Maybe if all the US locomtives were blue tank locomotives with faces on them everything could be different in the near future.

I've got one of those 5yr old boy that loves Thomas, but he sees a huge difference between the steam trains I mess with and that Blue face and the look of those brit locomtives that "Thomas" shows him.

My kid can not seem to get into Chugington station, even though they have faces on the diesels in that catoon.

Maybe the plan should be to Americanize Thomas!

Except that new urbanism and public transit predate smartphones by a wide margin. Portland and San Jose's new urbanism plans were a done deal before DSL became widely available. No, it has a great deal to do with another infernal device known as an automobile.

If the government designed Society so that to be a functional, contributing part of society, you needed to spend $8,000 a year on ridiculous outfits, corsets, top hats and fake wigs. If you didn't have all that stuff, restaurants wouldn't serve you and forget about going to a job interview. We as reasonable people would guffaw and say "what absurd fashion, what a silly waste of money." That is $8000 that is sucked right out of the economy. You're not spending it on movies, restaurants, guitars, travel, organic food, cable, collectibles, or any of 1000 other things, because you HAD to spend it on fluffery. So it's very bad news for anyone not in the top hat business.

Anyway, that's the current situation with automobiles. And the New Urbanism is a very much a revolt against that.


The problem is 230 itself. It is onerous and burdensome. It raises the bar from "keep it running reasonably competently" to the realm of the megabucks. It was a clear message from FRA to tourist railroads: "Get big or get out."

"Get big" is very difficult for clubs who have operated in subsistence mode for decades.

I hear this kind of argument all the time, and I feel compelled to take issue with it.

The expense of owning a car can be quantitatively measured in direct expenditures, as can transit costs to the individual. What CANNOT be easily quantified are the often-substantial costs in time and opportunity saved by direct driving versus transit. Actual real-life examples I've seen or experienced firsthand: twelve minutes driving versus forty minutes walk/subway/bus/walk; forty minutes in rush-hour traffic versus two and a half hours on buses; thirty minutes round-trip car versus twenty minutes downhill and forty-five minutes uphill on bicycle; and worst example ever, ten minutes' drive versus an hour and a half on three buses. And all of those are if the buses/etc. are on time. Lord help you if you miss the last bus or subway train, then run and miss the only bus on the alternative route (which still leaves you a two-mile walk) for an hour.

And by the way, my own household's annual auto expenses, even factoring in fuel, insurance, repairs, and replacement costs, are about half that $8K figure. (If I drive that up to $8K a year, it would be because I got a $75K a year job to justify the hour-plus commute each way....)

At the end of the day, we operate equipment that if not properly used, not properly maintained, can be very deadly. Pre part 230 there were a lot of marginal operators out there that have nothing to do with generational differences.

I don't think it is as bad as some claim. The real problem is that even if the tubes are still good after 15 years, you still have to pull them; no flue extensions. Then you have that many operators seeming did not understand what exactly the revised part 230 would mean, and as a result, it broadsided a great many, some of whom are just now getting the steam engine back, when they used to run several. Shoe-stringing along without the major rebuilds every so often came back to bite outfits, who now had a full rebuild needed.

I really don't think part 230 is as much get big as it was get competent (I'm not denying that part 230 could be more common sense and less reactionary; but take that up with our government.)

Getting back to the topic at hand....

I am reading Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community by Robert Putnam (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000) in which Putnam describes the decline in our stock of "social capital" - the connections we share with each other through group activities. Putnam notes more and more Americans are bowling, but not in leagues.

I have noticed this generation gap at church, the trolley museum and a variety of other organizations that once relied on organized volunteerism. The trend at church among younger adults is their interest in a shorter term project and avoidance of standing committee memberships. I would suggest a decline in traditional trolley museum participation because a volunteer-led restoration of (fill in the blank) requires a long term investment of time.

Thoughts?

Wesley

I don't see the retirement of the "Baby Boom" generation having a massive effect on preservation organizations. The Baby Boomers are just as financially strained as everyone else in these difficult economic times.

What seems to be lacking in some preservation organizations is the ability to communicate their existence and need for support and volunteers to those outside of their current membership.

That being said, we have some groups in the Northeast that are notably excellent in their communication and promotional efforts. Two that immediately come to mind are the Amherst Railway Society and the Railroad Museum of New England, and the other groups that are struggling to attract support would do well to study the websites, communication, and event promotion of these two organizations as a model for improving their own efforts.

PC

The best recruiting is done person-to-person.

In the 1990s and early 2000s we had a motorman who was an excellent recruiter. He would include a pitch for new volunteers as part of his standard speech and make a point to press a membership application into the hands of any interested party. His approach was gentle and not overbearing. Almost all of his recruits from that period eventually became active in leadership roles. Bob died about 10 years ago and his gift is sorely missed.

Wesley

I'm one of the folks that is fortunate enough that there is little impact for me. I have actually timed my driving versus taking the nearest transit and the times are equal. The only thing that would impact the transit time that would not impact driving time is literally if the bus breaks down. Either way, it's a 45 minute drive plus 5 minutes (either to drive to the park and ride or to park my truck downtown). Economically, the bus wins hands down-county subsidizes our transit passes by 50%, deducted automatically from our pay. They don't subsidize employee parking. The only time I drive in is if I have an appointment after work. Best thing is that there's no change of buses and the bus I ride is an Express. Longest run between stops is about seven miles on my route-we go from downtown to another town.