RAILROAD.NET

Drucifer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:51 pm That map needs an Amtrak overlay

Pardon the hand-drawn map

Drucifer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:51 pm

Try US traffic density map

[/quote]
Excellent traffic map. It makes a poor choice because it only show highway traffic and it also includes trucking traffic. It does not reflect "all" intercity passenger traffic.

Keep in mind that routes like the Chief and Builder get political support (which results in support for the entire system) precisely because they serve routes not covered by the Interstate system.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:55 pm

Drucifer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:51 pm That map needs an Amtrak overlay

Pardon the hand-drawn map

It came out great.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:06 pm Actually there never was a really good route from Philadelphia to Scranton; the best you could do was RDG-LV to Wilkes-Barre, then the Laurel Line, with not very frequent service. The only alternate I can think of was PRR to Manunka Chunk via Trenton, then DL&W, with a change at Stroudsburg, and that only once a day. For some reason that never was a strong corridor, even in the heyday of rail travel.
And you can't really blame SEPTA for the gap between Lansdale and Bethlehem; it's outside SEPTA's service area and when the county involved was asked to support continuance of the service they declined.

Service to Scranton or Lehigh Valley would have to come from NYP.

Why realistically would there not be both? Six million people live in Philadelphia, people go there.

WhartonAndNorthern wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:20 am Keep in mind that routes like the Chief and Builder get political support (which results in support for the entire system) precisely because they serve routes not covered by the Interstate system.

It's a weak argument.

The Builder runs parallel to US-10 in MN, and US-2 from North Dakota to Spokane... The Chief runs parallel to US-50 in Colorado and Kansas... Where exactly is there an Amtrak stop which isn't also served by a US plated highway?...

US highways are perhaps a step down from an interstate, but that's how networks work -- you have trunks and you have feeders...

bdawe wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:10 pm Why realistically would there not be both? Six million people live in Philadelphia, people go there.

I don’t think service to either from Philly is realistic or competitive with car transport due to the likely slow speeds especially between Allentown and Scranton. I am not against a gradual restoration on the Bethlehem branch to Lehigh Valley starting in Quakertown.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:48 pm

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:06 pm Actually there never was a really good route from Philadelphia to Scranton; the best you could do was RDG-LV to Wilkes-Barre, then the Laurel Line, with not very frequent service. The only alternate I can think of was PRR to Manunka Chunk via Trenton, then DL&W, with a change at Stroudsburg, and that only once a day. For some reason that never was a strong corridor, even in the heyday of rail travel.
And you can't really blame SEPTA for the gap between Lansdale and Bethlehem; it's outside SEPTA's service area and when the county involved was asked to support continuance of the service they declined.

Service to Scranton or Lehigh Valley would have to come from NYP.

Everyone - Further clarifying EC90's post: The former RDG Bethlehem Branch "gap" is the segment North
of Quakertown to Bethlehem (and Allentown) which was in Northampton and Lehigh Counties respectively.
The route between Lansdale and Quakertown owned by SEPTA is operated for freight service by the PNER
is in Montgomery and Bucks County - two of the five SEPTA member counties. I do agree that any new
service to Scranton-Wilkes Barre will likely operate from New York and Newark...MACTRAXX

I notice that Omaha-Salt Lake City-Portland and OMA-SLC-Los Angeles are marked as major traffic density routes. Those are some of those misleading corridors with very heavy freight traffic relative to passenger traffic; they definitely have some car traffic (particularly LAV-LAX and SLC-southeast Idaho) but I don’t think the full routes would be as successful as in the Union Pacific’s time.

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:42 am I notice that Omaha-Salt Lake City-Portland and OMA-SLC-Los Angeles are marked as major traffic density routes. Those are some of those misleading corridors with very heavy freight traffic relative to passenger traffic; they definitely have some car traffic (particularly LAV-LAX and SLC-southeast Idaho) but I don’t think the full routes would be as successful as in the Union Pacific’s time.

It would be interesting to see if there are any maps showing passenger service in the 1950s. There is not a lot of new track out there (actually a lot less track) than in the 1950s so it would be a good queue to what is viable in a fairly short order.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:26 am It would be interesting to see if there are any maps showing passenger service in the 1950s. There is not a lot of new track out there (actually a lot less track) than in the 1950s so it would be a good queue to what is viable in a fairly short order.

Some years back, NARP prooduced a series of historical maps, coded for frequency of service. Now that they’re RPA, those maps are paywalled (I let my membership lapse some years ago. If you’re a member, you can probably access them. If not, the google search “passenger map pre post Amtrak” will bring up images of the 62 and 67 networks, along with the original Amtrak network.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:48 pm

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:06 pm Actually there never was a really good route from Philadelphia to Scranton; the best you could do was RDG-LV to Wilkes-Barre, then the Laurel Line, with not very frequent service. The only alternate I can think of was PRR to Manunka Chunk via Trenton, then DL&W, with a change at Stroudsburg, and that only once a day. For some reason that never was a strong corridor, even in the heyday of rail travel.
And you can't really blame SEPTA for the gap between Lansdale and Bethlehem; it's outside SEPTA's service area and when the county involved was asked to support continuance of the service they declined.

Service to Scranton or Lehigh Valley would have to come from NYP.

Given the speeds on the NEC (and a nice straight line from Trenton almost to Newark) it might be faster at that. Just as soon as they finish restoring the Lackawanna cutoff ...

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:26 am

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:42 am I notice that Omaha-Salt Lake City-Portland and OMA-SLC-Los Angeles are marked as major traffic density routes. Those are some of those misleading corridors with very heavy freight traffic relative to passenger traffic; they definitely have some car traffic (particularly LAV-LAX and SLC-southeast Idaho) but I don’t think the full routes would be as successful as in the Union Pacific’s time.

It would be interesting to see if there are any maps showing passenger service in the 1950s. There is not a lot of new track out there (actually a lot less track) than in the 1950s so it would be a good queue to what is viable in a fairly short order.

There's one caveat: the difficulty and expense of discontinuing service back in ICC days meant that some passenger service was offered not because it was viable but because it was too hard to get rid of it.

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:25 am

WhartonAndNorthern wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:20 am Keep in mind that routes like the Chief and Builder get political support (which results in support for the entire system) precisely because they serve routes not covered by the Interstate system.

It's a weak argument.

The Builder runs parallel to US-10 in MN, and US-2 from North Dakota to Spokane... The Chief runs parallel to US-50 in Colorado and Kansas... Where exactly is there an Amtrak stop which isn't also served by a US plated highway?...

US highways are perhaps a step down from an interstate, but that's how networks work -- you have trunks and you have feeders...

Totally agree. If the trains really helped people who didn't otherwise have reasonable access to the national network, they would only be able to help those within 30-100 miles, because the people that cant' get from North Dakota or Montana to Denver also can't get to the station 100 miles away. For that argument to work you'd have to have a grid of passenger trains criss-crossing rural areas, and we clearly don't.

It's some NARP made up thing. I read their stuff occasionally and it's a bit off.