TRAINS should be as scrupulous about politics in its "news" columns as it is with us poor bloggers. In his story about the Cascades service, writer Alexander B. Craghead gets away with this (Page 53):
"The country's second look at high speed rail stands on shaky ground ... At the time of this writing, projects in Ohio and Wisconsin ... are being sacrificed on the altar of political gamesmanship and ideological posturing."
Sorry, the successful gubernatorial candidates in Ohio and Wisconsin campaigned against so-called HSR and were willing to win or lose on their positions. Who the heck is Craghead, who to my knowledge has never run for anything, to snipe at them as "posturing"?
Not political. He is stating what is happening without taking sides. Journalism not commentary. "Political gamesmanship and ideological posturing" are legitimate discriptive terms and not editorializing. Can you come up with better journalism?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I agree with Mr. Craghead.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
henry6 Can you come up with better journalism?
Can you come up with better journalism?
Yes I can come up with better journalism and the both of you fail Journalism 101.
To use the term shaky ground is to employ a metaphor, but in this case it expresses a fact. The fact is that the high-speed train plan has encountered significant political opposition, and in the absence of any political opposition and in the presence of a broad-based consensus to build trains, it would be factual to say the plan is on solid ground.
To speak of "sacrifice on the altar of" is also to employ a metaphor. As this is a religious metaphor, because altars and sacrifices are powerful images with respect to past religious practices, and there are religions that in this day and age conduct ritual slaughter of animals in religious rites -- I believe the few Samaritans in Israel practice such whereas Jews do not on account of the destruction of the 2nd Temple -- as a religious metaphor it is heavily laden with emotion, suggesting that what follows crosses over into opinion.
Furthermore, whether the decisions of Walker and Kasich to reject funding for the train projects are expressions of gamesmanship and posturing instead of the simple expediency that these leaders don't think train to be cost effective, that is a matter of one's point of view. One could ask Mr. Walker or Mr. Kasich why they feel that way, and at least Mr. Walker is on public record that his reading of the studies suggests that the Milwaukee-Madison ridership will not be large enough to justify the expenditure.
There is a journalistic "trick", however, to offer the opinion that Messrs. Walker and Kasich are indeed engaging in political gamesmanship and ideological posturing. As a journalist, you don't make that assertion in your own voice. Rather, you say something like, "Whereas Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker claims his decision to forgo Federal funding for the Milwaukee-Madison extension of train service is based on studies projecting low ridership, frequent Trains-dot-com commentators "henry6" and "Phoebe Vet" assert that "Political gamesmanship and ideological posturing" are the motivating factors as that route has plenty of potential for ridership growth.
The other thing is that there are a variety of points of view on the merits of trains. If one believes strongly in the inherent and undisputable goodness of trains, that the train is turned back by "Political gamesmanship and ideological posturing" simply has to be factual as there can be not other reason for opposing the train. It is fine to be a dedicated and loyal supporter of trains. But it would be helpful sometimes to step back and think about why people would not want the train apart from having stock shares in an asphalt company -- helpful in terms of better understanding the political landscape to ultimately advance the cause of trains.
The Trains Magazine of years past (I have access to all the back issues at the Wisconsin State Historical Society) was more in the political realist camp. The editors asserted that in their heart of hearts that they simply loved trains of all kinds, passenger, freight, commuter, tourist, whatever. But their realism caused them to understand that passenger trains as well as freight trains (at least until the Staggers Act) were withering on the vine for a variety of social, political, technological, and economic factors. They gave page space to soul-searching (another religious metaphor) critiques of passenger trains (Who Shot the Passenger Train) as a way of understanding what was going on and seeking possible solutions. The gave column space to John Kneiling, the Professional Iconoclast, who got on everyone's nerves with his smarty-pants critical-of-labor-and-management-at-the-same-time commentaries, with the idea that perhaps his Integral Train Systems could save railroading from oblivion.
I think the last Trains Editor of the Realist School was Mark Hemphill, who also frequently commented on these here Web pages too, who left in 2004, was it? Lately, Trains is of the "rah, rah, the Pack is going to win the Super Bowl" (OK, OK, they pulled that one off) school of train journalism.
I would just love to read another John Kneiling or even from the man himself. Perhaps scoring his crystal ball of what was predicted to happen and what did happen, how the railroads didn't really embrace the Integral Train, but to look at 21st Century operations with respect to what works and what still doesn't work.
I would love to read a Professional Iconoclast of Amtrak, where instead of "Hooray for Amtrak and those guys who don't want it are engaging in political gamensmanship and ideological posturing" we would get a sober assessment of the different things Amtrak has tried or would like to try. But that is just me, and I think the rah-rah-trains direction in Trains sells more subscriptions.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
It's from the Bob Johnston school of journalism, where the author's interpretation of the facts is given quite a bit of leeway, bordering on, and occasionally making over the border raids on, editorial opinion.
I would prefer a more straight-up style ala Fred Frailey.
On the whole, however, I thought Mr. Craghead's article was interesting and full of useful facts.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Walker abandoned the Madison-Milwaukee line b/c of not wanting to pay an operating deficit of $7.5 mil per year, of which Wisconsin would have been responsible for only 10% - $750,000. However, balance that against the loss of the Talgo plant employing 40 workers and expanding to 125, and construction employment on the line itself projected to peak at 4,732 jobs in 2012, with 55 permanent jobs to operate and maintain trains, stations and tracks. So Walker's claims of taking a hard-headed business approach turn out to be just more posturing, i.e., "assuming an artificial or pretended attitude."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I know I didn't fail journalism 1 or 101! Been involved for almost 50 years! Just gotta know what is right, what is wrong, and what is left. You can't be right because you'll be called left for reporting what is wrong. The words and phrasings in question here are descriptive of a wrong, therefore can't be right so must be left? How would you describe, without your political bent, what these guys are really doing? Your statements above about the governors in question assume they have studied the situation, know and understand all the negative and positive results of their decisions and actions, without really knowing if they did or not. Just as bad journalism as you contend.
dakotafred TRAINS should be as scrupulous about politics in its "news" columns as it is with us poor bloggers. In his story about the Cascades service, writer Alexander B. Craghead gets away with this (Page 53): "The country's second look at high speed rail stands on shaky ground ... At the time of this writing, projects in Ohio and Wisconsin ... are being sacrificed on the altar of political gamesmanship and ideological posturing." Sorry, the successful gubernatorial candidates in Ohio and Wisconsin campaigned against so-called HSR and were willing to win or lose on their positions. Who the heck is Craghead, who to my knowledge has never run for anything, to snipe at them as "posturing"?
HSR is political, and so is the opposition to it. It is a political debate about how to use public funds. In my opinion, however, the editors of Trains fail to see HSR as being political. They only see opposition to it as being political. And that position does tend to telegraph through to the moderation of these forums where discussion favoring HSR is perfectly acceptable, even if it gets into insulting politicians by name for opposing HSR. However, if discussion goes against HSR and begins to explore the political principles of that dynamic, buttons get pushed and threads get locked. I too would take issue with the characterization of a governor’s opposition to HSR as “posturing.” To me, someone who makes such a charge does not understand politics.
HSR is political, and so is the opposition to it. It is a political debate about how to use public funds. In my opinion, however, the editors of Trains fail to see HSR as being political. They only see opposition to it as being political. And that position does tend to telegraph through to the moderation of these forums where discussion favoring HSR is perfectly acceptable, even if it gets into insulting politicians by name for opposing HSR. However, if discussion goes against HSR and begins to explore the political principles of that dynamic, buttons get pushed and threads get locked.
I too would take issue with the characterization of a governor’s opposition to HSR as “posturing.” To me, someone who makes such a charge does not understand politics.
All politics is is posturing - pro, con, for or aginst - any question that comes up in the political arena is all about posturing.
Bucyrus I too would take issue with the characterization of a governor’s opposition to HSR as “posturing.” To me, someone who makes such a charge does not understand politics.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And those making charges here don't understand journalism.
Actually, as I think about it, I believe there are politicians who posture, if that means saying you are for something to one group of people and against it to another group of people. That flip-flop would illustrate their posturing. And plenty of the so-called moderates do that.
However, if a politician holds a position unequivocally, I don’t see how they could be accused of posturing, unless you believe that they are holding that position, but actually believe the opposite. I cannot see the point of anyone doing that. So, how is Walker posturing? Someone please explain.
You've got a better handle on it now. Any public position can be considerd posturing while in private it is just an opinion. And I think this is also a matter of evolving meanings and usages of words rather than commenting. A year or so ago, I might have agreed with the criticism but today, no.
henry6 You've got a better handle on it now. Any public position can be considerd posturing while in private it is just an opinion. And I think this is also a matter of evolving meanings and usages of words rather than commenting. A year or so ago, I might have agreed with the criticism but today, no.
Yes, I understand, but posturing is not just a matter of promoting yourself, as all politicians do. Posturing is promoting yourself as standing for something that you don't actually stand for. It is putting on a fake pose.
When I read Mr. Craghead state that HSR projects “are being sacrificed on the alter of political gamesmanship or ideological posturing,” I hear someone who is in denial of the true reason that HSR is being voted down.
The true reason HSR is being rejected is that too many people are opposed to having to pay for it because they believe we don’t need it, and money is tight.
Frankly, I think that most train buffs are in denial of that explanation. So it is not surprising to hear one make up some other abstract reason to paint the rejection of HSR as being frivolous, rather than being based on economics as it actually is.
I won't get into an argument with someone, henry6, who cannot recognize such a gross example of political opinion spilling over into "reportage." When I posted I assumed everyone would concede the offense; my only purpose was to note the contrast with Forum fussiness about politics committed by us bloggers, who are not pretending to reportage.
dakotafred Sorry, the successful gubernatorial candidates in Ohio and Wisconsin campaigned against so-called HSR and were willing to win or lose on their positions. Who the heck is Craghead, who to my knowledge has never run for anything, to snipe at them as "posturing"?
pardon the skeptic but was not the HSR a 5th or 6th level issue. I may be wrong but you people in Wi can tell us was HSR even within the sight of most voters? Wasn't it about jobs and the economy?
I am not a Wisconsin resident, but I have a number of friends who are, of both political parties. Only one was aware of the HSR issue in the fall campaign and thought it was, as you suggest, pretty far down on the list. Trains are important to those of us who read and post on the forums, but not to most of the public.
As someone who spent his entire career in the rail industry, I was VERY disapponted with TRAINS' treatment of high speed rail. While there is some good info in the latest issue, the tone of the issue is basically unabashed boosterism rather than a fair look at the serious issues facing high speed rail. I suppose that's not really surprising , considering the audience of "true believers" that likely is the bulk of TRAIN's subscription base. After all, if you're trying to sell a magazine, why not give the audience what it wants to see, rather than challenge their preconceived notions? But there are a lot of serious public policy issues involved in opening up the public treasury to a blizzard of high speed rail new starts, many of which are of dubious value, as opposed to improving sevices on the NEC and other existing regional corridors. We seem to have a really bad habit in this country of spending tons of public money to build new stuff while not maintaining and improving the stuff we already have. To my mind, it would have been useful (particularly to the "true believers") if TRAINS could have given its subscriber base some inkling of the reasons - which are not irrational - that there is resistance in this country to spending great gobs of taxpayer money on new high speed rail projects.
There is a difference between Heavy-Rail & Heavy-Train High-Speed passenger rail travel and elevated light-rail and light-train high-speed passenger rail travel. The first takes place on existing corridors of freight traffic and the second takes place on new corridors that get people to places where they need to be without sacrificing the time & safety of travelers.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
On the contrary, Falcon, I think the spread did justice to HSR and government. The pros and the cons of each system discussed were there: it was built; it was aided by government funding or planning or whatever; private enterprise had a hand in building or operating or both; it cost a lot of money; it is lighter guage than US so if it were to be done here it would be heavier and more costly; speed is attained by accidence avoidence as much as by propulsion and physical designs; return on investment does not come quickly, in fact, in some cases, dozens of years have gone by and it hasn't been met; and the question is posed that what would have happened if these systems hadn't been built? It suggests that we ask some questions, too, starting with what will happen if we don't do something. Since the beggining of this country along with the stories of the other countries, government has always had a role in transportation and transortation systems, so the question is how should it continue here: should the government shun rail, HSR or any and all rail projects and just build highways or just airports? Or do we look at intergrated and intermodal transportation systems for both passenger and freight? The questions are all raised for discussion; but, no, the answers were not there. The answers lie in the minds and hearts of donkeys and elephants and other predatory animals..
Falcon48 the tone of the issue is basically unabashed boosterism rather than a fair look at the serious issues facing high speed rail. I suppose that's not really surprising , considering the audience of "true believers" that likely is the bulk of TRAIN's subscription base. After all, if you're trying to sell a magazine, why not give the audience what it wants to see, rather than challenge their preconceived notions?
the tone of the issue is basically unabashed boosterism rather than a fair look at the serious issues facing high speed rail. I suppose that's not really surprising , considering the audience of "true believers" that likely is the bulk of TRAIN's subscription base. After all, if you're trying to sell a magazine, why not give the audience what it wants to see, rather than challenge their preconceived notions?
It isn't just Trains Magazine; I have seen this in Model Railroader and maybe it is true across a broader range of the publishing industry.
I have what I would admit is a rather narrow hobby interest in the various linkages and mechanisms in railroad equipment and how those mechanisms or perhaps approximations can be implemented in scale models of trains. Having had a manuscript for a how-to article on a working axle-guiding linkage for the TurboTrain rejected by MR as having narrow appeal, I approached a senior MR editor at a model train show to pitch an article on steam locomotive valve gear. I thought that there would be more interest in steam locomotives than the one-of TurboTrain, there are many models having rather detailed representations of different type of valve gear that appeared on prototype locomotives, and how the valve gear actually works rather than simply regarding it as some flashy bits that thrash about may have appeal to readers. I was told to not even bother submitting a manuscript as that too was outside the interest of the readership.
At another model train show, I purchased a back issue of MR that caught my eye, the July 1982 issue having the article "RoadRailers: what they are and how to model them." That issue described the earlier generation RoadRailer having, yes, articulated single-axle railroad wheels (related to the Turbo Train through inventor Alan Cripe), although the article doesn't attempt to represent wheel steering in the model. That article contains detailed diagrams on how to scratch build the RoadRailer bogies by fabricating them from sheet plastic.
The other thing that caught my eye in that issue was a "Solid State Turntable Circuit" -- a highly technical article, with word descriptions and a full one-page circuit diagram connecting some 17 circuit chips together. My one-moving-part TurboTrain linkage was too technical for the 21st century MR, and here was an article on what I would consider to be a senior-level design project for EE students at the university. How times have changed.
It seems the MR of times past had detailed articles on railroad prototypes, scratchbuilding and electronics. Recent MR issues are basically a lot of cool pictures, the articles being mainly on "hey look at me, I built this really cool layout." Trains Magazine at times past engaged in what I called earlier soul searching critiques of the railroad industry. Trains Magazine of times present seems to engage in rah-rah passenger trains are cool and the people who don't want them are craven political hacks ("sacrificed at the altar of posturing and idealogy").
Someone I talked to expressed the opinion that magazines are becoming collections of ads with filler articles that are tie-ins to the products in the ads; part of this is the Internet hollowing out the publishing industry. Wouldn't say that about Trains Magazine, but today's Trains is not the Trains of years past.
An annual operating deficit of $7.5 million at an average borrowing rate for municipal bonds of 4.75 per cent morphs to $500.1 million over 30 years. If Wisconsin is on the hook for 10 per cent of the annual operating deficit, its payments would be a minimum of approximately $50.1 million over the same period. I have not adjusted the annual payments for inflation, etc., because I don't have sufficient data to do so. It is probably fair to say that the annual operating costs will increase due to a multiplicity of factors and, thus, render my estimates conservative.
The estimated operating deficit of $7.5 million may be conservative. The annual operating deficit for the 32 mile Leander to Austin commuter rail line is approximately $9.5 million.
The key investment question, therefore, is whether the tax revenues generated by the construction jobs and the operating jobs will offset the operating deficits. Without knowing the compensation packages for either group, it is difficult to say. But it would take a lot of tax payments (income, sales, property, etc.) by those in the aforementioned jobs to cover the estimated costs.
In addition to the operating costs, the project presumably would incur significant capital costs, which would be a burden on the taxpayers and would have to be depreciated over the life of the assets.
Maybe Governor Walker is looking beyond the borders of Wisconsin. Maybe he sees a tax liability for taxpayers across the board that he cannot justify.
Sam1 An annual operating deficit of $7.5 million at an average borrowing rate for municipal bonds of 4.75 per cent morphs to $500.1 million over 30 years. If Wisconsin is on the hook for 10 per cent of the annual operating deficit, its payments would be a minimum of approximately $50.1 million over the same period. I have not adjusted the annual payments for inflation, etc., because I don't have sufficient data to do so. It is probably fair to say that the annual operating costs will increase due to a multiplicity of factors and, thus, render my estimates conservative.
I follow your numbers but not so sure it is appropriate to assume the operating deficit, whether it is $7.5 mil. or $750 K, would be funded by municipal bonds. Probably it would come out of state general revenues.
If the folks who are on these forums are at all representative of the subscribing readership, "the true believers" are pretty skeptical or even diametrically opposed to HSR and new rail technologies.
schlimm Sam1: An annual operating deficit of $7.5 million at an average borrowing rate for municipal bonds of 4.75 per cent morphs to $500.1 million over 30 years. If Wisconsin is on the hook for 10 per cent of the annual operating deficit, its payments would be a minimum of approximately $50.1 million over the same period. I have not adjusted the annual payments for inflation, etc., because I don't have sufficient data to do so. It is probably fair to say that the annual operating costs will increase due to a multiplicity of factors and, thus, render my estimates conservative. I follow your numbers but not so sure it is appropriate to assume the operating deficit, whether it is $7.5 mil. or $750 K, would be funded by municipal bonds. Probably it would come out of state general revenues.
Sam1: An annual operating deficit of $7.5 million at an average borrowing rate for municipal bonds of 4.75 per cent morphs to $500.1 million over 30 years. If Wisconsin is on the hook for 10 per cent of the annual operating deficit, its payments would be a minimum of approximately $50.1 million over the same period. I have not adjusted the annual payments for inflation, etc., because I don't have sufficient data to do so. It is probably fair to say that the annual operating costs will increase due to a multiplicity of factors and, thus, render my estimates conservative.
The funds to cover the operating deficit ultimately would come out of the state's general fund. In theory, the state would have to borrow the money from an external source or forgoe other expenditures. There is an implied finance charge to cover the use of the general funds to cover the expected annual operating deficit.
Ideally, the interest rate would be the weighted average cost of funds for the state, but that number would require a considerable amount of research to get. Accordingly, I used a national average for tax free funding, which the state probably could organize by setting up an authority to run the trains.
If public funding, bonding, chartering, or other support of rail transportation in this country is so repugnant to so many then I ask why did it happen in the 19th and 20th centuries? And why does it continue when it comes to highway, waterway and in airline support? What does the American taxpayer get back from Greyhound, American or United Airlines, any tow boat operator on any given body of water or any truck or trucking company? We keep hounding on the concept of private enterprise in these blogs but never any answers except that "it costs money". Well, everything costs money: highways, waterways, airways and airports as well as railroad tracks. In the end we are not talking trains or railroads here, really we're not, we're talking private enterprise vs government enterprise but don't consider the facts that there is no such distinction in the US and deny the existence elsewhere. We are so afraid of the term socialism and so in love with the term private enterprise that we don't see or understand nor want to see or understand how it has and does work here nor how it does and work anyplace else in the world. We are just denying that which exists while hoping our concept of private enterprise -- that if it can't make a profit for somebody, it isn't worth pursuing--is the answer. Meanwhile we can therefore ignore the problems and solutions and fight words and political philosophies. We are Nero, words and political philosophies are fiddles, US transportation needs (all) is Rome.
I do not see then why the $750 mil. would incur anything more than a very short-term interest charge (< six months), if that, to make up the difference between expenses and farebox revenues. Taking a cost to build a line and including financing over a bond life of 30 years, yes, that gives the real cost; taking every expense and adding 30 years' financing charges greatly exaggerates the actual cost.
BTW, I think the specific Wisconsin project, MLK to MAD, was ill-advised.
henry6 If public funding, bonding, chartering, or other support of rail transportation in this country is so repugnant to so many then I ask why did it happen in the 19th and 20th centuries? We are so afraid of the term socialism and so in love with the term private enterprise that...
If public funding, bonding, chartering, or other support of rail transportation in this country is so repugnant to so many then I ask why did it happen in the 19th and 20th centuries?
We are so afraid of the term socialism and so in love with the term private enterprise that...
To your first question:
Because those earlier expenditures were perceived as paying investments that were worth it. Try as you might to link HSR to them, the majority of the public does not perceive HSR as being worth it.
To your further comment about how we are afraid of socialism:
The problem some of the the public sees with socialism is that it just leads to infinite spending without any accountability, whereas private investment has to take real risk with their money. So they are much more careful about how they spend it. Maybe that is why China leads us in HSR.
schlimm I do not see then why the $750 mil. would incur anything more than a very short-term interest charge (< six months), if that, to make up the difference between expenses and farebox revenues.
I do not see then why the $750 mil. would incur anything more than a very short-term interest charge (< six months), if that, to make up the difference between expenses and farebox revenues.
There is a question I have about the Madison-Milwaukee train line. That train line is mooted for now, but as the money has been distributed to projects in other states, it may come up for those projects.
Just what is the status of the WSOR line from Watertown to Madison, or rather, what would it have been if the plan went through. Would capital money be given to WSOR to upgrade the line and then recurrent payments to pay the passenger operation's share of maintenance? Or would that line have been owned by WisDOT? If so, would WisDOT have been on the hook for maintenance? If so, would there have been freight operations on that line of any significance to pay towards track maintenance, or would it have been primarily a passenger line?
If at least that part of the line was WisDOT or Amtrak or somebody apart from a freight railroad, I am wondering if the recurrent costs would have been higher than people were thinking.
I am not saying this is right or this is wrong, but for the most part outside of the NEC, Amtrak gets trackage rights over the host freight railroads for what is a rather nominal fee. The idea is that, say, the transcon lines west are primarily freight operations, and the once daily Empire Builder or Southwest Chief pays some share of the track expenses based on a formula.
If the line is primarily passenger, and especially if an agency such as WisDOT had ownership, there are no "deep pockets" of the host railroad to actually maintain the tracks and then some cost recovery formula to charge Amtrak some portion. WisDOT would own, say, at least the Watertown-Madison line lock-stock-and-barrel and would have to come up with the money to keep the tracks up to what is required for the inital 79 MPH, eventually 110 MPH service.
The British experience is that the common type of nose-suspended traction motor in locomotives or power cars gives the roadbed a thorough pounding. In the recent Amtrak press releases, it seems that they want all of their equipment to be 125 MPH qualified, but they are continuing to spec locomotives with nose-suspended traction motors. If you have some kind of formula or deal to use the tracks, I guess you can say that you don't want quill drive or Cardan shaft drive because this is equipment your shops aren't used to and will cost more locomotive maintenance, but maybe you don't care what your locomotives are doing to the track. And maybe this isn't a problem at 79 MPH but will get to be a problem at 110 MPH?
Anyone have any knowledge or insights into how big of an expense it is to maintain a rail line to 110 MPH standards? It is now purely hypothetical in my examples for Wisconsin getting unexpected expenses to maintain the track, but it could happen elsewhere, whereever that elsewhere is.
The Wisconsin HSR project is "yesterday's potatos". There are many more HSR endeavors which deserve $710 million. First Amtrak must crawl before it can walk. Then, pick corridor city pairs with large populations and potential ridership, such as Chicago- St. Louis, L.A.-Las Vegas Houston-Dallas, etc. It would be interesting to know all of Walker's campaign contributors and how many highway contractors were involved. In some states this information is public.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.