What's a "Crayonista", and why are they called that?

[Bald Rick]

If this was londonreconnections, the above comment would have been struck out as off-topic and/or crayonista*. You can make your own minds up about whether that would be a good thing.

*unless perhaps crayonista comments are always on-topic in a topic about crayonistas?

No it wouldn't. I know one of the mods and he is very tolerant. What doesn't get through is repeated use of the same argument by the same person for the same (fantastical) idea that has already been demonstrated to be unsound through reasoned analysis.

And it isn't a forum, it's a blog, so it is in their interests to keep repeated argument out as it just causes those of us who are genuinely interested to switch off.

 

[67018]

The busways were chosen for one reason and one reason only. They were thought to be cheap.

I've never yet heard of a campaign or movement (outside of the imagination of Transport Watch) backed by local people and businesses to have a busway put in instead of a rail link.

Scotland shows that in parts of the country that have democratic accountability, towns choose a railway connection.

You are making a huge assumption there, though, by framing it as a choice between a busway and a rail link. More likely, it was a choice between a busway and nothing. One of the benefits of a busway is that it preserves the route for a future rail restoration if one was ever viable.

And given the vast amount of assessment, business case and other paperwork surrounding every major infrastructure project, I'm sure there was a bit more to it than someone saying 'here, let's build a busway'.

If this was londonreconnections, the above comment would have been struck out as off-topic and/or crayonista*. You can make your own minds up about whether that would be a good thing.

*unless perhaps crayonista comments are always on-topic in a topic about crayonistas?

Not sure that's a fair representation of the apparent policy. If it was commenting on an article about the relative merits of busways vs rail restoration, it would be fine. If someone presented it as an option for, say, part of the East-West link, it would probably fall into the crayon bin.

But as for the comment that it's a 'lousy forum', well, it probably is as it's meant to be a blog not a forum. Could a section on here be started for 'discussions banned from LR'?!

 

[yorksrob]

You are making a huge assumption there, though, by framing it as a choice between a busway and a rail link. More likely, it was a choice between a busway and nothing. One of the benefits of a busway is that it preserves the route for a future rail restoration if one was ever viable.

Sadly, I suspect that any chance to reinstate the railway has been destroyed forever now.

The rail restoration to St Ives wouldn't have been much different from the restoration of trains to Bicester Central and Chandlers ford, both existing freight routes. Sadly the Government of the day decided that railways carted around fresh air.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But as for the comment that it's a 'lousy forum', well, it probably is as it's meant to be a blog not a forum. Could a section on here be started for 'discussions banned from LR'?!

I said it sounded like one, if that be the case. Not that it was.

 

[edwin_m]

I was probably being a little too provocative with my previous comment. But just interested to see how quickly the discussion wanders off topic.

 

[67018]

Sadly, I suspect that any chance to reinstate the railway has been destroyed forever now.

The rail restoration to St Ives wouldn't have been much different from the restoration of trains to Bicester Central and Chandlers ford, both existing freight routes. Sadly the Government of the day decided that railways carted around fresh air.

I don't see why the existence of a busway would be more of a barrier to rail restoration than, say, a derelict trackbed or one with new housing across it.

By Bicester Central I assume you mean Bicester Town (which is not very central!), which has had passenger services restored since the late 80s. The part of the line from Calvert to Bletchley is derelict and no freight has been that way for some time.

I was probably being a little too provocative with my previous comment. But just interested to see how quickly the discussion wanders off topic.

Do you think we need some stronger moderation?

 

[yorksrob]

I don't see why the existence of a busway would be more of a barrier to rail restoration than, say, a derelict trackbed or one with new housing across it.

We have issues shifting a path, how on earth is anybody going to move a busway ! There was a chance earlier on but it was missed.

By Bicester Central I assume you mean Bicester Town (which is not very central!), which has had passenger services restored since the late 80s. The part of the line from Calvert to Bletchley is derelict and no freight has been that way for some time.

Yeah, apologies for the typo, I was watching telly at the time. Reopened in the late 80's, yet fifteen years later such a thing was impossible. Such a disappointment.

 

[Busaholic]

St Ives to Cambridge might have been a candidate for a tram/train if the concept had at the time been recognised by the DoT, before endless recces to Karlsruhe etc had eventually led to the confession that, yes, the concept might be worth exploring here. Unfortunately Alastair Darling was so virulently anti-tram that it was never going to happen on his watch. How Cambridge could benefit from a regular tram service by all accounts.

 

[cle]

People are censored too much there - yes there are a few characters who are a bit keen (!) but the correction of spelling, punctuation and grammar by one mod to one poster is pretty much bullying. Massively patronising and far too much enjoyment taken.

And conversations aren't allowed to flow. "Don't talk about that because we'll cover it in part two" is all too common, and whilst I empathise with some of the control freakery and structured discussion, it's not organic, quashes potentially interesting ideas and is a bit shrill.

I like the blog and contributors overall - but more when it relates to actual current projects and developments (correctly, as it's progenitor did), and less the historical and theoretical filler.

 

[67018]

We have issues shifting a path, how on earth is anybody going to move a busway ! There was a chance earlier on but it was missed.

We'll see. The Bicester-Oxford proposal even managed to solve the dreaded bat problem, which is quite an achievement these days.

Getting back to the topic, the crayon objection is mainly about drawing lines on maps without any consideration of viability, need or realism - often brought on by the existence of an old alignment. Not necessarily an issue of proposing new links per se.

St Ives to Cambridge might have been a candidate for a tram/train if the concept had at the time been recognised by the DoT, before endless recces to Karlsruhe etc had eventually led to the confession that, yes, the concept might be worth exploring here. Unfortunately Alastair Darling was so virulently anti-tram that it was never going to happen on his watch. How Cambridge could benefit from a regular tram service by all accounts.

Don't get me started on trams - this country is pretty shameful compared to what even quite small places have in Europe, Heidelberg for example.

 

[yorksrob]

Getting back to the topic, the crayon objection is mainly about drawing lines on maps without any consideration of viability, need or realism - often brought on by the existence of an old alignment. Not necessarily an issue of proposing new links per se.

I'm not sure I trust whoever decides what is a crayon line and what isn't. To take Cambridge - St Ives as a case, it was both viable and needed, yet doubtless some self-proclaimed "realists" would be queuing up to call anyone calling for such a service "crayolistas"

 

[tbtc]

Crayonista, n. One who performs strategic transport planning with a box of coloured crayons, using them to draw lines on a map, without thinking through the implications.

For example, suggesting the linking of the Northern City Line services with Southeastern services by constructing a link between Moorgate to Cannon St.

I used to idly think that was a good idea when I was younger, having used both Moorgate and Cannon Street (and/or Bank on the W&C...), not appreciating the difference in height between them (which heavy rail could never cope with), not thinking that "oh, yeah, that would be ridiculously expensive land to dig through with stupidly tight curves, and those bank vaults probably can't be easily pushed aside"

Now that someone's explained it to me, I appreciate that it'd be completely impractical - might make sense when you look at it on a map trying to join up lines with a jumbo box of Crayola but bears no relation to reality.

I don't mind people asking a question like this (I've probably asked my fair share of dumb questions over the years), but I do get fed up when people still push their ideas over and over.

For example, I can see why someone sat in their bedroom would think that it'd be easier to stick a couple of extra tracks alongside the WCML (much like adding an extra lane to a motorway) instead of a whole new alignment (HS2). We know it'd be much easier/ cheaper to start from scratch instead (no disrupting the existing lines, no spare space to squeeze more tracks etc etc),but I can understand why someone would ask the question. The problem is when they don't listen to industry knowledge of people like yourself.

More frustrating than the youthful idealism of "can't we link X and Y" is the "we must go back to whatever route was closed fifty years ago" line of argument that gets applied to every problem as some kind of "miracle solution".

No it wouldn't. I know one of the mods and he is very tolerant. What doesn't get through is repeated use of the same argument by the same person for the same (fantastical) idea that has already been demonstrated to be unsound through reasoned analysis

OKEHAMPTON!

You are making a huge assumption there, though, by framing it as a choice between a busway and a rail link. More likely, it was a choice between a busway and nothing

True.

Some people take the "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail" approach very seriously - for them every single "problem" needs the "solution" of heavy rail.

Sometimes heavy rail is the answer, sometimes light rail is the answer, sometimes a busway is the answer (guided or otherwise), for some passengers flows a Dial-A-Ride minibus would be more appropriate - each have their own costs and benefits - sometimes it's not worth tackling every single thing on a wishlist.

The idea that everything could and should have been the most expensive option (heavy rail) and that there's no point in tackling it with any other option is naive.

We have issues shifting a path, how on earth is anybody going to move a busway !

You mean like the Busway in Edinburgh that was closed so that they could convert it to a tram?

 

[67018]

I'm not sure I trust whoever decides what is a crayon line and what isn't. To take Cambridge - St Ives as a case, it was both viable and needed, yet doubtless some self-proclaimed "realists" would be queuing up to call anyone calling for such a service "crayolistas"

I think Bald Rick put it better than I could. It's the repetition of ideas after they have been debunked that tends to get tainted with the crayon association.

Also, even is something is viable and needed, it needs to be considered whether it's
- Affordable
- Better then the alternatives
- High enough priority to get funded

The last one can be the killer - there might be 50 schemes worth doing, but if you try doing them all none of them will get finished. Hence the need to prioritise, which is where BCR comes in (alongside a fair dollop of politics, of course). Rail is not unique in having to make these trade-offs.

 

[The Ham]

OKEHAMPTON!

...or DAL depending on which side of that fence you sit

 

[yorksrob]

I think Bald Rick put it better than I could. It's the repetition of ideas after they have been debunked that tends to get tainted with the crayon association.

Well, it depends who says what's been debunked.

TBTC for example, is under the impression that he has somehow demonstrated that the case for reopening the South Western mainline to Plymouth is "unsound", yet at the very least, opinion on the Dawlish issue seems to be split 50/50 between that and a Dawlish avoider, suggesting that he has demonstrated nothing of the sort.

Also, even is something is viable and needed, it needs to be considered whether it's
- Affordable
- Better then the alternatives
- High enough priority to get funded

The last one can be the killer - there might be 50 schemes worth doing, but if you try doing them all none of them will get finished. Hence the need to prioritise, which is where BCR comes in (alongside a fair dollop of politics, of course). Rail is not unique in having to make these trade-offs

That's all well and good, but here we're getting into the realms of argued opinion and politics.

If somethings viable and needed as you suggest, is it really justified to call it a "crayonista" fantasy, even if there is disagreement on the other criteria ? It smacks of smugness and a disinclination to engage with real discussion on the issue.

 

[DarloRich]

I think Bald Rick put it better than I could. It's the repetition of ideas after they have been debunked that tends to get tainted with the crayon association.

Also, even is something is viable and needed, it needs to be considered whether it's
- Affordable
- Better then the alternatives
- High enough priority to get funded

The last one can be the killer - there might be 50 schemes worth doing, but if you try doing them all none of them will get finished. Hence the need to prioritise, which is where BCR comes in (alongside a fair dollop of politics, of course). Rail is not unique in having to make these trade-offs.

Correct - although you have missed "funding is available" from your list.

This will become more and more the issue with infrastructure investment now as, to all intents and purposes, this work is back in government hands - the cost of raising capital required for investment and the availability of that capital has changed substantially in a short period of time.

The railways are now going to be subject to the same sorts of cost pressures faced by other public services. The CP6 determination will be interesting & challenging.

If somethings viable and needed as you suggest, is it really justified to call it a "crayonista" fantasy, even if there is disagreement on the other criteria ? It smacks of smugness and a disinclination to engage with real discussion on the issue.

YES when there is no chance of ever getting the money to make it happen!

ideas and questions are fantastic but the key is to understand, in my view, that small incremental changes are more likely to be approved and funded rather than grand step changes.

 

[yorksrob]

YES when there is no chance of ever getting the money to make it happen!

ideas and questions are fantastic but the key is to understand, in my view, that small incremental changes are more likely to be approved and funded rather than grand step changes.

So we end up with a network stuck in aspic because of a complete failure to take advantage of favourable conditions when they were available.

The truth is that not everything can be achieved with small incremental improvements, and it is naive in the extreme to suggest that it can be. You cannot open a hospital, or build an aircraft carrier in small increments. Had the powers that be had the wherewithal to get on with it at St Ives, another town could have regained its rightful place on the network without fuss.

Even within this thread, the term "crayonista" has already gone from somebody drawing fantasy lines on a map, to someone repeating calls for a technically viable route to be rebuilt, to anybody proposing a railway improvement that doesn't fit within the extremely tight parameters of what constitutes cost benefit analysis. The term merely serves to highlight the failure of those who are inclined to use it against others IMO.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the English Language not good enough to be able to produce a word that would be applicable to the title of this thread without recourse to the use of a suffix from another language?

 

[edwin_m]

TBTC for example, is under the impression that he has somehow demonstrated that the case for reopening the South Western mainline to Plymouth is "unsound", yet at the very least, opinion on the Dawlish issue seems to be split 50/50 between that and a Dawlish avoider, suggesting that he has demonstrated nothing of the sort.

You appear to be treating "opinion" as meaning the same as "case".

In fact both cases are pretty poor, I don't remember offhand which was worse but if BCR is the only criterion neither will be built any time soon. They may of course be built on strategic or political grounds.

 

[yorksrob]

You appear to be treating "opinion" as meaning the same as "case".

In fact both cases are pretty poor, I don't remember offhand which was worse but if BCR is the only criterion neither will be built any time soon. They may of course be built on strategic or political grounds.

What is an opinion, if not an attempt to make a case of some sort.

Of course, the BCR, calculation is far from definitive, which is why neither HS2 nor the the Borders line have made use of it. However, it serves as a way for those with power to close down discussion, in much the same way as the manipulation of the English language with pejorative terms such as "Crayonista" does.

 

[jopsuk]

Is the English Language not good enough to be able to produce a word that would be applicable to the title of this thread without recourse to the use of a suffix from another language?

Borrowing suffixes (prefixes, whole words) from other languages is pretty much the basis of the whole English language, it is the least "pure" language there is. It is very much an Anglo Saxon Norse Brittonic Goidelic Franco-Romance language with modern English incorporating plenty of elements from other language families.

 

[67018]

So we end up with a network stuck in aspic because of a complete failure to take advantage of favourable conditions when they were available.

The truth is that not everything can be achieved with small incremental improvements, and it is naive in the extreme to suggest that it can be. You cannot open a hospital, or build an aircraft carrier in small increments. Had the powers that be had the wherewithal to get on with it at St Ives, another town could have regained its rightful place on the network without fuss.

I agree. Small incremental improvements may be easier to justify, but sometimes large investments are both necessary and the best approach. (HS2 being a good example - although let's not get into that one here!).

Even within this thread, the term "crayonista" has already gone from somebody drawing fantasy lines on a map, to someone repeating calls for a technically viable route to be rebuilt, to anybody proposing a railway improvement that doesn't fit within the extremely tight parameters of what constitutes cost benefit analysis. The term merely serves to highlight the failure of those who are inclined to use it against others IMO.

The key element, in my view, is a repetition of the same arguments without regard for practicality, priority or reality, particularly when done out of context. So the example of the South Western mainline is quite a legitimate suggestion in the context of a debate about Dawlish avoiding routes, but wouldn't be on, say, a Thameslink discussion. And if I suggested that the route should go via Cardiff and a tunnel under the Bristol Channel, then an overdose of the crayolas would be a fair diagnosis.

 

[pne]

Borrowing suffixes (prefixes, whole words) from other languages is pretty much the basis of the whole English language, it is the least "pure" language there is. It is very much an Anglo Saxon Norse Brittonic Goidelic Franco-Romance language with modern English incorporating plenty of elements from other language families.

Though there is something to be said for using English affixes on English roots, Latin affixes on Latin roots, and so on. Hence why it's "unable" (English), "impossible" (Latin), "atheist" (Greek).

Though you still get hybrid words such as "automobile, homosexual, television" (all three Greek-Latin) or, well, "chocoholic", "Expensegate", and "crayonista".

 

[The Ham]

I think Bald Rick put it better than I could. It's the repetition of ideas after they have been debunked that tends to get tainted with the crayon association.

Also, even is something is viable and needed, it needs to be considered whether it's
- Affordable
- Better then the alternatives
- High enough priority to get funded

The last one can be the killer - there might be 50 schemes worth doing, but if you try doing them all none of them will get finished. Hence the need to prioritise, which is where BCR comes in (alongside a fair dollop of politics, of course). Rail is not unique in having to make these trade-offs.

Although there is a case for progression from a crayon drawn scheme to where it is actually being built there has to be a fairly clear line drawn (with a crayon or not I don't care) as define when something is worth arguing for or when it should be put in the filing system from where ideas never return.

40 years ago Crossrail was little more than a line on a map, and about 21 years ago it looked unlikely to be built, yet now it is under construction. At that time there were probably a lot of people on both sides of the fence who came up with good arguments as to why/why not it should go ahead/be cancelled.

Likewise the reopening of the East West rail link took 11 years before it was even seen as good in principle by the government and a further 5 years before the western section was adopted as part of the governments strategy for railway.

Even within the consultation for Crossrail 2 there have been changes made following suggestions put forward. Chances are a lot would have been discounted, but that shouldn't put off people from coming up with options.

The thing which does need to be born in mind whenever anyone comes up with a suggestion is that once it has been presented that it will fall somewhere on a line between not at all sensible and why isn't this being built and it is not up to them (other than being clear in how they present their case) as to where it will be viewed on this line.

Then of course there is always the possibility that (regardless as to where it falls on that line) it may spark a variant or an improvement from someone else which over time (with others adding in their suggestions) may leave little of the original option intact.

Therefore just because a suggestion at first glance looks crazy doesn't mean that with some other input it could be the foundation for a possible solution to a problem which is ultimately built. Likewise just because one idea looks good at meeting a clear need, it doesn't mean that it will be built. As it is unlikely to remain totally as first suggested.

 

[jopsuk]

Though there is something to be said for using English affixes on English roots, Latin affixes on Latin roots, and so on. Hence why it's "unable" (English), "impossible" (Latin), "atheist" (Greek).

Yes, for neatness it is preferable

Though you still get hybrid words such as "automobile, homosexual, television" (all three Greek-Latin) or, well, "chocoholic", "Expensegate", and "crayonista".

Demonstrating the endless malleability and adaptability of a language that allows you to promenade along the verandah of a bungalow...

 

[yorksrob]

The key element, in my view, is a repetition of the same arguments without regard for practicality, priority or reality, particularly when done out of context. So the example of the South Western mainline is quite a legitimate suggestion in the context of a debate about Dawlish avoiding routes, but wouldn't be on, say, a Thameslink discussion. And if I suggested that the route should go via Cardiff and a tunnel under the Bristol Channel, then an overdose of the crayolas would be a fair diagnosis.

Practicality and context, I agree.

However as far as priority or that nebulous thing "reality" are concerned, it could just be that for political or ideological reasons, the powers that be have the wrong priorities or a detached idea of reality (for example, they might imagine that everyone in an area has access to motor transport, which is rarely the case). Someone challenging this should certainly not be dismissed pejoratively for arguing against this IMO.

And as for repetition, if the Establishment makes the same mistake again and again, surely that needs to be challenged again and again.

 

[Clip]

Is the English Language not good enough to be able to produce a word that would be applicable to the title of this thread without recourse to the use of a suffix from another language?

Steady on there, as you well know the English language is full of words made up from those of other languages

 

[Bald Rick]

Although there is a case for progression from a crayon drawn scheme to where it is actually being built there has to be a fairly clear line drawn (with a crayon or not I don't care) as define when something is worth arguing for or when it should be put in the filing system from where ideas never return.

But that's the point. Crossrail didn't start off as a line on a map. It started off (over 80 years ago) as the answer to the question 'how do we cater for the large demand east to west London and vice versa, and thus help to solve congestion on the Central line' ... and evolved from there.

A crayonista might say, and I paraphrase, 'we could build a chord from Waterloo East to Waterloo, now what question does that answer'

 

[Rational Plan]

We'll see. The Bicester-Oxford proposal even managed to solve the dreaded bat problem, which is quite an achievement these days.

Getting back to the topic, the crayon objection is mainly about drawing lines on maps without any consideration of viability, need or realism - often brought on by the existence of an old alignment. Not necessarily an issue of proposing new links per se.



Don't get me started on trams - this country is pretty shameful compared to what even quite small places have in Europe, Heidelberg for example.

On the other hand if it's the person I think it is, then they do tend to rant a lot and insult people. though they tend to be amusing enough rants.


he has plenty oof other forums in which he rants away on. I've stumbled across him a couple of times.

But I suppose he's irritated one of them so much that he cuts him off before he can get started. The problem is you can never see what the big deal is.

Having been moderated for a bit of light hearted crayon drawing once. It does still wrankle, I as had labelled it as a bit of fun rather than a serious proposal I was still narked about it.

The site does have a certain hierarchy, where the semi retired ex BR and Depaartment of Transport people dominate the discussion and it can get a bit intimidating when people rattle of track positions and junction layouts without having knowledge to interject. I tend to feel better about talking about general urban geographical and urban planning aspects and politcal aspects.

 

[The Ham]

But that's the point. Crossrail didn't start off as a line on a map. It started off (over 80 years ago) as the answer to the question 'how do we cater for the large demand east to west London and vice versa, and thus help to solve congestion on the Central line' ... and evolved from there.

A crayonista might say, and I paraphrase, 'we could build a chord from Waterloo East to Waterloo, now what question does that answer'

That's the point, Crossrail evolved (and must have been a line on a map at some point, regardless of how well planned it was at that point).

There may be a question that it does answer, however I would argue that it may not be a relevant answer to that question and/or isn't a question which needs answering. That doesn't mean that all proposals are quite as crazy.

 

[Trog]

Steady on there, as you well know the English language is full of words made up from those of other languages

There is a good quote by James Nicoll about the purity of the English language, and its tendency to collect new words.

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."