Those train guys

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

We are all able to take the validity of anyone's opinions- including yours and mine- in any way we wish.  However, it's a railroad oriented forum, with Actual railroad employees participating.  It wouldn't hurt to show some deference to their knowledge and experience- whether you believe them or not.

I am all for not insulting people either by direct name calling or by the fine art of condescending sarcasm. Disagreement without taking it personally is a fine art, and forums such as this are great places to practice that art.

This is a discussion forum, and that means there will be disagreements, so we should be free to disagree.  But how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class?

[ACY Tom]

In order to regain some perspective, I returned to the O.P. and reread it. I like and appreciate the sentiments expressed. This thread has somehow morphed into a question of stubborn old stick-in-the-mud railroaders vs. naïve and ignorant innovators. It's insulting to characterize either group in the terms I have just used. I will only say that established practices are there for reasons. There's a macabre old saw in the RR industry: "The rulebook was written in blood." Every rule was written because somebody was injured or killed, because somebody acted in a contrary fashion. So experience can teach us. But it's also possible for new ideas to lead to improvements. If that weren't true, civilization wouldn't have moved from horse-drawn wagons on rutted roads to flanged wheels on steel rails. However, I have personal knowledge of a recent situation where new management came into a situation with preconceived notions. Old heads were not consulted, in spite of the fact that the combined work force had several THOUSAND accumulated years of experience. There was no appreciation of the notion that those employees understood the problems or might contribute to solutions. Experienced employees were told, in so many words, that their input was not wanted or needed. "Solutions" were imposed on employees and they were told that they MUST make the new plan work, although the new management provided virtually no guidance as to how this would or could be done. It's too early to predict the outcome in this situation, but I have a hard time envisioning a great success; and belittling and demoralizing the work force has certainly not helped. This is an extreme case, of course. But it points to the fact that railroading, and all the little subsets of skills needed to run a railroad, are unique and very specialized. Nobody just walks in off the street and instinctively knows how to do the things that make the railroad work. Experienced railroaders resent presumtiousness and self-promotion; not innovation.

[BigJim]

ACY

I have personal knowledge of a recent situation where new management came into a situation with preconceived notions. Old heads were not consulted, in spite of the fact that the combined work force had several THOUSAND accumulated years of experience. There was no appreciation of the notion that those employees understood the problems or might contribute to solutions. Experienced employees were told, in so many words, that their input was not wanted or needed.

That sounds very much like what happened in WWII with the torpedoes that didn't work as advertised!

[tree68]

Euclid

But how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class?

I don't think it's a matter of being considered correct just because they are members of a class.

But I do agree with Murph that the opinion of those folks should carry some weight because they have experience in the field and perhaps even with the specific idea under discussion.  

Unless a poster gets snippy because his idea has been rated as a non-starter, I think most of the "old heads" are more than willing to discuss the hows and the whys of an operation and how the posted idea doesn't (or does) fit into the mix.  

One "problem" we do encounter is someone bringing up an idea that's been beaten to death in a much older thread.  Most of the time someone will dig into the archives and post a link to the old thread, but if it's been too long, the natural turnover of participants means the discussion starts anew...

[Anonymous]

tree68

One "problem" we do encounter is someone bringing up an idea that's been beaten to death in a much older thread.  Most of the time someone will dig into the archives and post a link to the old thread, but if it's been too long, the natural turnover of participants means the discussion starts anew...

Yes, but..............

[RRKen]

Euclid

I am all for not insulting people either by direct name calling or by the fine art of condescending sarcasm. Disagreement without taking it personally is a fine art, and forums such as this are great places to practice that art.

 

There are those who know and have been active within the industry, and others looking in from the outside that merely  guess.  It is insulting to those who do, to listen to those who have not done, make specious arguments or unqualified comments.  Considering the history of a few here, like Bucky,  it is no wonder  a lot of folks no longer are active here, and at other venues. 

[Mookie]

RRKen

Euclid

I am all for not insulting people either by direct name calling or by the fine art of condescending sarcasm. Disagreement without taking it personally is a fine art, and forums such as this are great places to practice that art.

 

There are those who know and have been active within the industry, and others looking in from the outside that merely  guess.  It is insulting to those who do, to listen to those who have not done, make specious arguments or unqualified comments.  Considering the history of a few here, like Bucky,  it is no wonder  a lot of folks no longer are active here, and at other venues. 

Could you just read and reply to those that ask questions?  Maybe?  Sure would make the forum a lot more interesting to a few of us that do have questions or want to hear some of the details. 

[Euclid]

tree68

Euclid

But how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class?

I don't think it's a matter of being considered correct just because they are members of a class.

But I do agree with Murph that the opinion of those folks should carry some weight because they have experience in the field and perhaps even with the specific idea under discussion.  

I am not sure I understand.  Since you quote what I said, I assume you are responding to me about that quote of what I said.  Yet what you quoted is just my interpretation of what Murphy Siding said.  If you disagree with the conclusion of my quote, then you disagree with Murphy Siding.  And since I also disagree with what he said, I agree with you, and you agree with me. 

[schlimm]

Mookie

RRKen

Euclid

I am all for not insulting people either by direct name calling or by the fine art of condescending sarcasm. Disagreement without taking it personally is a fine art, and forums such as this are great places to practice that art.

 

There are those who know and have been active within the industry, and others looking in from the outside that merely  guess.  It is insulting to those who do, to listen to those who have not done, make specious arguments or unqualified comments.  Considering the history of a few here, like Bucky,  it is no wonder  a lot of folks no longer are active here, and at other venues. 

Could you just read and reply to those that ask questions?  Maybe?  Sure would make the forum a lot more interesting to a few of us that do have questions or want to hear some of the details. 

If you take outsider questions and comments as insulting, then perhaps you should notice that this is supposed to be a forum for people interested in trains.  It is not a forum exclusively for rail professionals.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

tree68

Euclid

But how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class?

I don't think it's a matter of being considered correct just because they are members of a class.

But I do agree with Murph that the opinion of those folks should carry some weight because they have experience in the field and perhaps even with the specific idea under discussion.  

I am not sure I understand.  Since you quote what I said, I assume you are responding to me about that quote of what I said.  Yet what you quoted is just my interpretation of what Murphy Siding said.  If you disagree with the conclusion of my quote, then you disagree with Murphy Siding.  And since I also disagree with what he said, I agree with you, and you agree with me. 

Awe gee wiz! You don't have to interpret my words or try to turn them to mean something else. Rather than tell the world what you think I mean, why not let the nice folks read my words themselves, and make their own conclusions?

[tree68]

Euclid

...you agree with me. 

Not even close.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

Euclid

tree68

Euclid

But how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class?

I don't think it's a matter of being considered correct just because they are members of a class.

But I do agree with Murph that the opinion of those folks should carry some weight because they have experience in the field and perhaps even with the specific idea under discussion.  

I am not sure I understand.  Since you quote what I said, I assume you are responding to me about that quote of what I said.  Yet what you quoted is just my interpretation of what Murphy Siding said.  If you disagree with the conclusion of my quote, then you disagree with Murphy Siding.  And since I also disagree with what he said, I agree with you, and you agree with me. 

Awe gee wiz! You don't have to interpret my words or try to turn them to mean something else. Rather than tell the world what you think I mean, why not let the nice folks read my words themselves, and make their own conclusions?

 

I did not turn your words into anything.  I only asked you how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class.  You never replied, so Larry replied to your words but he replied to me as though I had said what you said.  

Larry said, "I don't think it's a matter of being considered correct just because they are members of a class." 

I agree with him.  That was my point when I asked you how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class. 

[Murphy Siding]

You type your words, I'll type mine, and we won't have to interpret them for others-deal?

[Anonymous]

schlimm

If you take outsider questions and comments as insulting, then perhaps you should notice that this is supposed to be a forum for people interested in trains.  It is not a forum exclusively for rail professionals.

A rather disingenuous replay.

[RRKen]

schlimm

If you take outsider questions and comments as insulting, then perhaps you should notice that this is supposed to be a forum for people interested in trains.  It is not a forum exclusively for rail professionals.

 

It's not the questions at all.  It is the comments to those questions from folks like Bucky who have no practical experience.  But they are the supposed experts we dare not challange.

 

Finis

[schlimm]

So if a railroad engineer opines that concern about climate change is nonsense, we are to defer to his expertise?   If a dispatcher opines on the financials of railroad X, his opinion is more worthy than a financial anayst's or broker?  If an outsider living near rail lines voices any complaint, is it just fine if a railroader declares him to be an ignorant NIMBY?    Is that what is meant by deferring to the professionals lest they feel insulted or bored?

[RRKen]

I am not in financial, nor a climate change expert, if there truely is one.  In such cases, I would defer to those who do.  So pardon me that my comment was not aimed at those aspects of the industry or others. 

[ACY Tom]

I don't think anybody is saying anything like that. A railroader with experience deserves to be listened to, when his experience is relevant. An innovator deserves to have his ideas listened to. Neither one deserves to be dismissed out-of-hand. Those of us who have spent careers in some form of railroad service usually know whether an idea has been tried before, and can come pretty close in our predictions about the success or failure of the innovation. It's arrogance that is resented; not the new idea itself.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

You type your words, I'll type mine, and we won't have to interpret them for others-deal?

If you read what I said, you will see that I only interpreted your words for myself.  Did I misinterpret you?

You said, "It wouldn't hurt to show some deference to their knowledge and experience- whether you believe them or not." 

[Mookie]

[schlimm]

Euclid

Murphy Siding

You type your words, I'll type mine, and we won't have to interpret them for others-deal?

If you read what I said, you will see that I only interpreted your words for myself.  Did I misinterpret you?

You said, "It wouldn't hurt to show some deference to their knowledge and experience- whether you believe them or not." 

Come on guys, this is silly.

[Euclid]

We seem to be focused on the type of discussion where someone suggests a new idea and then people shoot it down.  I have posted a few ideas, and I expect them to get shot down.  People always shoot down new ideas.  

So I am only interested in hearing why people think they are nonstarters.  But I will defend the idea if I think the arguments against it are fallacious.  I want to take it further and see where the opposition is coming from.  That can be a discussion with disagreement, but it need not be insulting. 

Speaking of new ideas, I once had the great idea to invent an automatic railway air coupling.  I had heard David P. Morgan often scoff that the so-called automatic coupler was not really automatic because the air needed to be manually coupled.  I thought there would be a heck of a lot of merit in having the air make along with the knuckles.  I put a ton of thought into it.  I even built a prototype to show how it worked.    

[dehusman]

ACY

I

don't think anybody is saying anything like that. A railroader with experience deserves to be listened to, when his experience is relevant. An innovator deserves to have his ideas listened to. Neither one deserves to be dismissed out-of-hand.  

True but if those who have actual experience and know that something others do not  should have their comments considered .

[Norm48327]

RRKEN said:

"Considering the history of a few here, like Bucky,  it is no wonder  a lot of folks no longer are active here, and at other venues."

That pretty well sums up the problem. Some folks simply don't know how to take no for an answer and beat the subject to death by constantly rewording their questions and over-analyzing everything. I'm not saying that everything said by the true railroaders should be taken as gospel, but at least some respect should be shown to those who have experience in their field. The latter seems to be missing in many replies. Twisting and turning your own words to get the response you desire gets old in a big hurry.

[tree68]

Euclid

That was my point when I asked you how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class. 

Sheesh.

The opinions of the actual railroaders should generally be considered to have come from experience.  Usually, when one of this "class" points out the fallacy of an idea, they offer examples of why the idea won't work - based on their real world experience.  

That should carry some weight.

Sometimes, others in the railroad business point out a different view, based on their experience.  Both are telling it as they see it, within the context of their experience.  Such views may support or shoot down the original idea.

And that context is important.  I can speak with a certain amount of authority regarding tourist operations and related vintage equipment.  However, my knowledge of many specialized areas (say, intermodal operations) may be just as limited as that of John Q. Railfan.

Which is to say, you can 'call' me on comments I might make on (f'rinstance) intermodal, but if you want to talk about running tourist trains with vintage equipment in the mountains, you might want to pay attention to what I have to say.

And so it is with pretty much all of our "class" of experienced railroaders.

[edblysard]

Lots of folks reading stuff into Murphy’s post that is not there, and playing the “so what you REALLY meant was…” game.

If you can’t comprehend what he wrote, that’s sad, it plain American English and pretty easy to grasp his concept and intent.

Not real sure what makes anyone think the railroader has any input into what equipment a carrier will purchase or how the operating depart and mechanical departments decide to implement it, we pretty much have to work with what they give us, but I can pretty much bet if a railroad rejects anyones “invention” it’s because they either tried something like it before and it failed, or the idea/design change or invention isn’t cost effective or can’t survive the abusive railroad environment.

Railroaders like change if it makes our job easier, faster and makes us money…but anything that wastes our time, is harder to use or requires more steps usually gets “lost” a lot of times.

Take couplers….on freight cars, it has to be able to withstand tremendous abuse, be easy to operate, cheap to build and cheap to maintain.

Look up couplers in your search engine, there are lots of patent applications over the years, but we still use the same basic coupler from 100 years ago…not because we “don’t like change” or are “sticks in the mud”, but because it works, can take all the abuse we give it, can for the most part be repaired in the field with minimum tools and is really easy to operate, you lift a handle and you’re done!

The air connection was mentioned…why would you want to change something that works so well, is so easy to repair and is pretty much bullet proof?

About the only thing that wears out on glad hands is the gasket, and most railroaders carry a few of them on their key chain, takes about 5 seconds to replace one and no tools are required, although a pocket knife makes it easier.

If by chance the hose itself tears or breaks, I can have my engineer toss off the spare hose and wrench and drag me up to them, shove back and replace the entire air hose with one fits all wrench and be moving again really quick, I don’t have to wait for a technician, or a repair person, and I don’t need a mechanical degree to see how it works.

As for the insults and “Darwin Award” phrase, I rarely see it used by the railroaders here, and it is not a common phrase used by us, at least not on my carrier, and the few instances when I do hear it, the phrase is not applied to people like the kid in the video, but to the folks who, for whatever reason, decide their Chevy can beat the train at the crossing, or survive the impact if they tie with us.

I have seen the phrase used here on this forum many times more that out in the world, and most of the time, the phrase is used by the railfans or some of the trolls, along with “moron” and “Idiot” and such.

As for kowtowing or bowing down to the railroader’s phenomenal knowledge…ha ha ha ha ah….

Not a an ice cubes chance in hades do I want anyone to take what I write here as gospel, and I doubt any of the other railroaders here do either.

But, when guys like mudchicken tell you that “you have to build this in this manner” for it to work, if you knew his creds and where he came from, you might want to pay attention to what he writes…in face to face conversation, you have to bring your “Engineering geek to English” translation book just to grasp the basics.

If Jeff or RRKen tell you, “you really can’t do that” its because they have been on the seat box long enough to know there are three ways to do things, the “right” way, the “wrong” way, and the railroaders way.

There was a complaint a few years ago that railroaders belong to a club of sorts, and we don’t like or let non railroaders in…yup, there is a club, and yes, we belong to it.

No, we don’t exclude non railroaders, but we don’t let just anybody in either.

Sorry, thems the breaks so to speak.

But if you come to our club and ask for information, and we give you the information you requested, a simple thank you is all we really ask.

What you do with and how you decide to interpret the information given is your choice.

I am going to sound arrogant here, but yes, I probably know more about flat yard switching that anyone here….Carl is a real freight car guru, if you saw his notebooks and knew where he worked, he is the “car guy”, mudchicken knows more about track design, bridge construction and MOW that the rest,, Jeff, Ken, Zugman all have Federal Certified Locomotive Engineers licenses in their pockets,(do you?)  so they know more about how to handle a train than I do, and more about it than you do, so if you want to listen to what they say and use that to further your knowledge and understanding of railroads and how/what we do, great!

That’s what you came here for, isn’t it?

If on the other hand you want to argue something, especially with people who do what you are discussing for a living, then that’s great too, because most of the railroaders I know have no problem getting toe to toe with someone from outside the club telling them how to do their job.

If you find that uppity and arrogant, sorry, but that’s pretty much the way it is.

Go to other train related forums, and see how many of the railroaders there, (if there are any) answer question as freely as they do here…and trust me, the guys here are nowhere near as stuck on themselves as they are on the other forums.

[schlimm]

Edblysard:  What you say makes a good deal of sense (to me at least).  What "Convicted One" said also rings true.  Seems to me we should all, railroaders and non-railroaders alike, heed both expressions of the core problem.

[Euclid]

tree68

Euclid

That was my point when I asked you how can there be honest discussion if one particular class of participants are considered to be correct whether they are or not, just because they are members of a class. 

Sheesh.

The opinions of the actual railroaders should generally be considered to have come from experience.  Usually, when one of this "class" points out the fallacy of an idea, they offer examples of why the idea won't work - based on their real world experience.  

That should carry some weight.

As I said earlier, whether or not something carries weight is something I judge simply on how it is presented and according to my understanding of the subject.   I do not assume that a comment carries weight simply because it is the opinion of someone with experience.  If I thought that way, I would believe everything that plumbers tell me.    

Speaking on behalf of Murphy Siding, he has a different way of looking at it, and of course he is free to look at it that way.  He assumes that the “weight” that you refer to being carried by an opinion of a railroader should overrule a contradicting opinion of a non-railroader, simply based on that class distinction.

I hear comments here from both classes, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t.   

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

  

......Speaking on behalf of Murphy Siding.......

  What part of* speak for yourself* don't you get?

[Convicted One]

dehusman

Looking at it from the other side of the glass.  I have over the years past read some very insulting and disparaging things written about professional railroaders.  I have read some nasty comments made about situations with which I was directly involved and since I was directly involved I knew the assumptions made by the non-railroad people were uninformed.  Since the non-railroaders didn't seem to have much concern for the railroader's feelings, I have over the years been less concerned about their feelings.  I actually was so PO'd by the venom that I didn't even read, let alone participate on the Trains Forum for three or four years.

You make a valid point (as usual, I must add). Please don't overlook the comment I made earlier about being a big proponent of free speech, and take that in context with the final reply I am about to make to Murphy Siding