# RIP: Ships and Trains (a eulogy).



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

It's a shame that people have become so time-conscious that they've permitted the grand traditions of the elegant train and luxurious steamship to be utterly killed off. (not to mention transatlantic airships).

The modern Orient Express? Ha.

The new _Queen Mary 2_? Double ha.

The Goodyear blimp? Triple ha.

Why only go halfway with these things? Personally, I say that Western Civilisation (read: Civilisation) peaked at noon on Thursday, 07 April 1910. Nothing otherwise special happened on that date; but the weighted average of several other events point to said Thursday as having had the dubious honour of resting at the very top of the highest hill of Civilisation's roller-coaster.

Of course, things did not drastically (or even obviously) decline the next day, nor even within the year. Technology and culture must be reckoned together.

The foundations of virtually all technology we enjoy today were in place on April 7th, 1910, and _Society_ wasn't yet synonymous with 'everyone' (and they changed before dinner). The ink had been dry on Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto for several months, and the keels had been laid for the White Star Line's _Olympic_-class passenger liners.

And neither Iran, nor anyone else, had the Bomb. The President of the United States could - and did - walk completely unescorted through the streets of Washington, King Edward VII still had another month left in his reign, and in general some things were still sacred.

Today's 'architecture', 'art', 'music', 'universities', 'hotels' &c. are, at (very) best, merely crude cartoon parodies of their 1910 counterparts.

Western Civilisation is not over yet, but now, sadly, gravity is our only propulsion.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> The President of the United States could - and did - walk completely unescorted through the streets of Washington


To be fair, Presidents could likely still do that, they've simply become too cowardly. (And that's not a specific reflection on G.W. Bush, it's true of his recent predecessors as well.) People will scoff of course, but it bears remembering that three American presidents were assassinated in the less than forty years between 1865 and 1901, along several governors, senators, representatives, and state/territorial supreme court justices (although no Federal supreme court justices to the best of my knowledge). Some day a book will be written (if one hasn't already) on the total disappearance of political assassinations in the US over the last 40 years (which cannot really be explained by improvements in security, since most politicians actually travel with little to no personal security).


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Srynerson_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Clearly no relationship between this piece of information (_datum_) and widespread firearms ownership.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

It was great in the old days, if you were rich and white and born into the right family. 

In truth, I share the fondness for the elegant trappings of a bygone era, but I put no stock in the notion that times then were better than they are now. Except, perhaps, for a tiny, tiny percentage of the population. I'll gladly trade away luxury steamships for, say, child labor laws and giving women the right to vote. 

Personally, I'm quite happy that "society" now includes everyone.

In short, I agree with the first part of your post, JLPWCXIII, but you lose me once you start talking about Western Civilisation. The finer things still exist, mostly, and are available to those who seek them. Only now they are available to far more people. It's a shame that more don't take advantage of the opportunity, but I wonder just what portion of the populace was able to enjoy them in, say, 1910.

Looked at that way, perhaps we're not doing so bad.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> It's a shame that people have become so time-conscious that they've permitted the grand traditions of the elegant train and luxurious steamship to be utterly killed off.


That's the key - the technology-driven notion of getting everything done ten minutes ago.

When the term "rat race" was coined (30 years ago?) life was a leisurely stroll in the park compared to today.

But I think people confuse activity with accomplishment. If the sum total of an individual's frantic emailing, telephone calles, faxes, text messages and reckless driving is "U rock!" and a speeding ticket then the alleged time saved doesn't seem to have done much good.

I remember Russell Baker gently poking fun at the word processor. The pitch was the device would be an improvement over the typewriter - it would eliminate the "time-wasting typing process."

To which Baker responded it would also thus eliminate the "time-wasting thought process."

Following Baker's lead, when I am writing something that's important to me I start with notes on a legal pad and do at least one draft on a manual Olivetti. Nothing like the prospect of retyping on one of those beasts to get the editorial mojo working.

4 real.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gurdon_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no clue what you're suggesting. [?]


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Srynerson_
> 
> To be fair, Presidents could likely still do that, they've simply become too cowardly.


We could perhaps explain it by noting why no-one bothers to take shots at the Queen: she's so irrelevant to the political process that anyone with a beef with the UK gov't does not see her as a target at all. Perhaps the US President is also similarly considered a meaningless target?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> It was great in the old days, if you were rich and white and born into the right family.


Well, I guess is depends on how you define "white". Wealthy or not, it was not too long ago the Irish were despised and Scotland became an emasculated fiefdom of England, complete with the outlawing of tartans and bagpipes. However, about the time this was happening in Scotland, New Orleans had a very thriving community of non-whites that were indeed wealthy and well respected. History is not as simple as the PC Police would have us believe.

I have come to the conclusion that each generation feels we are at the end-times and in a period of decline and/or decadence. The "roaring 20's" no doubt had people looking back to a time before that. The 50's bemoaned the beatniks, the 60's the hippies and drugs....you get the picture.

However, I do have to say that flying these days, which not so long ago was a classy event, now is like taking the bus through the bad section of town.

Warmest regards


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure the Queen's security detail does not look at it that way. Remember that Earl Mountbatten (Prince Philip's uncle and Prince Charles' godfather) was blown up by the IRA.


----------



## mano (Mar 17, 2003)

That "bygone era" roller-coaster doesn't look very sturdy.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Actually, I think you can add air travel to the elegant trains and luxurious steamships. While air travel never rose to the elegance of the other two, what elegance it had has certainly been degraded over the years. Trains have become rolling inner city sidewalks, and steamships have become "cruise ships" that serve only to return people to their point of oirgin after a week of gluttony and self indulgence. By making air travel "affordable" through deregulation, the system was flooded with sartorially-challenged undesirables even as airlines were unable to maintain revenue streams necessary to remain solvent.

The cultural death spiral that is sucking us down is based in the flawed premise that if you open up the finer things to the masses, it will somehow improve the masses. (This seems to apply to education, too.) All that is accomplished is that the finer things are degraded into extinction as they are pirated by masses of people who have not earned that which they wish to experience and who, incomprehensibly, immediately attack the standards that make those finer things "finer.". By "earned," I don't so much mean money, but bettering themselves to merge into those finer settings with little notice. Instead they present themselves, say, at a fine restruarnt in their baggy shorts, tank top, and baseball cap and demand to be accepted as an equal. Our egalitarian society being what it is, these people are usually accepted or at least tolerated either because they have money (or credit) or because our cultural fiber has been so compromised that we have totally forgotten the concept of "the bum's rush."

And that, in my opinion, is where the historical tipping point can be found. Something about WWI, and particularly WWII, started a social process in which the common man was somehow endowed with a dignity he had not earned and did not often possess. Perhaps it was Norman Rockwell's fault. While all men are created equal in the eyes of God, we fail to acknowledge that it ends there and by the time people are in their 30's, everyone is _not_ equal. Some have taken what God gave them and done more with it than others and, perhaps, a degree of social discrimination _is_ in order. Our collective failure to acknowledge and act on that, coupled with a pragmatic drive to be "practical," turned the original Pan Am and TWA into Airtran, turned the Queen Mary into The Big Red Boat, and turned the Southern Crescent into Amtrak. And the Graf Zeppelin into your Goodyear Blimp.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Beresford_
> 
> Remember that Earl Mountbatten (Prince Philip's uncle and Prince Charles' godfather) was blown up by the IRA.


True, I had forgotten about that. And the attempt to kidnap Princess Anne in the 70s.


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> But I think people confuse activity with accomplishment. If the sum total of an individual's frantic emailing, telephone calles, faxes, text messages and reckless driving is "U rock!" and a speeding ticket then the alleged time saved doesn't seem to have done much good.
> 
> ...


Good observations, Patrick.

I hadn't heard the Baker quote, but it's certainly true, and I'll still outline a thorny piece on paper--and sometimes I'll go further than that--before turning to the computer.

Along the same lines, a geography professor of mine commented a few years ago that although the potential quality and accuracy of maps increased with the introduction of GIS, its relative ease of use tended to lead to lots of bad maps. She first made us hand-draw several maps, based on data from the GIS, before getting us rolling on the computers, to help us gain an appreciation of useful formats and the limits on information presentable in a map.

__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Patrick, you bring up an excellent point. I wonder how much trash is written just because it's easier today.

(I love how some people will spell-check a resume, but still send it out with grammatical errors, etc.)


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Ms. M8 and I took a ride on the Eastern Orient Express a few years ago. It was a very nice land cruise from Singapore to Bangkok.

Nice thread. Too bad those days are gone forever.

M8


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by mano_
> 
> That "bygone era" roller-coaster doesn't look very sturdy.


 That's because it's a modern, not 'bygone era' coaster. Or are you just joking?

*Liberty Ship* - beautiful post!


----------



## Skrip (Apr 12, 2006)

Not necessarily white, maybe in America, but if you were rich then they indeed were the good old days.

What do you think about th 1920s and 1930s, which some people feel was the pinnacle of style?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Skrip_
> 
> Not necessarily white, maybe in America, but if you were rich then they indeed were the good old days.
> 
> What do you think about th 1920s and 1930s, which some people feel was the pinnacle of style?


 Things started declining fast during the Great War (having been in subtle decline since the seventh of April, 1910), and, by 1919, something was conspicuously lost forever. The culture, values, and style of the 20s and 30s were further drops. Again - not on all fronts - but in Civilisation as a whole, even sartorially. The dinner jacket all but replaced white tie for formal evening dress, and the crumbling of the social order was increasingly obvious to everyone. The quality of art, music, philosophy, architecture, literature, and poetry took a sharp nosedive as people abandoned discipline and time-honoured traditions for impulsive orgies of self-indulgence. The men who looked the best during this period were typically older men who developed their styles in the 1910s or earlier.

Architecture, (Museum), built 1910:










Architecture, (Courthouse), built 1930:


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I raise you the Chrysler Building:


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> I raise you the Chrysler Building:


 Ugly, cold, Tower-of-Babel impersonator. I raise _you_ Pennsylvania Station (1910):


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_The 50's bemoaned the beatniks, the 60's the hippies and drugs....you get the picture.


Although it's probably typos on your part, the history here needs correcting: the 50s wouldn't have bemoaned the beatniks because the beatniks were a phenomenon of the 50s; the 50s might have bemoaned the Bohemians... the same is true of the 60s and hippies and drugs; they were a part of the 60s (and the 70s, to a great extent), perhaps bemoaned by the 80s, if at all.

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Curses, this and the Crystal Palace are difficult to counter. But I'll go minimalist with the 1939 World's Fair:


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I'll go maximilist and throw in the _Ossia_ Cadenza of Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto (1909) - performed here by Ashkenazy:

(2:40 long)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by rip_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No typos, that was _exactly_ my point. In the 50s, those that looked at the "decadence and decay" of their time saw the beatniks, and thus bemoaned them as harbingers of the end of Western civilization. Likewise the hippies were the sign posts on the road to Ragnarok to the establishment _in the 60s_.

I just re-read my OP and I do not see any confusion in my syntax or diction, however I am sorry if I troubled or distressed you and hope this clears things up for you. I do want to thank you however for setting me straight if my history was indeed wrong. Train your eye!

Warmest regards


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 True, there has always been a minority of people who reflexively reject everything modern. I'm not one of those people. The intent of my initial post was to point out that - examining everything as a whole - mankind (by the aesthetic and cultural values he has most commonly advocated) reached the highest peak of Civilisation in 1910. Not only in general, but specifically in terms of the European-American SuperEmpire. Greece declined, Macedonia evaporated, Rome fell, and each peaked before they fell. They did not disappear o'ernight. Shall we be like the bearish idealists of 1929, 1987, and 1999 who foolishly claimed that the stock market could, for once, keep climbing forever?


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> I'll go maximilist and throw in the _Ossia_ Cadenza of Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto (1909) - performed here by Ashkenazy:
> 
> (2:40 long)


And I give you Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World."
https://www.eflclub.com/2songs/wonderfulworld/wonderfulworld1.htm


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> Ugly, cold, Tower-of-Babel impersonator. I raise _you_ Pennsylvania Station (1910):


Very nice public architecture, but I wouldn't call a metal skeletoned Roman revival ediface warm and inviting.

That's more like it.

As for great architecture being completely dead:










The lobby of the Grand Californian hotel, by the Walt Disney corporation. Probably one of the greatest arts and crafts style buildings built since Wright's last days. It's stunning, and it's from DISNEY, for crying out loud 

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Sorry to sound dismissive, but you _are_ joking, right?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> That's more like it.
> 
> As for great architecture being completely dead:


 Bad, simplistic architecture...soul-less and savage. Rolling on down the hill towards

and other such cartoonish rubbish.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not at all. It's schmaltzy, but I like it. And I can't imagine a staunch defender of the 19th century could criticize schmaltz... The Victorians certainly loved it.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I like it too! But I thought you were implying that it was superior to the _Ossia_ cadenza of said concerto.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> Bad, simplistic architecture...soul-less and savage. Rolling on down the hill towards


I suppose it's a matter of taste. Where one sees simplicity and an appreciation of nature in architecture, another sees barbarism.

Wheras I find this ode to contintental European "Style" ...

... excessive, vulgar and gaudy.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh no, not seeking so much to _top_ your selection as _counter_ it. Apples and oranges, really.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

For boat people, these are kind of amazing, very modern but also rather old-world too...

www.wally.com


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Srynerson_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They don't ride in convertibles anymore.....oops, I didn't say that.

None have been worth the cost of the bullet....I did say that!

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

How fitting- the slobs in shorts sitting in the lobby of the Disney hotel. You could put some people in the Sistine Chapel and they would have no sense of propriety in dress.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jeffdeist_
> 
> How fitting- the slobs in shorts sitting in the lobby of the Disney hotel. You could put some people in the Sistine Chapel and they would have no sense of propriety in dress.


Of course, because hauling toddlers around Disney Land in southern California is best done in an Oxxford cashmere suit and Alden bluchers.

I mean, did you see what those oafs were weaing in the Boston Marathon last week? Some were wearing tank tops, shorts and running shoes, for crying out loud!



Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## jcbmath (Jan 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Srynerson_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jcbmath_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> True; and those assassination attempts were made despite the immense coverage of personal security of modern American Presidents. Western societies are more personally violent and less respecting of leaders than in olden times. I am reminded of a quotation from Evelyn Waugh (appropriately enough), from _Brideshead Revisited_: '"Here I am," I thought, "back from the jungle, back from the ruins. Here, where wealth is no longer gorgeous and power has no dignity." _Quomodo sedet sola civitas_.'


I'm a bit confused. What olden times are you referring to, and where? Certainly not Rome, where assassination was rampant, or ancient Egypt, or even, say, England in the 1800s, when there were seven assassination attempts on Queen Victoria alone.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by jcbmath_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:
> I'm a bit confused. What olden times are you referring to, and where? Certainly not Rome, where assassination was rampant, or ancient Egypt, or even, say, England in the 1800s, when there were seven assassination attempts on Queen Victoria alone.


There have always been nutters out there, willing to do something injurious to a head of state, but the main difference is matter of degree. American Presidents before 1910 used to freely walk unescorted and unmolested through the streets of Washington; Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were assassinated at times when (ironically) they were ostensibly well guarded and surrounded by entourages. In contrast, how long do you think Messrs Bush and Clinton would be able to walk completely alone down an urban sidewalk before someone tried to do something beastly to them? Five seconds...two? The beastliness would formerly have been a wildcard exception, now it's taken for granted to exist always, everywhere - and with good reason: we now have a beastlier civilisation.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

And on a more cheeful note, some photographs of the late _RMS Aquitania_.










,































































Compare with the smoking room of the so-called RMS Queen Mary 2:

[V]


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well they could certainly wear 6oz poplin chinos and an oxford with the sleeves rolled up. I really think that a major reason that people dress so poorly is that they are not well educated about all of the classy clothing options that are available. For example, most people own neither linen nor seersucker trousers and they choose to wear shorts during the summer. They might choose differently if they knew that lightweight trousers are cooler than shorts.

Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see what you mean. Viewpoint (mine) is at fault here, not syntax. I came to your post with the mindset of an old beatnik (us), not of the establishment (them). I saw "us" looking back; you saw "them" looking around, hence the historical confusion.

Train your eye! Then train your brain to trust your eye.


----------

