America's railroads: The "poster boy" for graffiti vandalism.

[tree68]

Yes, but...

And the downward spiral continues.

[Euclid]

YoHo1975

tree68

YoHo1975

A 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.

I never said that anyone in this thread is suggesting that the industry “likes or approves or wants the graffiti” as you say I have said.  I said that people in this thread are suggesting that the industry does not think graffiti is a problem.  They seem to be defending the industry against the criticism that the industry is not solving the problem.   It sounds like denial. 

You are doing the same thing by same thing by saying that graffiti is a nuisance but not a problem.  I believe that railroad management thinks graffiti is a problem because they regard trespass, public safety, and liability as a BIG problem.

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

From the article:

"What I think (when seeing it) is someone put themselves at risk. It's defacing private property," said Amy McBeth, a BNSF Railway spokeswoman. "In order to put that on a railcar, somebody has to be trespassing on railroad property, which is dangerous and illegal."

The elaborate graffiti takes time to paint, meaning someone spent a lot of time putting themselves at risk of serious injury, even death, among the tons of steel sitting on the tracks.

"For us, if someone has done that, they've put themselves in a dangerous situation. That's our main concern," Union Pacific Railroad spokesman Mark Davis said.

"It's expensive for companies to repaint those cars," McBeth said.

Steve Masters, vice president of operations for Transco Railway Products, a national railcar repair company that operates a site in Sioux City, said it can easily cost $1,000 to paint the lower half of a railcar on each side. Car owners spend thousands of dollars annually to paint over obscene or offensive graffiti.

************************************************************************************************

Show me a source that says railroads and car owners think graffiti is a nuisance and but not a problem.

Show me a source that says railroads and car owners are not spending money combating graffiti.

Show me a source that says the cost of eliminating graffiti is greater than the cost of its damage.

 

[Norm48327]

As asked by Ed:

"What sources?

Specific sources if you will, not generalized assumptions."

Now you are asking for sources. Can you pony up on yours?

[Euclid]

Norm,

I just did if you look above at my post preceding yours. Ask Operation Lifesaver if they think trespassing is a problem or just a nuisance. 

[gardendance]

I agree that you have cited at least 2 sources, your unnamed CP railroad official, and the newspaper article that quotes a BNSF spokesperson

But umma gonna wanna have you show me where YoHo1975 said anything about what you said, much less that he said you said anyone in this thread likes or approves or wants the graffiti.

Euclid

YoHo1975

tree68

YoHo1975

A 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.

I never said that anyone in this thread is suggesting that the industry “likes or approves or wants the graffiti” as you say I have said.

[dehusman]

Nuisance vs. problem is just semantics.

Nobody who works for a railroad is suggesting that tresspassing isn't serious.  Nobody who works for a railroad isn't suggesting that security isn't serious.  Nobody who works for a railroad is suggesting they like or want grafitti. 

What people who work for railroads are saying is that the majority of the "solutions" thrown out here have costs that greatly exceed their benefit, are illegal, would be ineffective or impractical.  If there waas an easy solution it would have been done by now.  There is no one silver bullet.  Its going to take multiple solutions in concert, including legislation, policing and cultural to significantly reduce grafitti.  Security from potential terrorists is also a separate issue with different solutions from the tresspasser and grafitil problems.

[dehusman]

jimnorton

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.

 

Funny you should mention the DRGW.  I remember a trip to Salt Lake City in 1990 where I was disappointed because there were a string of orange and silver DRGW box cars that were covered with grafitti.  I had never seen those cars before and I was bummed that they had been defaced.

I can't produce a picture of them because I didn't take one because they they were covered in grafitti. 

But yes there were brightly colored cars, DRGW cars, multiple cars, that were defaced by grafitti prior to 1997.

[zugmann]

Euclid

 How do you know that it is not worth it to fix the problem?

I'd rather they take the money it would take to paint over the graffiti and instead give me a raise.

[wanswheel]

I see graffiti and think, it wasn’t always like this. Kids see graffiti and think, this is the way the world looks. You have to be a certain age now, to see graffiti as something to get upset about. Half the population has seen it all their lives.

[Paul of Covington]

Euclid

Paul of Covington

Euclid

Paul of Covington

We 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.”    

 

   Actually, I was talking about your first sentence:

        "I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread."

   I get the impression from reading this thread that its the opposite of your opposite.

[Paul of Covington]

Euclid

Norm,

I just did if you look above at my post preceding yours. Ask Operation Lifesaver if they think trespassing is a problem or just a nuisance. 

   Yes, they're concerned about trespassing, and I'm sure they'll deal with it if they find someone in a yard applying graffiti, just as with any other trespassing.   But how much of this "art" is done on railroad property?    As for the graffiti, which is the subject here, how worked up are they going to get if a car comes in covered with graffiti after being parked on a customer's siding?

[Euclid]

Paul of Covington

Euclid

Paul of Covington

Euclid

Paul of Covington

We 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.”    

 

   Actually, I was talking about your first sentence:

        "I think it is just the opposite, judging by this thread."

   I get the impression from reading this thread that its the opposite of your opposite.

The first sentence refers to the conclusion in that quote, so I don't understand how you can be focused on the first sentence as opposed to the conclusion part.  Here is the whole thing, and it says exactly what I meant it to say.  What is it that you disagree with?

"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."

 

Initially, I had accidentally left out the word, "not," so I have added it to the quote as intended.  It is a word that is critical to the meaning. 

 

[Paul of Covington]

   I was saying that my impression from reading this thread is that some railfans are more upset by the graffiti than the railroads.

[Euclid]

Paul of Covington

   I was saying that my impression from reading this thread is that some railfans are more upset by the graffiti than the railroads.

I agree that some are more upset by the graffiti than the railroads are.   

[schlimm]

OMG!   Is that the final word on what you mean that others say you mean when you say they mean, etc.?

[Anonymous]

[BaltACD]

 

[schlimm]

Murray: In your own, inimitable manner, you want the thread locked?  What would be the basis for that?

[Norm48327]

schlimm

Murray: In your own, inimitable manner, you want the thread locked?  What would be the basis for that?

It keeps Steve and Ang employed.

[BaltACD]

Managing open threads keeps them employed - locking threads is the quick way to have nothing to do and be considered redundant and on the unemployment lines.

[Anonymous]

schlimm

Murray: In your own, inimitable manner, you want the thread locked?  What would be the basis for that?

Schlimm...I sense that the thread is spinning, and not gaining any traction.  In other words, we are really splitting hairs over how things are worded.

[Euclid]

I think it has been quite a constructive and comprehensive discussion so far.  In times past, people got so angry at graffiti artists that the topic was eventually deemed to be off limits.  This thread has proved that need not be the result.  I would not get worried about the fact that there is splitting of hairs over the meaning of words.  It is a complex topic with lots of people in the discussion, all quoting each other and paraphrasing.  You have to split a few hairs once in a while.    

One thing I have noticed in Googling around the topic is that there is a rather strong faction that holds graffiti in high esteem.  Another facet is that the topic is international, and graffiti seems to be fought much harder when it comes to tagging passenger trains.  They are using drones to bust taggers in Germany.   

Here is a piece from a Trains web exclusive:

http://trn.trains.com/Interactive/Web%20Exclusives/2012/01/Railroad%20Graffiti%20Close%20up.aspx

The authors offer the standard disclaimer that train graffiti is illegal, but the spirit of the piece strikes me as being entirely sympathetic with tagging.  Rather than viewing graffiti as an assault on railroading, these authors seem to embrace graffiti as a cherished part of railroading that adds diversity to equipment paint color schemes. 

[tree68]

Murray

Schlimm...I sense that the thread is spinning, and not gaining any traction.  In other words, we are really splitting hairs over how things are worded.

Methinks that we're all in agreement (at least among those involved in this dicussion) that graffiti is a bad thing.

The difference of opinion regards just how important it is to remove said graffiti.  

Some feel that removing/preventing it should be a top priority.

Others don't see that as so important in the grand scheme of things.

Each side is entitled to their view, and I don't think anyone plans to change their mind.

So, yes, we're just spinning in place.  

[schlimm]

Quite true, but I think some folks have made other points.  We often hear of externalities - real costs of doing business that are passed on to others to pay for.  Somewhat parallel is image presentation.  The accountants see the cost of keeping freight cars clean and/or a moving advertisement as not producing sufficient revenue to justify.   In an era where the rails focus mostly on bulk (coal, oil, ethanol) or intermodal, and loose car freight is less important.  perhaps the appearance of box cars is less valued than it was 30-50 years ago.   At that time, the roads developed distinctive paint schemes and logos, not to impress railfans, but to project a positive image to potential customers.   It is hard to measure business lost, but contrast the appearance of most freights with that of equipment used by UPS and FedEx.  And they aren't keeping their equipment clean and business-like for fans.  Perhaps, just perhaps the rails are overlooking something here.

[tree68]

schlimm

equipment used by UPS

Our local UPS parks their trucks inside when they're not out on their routes...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

UPS is well-known for protecting its public image, right down to the shoe shine on its delivery drivers.

[Euclid]

 

• A worn or dirty paint job conveys a shabby image.

 

• Graffiti conveys a blighted image.

 

• Massive graffiti conveys a cancerous image.

[dehusman]

The hypothesis is that graffiti hurts a railroad's image and thus causes negative impacts to their business.  If this is true then we should see a reduction in business, a reduction in profits, a reduction in optimism in the business, a reduction in investment since the 1990's (arbitrary date chosen because of previous discussions).  The railroads should be a business in decline due to their negative image.

So what does history show us?  What are the facts?

Business decreased?  Nope, carloadings, tonnage are up.

Profits decreased?  Nope, profits are up and railroads have actually been able to negotiate higher rates (with the emphasis on negotiate, that the customers were willing to pay higher rates for service).

Reduction in optimism in the business?  Nope.  Stock is outperforming the overall market.  Stack analysts view railroads favorably.  One of the most respected investor's in the US actually bought a railroad, not to break it up like the corporate raiders in the 1970's, but to operate and grow it.

Reductions in investments?  Nope.  Railroads are investing more in their infrastructure than any time in the previous quarter century.  Main tracks aren't being retired, more track is being installed, signals are being upgraded and improved, new engines are being bought, people are being hired.

The facts don't support the hypothesis.

Do real railroaders like graffiti?  No.  Its their tools, their workplace, where they live.  I am sure that there are a lot of real railroaders that fanaticize about solutions similar to some of Kyle's.  But the real solutions are limited.  Most of the cars are owned by private owners, not railroads.  I would be willing to bet that the majority of graffiti isn't happening in railroad yards, its happening in areas outside the yards: industries, sidings, storage tracks.  The graffiti that covers a car is not done in a couple hours, it has to be painted over the course of several days (nights?) That takes a car sitting there unattended for a long time, that doesn't happen in yards.

[schlimm]

dehusman

The hypothesis is that graffiti hurts a railroad's image and thus causes negative impacts to their business.  If this is true then we should see a reduction in business, a reduction in profits, a reduction in optimism in the business, a reduction in investment since the 1990's (arbitrary date chosen because of previous discussions).  The railroads should be a business in decline due to their negative image.

So what does history show us?  What are the facts?

Business decreased?  Nope, carloadings, tonnage are up.

I would suggest you re-read my post.  You are confounding variables.  The key is a type of business the rails have largely put on the shelf. 

If you look at this presentation, you will see that though profitable, non-bulk and non-intermodal carloadings are declining by 167,278 per year since 2007.

 http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.01.28.Blaszak.Presentation.pdf

[dehusman]

schlimm

It is hard to measure business lost, but contrast the appearance of most freights with that of equipment used by UPS and FedEx.  And they aren't keeping their equipment clean and business-like for fans.  Perhaps, just perhaps the rails are overlooking something here.

 

UPS and FedEx own all their own equipment  Railroads do not.  A large part of the cars, if not the majority of cars, are owned by private owners.  A large part of the railroad owned cars a railroad uses aren't owned by that railroad, they are owned by other railroads.

 

At the end of the day UPS and FedEx trucks end up at a UPS or FedEx facility.  Railroad cars do not.

 

UPS and FedEx have facilities to hold their equipment, railroads do not.  Not all yards have buildings  to hold even engines and those have nowhere near the capacity to hold all the engines, let alone the cars.  Railroads are designed to sit out in the weather.

 

UPS and FedEx are retail, consumer companies.  People directly buy their services.  Their image is used as a marketing tool.  Railroads are industrial companies.  Companies buy their services.  The person who decides whether to use the railroad may never even see a train.  Even if they do they may never use a railroad's cars, they might instead use private cars or another railroad's cars.  The physical image on the car is less important.  Compare retail vs. commercial packaging on any product.  Compare the packaging of a electrical component design to sit on a shelf of Home Depot with the packaging of the same component designed to be distributed to an electrical contractor.  The commercial product will be plainer and present less of an "image",  the consumer product will be all about branding.  Railroads sell commercial, industrial products, they aren't selling retail, their image and branding isn't aimed at the retail market.

 

The place I agree that graffiti may affect the railroad's image in in the public perception.  For most people its that brief few minutes the train passes in front of you at a grade crossing.  That's why railroads put up murals and trees.  An individual may see the train go through a couple times a week for a few minutes, they see the trees and murals every single day and every single trip they make through town.  The train is transitory, the trees and murals are "permanent".