Forum:Federal States/Passenger Rail Network Proposal

Forums → Federal States → Federal States/Passenger Rail Network Proposal

Previously I sketched out some draft long-distance passenger rail corridors that the FSA could use, but after further refinement and discussions with numerous other stateowners, I wanted to formally submit a proposal.

Long-Distance Network

Keeping in mind that our project is American-inspired and long-distance passenger travel is predominantly done via air or car, this is a basic, bare-bones long-distance framework that provides every state with at least one train per day to ensure a cohesive, but not necessarily convenient, long-distance network of passenger trains. Some busier corridors would have more than one train a day, but generally this system is inspired by Amtrak's current network of long-distance "overnight" trains. Speeds would generally be capped at about 80mph (130km/h), but select areas could see speeds of up to 110mph (175km/h).

The long-distance network would officially consist of ten "named" trains, or 32 individual trains numbered between 1 and 99. This does not include the ArchRail high-speed network in the Southeast, which wouldn't be affected by this proposal (although would be considered as-is as part of the network to ensure all states are connected to the national network).

These trains would be funded at the national level and operated by the national passenger railroad company.

Regional Networks

Not included on the map, but included in the proposal, is a framework to allow for regional hubs for shorter-distance passenger rail routes. These routes would generally not be overnight trains, and would be more like commuter-style intercity service within an individual region. These routes would be capped at about six hours in duration, at the same lower-speed (80-110mph) constraints. These trains would be numbered in the 100-999 band, based on their regional "hub". I've added some potential hubs in the train listing above, but these would be organized and determined by the individual regions rather than at a national level. Regions would also have the option of creating their own passenger railroad companies to operate those trains, or they could choose to have the national passenger rail company operate them on their behalf. (The latter option is similar to how Amtrak currently operates state-supported service on non-long distance trains in the United States outside of the Northeast Corridor.)

High-Speed Routes

There is no national high-speed network of trains in the Federal States; however, there are two existing regional high-speed routes: ArchRail in the Southeast, and LakeLynx in the West Lakes. This proposal does not include any changes to those existing regional initiatives.

Company Name

We'd also need to create a company name for the national passenger railroad company. Feel free to add options to this list:

• FedeRail (Federal Railways)
• Fedstar (Federal States Rail)

Discussion

Interested in other thoughts and ideas on this topic. --TheMayor (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the map looks good overall. The one thing I would prefer is a rerouting of the Ardentic and Asperic between St. Joseph and Jundah. I would prefer it goes from St. Joseph to Swansonville to Colurona to Wahanta to Jundah. The section I am proposing a rerouting of would be minimally affected as The Explorer is already providing service. Additionally, the proposed reroute would serve a larger population. - Glauber (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion. I've updated the sketch accordingly; let me know if that makes sense with what you were thinking of. --TheMayor (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)