AHC: Save radial rail!

The Twin Cities light rail system is excellent for moving between the two downtowns and the Mall of America. Or to a destination directly along the lines. But, it's a terrible option for more varied use or for actually commuting because it just isn't terribly practical to and from the train line. And I agree that the buses don't help.

In my opinion, if you wanted to improve the light rail it would help to expand the network beyond the direct Minneapolis-St. Paul line so that you could access the network from further out.

That is true. You certainly want to expand it to cover the suburbs.
 
The drawbacks to "radial rail" ("interurbans" in the US) is that the grew from, and were heavily dependent on, passenger traffic. The one that survived the longest were the ones that developed enough freight business to carry the companies once the passengers went away. Pretty much the time that could come about, the automobile came along and took it all away. Some urban ones survived on commuter traffic but that just postponed the inevitable. If you want to save these lines, or allow them time to develop into larger, presumably more stable, systems-I think you have to push the automobile back at least 20 years.
Adding freight in off-hours seems like a valuable add, & not unreasonable.

Given the Depression, do you think car sales would decline enough to make radial/interurban reliable, given greater support for radial? (Things like subsidized over/underpasses to get rid of grade crossings.)

Of course, raising gas taxes (frex) could also hurt car sales, if you can find any politicians with the nerve to pass one...
The Twin Cities light rail system is excellent for moving between the two downtowns and the Mall of America. Or to a destination directly along the lines. But, it's a terrible option for more varied use or for actually commuting because it just isn't terribly practical to and from the train line. And I agree that the buses don't help.
It's not bad, but isn't speedy....while the Light Rail is OK, the buses aren't. Especially after a snowfall
If the system is built in the '30s, doesn't that avoid many of the problems? Instead of trying to work around existing neighborhoods, the housing & businesses adapt to the rail? (And there might be more lines TTL, no?)
 
About 13 years ago a light rail system was proposed for SE Wisconsin. It would run on existing right-of-way. And it faced quite significant opposition from a variety of groups. Some were anti tax. One was even opposed because it would allow nonresidents from outside of Racine to take jobs from city residents. Never mind it could go the other way. The problem with light rail schemes is unless destinations are close it just doesnt work for commuting. You really need either branch lines or changes in zoning laws. At various times a light rail line from Waukesha to Milwaukee has been proposed. Waukesha has opposed it because if we can take the train into downtown Milwaukee, "those" people will be able come here. Take that how you will.
 
You mentioned exporting American rolling stock to Europe. Track gauge is the same, but loading gauges are different. (The maximum dimensions of the rolling stock so it doesn't hit things by the side of the track, bridges, sideswipe oncoming trains, and more.) Also, in some cases, American trains are simply heavier. Look at the 4 wheeled cars common in Europe, especially in the World War II era and before, and compare to the 8 wheel cars that are almost all that you see on American freight trains.
 
loading gauges are different.
I'd forgotten about that.:oops: (As said, not a railfan, so...;) )
American trains are simply heavier.
That really only applies to heavyweight rail, tho, no? Radial cars would necessarily be lighter. Also, I'd expect anybody ordering them would specify what size they were after; I'm thinking along the lines of an approach, rather than a standard car. Or, rather, a (fairly) standard North American car, & (perhaps?) a similarly standard European design--both using more sophisticated construction, to bring weight down & speed up.

Or am I just blowing smoke?:oops:
 
Quoted from here:
The B&O had meantime fashioned a new through route across the northern tier of Pennsylvania and New Jersey to New York City, via the purchased NYC line from Ashtabula to Williamsport PA; the ex-Reading from Williamsport to Northumberland; the ex-DL&W Bloomsburg Branch (upgraded) from Northumberland to Scranton; and the ex-DL&W mainline to New York. From Wilkes-Barre PA, the B&O could use the ex-CNJ and Reading lines to access Philadelphia.

However, this left the B&O with relatively little use for the former DL&W mainline west from Scranton to Buffalo. The B&O had its own line to Buffalo, and traffic from the Canadian roads was not yet so great as to inspire the B&O to keep the line.
If the Canadian radials are doing better, does that change B&O's outlook?
 
It could, depending on how much better.
What would it take, do you think? Subsidy of Ontario radials? (And is that likely, absent a CCF government...?) Amalgamation of all of them as one company?

Given amalgamation (which seems the best option, to me), what would you guess are the chances for this Ontario Amalgamated Radial Rail Corp (OARRC?) to buy the ex-B&O line? Or would ICC veto that in a heartbeat?
 
What would it take, do you think? Subsidy of Ontario radials? (And is that likely, absent a CCF government...?) Amalgamation of all of them as one company?

Given amalgamation (which seems the best option, to me), what would you guess are the chances for this Ontario Amalgamated Radial Rail Corp (OARRC?) to buy the ex-B&O line? Or would ICC veto that in a heartbeat?

The biggest hurdle it would have to pass is that the company is obviously Canadian and not American. If it passes that hurdle I don't think it is that difficult. After all the B&O abandoned it.
 
The problem with radial railways in North America is indeed the automobile, namely the building of better highways in the 1930s and onward and (the real nail-driver) the development and building of expressways in the post-war era. Even in Ontario, the radial railways proposed by Sir Adam Beck would be badly dented by the building of the provincial highways in the 1930s and killed dead by the building of the 400-Series Highways (especially the 400, 401, 402 and 403). The simple reality is that saving radials and building highways is fundamentally incompatible - as soon as the highways are being built, the radials are gonna wither on the vine no matter what you do, particularly with distances in North America.

The best bet for such lines to remain operational is for them to be limited as lines between major destinations and built as passenger-carrying lines meant for longer-distance travel purposes. If you're starting from Toronto, you would be effectively creating a genesis for GO Transit (which began operations in 1967 IOTL) in the 1920s. Having a Government of Ontario Transportation System based on Beck's proposed radial railway line ideas but acting similarly to modern commuter rail has possibilities, but even then you'd have to limit the scope, and population densities would be an issue in many routes.

Starting similarly to GO Transit's busiest routes (Lakeshore West and East and the Kitchener line) would make sense in the 1920s as there would be plenty of population there to provide a market. Going from Toronto east to Oshawa, west to Kitchener-Waterloo (via Guelph) and southwest to Hamilton, and then eventually along the south side of Lake Ontario from Hamilton to Niagara Falls via St. Catharines, would be good territory for a radial railway. Creating an oval-shaped route by extending both western lines to London (Kitchener to London via Stratford and Hamilton to London via Brantford and Woodstock) would be feasible, as would extending north from Toronto to Barrie via Aurora and Newmarket. (Highway 400 might do in the Barrie line in the 1950s, but if you extend it to Orillia or maybe even Gravenhurst or Huntsville might give it a new lease on life once the cottage country boom begins in the 1950s.)

If anything, Ottawa might actually provide better opportunities, as you could easily run from Ottawa to Montreal via Rockland, Hawkesbury and Blaineville, as well as south to Kingston (via Smiths Falls) and northwest to Petawawa (via Pembroke, Renfrew and Armprior). If the funding (and market) exists, Kingston to Montreal (via Gananoque, Brockville and Cornwall) may be feasible too.
 
Top