almost $2,000,000 to put the first 4 miles of line into operation (includes 20 mi of ROW) ... the constant comment is "is this all there is". Due to circumstances well within our control there is NO interpretation or marketing of the "railroad experience" for the general public which provides 99.5% of our ridership. No one has come forward with any railroad experience to volunteer to explain railroading to the public. Put 'ya on a "train" ride 'ya around for 50 minutes and clear out. A few picture takers have commented that the place looks like the same old junkyard as we slowly watch the equipment fade away. Don't worry the "takers" will be out on the mainlines taking the same ole pictures of the trains lamenting the loss of their favorite equipment and wishing that "somebody" would have saved it.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

Mr. Ackerman,

Your post was quite thought provoking. There are several points that I would like to comment on.

It really coems down to this, David. These trains cost money to run, and they are run solely for the enjoyment of people. If a chaser wants to benefit from the trip but offers no money, time or commitment to putting it on, they are freeloaders.

And they p&$$ people off, but they are not the real problem. The problem is to market the seats to people who will pay. That is our challenge.

> I think tha calling rail photography
> enthusiasts who follow an excursion from the
> roadside "freeloaders" is first,
> unnecessarily inflamatory, and second,
> somewhat innacurate at best.

Without a doubt, "freeloader" is the nicest things I can say about these folks... especially those who freeload a trip and then profit from a photo in a magazine or even from an entire article! Names witheld to protect the guitly.

>Most of the individuals I've known that chose to follow a train from roadside would very much like to ride the excursion, and as a result of economics, availability, or access cannot.

If anyone really wants to ride, an easy answer is to join a group that sponsors trips and be a car attendant or some other volunteer. That way you ride for FREE and help put on the show.

That's the best option when economics is a problem.

> Whether we like this or not, one to two
> hundered dollar ticket costs are out of the
> price range of many working individuals.

Yes. but how many excursions really cost that?

Most $100+ tickies are for private cars, specials or photographer runs and those guys get what they pay for. And, yes, I LIKE the idea of the Ohio Central running aux tender-first to cheat the cheaters!

> (And that seems to be about the cost of the
> cheap seats these days.)

Not in the east.

> Additionaly, some excursions do sell out,
> and then if you want to see it, you've no
> choice.

Yes, and if it is a sell-out, go chase and donate some money to the sponsoring group!

> Another question that I would ask. Where is
> it that we get the idea that we have the
> right to any income generated from an image
> we did not create? Never before in the
> history of mankind would anyone have felt
> that they were being robbed if someone made
> an image of their property, and then sold
> that image.

Oh, my David. That is so untrue. Why do you think there is copyright law?

>Take a church as an example.
> When a great master painted an image of a
> church, he did not seek the permission of
> the church to do so, nor did he pay the
> church afterwords from his profits. Do you
> believe that Monet paid Nord for the rights
> to paint _Le_Garre_du_Nord_? In what way is
> a photograph fundamentaly different? It is
> an image, made with some degree of artistry,
> whose quality is dependant on the person
> making the image.

You are banned from taking pictures inside The Vatican so they can sell them to you in the gift shop. Case closed.

> The burden of responsability for the failure
> of excursion programs rests more upon the
> shoulders of our society, where it is
> necessary to carry huge liability policies,
> and where the premiums for those policies
> are so extreme, where freight railroads
> don't want us on their tracks, because we
> tie up their capacity, wear out their lines,
> and expose them to unnecessary risks. This
> is economics. Let us weep that a glorious
> episode is beeing born down under it, but
> let us not vilify those who are amongst our
> greatest supporters.

This is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

> SNIP>.
> They are not "freeloaders,"
> ungratefull and unappreciative for the
> benefits they receive, and unwilling to work
> for them.

Then these are not the guys we are discussing. There are so many freeloaders that the good ones get caught in the swarm.

Thanks for the thought provoking post!

Rob Davis

Ahead of the Torch
trains@robertjohndavis.com

If you pay your money, don't let the freeloaders take away your fun. That's kind of a loose-loose proposition. The world is full of freeloaders, a bit of fatalism is in order. The diesel on the point or whatever is also detracting from your view from the train. And don't give up a good runby spot simply because it's close to a road.

Moreover, as already mentioned by others, one of the reasons that we put so much effort into preserving steam engines is to use them as an educational tool. In most cases we WANT folks to come out and watch....that's why contributions to most of the preservation groups are tax-deductible. And maybe next time they'll be a paying customer, or a volunteer at the museum.

Yes, encourage the freeloaders to contribute. In many cases we all know who they are. Let them know you know. But in a nice way. Maybe they can't afford a $200 ticket, but they can make a $20 donation. I have always liked the concept of motorcaders' tickets, although there can be a liability issue maybe. So advertise it and just call it a chasers' donation.

But many (some?) already have "paid"....buying a ticket isn't the only way to contribute. How about the guy who has worked his arse off repairing the loco, or has made a big donation toward the cost restoration...is he a freeloader if he chases without buying a ticket. It's hard to tell one from the other along trackside.

> If you pay your money, don't let the
> freeloaders take away your fun. That's kind
> of a loose-loose proposition. The world is
> full of freeloaders, a bit of fatalism is in
> order. The diesel on the point or whatever
> is also detracting from your view from the
> train. And don't give up a good runby spot
> simply because it's close to a road.

FWIW, I agree with you John--except for the lineside passes, my other two suggestions were more tongue in cheek.

Anyway, when OCRR did use theose two tricks it was on a photo charter, which is a different kettle of fish from the garden-variety excursion. The punters on the train had paid up specifically to get good images, and therefore I have no problems with the RR and the charter patrons playing a few games to keep the good images for the paying customers. A regular public outreach excursion, by contrast, should be as accessible as possible--steam on the point, lots of chances for people to see and enjoy.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Say rather a list of responsobilities. We don't need a bill of rights, and that is far to popular a phrase right now.

I speak, not only as a rail fan, and nascent preservationist, (and fear not, that I shall remain, whether I am wanted or not, as I simply love trains to much to stand idly by,) but as an amatuer photographer. You make the case that if I take pictures of a NASCAR event that I couldn't sell them, and you're at least partially correct. If I buy a ticket to a NASCAR event, I agree to an implicit contract that I give up all commercial rights to any image I may produce of that event. (And this is in the fine print of any sporting event. This is how they protect their perceived right to control their images.) Much of this relates to trade-mark law, and this is very arcane stuff, and wasn't really constructed to cover artisitic photography. The idea is that NASCAR has a "brand" and I cannot sell NASCAR "brand" photographs wihtout their express consent. Whether this sort of case has been tried in U.S. courts with a photograph made from public property by someone who did not purchase a ticket, and thus is not party to that implicit contract, I cannot say.

When I said "never before" I really should have said "never in any country or society previous to the United States, to my knowledge or belief," has the idea that someone owns an image been put forward, and railfan images made responsibly are made from public property. Tresspassing on an active ROW on the other hand is something of which I disaprove. As the history of the U.S. is quite short when compared to the history of, say the world, or even Western Europe, and I am, amongst other things, actively a student of that history, I hope that you will forgive my oversight.

I attempt to suggest that a painting and a photograph are really, on some level the same thing. Ethically in any case, they seem so to me. Would you say that the SLSTA should have some right to collect royalties if, say, Leonardo DaVinci by some strange chance made a painting of 1522 from some memory that he had of it's passing? We give the artist credit for his skill in executing a painting, but we must also give him credit for choosing an attractive subject. If a good artist deems a locomotive a beautifull subject and lovingly and skillfully creates a rendering of it, isn't that the highest compliment, since we as a society deem his asthetic judgement to be the most sound, and therefore agree with him, almost implicitly, that something he sees as beautifull IS?

Boards of trade and tourism, promote that their landmark is the most photographed in a particulair region. The University of Missouri at Columbia for example, states on campus tours that the columns are the second most photographed landmark in Missouri, thereby capitalizing on that popularity to validate themselves, and even locally there is little that the University, by all appearances has done to restrict the propogation of that image. On the SLSTA site, George makes note of the fact that 1522 is photographed almost every day with what appears to me to be obvious pride. "Gee, they think we're pretty!"

The question that I seek to answer is whehter or not a photograph is a work of art. I believe it is so. Paintings are generally agreed to be art, whether they be bad, good, or indifferent. What, at base, is a painting? It is an image, made by a painter, using certain tools, and accordinbg to generally agreed conventions of composition and color. It may or may not be strictly depictive of anything in particulair. Fortune may play a roll in it's success. (Whether or not the pigments work, or it is damaged before the paint has set say.) A photograph is also an image, made by an individual whom we now call a photographer, in respect to the differences between painting and photography. He uses tools. A camera and film, rather than a brush, paint, and a canvas.

The biggest difference between the two is that there is a perception that the camera is more important than the photographer, and that simply is not true. If you believe that Ansell Adams can take a better picture with a Kodak Instamatic than the average child could with a Hasleblad, then you agree that the photographer's skill is more important, since by any quantifiable charateristic, the Hasleblad far outweighs the instamatic. (And I don't have one, by the way, I shoot with a cheap second hand seventies Minolta, and rely upon my skill to take a decent picture.) It has better optics, capable of portraying greater detail upon demand, as desired by the artists composition of course. You can take a fuzzy suggestive picture with one if you so choose. Higher grades of film are available for the Hasleblad. The processing is under the control of the photographer, and thereby he has a wider range of coloristic or exposure effects at his disposal, possibly to correct for imperfections in the original shot. In short, there is nothing that instematic can do that the Hasleblad can't do better. They're even about the same size and weight. On the other hand, there's a lot the Hasleblad can do that is better. And I think we can all agree that Ansell Adams still took the better picture in our imaginations. Why? because we intuitively know that he's a better artist. And by a large enough factor to FAR overcome the not insignificant advantages of the camera our hypothetical child used. Thus, if Ansell Adams is an artist, and DaVinci is an artist, and all painitngs are art, no matter how good, then all photographs must be art. No matter how good. No matter what the intent.

My other basic contention, and this one is more subjective, and less objective, is that one should not regulate art. It is to my mind unethical, and societaly unhealthy to say that you should or cannot make art of a particulair subject. This is abhorent to me. It is what was done by those whom I consider to ba amongst the vilest criminals in human society. It is amongst the crimes the Romans comitted agaist the Christians. It is one thing Hitler did to the Jews. They destroyed artworks that they found disagreeable, and punished those who made them. Art is an expression. Freedom of expression smacks very close to the principles upon which this country was founded, and many consider it to be among them. I fail to see the difference between, "You can't make that piece of art," and "it's irresponsible to make that piece of art," or "you should pay me before you make that piece of art."

This is at it's root a question of censorship. There are those amongst us who would censor the expression of those who did not pay for a particulair excursion. This is to me coopting the basic rights of all of us, when it's something that can be seen from the public. You can build a wall, so they can't see you. You can make yourself ugly, so they don't want to. But you cannot reasonably expect people to politely look away when you're out in their back yard, and public property is the back yard of every U.S. citizen, and what's more, every legal guest enjoys that basic right as well. I'll think you're silly if you drape a robe over your face. I'll think it unfortunate if you build a concrete wall in front of your house. But it's yours, and that's your right. You've got to see the wall. You've got to see the robe. I'll cry, but I won't tell you you shouldn't. On the other hand, if you tell me not to take pictures from public property without paying you, you're telling me that I have to pay you to see something. That is an altogether different statement.

And I for one, and I hope all that love both the art of photography, and the beauty of the rails, will do what I can to see that those trains are still there for my grandkids. And if by some ill fortune they're gone, I'll still show you my pictures. You may not want to see them if you think I ruined your train, but I'd like to hope that I'm not doing that. We all love trains. Let's all work to preserve them, and not waste our time trying to say, "well he's not pulling his load." This may be an incoherent rant, but I hope that you can see some sense in here somewhere. Forgive me, but I feel rather strongly about this.

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

david_ackerman@yahoo.com

>I have no problems
> with the RR and the charter patrons playing
> a few games to keep the good images for the
> paying customers. A regular public outreach
> excursion, by contrast, should be as
> accessible as possible--steam on the point,
> lots of chances for people to see and enjoy.

Erik,

That's precisely what the Ohio Central did the day before. They ran a trip from Dennison to Sugar Creek and back, with no hiding of the engine. It was lettered Ohio Central and you could shoot it anywhere you pleased, except at the shops, which were reserved for a tour by the paying customers. On the Sunday photo trip, the engine was relettered Grand Trunk Western and the images were reserved for the paying customers, to the extent possible.

Going back to a point you made in your previous post "we need more operations like Steamtown or TVRM, where engines can romp on a good 20- to 60- mile length of track.." I think you've just described the Grand Canyon Railway! I would like to suggest that the 3751 folks consider sending the engine back to Williams for a year as a "guest" engine. They have no place to run it back in California, but it can really do it's thing on the GCRy. I would cheerfully pay serious $$ for a photo charter out there. In fact, I'd probably do it more than once. Just a thought.


a231pacific@aol.com

> Another question that I would ask. Where is
> it that we get the idea that we have the
> right to any income generated from an image
> we did not create? Never before in the
> history of mankind would anyone have felt
> that they were being robbed if someone made
> an image of their property, and then sold
> that image.

Obviously you have never encountered the owners of historic properties, such as Civil War battlefields, who have threatened (farcically, for all it's worth in reality) to sue you if you take pictures of their property to sell or use in a for-profit book--as I have. I have actually had to become well-versed in the laws as they apply to shooting private property from public rights-of-way.

lner4472@bcpl.net

> When I said "never before" I
> really should have said "never in any
> country or society previous to the United
> States, to my knowledge or belief," has
> the idea that someone owns an image been put
> forward,

Possibly true David, but we do live in the United States and copyright and trademark law is beginning to recognize that the owner of a unique image may in fact control the distribution rights of that image. I haven't been able to find the article, but a recent issue of Popular Photography reported that the owners of a particularly beautiful location in California have indeed copyrighted the scene. If you take a photo of it, you are required to compensate the owner, even if you are taking your photo from a public right of way. I find this somewhat scary, but that's how things are going today.

I think the real crux of the argument is, without the support of enough people, there will be no 3751 for the "freeloaders/train lovers" to chase, paint or photograph. Even absent the right of the 3751's owners to control its image, isn't there a moral imperative to support that which benefits us? What ever happened to the idea that there is no free lunch?

I don't buy the idea that the chasers are simply people who love trains but can't afford to buy a ticket. I rode the train to the canyon and paid to do so. I had a day to kill before I returned home, so I chased the train for a few hours on the first leg of the journey back. I saw plenty of California plates on the cars that chased the train to the Canyon and that were still chasing the return trip to California. That's a lot of gas, food and motel costs for someone who can't afford a ticket.

I understand that there may be liability problems with formal "pacers passes" (unfortunately, we live in a litigious society) but there is nothing preventing the sending in of a donation, or God forbid, buying a ticket and not using it because you prefer to chase. If the trip is sold out, great, but why not send in a donation anyway? When Monet painted the Cathedral at Chartres, I wonder if perhaps he dropped a few coins in the collection box?

We won't have 1522 and 4449 to chase anymore, and if we don't support the groups that remain, we may not have any steam to chase, period. So, I urge you to give financial support to the trains that you chase, even if you don't "have to." You may feel the better for it.


a231pacific@aol.com