Looking back over this thread -- the first damned football game was a bust -- it does not appear that Mr. Rowland has made any personal attacks on anyone. He made one reasonable response to a no-name poster who attacked him. His responses on here have been generalizations, expressing his own point of view.
On the other side, he has been violently verbally victimized by several posters. Shame on them. At least for this thread, he is the only direct victim here. Screenshotting his posts to other sites seems like another form of internet cowardice, and another victimization of one person over his opinions.
If one disagrees with a person, one can simply ignore and move on, or craft a reasonable rebuttal. Calling a personal vile and contemptable names reflects back on the caller.
Going back many years, when I first got involved on the internet, It was advised to have a user name, and not use your actual name. This was out of concern for personal security. Over time, that has been born out. For work, I was on facebook using my own name. It turned into a nightmare of unwanted contacts, scammers, and unknowns using my name, so I dumped my account. (If all those pretty ladies wanting to bed me were true .......?)
I have no problem getting private messages on this or other sites. I have made some friends on other sites, and a couple of friends here.
A few weeks back, attempting to turn this site around from viscous anti-RyPn attacks, I commended the moderators for all their work and keeping this site free of nasty thinks like porn. I mentioned that some sites that I frequent on facebook, including my company site, had been attacked by hard core porn. An anonymous person on here said I was lying about that. When I asked him/her why they would think I would lie about such a thing, there was no response. Why on earth would I concoct such a story?
As for young people, there are many who I enjoy being around. I had a great-nephew over to help me in the fall. It was a most enjoyable day. I learned a lot from him. His parents have raised him and his siblings in a Christian ethic that has given him a world view beyond his years.
We are all made in God's Image, I believe that. Some people, sadly, lose their way. However, young or old, we can learn from others. Love your neighbour!

Calm down boys. There's no rule that you have to like everyone's opinions. After all, they are just opinions and this ain't the place to try to change them. Let's get back to the original topic before this gets locked.

And I thought we were doing much better of late --- OK, I think Mr Rowland and I can manage to be nice to the trolls if they'll be nice to us.

Responding to patently obvious bigotry/sexism/etc. by calling it out for what it is does not fit the "standard" definition of "trolling" (which, of course, has turned out to be a very subjective, malleable definition).

Mr. Rowland has a right to express opinions about other people, no matter how bigoted, archaic, superficial, pedantic, or unfounded said opinions may be, and even though he has patently demonstrated in the past by his actions that he doesn't extend the same courtesy to others about him. (It doesn't protect him against libel/slander/defamation, however.)

And others, in spite of his dubious and hypocritical threats of legal action against others and their forums of expression, have a right to express opinions about him and his actions, expressions, and "track record." (Again, not including slander, libel, etc.)

I've come to understand and accept that some individuals have good cause to operate online under pseudonyms--most recently an associate in the egg-farm business, for what should be patently obvious reasons at the moment. (Another who formerly used his real name had to "disappear" from social media and online forums for over a year after a campaign of spurious, and ultimately false, claims made by online "activists" unwilling to listen to truth or common sense.) But when writing is your business, as it was/is with many folks I know, including many folks who have been here in past years and some who still are, "your name is your reputation." If I'm not willing to sign my name to what I say/type, and/or "say it to someone's face," I shouldn't say/type it in the first place--plain and simple. And I don't.

As a younger person, I’ll throw in my two cents.

I don’t exactly have a lot of organizations within a reasonable distance from me than I can just go to easily during the weekend. That’s a hinderance for a lot of people and it’s not really an organization’s fault.

What is an organizations fault is a few things: hours and days of work schedules, and the sort of “in group” bias that exists sometimes with people. It’s not specifically an age problem but it can be one in the right place and circumstance, and unfortunately that’s the case in many preservation groups.

Moral of the story? Put some hours that are semi reasonable for people to come in, and simply don’t be a jackass who isn’t welcoming. Acknowledge the work that people do, and treat people like they can belong there. A simple “keep up the good work” or “thanks for the help” when asking for it is good enough for me.

PS for other people upset about internet aliases: why do you need to know exactly who I am? What’s the point? (Ik no one is referring to me specifically but you get the idea).

While I can't speak for anybody else, my only objection to internet aliases is in regard to the use of this privilege as a way to avoid taking responsibility for rude behavior. There are indeed legitimate reasons for using an alias, and most who do so have perfectly good manners.

There is no one size fits all solution to the problem of finding a museum that offers a positive experience for young folks. However, in some cases working for a real railroad may provide what you're looking for, and it sure pays better. The industry needs young blood.

In the greatest of RYPN traditions, we have started a thread that has now shot off into different directions completely different than the original topic. May as well keep the trend going...

First, I do not use my name for very specific reasons related to my job. I work in a very sensitive field with very sensitive data (I am being purposefully ambiguous) so the less personal information about myself I have on the internet, the better. It's the same reason I have no social media of any kind. Some people who I used to volunteer with probably can figure out who I am, but I am not in a position to hold up a sign on this forum and say "HI! IT'S ME, (name redacted)!"

Secondly, just because this is America, and you are free to espouse whatever odious opinions you may have, that does NOT mean that the same standard applies to private internet fora. The moderators do not have to provide a platform to anything and everything in the spirit of free speech.

Thirdly, the idea that the Ross account is a sockpuppet account is ludicrous. The posts clearly indicate a strong, insider knowledge of the programs Ross was a part of--knowledge only Ross would have.

I'm simply making a point. It's Ross, or he's a good impersonator. I don't think his online presence is impostordom, because individuals I have known for decades and met in person and who have had dealings with him/his businesses have confirmed both his accounts and his arrogance, and in some cases have given me "..... the REST of the story!" that he doesn't share.

It's somewhat amusing to actually meet someone for the first time and instantly bond over years of online conversations--and, in at least one case, shared contempt for a certain legion of particularly dense online posters..........

Well, firstly allow me to apologize for this thread going off the rails and into the ditch where some ( anonymous) folks find it necessary to resort to personal attacks.

I'd like to thank Sammy King for his very kind remarks regarding my skills drilling a 24 car long passenger train with the 614. I very much enjoy doing switching as it demands your full attention to be done well. Truth be told it takes a lot more skill to do a good job switching then it does running down the mainline at a steady 79 mph.

If I may mount a brief defense on a personal plane please allow me to confess ( confession is good for the soul) that I'm a VERY imperfect human being with my fair share of defects and that I try one day at a time to work on those defects.

As to receiving accusations of various character flaws may I direct you to the Book of John chapter 8 verse 7.

Now, back to what the OP asked. Best way to attract youngsters is to genuinely welcome them and do all possible to show appreciation and your willingness to help them grow their skills.

Thanks, Ross Rowland

Ross, I'm not sure how it is a personal attack to call out the fact that you have, at various times, called members of the African-American community "colored," insisted the woman do not belong in locomotive cabs, and opined that the "blacks" in Africa are unable to self-govern? Do you want me to pull up the screenshots all over the internet for you? You're hanging yourself with your own rope.

But yes, let's go back to the topic at hand. Ross, since you're so adept at attracting new blood, tell me how many individuals under the age of 40 are working for your yellow ribbon express? Or actively working to restore 614?

I'm not going to get into a battle exchanging Bible verses on this or any forum. But it is our job to confront and counter bad things in the world where they exist. The individual in question has yes, done many great things in years and decades past, which I congratulate and thank him for, but that is not an excuse to allow for insulting words, discriminating attitudes, and prejudiced activities.

To tie this back into young people and preservation- any reputable organization would (should) ask a person openly and vocally touting the above "morales and virtues" to leave if they can't keep it to themselves. Not doing so only drives away those individuals who will absolutely not tolerate it (nor should they), and reflects unbelievably badly back on the organization, and in the new volunteer recruitment. We come out to further the cause of railway preservation, not listen to people try and debate and defend reprehensible and antiquated ideas about what "kind" of people should be allowed to participate. Yeah, we're getting riled up about what Ross says, because they're ideas that have no place being discussed in preservation, let alone outside of it, and are worth condemning wherever they rear their ugly heads.

I am all for the free exchange of speech and ideas, regarding all topics, but there is a time and a place for it- whether you're in the shop, a business meeting, or on the train, or on a forum that supposedly doesn't tolerate pontification on this stuff- keep it to yourself. Nobody asked and nobody cares. You'll just dig a deeper hole by revealing your true nature. (And that includes this post and my last one- but if the moderators are going to allow posts promoting racism, sexism, and what have you, it's only fair that those of us that care about freedom and equality be allowed to counter and dispute them)

Last year JC McHugh and the WMSR treated 160 lucky souls to a three day party with the 1309. We had all kinds of folks with all kinds of different ideas about most everything, but all of us independently decided not to screw this up for our hosts by getting into an argument about anything with anybody. For three days not a single word was said about politics or religion by any of us. Other than one very nice lady who wanted to hear all about my non accredited, no kill cat shelter, we mostly talked about... maybe you guessed it --- RAILROADING.

It was a most pleasant experience for all participants, and I believe this approach ought to be tried more often. I bet if it were, we might be getting more accomplished in the field of preservation. We might even attract more young folks, too. IMHO.

Sammy - Yup. Perfect point.

Two old sayings I subscribe to in personal relationships:

If you can’t say anything nice, keep yer pie hole shut. Which ties into…

Don’t burn your bridges. You never know when you might need that person you’ve flamed.

I don't post much. Forgive the wall of text, But this whole exchange sort of reminds me of a fairly clever and diabolical management development exercise I once participated in. Its been a long time, but here's the gist of it...

Here's the scenario: In one hour the world will experience an event that kills everyone. However, there exists a safe shelter which will house only 5 people who will survive the event. Each group will select from a list of potential survivors who they believe should be placed in this shelter and then appoint a spokes-person for the team. The spokes-person will then in turn represent and debate your teams selections amongst the other teams spokes-persons, with the winning selections indeed being those who enter the shelter and survive to rebuild for a Earth 2.0 etc.

The list of who we could select for the shelter were deliberately created to provoke nearly every hot button, stereo-type, bias and conflict possible:

Catholic Priest
Hollywood starlet
Mother of 3
Mechanic
US Marine
Immigrant laborer
20 Year old female college student.
Construction worker
Rocket Scientist
Opera singer
65 Year old Millionaire in poor health
Convicted Murderer
etc.

Each group had to select their 5 candidates within 45 minutes and then arm their spokes-person with justifications for each person selected. The arguments within each team were heated and as you might imagine, laden with blatant stereo-types and frank salty language. ( Is the ability to provide better than spiritual guidance, procreation, science or art, etc) But each team did their very best to establish consensus. It was very messy and uncomfortable, and at times loud. Arguments ensued. The stuff people opined was straight out of their inner Id. ( or perhaps alimentary canal) But compromises of sorts were reached and a list of 5 survivors was put forth.

Then each of the 5 spokes-persons had 15 minutes to agree on a final list of the 5 Survivors. The clock was ticking, yet each spokes-person was very determined to "win" the remaining negotiations. 5 minutes became 2 then with 1 minute remaining an interesting phenomenon occurred, all of the teams in unison starting shouting heatedly at their own spokes-person "HEY! The Worlds about to end, JUST GIVE IN Dang it!!

Amazing insight into human nature, that of clinging so tightly to ones beliefs in the face of total imminent doom that the loss of everything is less important than winning the argument for why one is "right". And I might add this tendency on display was irrespective of ones particular beliefs, leaning or biases: it is a human thing that no one has an exclusive on. Saints and sinners alike argued for THEIR preferred outcomes shouting down any opposing opinions. Lengthy pseudo intellectual dissertations were just as tightly tied to egos as the hurled expletives of emotional hot-heads.


This was an actual live, in person face to face class where there was no internet, no anonymity and no way to hide behind something other than the exposed raw truth of what it means to be human. Imperfection, and we nailed it.

Not that I really want to wander into this conversation, but someone's probably going to be surprised when they find out what NAACP stands for....

Vernacular changes over time, and I'm not going to judge somebody to be racist for using that term, as I've heard many older people use it without malice.

As to the title subject, I'm glad to hear that there are groups where young people are joining and participating. As was mentioned earlier, some organizations make it difficult for the non-retired to participate, due to midweek/midday work times.

I'm now middle-aged, and I still don't have time to volunteer anywhere, but I admit that I do have relatively poor time management skills. I wish that my son had the interest in railroading, as he's old enough where he could help out also, but he didn't catch the railroad bug yet. At least he's showing interest in turning some wrenches with me in the garage.