Railroad thread

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I think @Andrew Boyd has recently just said though that he now intends for railroads and government to have a closer relationship than OTL. So at this point, I have no idea what's going to happen in this TL...

Admittedly, that would make writing the whole thing a lot easier. Develop a business model that is entirely reliant on subsidization and artificially low rates. Then, when the whole thing goes bust at the first shock, the entire US rail network becomes Conrail. That way, the same lines and nowhere-to-nowhere subdivisions can survive as well, thanks to the American taxpayer.

Until we get some clarification on what we're supposed to be providing advice on, I'm going to have to bow out. I can't give anything approaching decent advice.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Maybe one of the locomotives that Walt buys up is SP GS-5 4458, perhaps as a prop, or a first foray into live-action films...

Perhaps, or he could use GS-3 4422. Which IOTL actually has a part remaining today.

 

[Republic of Michigan]

Wouldn't they be absorbed into the Penn Southern though, being closely aligned with N&W?

Not in this timeline. The N&W didn't buy ownership of the EL until the late 1960s after it was let go by the PRR who chose the NYC over it. In this timeline, because the PRR chooses to keep the Wabash and N&W close to it, the N&W has no need or desire to buy other railroads.

Here's a list of the Northeast railroads that are in the different systems to make things a little easier:

Pennsylvania & Western

• Pennsylvania
• Norfolk & Western
• Wabash
• Richmond, Fredricksburg & Potomac
  
• New Haven
  
• Lehigh & Hudson River

New York, Baltimore & Ohio

• Baltimore & Ohio
• Buffalo Rochester & Pittsburgh
  
• Reading
  
• Central Railroad of New Jersey
• Western Maryland
  
• Nickle Plate
  
• Pere Marquette
• Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
• Erie

Central Systems

• New York Central
• Chesapeake & Ohio
• Pittsburgh & Lake Erie

There are a few railroads not mentioned here that I see in a different light and this is how I see them playing out.

Lehigh Valley: Goes bankrupt in the 1970s and is split between the big four.
Wheeling & Lake Erie: Was merged into the Nickle Plate along with the Akron, Canton & Youngstown and Pittsburgh & West Virginia. In the proceedings for the merger between the B&O and EL it was agreed that these three would be spun off to form their own regional railroad.

The Ann Arbor, Delaware & Hudson, Detroit Toledo & Ironton, and Virginian I'm still debating on.

 

[Republic of Michigan]

So I'm working on developing a map for he western roads and want to make sure that I'm getting things right so I can make my own suggestions.

As it stands, we have six major western roads:

• Burlington Northern
• Milwaukee Road
• Missouri Pacific-Rio Grande-Western Pacific
• Union Pacific
• Santa Fe
• Southern Pacific

Now we want to break this down to three railroads, meaning the first two, the second two, and the third two are not allowed to merge with each other respectively.

Now I know we talked about the idea that the Rock Island is merged into the Southern Pacific, but where did that idea come into play? According to my railroad encyclopedia "In 1964 Ben Heineman, chairman of the Chicago & North Western, proposed merging the C&NW, the Rock Island, and the Milwaukee Road into an Upper Midwest system and selling the lines south of Kansas City to Santa Fe. Union Pacific made a counter-proposal: Merger, which would put the UP into Chicago. That year, 1964, was Rock Island's last profitable year."

It later goes on to say that during the proceedings the ICC considered restructuring the western railroads into the BN, UP, SP and ATSF. The idea was soon rejected. In 1974 the ICC approved the UP-RI merger under the following conditions: "Southern Pacific would be allowed to purchase the Kansas City-Tucumcari line; The Omaha-Colorado Springs line would be sold to the Denver & Rio Grande Western; and the Santa Fe would be permitted to buy the [Memphis-Amarillo line] only if it would absorb the bankrupt and decrepit Missouri-Kansas-Texas." This is where UP bowed out because of the decline in the quality of the Rock Island during those 10 years. So this brings the question: Are the butterflies from the different railroads in the northeast enough that the SP enters the merger talks with its own proposal, or does it change to allow the UP-RI merger to be approved sooner and the suggested arrangements happen?

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

@Republic of Michigan
Well in my TL, SP and RI are already in talks of merger. Though they can still fall out.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

With my latest realizations regarding rail has lead to several ideas regarding my state-based rail networks...

- 1954: The state of California and the Southern Pacific announce plans to have a San Diego - Bay Area electric train service via the Central Valley. With the growth of population between the two cities, it is natural LA - San Diego is first.
- 1963: The state of New York works with New York Central to operate a prototypical HSR from New York to Buffalo via Upstate.
- 1986: Georgia works with the Southern, and by now newly formed Amtrak Southeast, to create a Steel Interstate system from Chattanooga to Atlanta. Where it splits to Savannah via Augusta and Athens, or Jacksonville via Jesup.
- 1990: The state of Ohio allows the NYC and my TL's Chessie (C&O+NKP+EL+PM) to build a line from Cleveland to Cincy. The line from Cleveland to Mario via Akron runs parallel to the former Erie. The line from Marion to Columbus runs alongside the C&O. Lastly, Columbus to Cincy via Dayton parallels the NYC.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I realize I have made a mistake- I managed to mix the histories of Pacific Electric with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). PG&E was a utility, while PE was more of a real estate developer with ties to Southern Pacific, that ran streetcars as a loss leader to make their new developments more attractive.

@Andrew Boyd

I realize that my suggestions might not be suggestions for the TL you really want to write. If you really want to extend the life of steam and have more government involvement, go for it, even if it is somewhat ASB. The important thing is you're writing what you know and what you like.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

I realize that my suggestions might not be suggestions for the TL you really want to write. If you really want to extend the life of steam and have more government involvement, go for it, even if it is somewhat ASB. The important thing is you're writing what you know and what you like.

My main idea is less about steam in general lasting longer so much as there is more preserved steam.

As for the government. My idea was more of a series of public-private collaborations.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

As I said, I'm still planning to work with @Republic of Michigan on some ideas for how the 50s works out.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

I think my next post will detail my TL's Southern PAcific as it begins plans to electrify. Starting in the LA area where steam is immediately displaced by them and not diesels. Then working east to El Paso and north to Portland.

Any ideas for an electric locomotive they could use in bulk are welcome. At least until the GE E60 comes around.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Any ideas for an electric locomotive they could use in bulk are welcome. At least until the GE E60 comes around.

For freight, the E44a- it's built for the job and would look just marvellous in SP black-with-a-bloody-nose freight livery.

For a passenger job, why not wrap the E44 guts in a cowl body like the U30CG? You could even have SP's order specify the original flush pilot with no front walkway:

Or maybe a PA style wrapper:

As for routing, I would imagine the routes through Truckee and the Sierra Nevadas would be prime candidates for electrification.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

My end goal with Amtrak, and US rail in general, is something what JR is described as here:

Basically, it would mostly be a privately owned railroad owned by a coalition of freight railroads, local business, and even some airliners (ITTL, air travel would mostly be for quick travels domestically or overseas). Depending on the network's scope, it is subsidized by either local or national governments for new or better infrastructure. The businesses owning the Amtrak regions can do what they please as long as the service is clean, efficient, and carries large amounts of passengers. Amtrak regions keep portions of their profits to pay for workers and shareholders.

For example, ITTL the Ohio HSR line is owned by New York Central, C&O, and several local businesses. As Erie, C&O, and NYC all parallel the OH HSR line. The state of Ohio exempts them from most property regulations. So long as the the shareholders only use their subsidies on infrastructure projects in the state of Ohio itself.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Your big problem there is population density. Look at a map of the USA. Now look at a map of Japan.

 

[isayyo2]

Splitting up Amtrak into five or six regions makes a lot sense, but it definitely needs a lot of thought and refinement on how private the systems will actually be.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

So I'm working on developing a map for he western roads and want to make sure that I'm getting things right so I cam make my own suggestions.

As it stands, we have six major western roads:

• Burlington Northern
• Milwaukee Road
• Missouri Pacific-Rio Grande-Western Pacific
• Union Pacific
• Santa Fe
• Southern Pacific

Now we want to break this down to three railroads, meaning the first two, the second two, and the third two are not allowed to merge with each other respectively.

Now I know we talked about the idea that the Rock Island is merged into the Southern Pacific, but where did that idea come into play? According to my railroad encyclopedia "In 1964 Ben Heineman, chairman of the Chicago & North Western, proposed merging the C&NW, the Rock Island, and the Milwaukee Road into an Upper Midwest system and selling the lines south of Kansas City to Santa Fe. Union Pacific made a counter-proposal: Merger, which would put the UP into Chicago. That year, 1964, was Rock Island's last profitable year."

It later goes on to say that during the proceedings the ICC considered restructuring the western railroads into the BN, UP, SP and ATSF. The idea was soon rejected. In 1974 the ICC approved the UP-RI merger under the following conditions: "Southern Pacific would be allowed to purchase the Kansas City-Tucumcari line; The Omaha-Colorado Springs line would be sold to the Denver & Rio Grande Western; and the Santa Fe would be permitted to buy the [Memphis-Amarillo line] only if it would absorb the bankrupt and decrepit Missouri-Kansas-Texas." This is where UP bowed out because of the decline in the quality of the Rock Island during those 10 years. So this brings the question: Are the butterflies from the different railroads in the northeast enough that the SP enters the merger talks with its own proposal, or does it change to allow the UP-RI merger to be approved sooner and the suggested arrangements happen?

Some random thought about these, as I have been away from the forum for several days, and most everyone else is more current with matter than I...
-I think a realistic pod for the RI/SP/UP proposal would be a more timely ICC decision-say, 3 or 4 years, not 10+.
-Milwaukee Road+UP is not necessarily as good as it may seem on paper. UP will more than likely divert Pacific Northwest traffic to its own line via Ogden, and that will starve the the MILW's Pacific Coast Extension of the long haul traffic that was pretty much all it carried.
-MP/RG/WP is a weak road. So is the MILW. You might make them into a single carrier that works...
-SP/SF will not be allowed by the ICC (it wasn't otl, either).
So, I think the most likely combination of the above into a 3 system West is:
1) BN/SF (without otl's MP; or-for now-SLSF)
2) UP/SP (w/otl RI)
3) MP/RG/WP/MR

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

Looks good for now! I like how PRR is red, NYC is black and CB&O is blue too.
How would you divvy up the southeastern roads between the three?

Might I suggest:
1) Southern Railway to PRR. The N&W's lines dovetail well into it. Add the Florida East Coast, and retain the Gulf, Mobile & Northern.
2) IC/Central of Georgia/SAL. This is going to be the weak sister of the south, so pairing it up with the NYC system gives it C&O's strong coal traffic earnings.
3) ACL/L&N to CB&O. Mostly by default, though it works well enough.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

I think my next post will be how railroads are given government mandating to standardize freight rolling stock.
Any ideas regarding what kind of rolling stock and their appearance are welcome.

I think that otl's freight cars are pretty much standardized. The necessary parts (brakes, couplers. clearances) are universal. The details are too minor to bother with.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

@Andrew Boyd
We have established thus far:
-Earlier containerization.

What we need to establish:
-How does earlier containerization happen?

Containerization began shortly after WWI (I want to say 1921?) and was swiftly killed by the ICC (through rate regulations). While it may not resemble today's TEU based ISO boxes, moving widespread containerization up to pre-WWII is certainly within the realm of possibility, imo. The ramifications for the trucking industry are considerable, too, I think.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Your big problem there is population density. Look at a map of the USA. Now look at a map of Japan.

Even so, the urban centers of my TL are going to be alot stronger and more robust.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Even so, the urban centers of my TL are going to be alot stronger and more robust.

While that is certainly helpful, you still won't get anything close to the population density of eastern Japan. Today, the Tokyo-Yokohama metropolitan area alone has over 33 million people, the largest in the world.

The closest you might get is modeling the NEC after JR East, but not the whole country, unless you have a USA of over a billion people

Containerization began shortly after WWI (I want to say 1921?) and was swiftly killed by the ICC (through rate regulations). While it may not resemble today's TEU based ISO boxes, moving widespread containerization up to pre-WWII is certainly within the realm of possibility, imo. The ramifications for the trucking industry are considerable, too, I think.

I don't think earlier containerization will be possible ITTL anymore. The ICC is set to be just as, if not more heavy-handed now, and with virtual nationalization as set forth in the Barkley Act, there is little in the way of incentive for cost cutting.