Forum talk:Federal States/Freight Rail Network Proposal

From OpenGeofiction
Filing cabinet icon.svg This discussion has been closed and archived.

This portion of the forum entry is archived, including the initial discussion and the official vote.

While our current procedures for organizing and planning freight railroads in the Federal States has been commonly accepted after we collectively voted on the structure several years ago, the freight network -- especially in regards to organized companies -- remains disjointed, and the "sponsor" structure of tasking particular mappers to try to organize national railroad lines and companies has been particularly challenging given varying levels of activity and regular turnover of stateowners. Additionally, as the project has matured, we are no longer in a "start-up" phase and have a stronger baseline to work from in regards to the overall geography of the nation. As such, I'm proposing that we officially codify the largest current railroads and, with a few logical planned expansions, create up to ten "canon" major railroads.

Structure

Most recent railroad company regions, last updated in December 2021.

According to the official list of railroads, we currently have seven railroads of Class B (serving two or more regions) or higher, briefly summarized as follows:

  • Compass and Western (C&W), organized by Zytik. Currently mapped from Warwick with various main lines heading west and northwest to the Alormen River.
  • Cordilleras Southern Railroad (CS), organized by Glauber and Geoc3ladus, connecting Riopoderos and Clamash to the Asperic Ocean at Wahanta.
  • GESF, a legacy railroad that predated the old rail structure and has various locations throughout the nation but largely concentrated in the Southeast.
  • Great Western & Asperic (GW&A), organized by Brunanter, which connects much of the northwestern FSA.
  • Lakes, Mennowa, and Northern (LM&N), organized by Alessa, which has many routes connecting the Heartland zone, the West Lakes, and up into Alormen.
  • Minnonigan Central Railroad (MCRR), organized by myself and a few mappers who unfortunately have left the project, with a main line connecting Lake City with Andreapolis and Port Massehanee.
  • Sauganash and Northern Railroad (S&N), another railroad I organized that connects Lake City with the Asperic Ocean at Wahanta.

I'm proposing that all seven of these railroads be "promoted" to a major status, along with three new companies that can be organized in the future to provided more connections to less-developed parts of the FSA (namely the Central, Massodeyas, Mid-Ardentic, and Northeastern regions). To keep things balanced, each company would still have some geographic restrictions as to where it can operate, with almost all states having access to two or more companies for their state. Instead of putting the onus on a mapper who would try to organize the entire company themselves, we would all agree to use this framework and these constraints in terms of what company operates where, and then from there each stateowner would be able to plan the routings and network within their own state as they so choose with coordination and cooperation of their neighbors, similar to how motorways get mapped. Note that this system would not preclude creating other regional companies that are currently considered Class C or D railroads; stateowners would still be free to create and manage those as they like.

As a reminder for mappers who are not familiar with American railroading: companies historically have been in strict competition with each other at a corridor level (so there may be several companies on several different alignments between two cities), but overall still work cooperatively to interchange freight between companies to provide service throughout the nation.

Geography

Draft map. Darker colors are currently mapped; lighter colors are planned or potential. Note that individual corridors are only loosely represented; precise alignments will differ. Other more minor spur routes will undoubtedly be added as well; this map is not intended to be comprehensive.

The following table details at a high level where each railroad would operate, including main line(s) and the number of overall regions served. To ensure competition, I assigned each railroad up to four "points": one point is assigned if the company serves all or a substantial portion of a region; a half-point if the company is restricted to a certain part of a region (no more than half of the region), and zero points if the company only briefly passes through a region (about 200 miles or less). As a reminder, this is just a draft, and can be modified.

Railroad Mark Proposed Main Line(s) NW HL WL AL MD CT NE MA SE Points
Compass & Western C&W Stanton-Warwick to Puerto Eloisa via Massodeya City
Stanton-Warwick to the East Lakes 		- - - Yes Yes Yes - - Yes 4.0
Cordilleras Southern Railroad CS Wahanta to Jericho via Swansonville
Esperanza to the West Lakes via Sasecpro 		Yes Half (outside of Mennowa) Yes - - - - - - 2.5
GESF GESF Stanton to Lake City via northern Makaska and Maquadena
Stanton to Massodeya City via Huntington 		- Negligible (far southern ZH and 52 only) Half (MN/IR/SN only) - Half (central/southern MC only) Yes - Yes Yes 4.0
Great Western & Asperic GW&A Jundah-Stuart to Andreapolis via Dennison
Minneuka to Los Reyes via Dennison 		Yes Yes - Yes - - - - - 3.0
Lakes, Mennowa and Northern LM&N Ohunkagan to Port Massahanee via Minneuka
Meehelsa (Deodeca) to San Pascual via Des Nonnes
Minneuka to Fayette (Deodeca) via Barstone-Nenova 		- Yes Yes Yes - Half (East Lakes and MK only) - - - 3.5
Minnonigan Central Railroad MCRR Lake City to Los Reyes via Barstone-Nenova
Lake City to Port Massahanee via Barstone-Nenova 		Half (Inland only) Yes Yes Yes - - - - - 3.5
Sauganash and Northern Railroad S&N Lake City to Esperanza via Sodana Half (west coast only) - Yes - - - - - - 1.5
[future railroad 1] TBD 1 Bascalon Bay (Deodeca) to Orterrado via Waltmore
Mayport to East Lakes via Newport
Waltmore to Thunderfield via Huntington 		- - - - - Yes Yes Yes Yes 4.0
[future railroad 2] TBD 2 Stanton to Jericho via Huntington
Thunderfield to Minneuka via Huntington 		- Negligible (Jericho only) - - Yes Negligible (Reeseport-Minneuka only) Yes Yes Half (North of Stanton only) 3.5
[future railroad 3] TBD 3 Sandeval (Randalia) to the East Lakes via Caldwell City
Port Massahanee to Montagne Polonaise (Astrasian Confederacy) via Massodeya City 		- Negligible (Minneuka only) - Yes Yes Yes - - - 3.0

Discussion

To view the previous discussion, important clarifications, or how changes were made to the original proposal, click "expand" at right.

Overall Plan and Structure

Interested in everyone's thoughts. --TheMayor (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely like the sketch. IMO we should treat this as a continuation of the current structure, just replacing official chairpersons with a loose/evolving masterplan and some level of coordinator involvement to make up for less activity. Mainly this means mappers could still work on railroads in vacant states given coordinator permission, with the understanding that future applicants can switch things up. Some level of organic collaboration is kept that way, and those invested can continue their work.
For my work in New Carnaby, I had been brainstorming for a larger railroad company that kind of fits with Future Railroad 1. The main corridors would have been one along the Carnaby and Rosiere rivers to Horicon and one following the Sebenebsuc through Chesnuts and Meyersburg. I figure I could just add that on to your proposed company.
I do have a few ideas for renaming GESF, too:
  • Federal Cradle and Lakes (FC&L RR)
  • Federal Cradle and Saguanash (FC&S)
  • Federal Cradle and Frontier (FC&F)
"Federal Cradle" refers to the southeast being the birthplace of the colonies (Huntington capping it off). [Note: relocated to new section to collect additional possible names. --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)] And, random idea, but if anyone actually wanted a class AA railroad, I could see an extension of the Michisaukee section to Alormen and the northwest. --Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The point is that this plan would indeed replace the existing structure. With a national plan in place there would be no need for individuals or coordinators to try to oversee individual companies, since their “jurisdictions” are already pre-planned and approved. Likewise, there would be no need to allow mapping in vacant states, since the corridors would already be planned out and ready for a future mapper to map themselves, similar to the core routes of the motorway network. Finally, there would also be no need for any Class AA freight railroads, as the entire point is to balance the “strength” of the companies to provide competition throughout the country and ensure no single company becomes dominant. —TheMayor (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I can get behind this for the most part. I do have a couple of questions, as someone who was actively working on getting LM&N to Class-AA status (had the three coordinators, working with users to plot routes, etc.). In some ways, this puts a stop to what I was doing. Regardless, here are my questions:

  1. Does this map preclude any expansion of these lines if logical and within the same region? For example, you honed in on some of the lines I was already pursuing. Another one was from New Harmony southward to newly independent Astrasia. That would be solely within an extant region and in close proximity to the other north–south line in the region (not sprawling, in other words).
  2. Relatedly, are there going to be forced divestments? LM&N would be forced to divest some of its routes in Mennowa and the region if this goes through, and the map is the limiting factor. There are a couple lines I'd happily divest but a couple I'm not so sure I would want to.
  3. Finally, I don't see as much long-range corridor overlap as I would in the US. Surely a rail-happy FSA that it portends itself to be would have more overlap. There are places where I could see these seven companies each expanding slightly to ensure more complete connections; or, are we going with a more nationalized oversight with separate companies but forced interoperability as if a single network?

Thanks for putting this together. — Alessa (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Good questions. My thoughts:
  1. Within a currently-served region there would be no limitations as long as the applicable stateowner(s) agree on it. For instance, if it’d make sense for LM&N to go out to Randalia via Alormen, there’d be nothing stopping the Alormen mappers from building that link. What’s shown on the map is only core corridors, and it still may not be all-inclusive. However, that’d be up to the regions and the stateowners to decide logical spur routes throughout the region.
  2. Nothing that’s currently mapped would be forced to change. However, as you mention in your third point, an American-style system has lots of redundancies and competition, so there may be new parallel lines you’d want to add from different companies. However, like the motorways, the intrastate alignments would be entirely up to the applicable stateowner to determine.
  3. The map would get pretty messy if all the logical competitive corridors were fully identified, but you are correct, multiple companies could serve the same corridor without issue. This could be in the form of complicated densely-packed parallel lines (such as the real-world northwestern Indiana), or mappers may want to employ “union” or “terminal” railroads where two or more freight companies share the same stretch of track using a shell company of sorts that’s jointly owned by the applicable railroad companies. That would be up to the individual stateowners, but if there are some glaring omissions that wouldn’t break the four-point cap in the table above, please add them. —TheMayor (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I apologize for the delay in replying. I admit that it would be a little weird "giving up" something I've worked hard on, but it makes sense to nationalize this like the highways. So, I am easily able to put my ego aside on that. I will just note that I fear there isn't going to be enough oversight to ensure that they do work out long term. As you mention, these corridors are necessarily not all-inclusive. If regional coordinators are able to provide that oversight to ensure that all of these companies maintain the necessary connections with reasonable routings. I suppose I should build a page+tool for the railroad companies to appear on the wiki accordingly. We have issues with motorways not being routed logically, and rail is something that tends to get awkwardly retrofitted later with most mappers. Maybe I'm just overthinking it. — Alessa (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Map of railroad routes through Iroquesia

I should let you know Mayor, that Iroquesia doesn't have the GESF running through, as of yet. I don't think it's connection was there when I picked up the state, and I've not added it in since picking it up. Is the route map you posted an older version? I wouldn't oppose to adding a GESF route through, but it appears that the only mapping for the company is in the Southeast if your map is up to date, so I'd want a more solid concensus on exactly where all the GESF routes would go.

What is missing is the Wallawaukee, Sierra & Western Railroad which I do have mapped passing through the state, though I don't know if that is a Class B or not. I've inset the map I've created for my own reference. -Aces California (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The initial plan for GESF was to come as far west as Lake City which is why I marked it as such on the map above. However, that was a decision that was discussed quite awhile before you started mapping in Iroquesia and the GESF plan as a whole atrophied which is probably why this is the first you’ve heard of it. As I mentioned in my response to Alessa though, if we collectively agree on the larger framework, like motorway routes where GESF goes within your state would be entirely up to you as long as it still makes the applicable east-west connections. Unlike motorways, however, multiple companies can use the same general corridor, so the GESF route could peacefully coexist with the parallel LM&N Lake City-Pike-Nordseehaven corridor.
WS&W is a regional Class C railroad (doesn’t leave the West Lakes) that would be unaffected by this plan. To reiterate an earlier point, little to no existing mapping would need to be changed or eliminated. —TheMayor (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks for clearing up for me Mayor, yeah I'd be fully supportive of sorting out a collective agreement on the GESF. Though the Lake City-Pike-Nordseehaven corridor might not be the best routing for the railroad. I'd say only Finch Hill would be important enough for through traffic on the railroad, but that is something that can be discussed more when talk about GESF opens more. -Aces California (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It's obviously out of my hands now since I no longer have any ownership in the region, but will note that the original intent behind Wallawaukee, Sierra, and Western was for it to reach, well, Sierra. Hence "Sierra and Western", which doesn't really make much sense if it doesn't reach Sierra in some form (but it probably would work to just share tracks with Cordilleras Southern or something else into Sierra today, or to have lost trackage to a buyout of some sort). Back when I had owned Seneppi Brunanter and I had been in talks about making it a class B- the name changed to that due to those discussions (was originally something like Wallawaukee and Seneppi Western when it was just a Lakes railway) but it never fully came to fruition partially due to ownership questions of areas/states in between at the time. --Ernestpkirby (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a good plan, only thing that is relevant to my area the rail segment down from Lola into Riopoderos was planned a while back to be part of CS (cordilleras southern), doesnt mean other rail cant share the same route like MCR or WS&W. Brunanter (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I’ll include that next time I update the sketch map. —TheMayor (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Voting

Initiative 1: National Freight Rail Network

The map included above summarizes the principal national freight rail network and its distribution across seven well-established railroads and three future railroads. These companies will be elevated to major status, akin to Class AA in the current network. Class AA will otherwise be abolished, but no changes will happen to other railroads of classes A–D. The map does not preclude regional initiatives of additional lines within these ten railroads, meaning that individual state owners may expand a company's reach if it is already strongly within their region. This proposal requires no changes to the existing mapping of any freight company other than codifying their ultimate expansion. Any principal railroad coordinator that does not approve of the plan will have their railroad excluded from this new plan and subject to the existing Class A and Class B restrictions (no more Class AA railroads will be created); the proposed alignments for that railroad will be reallocated to other major companies.

Please choose one (1) option below.

Yes, I approve the adoption of the national freight rail network

  1. Glauber (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. TheMayor (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. — Alessa (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. Davieerr (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  5. ItsTybear (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. wangi (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  7. Leowezy (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  8. ThePhrogianOverlord (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  9. Infinatious (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  10. ~ Canada LaVearn (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  11. Ifgus (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  12. Ruadh (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  13. Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not approve the national freight rail network

  1. Placeholder. If you are the first voter, please replace the text after the hashtag with four tildes (your signature) to remove the placeholder.

Initiative 2: Naming the national freight rail network

Optional: This portion of the forum is not an official vote but rather an opportunity for users to submit of names for future voting. Users can offer suggestions to rename GESF and/or options for the three new eastern railroads if the freight rail proposal passes. Final voting will take place on the February 2024 omnibus ballot.

GESF Renaming

Previous discussions have suggested that GESF is too similar to the real-world BNSF Railway. List potential alternate names below. --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Federal Cradle and Lakes (FC&L RR)
  • Federal Cradle and Saguanash (FC&S)
  • Federal Cradle and Frontier (FC&F)

"Federal Cradle" refers to the southeast being the birthplace of the colonies (Huntington capping it off). --Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Colony Industrial (COIN) ItsTybear (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Stanton, Waltmore & Western (SW&W) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Stanton, Capital & Massodeya (SC&M) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Carnaby, Alormen & Asperic (CA&A) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Stanton Central Railway (SCR) --ThePhrogianOverlord (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

TBD 1

TBD 2

  • Alormen, Massodeya, & Huntington (AM&H) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Massodeya & Alormen (M&A) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Stanton, Massodeya, & Northern (SM&N) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

TBD 3

  • Federal Central Railroad (FCRR) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Astrasian Alormen Railroad (AARR) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Makaska, Massodeya, & Eastern (MM&E) --TheMayor (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.opengeofiction.net/index.php?title=Forum_talk:Federal_States/Freight_Rail_Network_Proposal&oldid=18942"