Forum:Federal States/Freight Rail Network Proposal, round 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:58, 7 July 2024

Forums → Federal States → Federal States/Freight Rail Network Proposal, round 2

A year ago, we voted on an FSA Freight Rail plan. You can find details discussion under the discussion tab here. To summarize, a general plan comprised of existing and new large railroad companies would guide the railroad network, much like the FS Motorway scheme. Not enough people participated in the vote for it to be implemented. Speaking for myself, Mayor's sketch has been incredibly useful for planning out New Carnaby and Ruppacke. I spoke with the other coordinators, and we've decided to open the proposal up for discussion before being put up to a vote again. --Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

To start, are there any thoughts on the old proposal, and if anything should be changed? I know there's interest in tying in Deodeca. --Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking back on the previous discussion and voting results, we didn't reach a quorum and it looks like only three mappers east of the Asphale Mountains voted (Fluffr, Phrog, and ifgus), so I'm assuming if there were any concerns they were coming from the eastern stateowners. As such, I'm happy to submit a second proposal: generally speaking, everything west of the Asphale Mountains is unchanged, with three additional corridors identified (A from Huntington to the Alormen River; B from New Carnaby to Minneuka and the West Lakes; C from AR120-12 to the East Lakes). East of the Asphale Mountains, the eastern states would be able to organize their freight railroad system as they see fit, with three of the future eastern companies each being assigned to one of the three lettered corridors to cross over into the central and western FSA. This would allow the western states and Deodeca to move forward with a more solid framework while giving the eastern states more time and latitude to determine how they'd like to organize things along the eastern seaboard. (Depending on how things develop in the Northeast, an additional fourth trans-mountain corridor could be eastablished to serve northern Michisaukee and tie into the rest of the national network at Massodeya City.) --TheMayor (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 To start, are there any thoughts on the old proposal, and if anything should be changed? I know there's interest in tying in Deodeca.
 --[[User:Fluffr Nuttr|Fluffr Nuttr]] ([[User talk:Fluffr Nuttr|talk]]) 04:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
+:Looking back on the previous discussion and voting results, we didn't reach a quorum and it looks like only three mappers east of the Asphale Mountains voted (Fluffr, Phrog, and ifgus), so I'm assuming if there were any concerns they were coming from the eastern stateowners. As such, I'm happy to submit a second proposal: generally speaking, everything west of the Asphale Mountains is unchanged, with three additional corridors identified (A from Huntington to the Alormen River; B from New Carnaby to Minneuka and the West Lakes; C from AR120-12 to the East Lakes). East of the Asphale Mountains, the eastern states would be able to organize their freight railroad system as they see fit, with three of the future eastern companies each being assigned to one of the three lettered corridors to cross over into the central and western FSA. This would allow the western states and Deodeca to move forward with a more solid framework while giving the eastern states more time and latitude to determine how they'd like to organize things along the eastern seaboard. (Depending on how things develop in the Northeast, an additional fourth trans-mountain corridor could be eastablished to serve northern Michisaukee and tie into the rest of the national network at Massodeya City.) --[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 17:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
+[[File:20240707 Freight Rail Proposal v2.png|thumb|none]]