I daresay anyone from the "real world" who read this piece from The Wall Street Journal and then viewed some of the recent prattle on this web site about Steamtown would conclude that we are, in reality, seriously delayed adolescents, not the historians and preservationists we believe we are.

I Agree 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Len.

Discussion over the success or failure of Steamtown as a NHS and preservation effort is not "prattle".

Prattle is:
*Arguing that a 4-8-4 on the "wrong" side of the continent must be forcibly repatriated to its home territory and painted in "correct" colors, despite its private ownership;
*Demanding that a shareholder-owned corporation is all but obligated to run steam excursions;
*non-shareholders/employees professing to know more about the financial/physical condition of a railroad than those actually responsible;
*attempting to resurrect a supposed buried steam locomotive or one supposedly sunk in a quarry;
*arguing over exactly how the steam whistle on PRR 1361 or Milwaukee 261 or [insert steam loco #] should sound like;
*people arguing the merits of the umpteen-thousandth video a random major RR's random freight posted on YouTube or RailVideos
*arguing over the color of jackets to be worn by the car hosts on an excursion.

To someone who is clueless about what rail enthusiasts or rail preservationists or rail historians do, the exchanges about Steamtown between M.r Rowland and Mr. Superheater, with asides and observations from various others, constitute prattle.

It's all in the interpretation. To some readers, my views on diesel locomotive preservation would be considered prattle, while others might feel my veneration of steam locomotives is the same. I happen to feel that the bandwidth occupied by the latest discussion about the Steamtown conundrum could have been more beneficially used for other subjects. Thus, it's prattle to me, thank you very much.

Well, agreed heartily there. Arguing over how to argue.

How does the quote go? "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, no explanation is possible."

Apply as needed to those debating the minutiae of Star Trek episodes, Klingon grammar, the exact hops that must be used in dry-hopping a real ale, the meanings of Beatles lyrics or Whitman's poems, the acceleration rate of a Ferrari over a Porsche, Rusty Wallace versus Dale Earnhardt, whether Pluto is really a planet or a planetoid, the relative intelligence of dog breeds, and et cetera ad nauseum.............

It is unfortunate that so much effort in the hobby is expended arguing about the arrangement of the deck chairs on sinking ships.

PC

Agreed. I purposefully stayed away from the Steamtown threads for a week and then came back. Nothing accomplished, no suprise there. It gives me pause at times when I sit back and think on how far this advocation of ours has yet to go.

Back to the Journal Article, wasn't there a longer version of this article that focused some on the BNSF's railfan "neighborhood watch" type program? I'm sorry that wasn't explored further in this piece.

On a completely different note, Sandy, where in Baltimore can one get a good I.P.A.?

Dave Crosby

What is equally unfortunate is that the time wasted "arguing about deck chairs" is usually one of the reasons the ship is sinking in the first place.................

OK, I’m biased, I’m one of the participants in the fracas, but the initial message in this thread is

“I daresay anyone from the "real world" who read this piece from The Wall Street Journal and then viewed some of the recent prattle on this web site about Steamtown would conclude that we are, in reality, seriously delayed adolescents, not the historians and preservationists we believe we are.”

Lets get a grip here. There is no relationship between the wsj article and the Scranton Times thread other than both were the result of sloppy reporting in the legacy print media. (Interesting, although the nearby Wilkes Barre Times Leader published a disputative opinion on the "contentious topic" on 9/19, but not a word was said here, yet.) In both cases, the author of a newspaper article/opinion with no actual understanding of the matter at hand penned a piece with out the benefit of sufficient, relevant expertise and consideration of the facts.

Not only did “railfans” have nothing to do with the California accident, the railfan in question didn’t either, despite the fact that railfans do occasionally give railroad risk managers cause for concern, by trespassing. Some of those folks post here.

The responsible party was a paid professional who was supposed to understand HE was operating dangerous machinery that was transporting human beings. (There’s a lesson here for us weekend warriors about our conduct on duty.) Among other things, he should have been operating safely, remaining vigilant, devoted exclusively to the duties he was being paid to do and I’ll bet not in possession of electronic devices not issued by his employer or least not using it for non-operational purposes.

If the author wanted to see a bigger issue behind this disaster it’s “invasive” technology. “texting” is becoming such a consuming distraction that a few weeks ago, the national syndicated radio host “Kim Komando”, whose show focuses on computers and technology, did a segment on the assertion that a measurable number of ER visits are being caused by people walking into things or stepping into things or tripping over things because they are texting. We have all observed the idiots cruising down the highway, smoke in one hand, phone in the other, oblivious to the lethality of that 3000 pound missile.

One man’s trash is another’s treasure. “Afboone” provided some rather pertinent information on the rigidities of the federal budgeting and expenditure process and Mr. Webster has a nose for sifting through the internet to find directly applicable fiscal information that I believe was requested by Mr. Hees.

If you don’t like the attempt to resolve public policy disputes in public forums, then don’t participate. If it weren’t for the fact the internet allowed interactive discussions, as opposed to the one way programming of the legacy media, it would be nothing but a trash heap of pornography, gambling and other vices. The idea that problems are solved by perfectly eloquent, dispassionate and polite arguments is a fantasy. Have you listened to anybody running for any office lately? Ever been a juror in a criminal proceeding? (Only to realize much is useful theater and poker, from the minute all present are compelled to “all rise” to the closing argument because truth is elusive and your being asked to determine not only what happened, by why and how as well).

There is an issue at the core of the present debate-whether rail preservation is a “public good” (that has a specific meaning in economics) and if it is, what the scale, scope and extent of government efforts should be in that regard. Is it going to be purely pedagogical or “edutainment”? It’s hardly irrelevant with one major operation dropping steam in the past few weeks and a dinner train dropping off the landscape.

Quite frankly, it’s at best a non-sequitir to relate the two issues and I think that’s as far as I can go without resorting to bluntness. To many would be petty dictators like to squelch public debate with nebulous critiques as “harsh”, “hurtful”, “insensitive” or my personal favorite-“inappropriate”.

IMHO, the WSJ outght to skip the lifestyle crap and 'stick to their knitting.' With all the turmoil in world financial markets, their reporters have plenty of serious work to do.



DPK