Railroad engineering

[Roger Lohmann]

This message is a friendly interdisciplinary missive from a non-engineer (Sociology, History and Politics, actually) addressed to everyone in the Engineering workgroup. It is primarily a call for writers, although as Milton Boychek has already noted, there is need for editors also.

In working with Milton and another history editor, Russell D. Jones  on readying a nice little historical article on the Grand Trunk Railway for approval, I became aware that we have nearly a dozen or possibly more articles on railroads, railways, railroad yards, etc. And almost all of them have very little serious information on the engineering aspects of the topics. In addition, there are articles on coal mining and other related topics about which the same point could be made.

I'm not an engineer and know hardly anything at all about the subject, but I do know that when you have to solve some of the practical problems of time, space and energy involved in getting that much steel and cargo over mountains, across bodies of water, and all of the other problems that had to be solved, you are probably talking about some pretty heavy duty mechanical and other engineering matters. In addition, there are all of those systems issues of loading and scheduling and time tables and costs.

My interest in this is both historical and contemporary and from both perspectives, it would be really good if we could get several engineering authors to add their insights to articles on railroading, mining and any related topics. (Even a few sentences on the challenges and problems that had to be solved in such projects as the The Canadian Pacific would be major additions. Railroads are also an international phenomenon, so there is plenty of room for engineering contributions on railway systems everywhere.

Thanks for listening to an outsider.

Roger Lohmann (Editor in Sociology, History and Politics)

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

This message is a friendly interdisciplinary missive from a non-engineer (Sociology, History and Politics, actually) addressed to everyone in the Engineering workgroup. It is primarily a call for writers, although as Milton Boychek has already noted, there is need for editors also.

...

I'm not an engineer and know hardly anything at all about the subject, but I do know that when you have to solve some of the practical problems of time, space and energy involved in getting that much steel and cargo over mountains, across bodies of water, and all of the other problems that had to be solved, you are probably talking about some pretty heavy duty mechanical and other engineering matters. In addition, there are all of those systems issues of loading and scheduling and time tables and costs.

My interest in this is both historical and contemporary and from both perspectives, it would be really good if we could get several engineering authors to add their insights to articles on railroading, mining and any related topics. (Even a few sentences on the challenges and problems that had to be solved in such projects as the The Canadian Pacific would be major additions. Railroads are also an international phenomenon, so there is plenty of room for engineering contributions on railway systems everywhere.

Thanks for listening to an outsider.

Roger Lohmann (Editor in Sociology, History and Politics)

A while back, I suggested, and heard no objection, about putting transportation, emergency services, and communications (not computer specific) into Engineering. I went back to basics, and there are articles on nuts, bolts, screws, saws, and drills.

There actually is a fair bit on aerospace and some on water transportation; even on commercial fishing. I am actively doing an article, more firefighting, on the physical 9/11 attack in New York.

About all I know about trains is how to blow them up.

[Milton Beychok]

Roger, engineering covers a great many disciplines. To name but a few: mechanical engineers, civil engineers, chemical engineers (my field), electrical engineers, aeronautic engineers, aerospace engineers, safety engineers, automotive engineers, computer engineers, environmental engineers, military engineers, etc., etc., etc.

The problem is that there are really only two engineers active in CZ, namely Howard Berkowitz and myself. There is also one engineer who is intermittently active  for a day or two at a time, Anthony Argyriou, who is a civil engineer and he may know something about railroad engineering. You might try contacting him.

Milt Beychok

[Russell D. Jones]

While I'm not trained as an engineer, part of my research interest is engineers as a social group.  I've also a substantial knowledge in railroad transportation.  In recent years, the history of technology has grown to be a major subfield in the discipline of history.  And we should have a subgroup of it here: a subgroup of history and engineering.  We should also have a group in railroad history, or transportation even (I teach the history of the automobile industry at EMU).  If such a project gets going, I'm in.  I don't really think that transportation should be wholly within the engineering group as it is so much more than gradients, stresses, power, and flow.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

While I'm not trained as an engineer, part of my research interest is engineers as a social group.  I've also a substantial knowledge in railroad transportation.  In recent years, the history of technology has grown to be a major subfield in the discipline of history.  And we should have a subgroup of it here: a subgroup of history and engineering.  We should also have a group in railroad history, or transportation even (I teach the history of the automobile industry at EMU).  If such a project gets going, I'm in.  I don't really think that transportation should be wholly within the engineering group as it is so much more than gradients, stresses, power, and flow.

Many, many things don't neatly fall into a single workgroup, transportation certainly being one of them. Nevertheless, some of this is an artifact of practical issues with editors, approvals, etc.  I can get away with putting commercial fishing into engineering and food sciences, but what does one do with international relations?

Grand strategy explicitly encompasses military, psychological, economic, political, law, media and other areas. When the grand strategy applies to the past, history gets involved.  I don't really like putting "military" and "politics" on current terrorism, but is there a better approach if I'd hope to get them approved? History doesn't quite fit for ongoing activities.  Some (most) intelligence is a military discipline, but other aspects (e.g., financial intelligence) fit only insofar that they are part of grand straregy, strategy is considered military and then a miracle happens.

[Joe Quick]

While I'm not trained as an engineer, part of my research interest is engineers as a social group.  I've also a substantial knowledge in railroad transportation.  In recent years, the history of technology has grown to be a major subfield in the discipline of history.  And we should have a subgroup of it here: a subgroup of history and engineering.  We should also have a group in railroad history, or transportation even (I teach the history of the automobile industry at EMU).  If such a project gets going, I'm in.  I don't really think that transportation should be wholly within the engineering group as it is so much more than gradients, stresses, power, and flow.

Many, many things don't neatly fall into a single workgroup, transportation certainly being one of them. Nevertheless, some of this is an artifact of practical issues with editors, approvals, etc.  I can get away with putting commercial fishing into engineering and food sciences, but what does one do with international relations?

If we ever attract enough active editors to support it, I'm going to suggest that we scrap the current system in which editors are categorized by workgroup.  In my mind, we would allow the workgroups to continue simply as a useful method for organizing people. Each editor would be confirmed with a more specific title, like "Editor of the History of Technology" or "Editor of Military Logistics and Commercial Fishing".  Then, each editor can approve articles that fall within his/her expertise and not be forced to think of clever ways to make a topic fit into the workgroups in which s/he is an editor.  It'll be a while before this is possible, however.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

"Editor of Military Logistics and Commercial Fishing".  Then, each editor can approve articles that fall within his/her expertise and not be forced to think of clever ways to make a topic fit into the workgroups in which s/he is an editor.  It'll be a while before this is possible, however.

Clever would be bringing it to the Religion Workgroup and deal both the Roman staple of garum or the insurgent stuff with loaves and fishes.

[Drew R. Smith]

If we ever attract enough active editors to support it, I'm going to suggest that we scrap the current system in which editors are categorized by workgroup.  In my mind, we would allow the workgroups to continue simply as a useful method for organizing people. Each editor would be confirmed with a more specific title, like "Editor of the History of Technology" or "Editor of Military Logistics and Commercial Fishing".  Then, each editor can approve articles that fall within his/her expertise and not be forced to think of clever ways to make a topic fit into the workgroups in which s/he is an editor.  It'll be a while before this is possible, however.

I don't think it's as far off as you think. I've been quietly contemplating something similar (but not quite the same) for some time now. My idea was to scrap the workgroups in general, and adopt a "wikiproject" style, the way WP does. The only difference would be that they would be limited to higher level topics, for example we could have project/workgroup/othername Hawaii, but if project goby species found in hawaiian waters was ever proposed it would be quickly shot down. We could then have editors for each project, and, if the need ever arises, cross project editors.

I'll go back to quiet contemplation for now, but if you or anyone else ever proposes something like this, you've got my support.

[Joe Quick]

I'd like to make a quick adjustment to what I wrote above and then I'll return you to your regular scheduled broadcast on railroad engineering.

I think workgroups are useful.  How else would one actually find the right editor to consult?  So editors should still remain associated with workgroups but not limited by them.  Russell might be given the title "Editor of the History of Technology" in the History Workgroup.  That one is a bit redundant, but consider an expert on Andean mythology.  Simply calling her "Editor of Andean Mythology" might make it difficult for people to track her down but calling her "Editor of Andean Mythology" and associating her with the Anthropology, Archaeology, and Religion Workgroups is more clear.  One could find her through any of those workgroups.

With enough editors around, this will also strengthen our claim to expert oversight because the approving editors will be unquestionably qualified to oversee the articles they approve.  Under the current system, I wouldn't be surprised if readers felt that they should think twice about our Grand Trunk Railway article because one of the approving editors, Milton Beychok, is a chemical engineer rather than an industrial engineer.  Personally, I think Milt is more than capable of evaluating things he has not worked on directly, and he has demonstrated as much (sorry for singling you out, Milt).  That goes for most of our editors and is a principle inherent to the peer-review system in academia as well: one must be trained to recognize good scholarship, not to know everything there is to know about everything.  Still, the system can only bolster our claims to reliability and expert oversight.

Nevertheless, we would need lots of editors in order to cover all of our material.  For now, I think it's best to approve what we can with editors from the appropriate workgroups so that we have something to brag about as we work to recruit more editors and authors and so that we distinguish ourselves among the many options (Wikipedia but also many, many others) from which information seekers have to choose.  So for the moment, let's get back to railroad engineering. 
 

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I'd like to make a quick adjustment to what I wrote above and then I'll return you to your regular scheduled broadcast on railroad engineering.

One must never miss an opportunity to be properly trained.

I think workgroups are useful.  How else would one actually find the right editor to consult?  So editors should still remain associated with workgroups but not limited by them.  Russell might be given the title "Editor of the History of Technology" in the History Workgroup.  That one is a bit redundant, but consider an expert on Andean mythology.  Simply calling her "Editor of Andean Mythology" might make it difficult for people to track her down but calling her "Editor of Andean Mythology" and associating her with the Anthropology, Archaeology, and Religion Workgroups is more clear.  One could find her through any of those workgroups.

With enough editors around, this will also strengthen our claim to expert oversight because the approving editors will be unquestionably qualified to oversee the articles they approve.  Under the current system, I wouldn't be surprised if readers felt that they should think twice about our Grand Trunk Railway article because one of the approving editors, Milton Beychok, is a chemical engineer rather than an industrial engineer.  Personally, I think Milt is more than capable of evaluating things he has not worked on directly, and he has demonstrated as much (sorry for singling you out, Milt).  That goes for most of our editors and is a principle inherent to the peer-review system in academia as well: one must be trained to recognize good scholarship, not to know everything there is to know about everything.  Still, the system can only bolster our claims to reliability and expert oversight.

Nevertheless, we would need lots of editors in order to cover all of our material.  For now, I think it's best to approve what we can with editors from the appropriate workgroups so that we have something to brag about as we work to recruit more editors and authors and so that we distinguish ourselves among the many options (Wikipedia but also many, many others) from which information seekers have to choose.  So for the moment, let's get back to railroad engineering. 

All very good points. Now, picking further on Milt, I was able to get my one approved article, under Engineering, done because he's very familiar with principles of good engineering documentation. Luckily, we had two Author-Citizens who had direct military experience with the exact subject of military electronics nomenclature, and could advise.

I face a constant problem in writing about what variously could be called international relations, foreign policy, etc., of which military force is only one component. Indeed, I am expert on things that go boom, but I would suggest that if anyone looked at the curriculum o a midcareer to senior military professional college, the curriculum would have a very large component of social science and history:  one can't win a war, or, even more, deter a war, without an understanding how the other side thinks. Really, Abbot Almaric's dictum of "kill them all, God will know his own," went out several centuries ago.

There's a similar problem in intelligence and counterterrorism. It's simply not military alone. Unfortunately, I was only able to say that some past articles were not acceptable due to substantive errors in "military" fact, although I would like to have approved them. As it is, there's no way for me to get approval on dozens, even hundreds of articles under the present system -- although a History, Politics, or Engineering Editor, perhaps with some Author or outside input, could do it.

Yet another side of this is that an Editor first appointed in one area may demonstrate real expertise in another, such as Milt in chemistry.  No responsible editor of this sort would try to rule outside the subspecialties they do understand, but I am frustrated when I can't sometimes rule in Politics, History or Health Sciences in subspecialty areas (e.g., how wars and interrogation methods were selected; how medical instrumentation systems work). Speaking personally, I believe that a substantial body of work at Citizendium should be considered, especially in our Editor-short situation, in giving at least provisional author recognition in a "subspecialty".