YoHo1975 Euclid dehusman Spray cans emit gases and volitile hydrocarbons into the air, contributing to air pollution. Wouldn’t that therefore be a good reason to eliminate graffiti? How can railroads claim to be green when they allow all this spray painting graffiti to go on? Are you honestly suggesting that Railroad efforts to reduce Graffiti would reduce the use of spraypaint in the world to a significant degree?
Euclid dehusman Spray cans emit gases and volitile hydrocarbons into the air, contributing to air pollution. Wouldn’t that therefore be a good reason to eliminate graffiti? How can railroads claim to be green when they allow all this spray painting graffiti to go on?
dehusman Spray cans emit gases and volitile hydrocarbons into the air, contributing to air pollution.
Wouldn’t that therefore be a good reason to eliminate graffiti? How can railroads claim to be green when they allow all this spray painting graffiti to go on?
I am not suggesting that, but I think Dave Husman was.
Euclid YoHo1975 Euclid Are you honestly suggesting that Railroad efforts to reduce Graffiti would reduce the use of spraypaint in the world to a significant degree? I am not suggesting that, but I think Dave Husman was.
YoHo1975 Euclid Are you honestly suggesting that Railroad efforts to reduce Graffiti would reduce the use of spraypaint in the world to a significant degree?
Euclid
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Let's face it. Pretty much everyone here is in agreement that graffiti is a bad thing.
What we can't seem to agree on is just how bad it is.
The answer seems to lie in economics - is it financially beneficial to control it?
Or is the money better spent elsewhere?
Would a railroad be better off spending $X cleaning spray paint off its cars, or using that same money to improve capacity on some line or another?
I'm betting on improving capacity. I'm sure the stockholders would as well.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Euclid Ending graffiti will have a cost shared by railroad companies, car owners, and shippers, according to a complex formula. The way to accomplish the task is to profile the sources of graffiti, and target those areas with security. The cost may or may not get passed on to the public, depending on rate regulation. The cost pass-through may also vary according to the distribution of graffiti and the cars affected. Once graffiti has been largely eliminated, there may not be any net cost to the prevention effort. How much does CSX and UP spend telling the world how green they are? Where is the payoff there?
Ending graffiti will have a cost shared by railroad companies, car owners, and shippers, according to a complex formula. The way to accomplish the task is to profile the sources of graffiti, and target those areas with security. The cost may or may not get passed on to the public, depending on rate regulation. The cost pass-through may also vary according to the distribution of graffiti and the cars affected. Once graffiti has been largely eliminated, there may not be any net cost to the prevention effort.
How much does CSX and UP spend telling the world how green they are? Where is the payoff there?
The payoff for CSX and UP might be that when someone is sitting at a crossing, blocked by one of their trains, that person may, just may consider the fact that they are watching several truckloads of stuff not driving by on the road and the saving in fuel the railroads create.
As for the murals and trees, that’s just CSX playing “Good Neighbor” in an effort to appease that particular community in a proactive effort.
23 17 46 11
I think what it boils down to is Mr. Norton simply likes his trains pretty, so he can enjoy them in the manner he prefers.
Fact is, railroads and the rail cars are industrial tools, never meant to be pretty in the first place, their form does follow their function.
I would hazard guess that if he ever drove through Pasadena, Jacinto Park, Galena or Deer Park and Baytown, the sight and smell of all those ugly refineries would give him apoplexy,
As a young man, I remember visiting my Aunt and Uncle, who worked for Exxon in Baytown…we were out in the backyard, and the order of fresh crude oil, ever present around there, was fairly strong that night.
Not really sure what the smell was, I asked my uncle, “Uncle Bob, what’s that smell?”.
He paused for a minute, took a deep breath, grinned at me, and said “Edward honey, that’s the smell of money!”
As a railroader, I really could care less if you consider graffiti as art, or vandalism, personally I dislike the idea the taggers feel like it is okay to deface someone else’s property,
But the cars I switch don’t care if they are tagged or not, and as long as they roll, hold their cargo securely, and have brakes, what color they are painted and if they are tagged makes little difference.
Those big grey ugly graffiti tagged hoppers?...well, that’s the color of money.
One thing to keep in mind is that some graffiti must be painted over or removed because there is unlimited potential for extremely obscene or otherwise offensive graphics. In other words, it is possible to add graphics that simply cannot be allowed to roll in public.
I disagree with the popular notion in this thread that railroad companies and private car owners do not care about graffiti because it does not hurt them. Instead, I think this notion is being erroneously attributed to railroad management mostly by railfans. On the contrary, I believe that management has a strong desire to put an end to graffiti.
Here is an interesting article that gives some perspective of railroad management:
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/rolling-graffiti-galleries-frustrate-rail-companies-police/article_37f6b584-d7a7-5e8e-a3b3-344c1e10559c.html
Some imply that the graffiti we are seeing today has been a component of the industry since the introduction of the aerosol can. But it hasn't. Do realize that it was not too long ago (17 years or so) that the only graffiti on trains were insignificant chalk drawings. Graffiti free freight cars and spray paint coexisted for about 40 years exclusive of each other.
I believe this vandalism can be greatly curtailed if some mechanism is put in place. Whether that be proactive freight car design, increased security through technology, citizen watch groups or even offering rewards - something more can be done than what we are currently seeing. Lets remember.......Our society has deemed the defacement of private property a crime. Therefore, there is value in catching these trespassers.
Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL
Euclid writes:
"I disagree with the popular notion in this thread that railroad companies and private car owners do not care about graffiti because it does not hurt them. Instead, I think this notion is being erroneously attributed to railroad management mostly by railfans. On the contrary, I believe that management has a strong desire to put an end to graffiti."
Jim adds:
I concur. Over the years, I have written to the railroads regarding graffiti. I have a stack of replies which backs up what Euclid states.
One of my favorite replies came in 2001 from Canadian National President and Chief Executive Officer Paul Tellier. Mr Tellier wrote:
"........I know our managers who have direct responsibility for our car fleet have a particularly negative view of graffiti. They take it as a personal insult. They will take some solace from your letter, which I will pass along to them."
One way of looking at it is that graffiti is just damaging the appearance of a good paint job, but since there is no decorative intent in the paint job, the graffiti does not matter. I would say that most graffiti goes further than just adding irrelevant graphic nonsense to a painted surface.
I see most graffiti as having an almost nightmarish message in the graphics. I guess it just flows naturally from the spray paint art medium. Or maybe the nightmare develops from people piling on more and more as they overpaint the previous work. Then you end up with a sort of tangle of pretzels. It looks highly energetic, but insane. This insane message says something about railroads and freight trains. It is not just surface defacement. It makes a statement.
So it may be more than just brand and image defacement. It may be creating its own brand and image to replace what the company intended. It is kind of like a parasite brand eating the host brand. And the fact that the railroads simply carry on with the parasite brands pasted all over them— that too becomes a part of the new parasite brand.
What a horrendous babble. It appears to me that euclid is reading much more into the graffiti than is actually there. All I see in the graffiti is a much more graphic and visible version of "Kilroy Was Here".
Here is a theory: Years ago, the railroads had a presence. Their equipment told about them: "Everywhere West", "The Automated Railway", "Gives a Green Light to Innovation" etc., etc.. This conveyed an identity and most importantly ownership. (This continued past passenger operations and the need to promote such.)
Fast forward to the point where colorful paint schemes, slogans and company names disappeared. Replacing these were minimal paint schemes and reporting marks. In other words, the equivilant of a blank warehouse wall! What happened next was the graffiti vandal equated the side of a boxcar with a generic, identity lacking and owner-less surface. The rest is history.
Now, lets go back in history to the debate of the financial return of spending money on colorful paint schemes, slogans and company names. The bean counters won never realizing that this new idenity lacking way to run a railroad would one day inspire the wholesale defacement of the industry!
I 'll go out on a limb here. Had the railroads continued to have pride and identity in their equipment we would not be dealing with graffiti today. It would have proved cheaper to spend money on branded freight cars!
I see the proliferation of defacing marking on railroad cars as an indication of the decrease in respect for other people's property. What gives these people the right, or the privilege, to use other people's property to spread their work across the country?
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCH What a horrendous babble. It appears to me that euclid is reading much more into the graffiti than is actually there. All I see in the graffiti is a much more graphic and visible version of "Kilroy Was Here".
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
jimnorton Here is a theory: Years ago, the railroads had a presence. Their equipment told about them: "Everywhere West", "The Automated Railway", "Gives a Green Light to Innovation" etc., etc.. This conveyed an identity and most importantly ownership. (This continued past passenger operations and the need to promote such.) Fast forward to the point where colorful paint schemes, slogans and company names disappeared. Replacing these were minimal paint schemes and reporting marks. In other words, the equivilant of a blank warehouse wall! What happened next was the graffiti vandal equated the side of a boxcar with a generic, identity lacking and owner-less surface. The rest is history. Now, lets go back in history to the debate of the financial return of spending money on colorful paint schemes, slogans and company names. The bean counters won never realizing that this new idenity lacking way to run a railroad would one day inspire the wholesale defacement of the industry! I 'll go out on a limb here. Had the railroads continued to have pride and identity in their equipment we would not be dealing with graffiti today. It would have proved cheaper to spend money on branded freight cars!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
jimnorton Some imply that the graffiti we are seeing today has been a component of the industry since the introduction of the aerosol can. But it hasn't. Do realize that it was not too long ago (17 years or so) that the only graffiti on trains were insignificant chalk drawings. Graffiti free freight cars and spray paint coexisted for about 40 years exclusive of each other.
WHAT?
Graffiti became a massive problem in 1997? Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous on it's face.
As was pointed out, this entire thread is now about a couple of people who want their freight trains pristine arguing with most everyone else about how important it is. That is not the original topic and I'm not sure it isn't even a reasonable topic to have.
jimnortonNow, lets go back in history to the debate of the financial return of spending money on colorful paint schemes, slogans and company names. The bean counters won never realizing that this new idenity lacking way to run a railroad would one day inspire the wholesale defacement of the industry! I 'll go out on a limb here. Had the railroads continued to have pride and identity in their equipment we would not be dealing with graffiti today. It would have proved cheaper to spend money on branded freight cars!
So, the bean counters talked the industry out of the need for fancy paint jobs, and that created an essentially blank canvass that quickly filled up with graffiti. Thus the bean counter mindset that wanted to save money by simple paint jobs is the same mindset that now wants to save money by not removing or preventing graffiti.
Paul of CovingtonWe keep talking about the cost of preventing or removing graffiti. The railroads don't seem to be very concerned about it, but some railfans are.
I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread. Sources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti. But railfans seem intent on defending the industry by insisting that the reason the industry is not solving the problem is because the industry does think it is a problem.
jimnortonNow, lets go back in history to the debate of the financial return of spending money on colorful paint schemes, slogans and company names. The bean counters won never realizing that this new idenity lacking way to run a railroad would one day inspire the wholesale defacement of the industry!
This conclusion is based on the assumption that back when there were "billboard" box cars there was no graffiti, and nothing could be further from the truth.
The spray can era of graffiti may have somewhat coincided with the advent of minimal markings on railcars, but saying that the "bare" railcars were the cause of the spray can era is pretty much hooey, unless you can find some hard comparisons to that effect.
But you persist on blaming the railroads for the problem.
I suspect the end is near for this thread.
The industry thinks it is a problem, just not a problem that is worth committing scarce capital resources to eradicating on a piece by piece basis. If the problem can be solved without additional spending they are all for solving it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You know, the internet has graffiti forums, no surprise, with forum rules and railfans, too.
http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_rules
http://www.bombingscience.com/graffitiforum/showthread.php?13721-Railfan-Photography
EuclidSources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti.
Just like your congressman thinks that the issue (any issue) you write to him about is the most important issue facing America today and he is doing his best to correct it.
I will stand by my statement that the railroads were essentially graffiti free prior to 1997. Try to produce a photo of the Seattle and North Coast Railroad, Corinth and Counce or the Denver Rio Grande and Western (during their respective independent periods of operation...to name a few) with boxcar after boxcar covered in graffiti. You can't.
I always remember seeing a Pentrex video from 1996 on the California Northern Railroad. I could not understand what I was seeing as an occasional freight car had small graffiti scrawls. I had never seen this before. I was concerned then.....but I never dreamed the day would come when every train nationwide was covered in graffiti.
Euclid Paul of CovingtonWe keep talking about the cost of preventing or removing graffiti. The railroads don't seem to be very concerned about it, but some railfans are. I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread. Sources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti. But railfans seem intent on defending the industry by insisting that the reason the industry is not solving the problem is because the industry does think it is a problem.
Are we reading the same forum?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Euclid Paul of CovingtonWe keep talking about the cost of preventing or removing graffiti. The railroads don't seem to be very concerned about it, but some railfans are. I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread. Sources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti. But railfans seem intent on defending the industry by insisting that the reason the industry is not solving the problem is because the industry does think it is a problem. Are we reading the same forum?
Oops. I left out the work “not.” Why I meant to say should read like this:
“I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread. Sources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti. But railfans seem intent on defending the industry by insisting that the reason the industry is not solving the problem is because the industry does not think it is a problem.”
Its really hard to get a pulse on the issue as the rail press pretends it doesn't exist either. I recall graffiti addressed once in Trains in almost two decades.
YoHo1975A problem that isn't worth the money to fix is by definition not a problem. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that the industry likes or approves or wants the graffiti. Only that they clearly aren't putting any money to it and therefore it can't be a problem for them.
Nuisance would probably be more descriptive. And it is clear that graffiti is a nuisance for the railroads.
Inasmuch as some spray paint generally doesn't impede a car's ability to perform its designed function, it isn't a problem.
Euclid Paul of Covington Euclid Paul of CovingtonWe keep talking about the cost of preventing or removing graffiti. The railroads don't seem to be very concerned about it, but some railfans are. I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread. Sources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti. But railfans seem intent on defending the industry by insisting that the reason the industry is not solving the problem is because the industry does think it is a problem. Are we reading the same forum? Oops. I left out the work “not.” Why I meant to say should read like this: “I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread. Sources indicate that the railroads and car owners are very concerned and interested in stopping graffiti. But railfans seem intent on defending the industry by insisting that the reason the industry is not solving the problem is because the industry does not think it is a problem.”
What sources?
Specific sources if you will, not generalized assumptions.
tree68YoHo1975A problem that isn't worth the money to fix is by definition not a problem. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that the industry likes or approves or wants the graffiti. Only that they clearly aren't putting any money to it and therefore it can't be a problem for them. Nuisance would probably be more descriptive. And it is clear that graffiti is a nuisance for the railroads. Inasmuch as some spray paint generally doesn't impede a car's ability to perform its designed function, it isn't a problem.
YoHo1975tree68 YoHo1975A problem that isn't worth the money to fix is by definition not a problem. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that the industry likes or approves or wants the graffiti. Only that they clearly aren't putting any money to it and therefore it can't be a problem for them. Nuisance would probably be more descriptive. And it is clear that graffiti is a nuisance for the railroads. Inasmuch as some spray paint generally doesn't impede a car's ability to perform its designed function, it isn't a problem. Nuisance is a good word for it.
tree68 YoHo1975A problem that isn't worth the money to fix is by definition not a problem. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that the industry likes or approves or wants the graffiti. Only that they clearly aren't putting any money to it and therefore it can't be a problem for them. Nuisance would probably be more descriptive. And it is clear that graffiti is a nuisance for the railroads. Inasmuch as some spray paint generally doesn't impede a car's ability to perform its designed function, it isn't a problem.
How do you know that it is not worth it to fix the problem?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.