In that case, maybe my next post after the DMUs will be the MoPac and CGW merger.
Railroad thread
- Thread starter Duke Andrew of Dank
- Start date
Just to even out the MILW+MoPac, I was thinking I could give the MKT of to BN instead of the Frisco. Not only does it do the same job as the SLSF did IOTL, but it allows BN to reach San Antonio and Houston. The C&S would naturally stay with BN as a whole instead.
Now that we know mergers will be happening earlier than OTL, does anyone have any ideas for mail and passenger rail operations?
I ask because I noticed the front units on the ALCO DSL-30 seems to have mail cars as part of them.
I ask because I noticed the front units on the ALCO DSL-30 seems to have mail cars as part of them.
SsgtC
Banned
I don't think anything is keeping mail the contracts with rail. There's just too many advantages to switching to air freight.
Passenger is largely going to die IMO. You've weakened the ICC in your TL. The effects of that are that the government mandated fare structure that kept airfare artificially high, is gone. Likewise, the government mandated fare structure that kept railfare low, is gone. So air travel will be dropping in cost while rail travel will be increasing in cost.
That combination will kill passenger rail. By 1950, people took the train for really only three reasons (in order of importance):
1. They couldn't afford to fly
2. They were afraid to fly
3. Airlines didn't serve where they wanted to go
With your weakened ICC, the main driver for passenger rail is gone. Airfare will probably remain slightly more expensive, but the gap will be so small, and the difference in travel time so great (hours to cross the country instead of days), that more and more people will opt to fly. I know your intention was to keep passenger rail relevant longer, but with the framework you've built, I think you've actually accelerated it's decline.
Any opinions @WaterproofPotatoes on how to keep passenger rail around?
I personally can see some air accidents making passenger rail seen as safer.
I personally can see some air accidents making passenger rail seen as safer.
On the other hand, there are new marketing strategies that I do think will allow at least a better Amtrak. Not to mention how I plan to have stronger urban centers ITTL.
SsgtC
Banned
Rail wasn't exactly safe then either. I don't think a couple of crashes are going to substantially affect air travel. It will probably give rail a bump for a few months (at most). But long term, no lasting effect. Remember this too: for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Meaning if crashes suddenly increase, so will new government safety requirements (better training, mandatory maintenance standards, positive air traffic control, etc).
A better Amtrak, sure. But it's still not going to be truly profitable. Even today they rely on a government subsidy to stay solvent.
And the airlines can't? The airlines are very good at lobbying Congress. Plus, the airlines have one unbeatable edge that will make Congress favor them: they provide an absolutely huge pool of trained pilots for the Air Force and Navy in case they need to expand the size of the Air Force and Naval Aviation. All those people that learned to fly in the military? They can maintain their basic skills with the airlines. Those men are a strategic asset for the government. Congress will favor airlines
Even so, most of the railroads of my TL realized early on that competing with air travel would be a pipe dream. Which is why they typically have begun to target long-distance vacationers among others.
SsgtC
Banned
And that has real possibilities! Even TTL's Amtrak could get in on the action where they take over service from roads that just don't want to do passenger anymore. But actual Intercity passenger rail is done. Even faster ITTL ironically.
(As an aside, convince Amtrak to use more of the existing passenger rail terminals instead of building their own stations.)
IIRC, I don't think I have the part about setting their own fares yet. Lucky thing too. Because I may need to look over my plans again before posting further de-regulation.
About de-regulation, I could use some ideas regarding how fares could work to benefit railroads.
A big part of the problem is that moving people and moving stuff are two very different businesses.
Cunard isn't famous for opetating cargo ships, nor is Mærsk well known for passenger vessels. Delta flies around a lot of people, while FedEx does the same with packages, not passengers.
As a business, you go where the money is, and after 1945, it sure isn't in passengers except for a select few routes. Will it disappear completely? No, but it will be drastically reduced.
You might be able to save one great NY-CHI and one great CHI-LAX train, but these will likely absorb the demand for "rail cruises"
Cunard isn't famous for opetating cargo ships, nor is Mærsk well known for passenger vessels. Delta flies around a lot of people, while FedEx does the same with packages, not passengers.
As a business, you go where the money is, and after 1945, it sure isn't in passengers except for a select few routes. Will it disappear completely? No, but it will be drastically reduced.
You might be able to save one great NY-CHI and one great CHI-LAX train, but these will likely absorb the demand for "rail cruises"
Last edited:
Given those challenges, here are some things you might want to focus on for the changing nature of passenger rail.
While a forest fire destroys a lot, it also clears the way for new growth, and clears out a lot of dry rot. The 'roads have a lot of dry rot. Too many duplicate routes, too many stations in stops not worth serving, too many trains regularly departing 20-40% full.
There are two big problems: A plane is faster, and a car is more convenient most of the time.
So, for traffic-congested cities like New York and Chicago, the overnight downtown to downtown trip is more workable since it cuts out the commute time from the airport. Any mode change adds time and more importantly, inconvenience.
For a city like Los Angeles, you essentially need a car. The 'roads ship cars, do they not? Perhaps TTL, railroads get in on the car rental business and offer packages with fares. Skip highway traffic or having to drive yourself, and treat yourself to a brand new Mercury or Oldsmobile to drive around when you get there.
While a forest fire destroys a lot, it also clears the way for new growth, and clears out a lot of dry rot. The 'roads have a lot of dry rot. Too many duplicate routes, too many stations in stops not worth serving, too many trains regularly departing 20-40% full.
There are two big problems: A plane is faster, and a car is more convenient most of the time.
So, for traffic-congested cities like New York and Chicago, the overnight downtown to downtown trip is more workable since it cuts out the commute time from the airport. Any mode change adds time and more importantly, inconvenience.
For a city like Los Angeles, you essentially need a car. The 'roads ship cars, do they not? Perhaps TTL, railroads get in on the car rental business and offer packages with fares. Skip highway traffic or having to drive yourself, and treat yourself to a brand new Mercury or Oldsmobile to drive around when you get there.
If that is the case, definitely know ATSF will fill in for the latter.
Great idea. Though in my TL the Streetcar Scandal is busted up.
SsgtC
Banned
Streetcars will still not last long though. They take up too much valuable space in the Dead center of the roads. They'll still die of natural causes without the scandal. Start thinking about when they're going to die and what you want to replace them.