What threads should be in "Train & Rail Systems"?

Victor

The Charter states:

This is also a place to discuss rail industry matters that are non-consumer, non-(hard)infrastructure type topics, e.g. "Trailing or facing points" "Which signalling system is best? and "How should stopping and express services be interspersed?"

This thread is for discussion on what individual threads should be in "Train & Rail Systems".

For example, I have moved Western Rail Corridor here on the grounds that it really isn't a consumer issue and is more associated with the railway industry and the politics surrounding it. I would welcome feedback.

I have moved any "[Heritage]" threads here from C&T and the re-directs from there will expire in a month. If you feel that any other threads should be here, feel free to post below.

Judgement Day

These two?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055689959

and

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056335076

etchyed

Charter is exactly what I hoped for. A place for both heritage and technical discussion, that leaves both the consumer and infrastructure stuff to the existing forums.

This post in the request thread seemed to suggest that the opinions voiced in that same thread had not been considered. The charter makes it clear that this is not the case, and that this forum has been well thought out.

Cookie_Monster

What's the distinction between infrastructure topics: what should go in the infrastructure forum and what's acceptable here?

for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056344667

is purely about the infrastructure and it's use, is it ok as it's still rail related?

I'd just like to understand the boundary as it were

corktina

Its going to be messy to start with, we'll have to trust the Mods to get it right over time.

Personally I think this forum should be about enthusiasts enthusing...much like IRN but with no censorship and less "trainspotters"

Western Rail Corridor is a particularly thorny thorn, perhaps it would have been better to leave the original (well mk2 or 3 whatever it is by now!) thread on C&T and start a new one on here.

steamengine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What's the distinction between infrastructure topics: what should go in the infrastructure forum and what's acceptable here?

for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056344667

is purely about the infrastructure and it's use, is it ok as it's still rail related?

I'd just like to understand the boundary as it were

Infrastructure is a generalised term eg. a railway line between A & B. Points and the heating of same would be specific components of that piece of infrastructure. My concern would be that if we start nit-picking that this thread or that thread should not be here then we might have a bare cupboard in the future. For my 2 cents the title of the forum, Train & Rail Systems is a good indicator of what should be here in the way of threads, and hopefully as many non-consumer train/rail related as possible.

mgmt

This is a sub-forum of Commuting and Transport. The C&T Charter applies here.

This is a place for discuss rail fan / heritage types topics.

This is also a place to discuss rail industry matters that are non-consumer, non-(hard)infrastructure type topics, e.g. "Trailing or facing points" "Which signalling system is best? and "How should stopping and express services be interspersed?"


If you are not here to positively discuss heritage type topics, or if your interest is to criticise the various aspects of rail travel/freight/operation (i.e. if you're not a Rail Fan), this is not the forum for you.
Your posts will be considered off-topic/trolling and you will be banned without warning.

If you're not sure if you should post something or not, you're probably right.

I take it from the charter that this forum is to discuss "train spotting topics". Operational rail topics like the Western Rail Corridor should be moved back.

LXFlyer

mgmt wrote: »

I take it from the charter that this forum is to discuss "train spotting topics". Operational rail topics like the Western Rail Corridor should be moved back.

I would suggest that the western rail corridor thread is more to do with the politics and personas involved rather than any meaningful discussion of the day to day operation of the services on the route.

-Chris-

I'd say WRC is about politics & personas, or "whether it should be built" rather than "how it should be built", so probably more suited to C&T or possibly even Infrastructure.

lord lucan

So far the balance here appears right. Topics like 'Heated points' and Inchicore Works are equally at home here amongst the "I love 121's ***Swoon***" threads and merit discussion. The problem only arises when such topics are ambushed and used to vent and rant with such responses as 'What'd you expect from CIE/IE', 'IE haven't a clue' etc.

If the politics are kept out then it'll do great. I'm not saying everyone should wax lyrical about IE and hold them up as a beacon of railway efficiency but if the invective is kept under control everyone will be happy.

My 2c.:)

-Chris-

lord lucan wrote: »

The problem only arises when such topics are ambushed and used to vent and rant with such responses as 'What'd you expect from CIE/IE', 'IE haven't a clue' etc.

If the politics are kept out then it'll do great.

Very important that the ranting/bitching is kept to a minimum imho. I feel this forum should be a variation on a "respite for those who love/are interested in rail & trains".

This forum will keep the "dribbler" topics out of the view of those who are only interested in slagging off IR, but the quid pro quo is that those who are only interested in slagging off IR need to exercise a little restraint in this forum (or ignore it altogether).

Victor

lord lucan wrote: »

"I love 121's ***Swoon***" threads

I'm not saying 121s are bad or that locos are bad or diesels are bad, but sometimes 'fanboy' swooning can get to be.

I am perfetly happy to respect some novel and or dated technology, whether that is a 1970 electronic calculator (for about IR£2,500 in 1970 money) or some 17th century mechanical device.

dowlingm

One problem with this thread is that if you want to suggest a thread be moved from C/T to T/R, and those who think it's a C/T thread don't bother reading the subforum, isn't there likely to be annoyance?

For instance, I just wondered aloud on "Waterford-Rosslare" about whether it was time to move that thread in here or whether it should wait for an actual abandonment of the line. Chris (in mod mode) said that was a matter for this thread. Now, suppose the initial suggestion was made here, discussed by people who read this thread but not by people who avoid the "dribblers forum" and the thread gets moved without warning to those posters. Wouldn't they have a right to be annoyed by what appeared to be a peremptory move of a thread which could be easily argued to be rightly in one forum or t'other?

I realise that on boards, mods often move threads from forum to forum or even between categories with no warning but there seems little point in causing ructions - given the capability of many posters, and I don't exclude myself, of starting a fight in an empty room.

-Chris-

The main reason I redirected you here, is because here you have the freedom to help set the boundaries, whereas in the other thread, the only people who would see your argument would be those currently reading the thread.

As a general rule, I think it's best to post in the thread as-is, or to report the post/thread with the suggestion that it should be moved to a different forum.
Posting a query like that (buried deep in the bowels of post 1,706) in that thread limits the amount of people who are likely to see it, and definitely limits the likelihood that the people who can do something about it (the mods) will see it.

Let's hash out the issues here as fully as possible and see where the lines are drawn, rather than discussing individual threads within those threads.

To a certain extent, this will be trial and error anyway, so you may as well prepare yourself for some moved, and re-moved, threads.

steamengine

As regards the Waterford - Rosslare thread being shifted over here - I would prefer not. Reading the last 10 posts or so, it is showing itself to be contentious IMO. The relevant posters have wanted 'spotters' as they term them, out of C&T for a long time. Now that they are, it seems to me they want to roll a 'Trojan Horse' into T&RS.

I was one of the posters who pushed for a Rail forum, hoping it would be a broad church, but I see now that is not on and therefore the temporary charter delineates the situation correctly.

Put it another way, T&RS should not contain the type of contentious posts, that led to some railfans not wanting to post any longer in C&T. I wish it was an all encompassing forum, but that's life. However I am really appreciative that T&RS has finally come into being !!!

Amtmann

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What's the distinction between infrastructure topics: what should go in the infrastructure forum and what's acceptable here?

for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056344667

is purely about the infrastructure and it's use, is it ok as it's still rail related?

I'd just like to understand the boundary as it were

We've thought about this Basically, the posts below explain the distinction pretty well. The infrastructure mods will move anything rail hobbyist-related from infrastructure to here if needs be. There will undoubtedly be an occasional overlap in the early days, so if anyone feels that anything in the Infrastructure forum is in the wrong place, report the thread to bring it to our attention and we'll make a decision.

etchyed wrote: »

Charter is exactly what I hoped for. A place for both heritage and technical discussion, that leaves both the consumer and infrastructure stuff to the existing forums.

This post in the request thread seemed to suggest that the opinions voiced in that same thread had not been considered. The charter makes it clear that this is not the case, and that this forum has been well thought out.

corktina wrote: »

Its going to be messy to start with, we'll have to trust the Mods to get it right over time.

Personally I think this forum should be about enthusiasts enthusing...much like IRN but with no censorship and less "trainspotters"

Western Rail Corridor is a particularly thorny thorn, perhaps it would have been better to leave the original (well mk2 or 3 whatever it is by now!) thread on C&T and start a new one on here.

steamengine wrote: »

Infrastructure is a generalised term eg. a railway line between A & B. Points and the heating of same would be specific components of that piece of infrastructure. My concern would be that if we start nit-picking that this thread or that thread should not be here then we might have a bare cupboard in the future. For my 2 cents the title of the forum, Train & Rail Systems is a good indicator of what should be here in the way of threads, and hopefully as many non-consumer train/rail related as possible.

corktina

Can I suggest that Train and rail systems should be renamed something like "Rail : Operations and Heritage"

A title such as that would exclude Consumer whinges and politics which belong in either C&T or Infrastructure and would keep this forum to what I believe was the original intention of being to keep railfan issues seperate from the mainstream forums.

Cookie_Monster

I don't mean this in a sarky way at all but why is this a subset of C&T whereas Aviation and Aircraft (a very similar forum) a main forum in it's own right?

Should either one of the other be moved so they are the same category, either both sub forums of C&T or both main forums in their own right? Why the distinction if you will?

steamengine

Victor wrote: »

The Charter states: This thread is for discussion on what individual threads should be in "Train & Rail Systems".

For example, I have moved Western Rail Corridor here on the grounds that it really isn't a consumer issue and is more associated with the railway industry and the politics surrounding it. I would welcome feedback.

I have moved any "[Heritage]" threads here from C&T and the re-directs from there will expire in a month. If you feel that any other threads should be here, feel free to post below.

-Chris- wrote: »

I'd say WRC is about politics & personas, or "whether it should be built" rather than "how it should be built", so probably more suited to C&T or possibly even Infrastructure.

I'd like to preface this post by expressing my appreciation to Boards and in particular our forum moderators for getting this forum off the ground. Thanks guys

As regards the WRC thread it does seem that there is a difference of opinion between you two mods as to the most appropriate location for this thread. So perhaps a decision by you would settle the matter for all of us, and avoid unnecessary controversy. I would have thought the opinions of the OP - DW, and the main contributor - Westip should be taken into account also. It seems to me they would like it back in C&T.

In the lead up to the creation of this sub forum it did appear that the widest consensus between most posters to C&T, was for a rail fan forum. The most contentious posts between the 'spotter' and 'anti-spotter' brigades have been in threads such as WRC, Rosslare - Waterford etc. Therefore I would question that T&RS is the best place for these controversial threads.

corktina

i fully agree with steamengine

-Chris-

steamengine wrote: »

As regards the WRC thread it does seem that there is a difference of opinion between you two mods as to the most appropriate location for this thread. So perhaps a decision by you would settle the matter for all of us, and avoid unnecessary controversy. I would have thought the opinions of the OP - DW, and the main contributor - Westip should be taken into account also. It seems to me they would like it back in C&T.

Because of the difference of opinion, and because we're trying to be guardians (rather than dictators) of the C&T/TRS forums, we're having this discussion here.

It would definitely be preferable to see a trend toward consensus as to the contents of the forum, from the posters who will contribute to it, and engender ownership of the forum by those posters.
In a forum as contentious as C&T often is, often the Mod is in a "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't" position, and as such being dictatorial is not at all desirable, as it will inevitably end up in a backlash of some sort.

If a consensus isn't apparent, myself and Victor will reach a decision and all posters will be expected to abide by it, but I'd rather give this thread a bit more of a chance.

steamengine wrote: »

In the lead up to the creation of this sub forum it did appear that the widest consensus between most posters to C&T, was for a rail fan forum. The most contentious posts between the 'spotter' and 'anti-spotter' brigades have been in threads such as WRC, Rosslare - Waterford etc. Therefore I would question that T&RS is the best place for these controversial threads.

IMHO, the forum delineation is along the consumer/systems/appreciation lines, and these are the factors that should decide where a thread is, rather than a decision based on the level of controversy a thread experiences.

corktina

I dont know if you are an Enthusiast as I would describe it, but i am and I feel that this Forum was conceived as a place for Enthusiasts to (as Ive said before) Enthuse

The Politics of whether a route should be rebuilt (for instance) is an Infrastructure matter.The frequency of services run on it would be a C&T matter. This Forum should be for discussing the technical aspects and aesthetics of the line itself and the rolling stock on it, it should in fact be a lot like IRN,

The only alternative I can see is to have a RAIL forum for discussing everything RAIL.

As I suggested before a title such as "Rail: Operations and Heritage" covers the bases sucinctly.

Edit: it should also not be an offshoot of C&T, it should be stand alone with its own Moderators who know the subject (maybe you do Chris I dont know)

steamengine

-Chris- wrote: »

Because of the difference of opinion, and because we're trying to be guardians (rather than dictators) of the C&T/TRS forums, we're having this discussion here.

It would definitely be preferable to see a trend toward consensus as to the contents of the forum, from the posters who will contribute to it, and engender ownership of the forum by those posters.
In a forum as contentious as C&T often is, often the Mod is in a "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't" position, and as such being dictatorial is not at all desirable, as it will inevitably end up in a backlash of some sort.

If a consensus isn't apparent, myself and Victor will reach a decision and all posters will be expected to abide by it, but I'd rather give this thread a bit more of a chance.




IMHO, the forum delineation is along the consumer/systems/appreciation lines, and these are the factors that should decide where a thread is, rather than a decision based on the level of controversy a thread experiences.

Fair enough, the question has been answered - WRC thread is here for at least the time being. IMO a consensus is emerging for a rail fan type forum, whether the inclusion of WRC type threads will add value to TRS is at the moment is questionable, again a personal opinion.

The question for the future is - Will this will be a broadly based rail forum as its title suggests, or as Corktina is proposing a specific rail fan, IRN type, forum - presumably under another name ? This would appear to be the nub of the issue !!!

Would a poll - choices decided by the Mods help ??? :

-Chris-

What options would you put in the Poll?

steamengine

-Chris- wrote: »

What options would you put in the Poll?

Do you want a specific rail fan forum ???
OR
Do you want a broadly based rail forum ???

Suggest a simple choice as above !!!

corktina

steamengine wrote: »

Do you want a specific rail fan forum ???

Do you want a broadly based rail forum ???

Keeping it simple !!!

yep, anything betweeen tihe two would be a nonsense, its got to be one or the other.(option a for me)

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't mean this in a sarky way at all but why is this a subset of C&T whereas Aviation and Aircraft (a very similar forum) a main forum in it's own right?

Accident of history. Personally, I've expressed a preference that all transport / travel forums be grouped (and another group for House and Home )

corktina wrote: »

As I suggested before a title such as "Rail: Operations and Heritage" covers the bases sucinctly.

I'm not adverse to a name change. While the forum was being considered, it was something where I knew what I wanted, but didn't know what to call it - I was thinking "Rail - Industry and Heritage"

Edit: it should also not be an offshoot of C&T, it should be stand alone with its own Moderators who know the subject (maybe you do Chris I dont know)

There is no absolute need for a mod to know the subject (modest, two-way trauma when I was made Juniour Cert mod), although it can help.

lord lucan

Good call on the poll Steamengine.:)

corktina

Victor wrote: »

Accident of history. Personally, I've expressed a preference that all transport / travel forums be grouped (and another group for House and Home )

I'm not adverse to a name change. While the forum was being considered, it was something where I knew what I wanted, but didn't know what to call it - I was thinking "Rail - Industry and Heritage"

There is no absolute need for a mod to know the subject (modest, two-way trauma when I was made Juniour Cert mod), although it can help.

I think at least one knowledgeable moderator would be an advantage.
Calling the forum "train and rail systems" seems to me to have been a bad call by someone not au fait with how railfans think (if Im wrong , then Im wrong, but that title just screamed wtf to me wen I first saw it!)

-Chris-

I think the balance of Mods is fine for the moment - Victor is very knowledgeable in Rail-related topics and won't have the wool pulled over his eyes, I'm a newcomer to the field and so (by-and-large) not even aware of the history and politics of situations and therefore able to cast a fresh eye on the situation.

If it turns out it's not working out, we'd have no issue looking for an extra Mod.

With regards to the forum title, I believe that was settled on by the Admins (I don't remember where the original wording came from).
It can be renamed, but I think that's lower down the priorities tbh - I'd rather see the forum operate properly for a while and "settle in" before we worry about deciding on a final forum name.

corktina

the problem with a poll I think is that it would be open to all boardsies I imagine, few of whom would ever use the forum but many of whom might vote having an interest in Rail other than from the railfan perspective.

I think Id prefer to trust in the current mods to look closely at what was the intention of those who lobbied for this forum. Its certainly not the place for commuters to be posting that their train was late or for moans about fines for having the wrong ticket.

It does seem to me that most ,if not all, of the people wanting the forum, wanted a railfan-type forum.