# Conceptual Route Map



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

This is an idea I've been thinking about for a while, after looking at lots of Amtrak and rail system maps. I wanted to simplify the national route map. I sketched this with MS Paint but eventually would like to use a drafting program to make it tidier.

I've included major cities and terminals only for now.

See any glaring mistakes? Comments, criticism, feedback, and suggestions welcome.


----------



## Phila 30th St (Dec 23, 2009)

Wow, I like it...very London Undergroundy. My only complaint...you left off my two stations! (MRC and DNC)...but I know why you did.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

Phila 30th St said:


> Wow, I like it...very London Undergroundy. My only complaint...you left off my two stations! (MRC and DNC)...but I know why you did.


Yeah, it would be cool to put in the details of every station. There are some oddities that are hard to draw in a map like this. Like, the SWC crosses over the SL before they enter L.A. The "self-transfer" from BBY to BON (or the fact that Boston has 3 stations). Also maybe should have put in GBB and Hammond. Thruway bus routes would be good too.

Here's one source of inspiration:


----------



## Ryan (Dec 23, 2009)

Great idea - I like the 1971 map a little better since it gives you context. Maybe just update that?


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Great idea - I like the 1971 map a little better since it gives you context. Maybe just update that?


I paint what I see.


----------



## chertling (Dec 23, 2009)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> See any glaring mistakes? Comments, criticism, feedback, and suggestions welcome.


Looks great! The only thing I can see is that you forgot the Maple Leaf.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

chertling said:


> SanJoaquinRider said:
> 
> 
> > See any glaring mistakes? Comments, criticism, feedback, and suggestions welcome.
> ...


Thank you! I will include it in the next version.


----------



## Railfan83 (Dec 23, 2009)

You also left off the Texas Eagle route. How am I suppose to take Amtrak? I don't want to drive 3 hours when I can drive 45 minutes as I can now.


----------



## ceblack (Dec 23, 2009)

I'm more of a map guy, but your rendering does make it easier to see at a glance the connections within the entire national system.

A few minor recommendations:

1. Looks like Dallas and Ft. Worth are swapped.

2. I'd add a few major "midroute" cities... Minneapolis and Houston are the two that I feel should be included.

3. Label the city next to Detroit and the one between Albany/Boston.

4. Don't give Amtrak credit for a New Orleans to Jacksonville route (even if they continue to show it on their national route map).

Very nice work!


----------



## rrdude (Dec 23, 2009)

chertling said:


> SanJoaquinRider said:
> 
> 
> > See any glaring mistakes? Comments, criticism, feedback, and suggestions welcome.
> ...


What's wrong with the system map in the TT now? Is THIS MAP too detailed for you? or not readily available on the web....?


----------



## kevin (Dec 23, 2009)




----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

Railfan83 said:


> You also left off the Texas Eagle route. How am I suppose to take Amtrak? I don't want to drive 3 hours when I can drive 45 minutes as I can now.


Uh, I've never taken it, but isn't the Texas Eagle the one that goes from Chicago thru St. Louis, Ft. Worth, Dallas, Austin and then San Antonio? Its crooked route has been turned into a straight line on this map.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 23, 2009)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> Railfan83 said:
> 
> 
> > You also left off the Texas Eagle route. How am I suppose to take Amtrak? I don't want to drive 3 hours when I can drive 45 minutes as I can now.
> ...


Yes it is, and yes it is on there. And someone else beat me to the Fort Worth/Dallas swap, and the HF does not go out of Dallas - it goes from Fort Worth.


----------



## deimos (Dec 23, 2009)

Nice map! I remember another forum member came up with a similar map. His version had route colors to help illustrate locations served by different trains.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

Updated version. Thank you for all the suggestions!

If I got the terminology right, I'm going for more of a topological than a metric map. The official Amtrak system map is metric: the routes are imposed on a scaled map of the U.S. and Canada. The idea here is, as was said, more of a "London Underground" style that is topologically correct but not metric, i.e. distances are not reflected accurately.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

deimos said:


> Nice map! I remember another forum member came up with a similar map. His version had route colors to help illustrate locations served by different trains.


I think the confusing thing about route colors is that too many Amtrak routes share the same track routes. It seems like a good idea for LD trains in the west, but then you try coloring the NEC, it turns into quite a rainbow.

It's interesting that in some cities like Boston and L.A., people refer to their subway routes by their color codes, but in other cities like NY they use letter codes, even when the maps are color coded. BART maps are color coded but we call the trains by their destination (i.e. "Richmond train").


----------



## kevin (Dec 23, 2009)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> Updated version. Thank you for all the suggestions!


But you still used Comic Sans. See below.


----------



## delvyrails (Dec 23, 2009)

It's instructive to compare the conceptual route map with Amtrak's first route map of 1971, almost four decades ago. How little it has changed! The route structure still looks like a broken wagon wheel. It's centered on Chicago with several spokes (one or two are missing) and a rim most of the way around the country.

It reflects the demography and politics of another era. The idea of saving passenger trains originated in Chicago, which partly explains the Chicago hub. The major traffics of those days were East Coast to Chicago and to the West Coast, plus East Coast to Florida. The circumferential route evidently was a concession to tourists and tour group operators, because it connects many tourist meccas and avoids dead-ends.

Today, population shifts and travel increases are evident; but mostly Amtrak has added little in the southeastern and south-central half of the country, mostly on state initiative. Many travelers still are expected to make time consuming and expensive detours via Chicago.

The maps' similarity is depressing for its minimal progress.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

kevin said:


> SanJoaquinRider said:
> 
> 
> > Updated version. Thank you for all the suggestions!
> ...



I wouldn't use Comic Sans unless it wasn't intended to be hidden from the public.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

I had to make all the little circles the same size. Except for Chicago, which is the big hub.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Dec 23, 2009)

Here is my 2006 version. I'll readily admit it is a bit dated by this point with the midwest service added since, among others.

http://www.monumentalcity.net/amschematic.pdf

It has a few geography and spelling errors as well. I think I have a slightly more refined version on the machine at work.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 23, 2009)

The Metropolitan said:


> Here is my 2006 version. I'll readily admit it is a bit dated by this point with the midwest service added since, among others.
> http://www.monumentalcity.net/amschematic.pdf
> 
> It has a few geography and spelling errors as well. I think I have a slightly more refined version on the machine at work.


Wow that is very cool. What tool did you use to draw it?


----------



## The Metropolitan (Dec 23, 2009)

I used Corel Draw 8 as I remember. I was kind of new to the concept and software, so the state boundaries are a bit rough, but there actually is a decent bit of inset information present with the time, such as "directional" stations (Board or alight only), connections, and stops skipped by some trains.

The commuter rail and transit info wasn't quite complete then, and is perhaps more dated now. I never did get ambitious enough to plunk baggage symbols at every place where accepted, but that would have been fitting.

Maybe I'll get bored one day and elect to tidy it up and update it, but its interesting nonetheless. I've also seen a schematic-ish map on a Wikipedia link, but I seem to recall it straying from the strict rules of verticals, horizontals, and 45 degree angles.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Dec 23, 2009)

Both maps are great! cartography isn't really my thing, but I like the simple lines showing routes.


----------



## rrdude (Dec 23, 2009)

While the QUALITY and CRAFTSMANSHIP is superb, it soooo reminds me of BART, which, is "OK" for a regional transit system.........

But I much prefer a more realistic vs. stylized map version. It may be a generational thing, or just a personal preference, not sure. But gimmie a map that "looks like a map" any day.............


----------



## deimos (Dec 24, 2009)

The Metropolitan said:


> Here is my 2006 version. I'll readily admit it is a bit dated by this point with the midwest service added since, among others.
> http://www.monumentalcity.net/amschematic.pdf
> 
> It has a few geography and spelling errors as well. I think I have a slightly more refined version on the machine at work.



This is the map I was referring to earlier. I like the functional "schematic" aspects of this type of presentation.

Happy holidays everyone!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 24, 2009)

I'd make the cities that originate several trains (Chicago, New Orleans, Miami, Seattle, Los Angeles, Emeryville, Sacrmento, etc) larger or a different colour, since they are the real "hubs" of the system.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 24, 2009)

I also think that certain cities are irrelevant- like having both Dallas and Fort Worth on it, Baltimore doesn't belong, I'd use SLO instead of Santa Barbara, since this is where the train actually originates. I'd move Oklahoma City closer to Kansas City to show where it will stand in relation to the likely extension of the Heartland Flyer into Texas Chief. Also, the connection point in North Carolina is Greensboro, not Winston-Salem which isn't even served by a train. And connect Portland to Spokane.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 24, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'd use SLO instead of Santa Barbara, since this is where the train actually originates.


Only two trains a day originate in SLO the remainder of the Surfliners originate in SBA (5). Otherwise Auburn, California, would have to be included since a Capitol Corridor train originates there.


----------



## rrdude (Dec 24, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I also think that certain cities are irrelevant- like having both Dallas and Fort Worth on it, Baltimore doesn't belong,......


Excuse me? And you wish to relegate the Charm City *off the map* why? :blink:


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 24, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I also think that certain cities are irrelevant- like having both Dallas and Fort Worth on it, Baltimore doesn't belong, I'd use SLO instead of Santa Barbara, since this is where the train actually originates. I'd move Oklahoma City closer to Kansas City to show where it will stand in relation to the likely extension of the Heartland Flyer into Texas Chief. Also, the connection point in North Carolina is Greensboro, not Winston-Salem which isn't even served by a train. And connect Portland to Spokane.


Picking the right cities to add is a challenge...a combination of city size, Amtrak hubs/terminals, balanced geographic representation, and in the case of places like Boston or SF bay area, picking one station to represent two or three.

Thanks for pointing out Greensboro. I moved OKC too. Also thanks for noticing that the Spokane-Portland route got deleted in the revisions!



rrdude said:


> While the QUALITY and CRAFTSMANSHIP is superb, it soooo reminds me of BART, which, is "OK" for a regional transit system.........
> But I much prefer a more realistic vs. stylized map version. It may be a generational thing, or just a personal preference, not sure. But gimmie a map that "looks like a map" any day.............


I think both type of maps serve a purpose. A realistic or metric map helps you figure out distances and specific locations. A stylized connectivity map or topological map gives you a quick reference to find connections from "here" to "there".

I'm highly fascinated by the rare detailed metric maps of systems like the NYC subway or BART. I like to see where the tracks really go.



The Metropolitan said:


> Maybe I'll get bored one day and elect to tidy it up and update it, but its interesting nonetheless. I've also seen a schematic-ish map on a Wikipedia link, but I seem to recall it straying from the strict rules of verticals, horizontals, and 45 degree angles.


It's interesting that we both came to the same design solution of representing the NEC as more or less a straight line that extends all the way to New Orleans. In my earlier sketches, I had the NEC extend in a straight line to Miami.

In another version I made a great semi-circle through Vancouver--SAC--BFD then LAX--San Antonio--NOL--JAX--DC--NYC--Albany--Montreal. The original vision was Chicago as the hub of a big half-wheel and spokes emanating out of Chicago.


----------



## Railfan83 (Dec 24, 2009)

Sorry I missed the TE route, I guess the straight line and nothing being labeled between St. Louis and Dallas/Ft. Worth threw me off. I went back and looked again and noticed that it was there.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 24, 2009)

Railfan83 said:


> Sorry I missed the TE route, I guess the straight line and nothing being labeled between St. Louis and Dallas/Ft. Worth threw me off. I went back and looked again and noticed that it was there.


That's ok, Texas is highly confusing to me  I've never had the pleasure of riding the TE. I am a west coast/east coast person, and don't spend much time in between except on Amtrak!

Now it looks as though I've moved Dallas too far away from Ft. Worth and Ft. Worth too close to Austin.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 24, 2009)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> Railfan83 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry I missed the TE route, I guess the straight line and nothing being labeled between St. Louis and Dallas/Ft. Worth threw me off. I went back and looked again and noticed that it was there.
> ...


Texas is highly confusing to Texans too! :blink: Folks in FTW wish Dallas was farther away and we here in Austin are proud to be so far from the Metro Plex which we consider Southern Oklahoma!! Good job, wish I could do all those wizard things with a computer but being ancient and having arhritis so bad it's a wonder I can even use the keyboard! :lol:

When you get a chance ride the Sunset/Eagle through Texas while you still can!


----------



## wrjensen (Dec 24, 2009)

I love the map.

Why is the Auto Train not shown? You cold show it as a Express like the NEC trains are.


----------



## JTB (Dec 30, 2009)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> Updated version. Thank you for all the suggestions!
> 
> If I got the terminology right, I'm going for more of a topological than a metric map. The official Amtrak system map is metric: the routes are imposed on a scaled map of the U.S. and Canada. The idea here is, as was said, more of a "London Underground" style that is topologically correct but not metric, i.e. distances are not reflected accurately.




Being a "map person" Kudos. However, the Crescent does not stop in Winston Salem NC. No Amtrak trains stop there. Greensboro or High Point are the closest to Winston Salem. But why is it listed at all?? Raleigh is a connection point (sort of)


----------



## TampAGS (Dec 30, 2009)

Cool map! I like non-traditional representations such as yours for their ease of use. Can you imagine if the London Underground used only geographically-accurate route maps? ("Mind the gap", indeed!) Though I get into maps of all kinds and if detail is desired, I still like the more conventional route-atlas-style.

 

Speaking of detail... this may be a more detailed approach than you wish to render, but my only sticking point is with your illustration of the routes in Florida. You have the _Silver Star _routing between Tampa and Miami through Orlando, which, though a convenient route approximation map-wise, isn't accurate.

 

Something like the models below would be closer to the technical truth (I hope you don't mind my sampling your diagram for my examples). 







Model *A* does break convention in that lines join in the absence of a point (if you had to add a point/station, Winter Haven would be it, but it is too small a station to include given the map's scale). 



Model *B* separates the routes for the _Star_ and _Meteor _south of Tampa and Orlando. Conceptually it works if you aren't concerned with representing the cities in between (and the routes do differ in that the _Star _stops in Okeechobee while the _Meteor _passes the station without stopping).

Anyway, that's my two cents. Thanks for sharing your work with us!


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Dec 30, 2009)

TampAGS said:


> Cool map! I like non-traditional representations such as yours for their ease of use. Can you imagine if the London Underground used only geographically-accurate route maps? ("Mind the gap", indeed!) Though I get into maps of all kinds and if detail is desired, I still like the more conventional route-atlas-style.
> 
> Speaking of detail... this may be a more detailed approach than you wish to render, but my only sticking point is with your illustration of the routes in Florida. You have the _Silver Star _routing between Tampa and Miami through Orlando, which, though a convenient route approximation map-wise, isn't accurate.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification! I will work it into the next version. I've never been on Amtrak in Florida.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 31, 2009)

delvyrails said:


> Today, population shifts and travel increases are evident; but mostly Amtrak has added little in the southeastern and south-central half of the country, mostly on state initiative. Many travelers still are expected to make time consuming and expensive detours via Chicago.
> The maps' similarity is depressing for its minimal progress.


Well, it also reflects both the historic and contemporary geographic patterms of rail infrastructure development in America ... something to which Amtrak, for a variety of reasons, is heavily bound.

Going back to the map itself, though ... I've always liked those schematic sorts of designs. And it's very much like the stylized maps that Amtrak used in its promotional material back in the 70s. IIRC, those schematic maps were also put on the bulkheads of refurbished food service cars of that era. I think you can see one in the film _Silver Streak._


----------



## rrdude (Dec 31, 2009)

Montanan said:


> delvyrails said:
> 
> 
> > Today, population shifts and travel increases are evident; but mostly Amtrak has added little in the southeastern and south-central half of the country, mostly on state initiative. Many travelers still are expected to make time consuming and expensive detours via Chicago.
> ...


You are correct Kimosabe, and I despised them then too.........................


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 31, 2009)

Keep in mind that Amtrak can only run what Congress allows them to run. If they don't have the money, they will cut the lowest performing trains that run through the middle of their system. Cutting the Desert Wind and Pioneer was not ideal, but cutting the SWC or CZ would have been worse. They had to cut something- it was a zero sum game.

That being said, I have heard rumors that Montana, Washington, and Idaho has discussed funding a revived North Coast Hiawatha, Idaho and Oregon have discussed a revived Pioneer, and I'd say that if the Pioneer and NCH came back, the equipment order needed would also bring back the Desert Wind. None of this is beyond the informal discussion stage, as far as I know.

Further along is extending the Heartland Flyer to Newton. I have heard that if a LD bi-level equipment order is placed, and that extension occurs, Amtrak intends to experiment with the possibility of running through coach and sleeper cars from the Flyer to the Southwest Chief. Since it is not intended to be funded, the through cars would have to be profitable. I'm confident the sleeper will be. It may end up only being a through sleeper.

Also keep in mind the modifications to the midwest trains.

Lastly, while this doesn't correspond to what you were mentioning, I have heard two other major changes. One, a restored "Broadway Limited" (perhaps a different name), is almost a guarantee, although it might follow the same route as the CL west of PGH. Two, a restored Silver Palm, with three distinct routes in Florida, (A, S, FEC).

So, and excuse me the liberty of butchering your map, 2020 oughtta look a bit like *THIS MAP!*

At least if all the reasonable rumors I have heard come true.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 31, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> So, and excuse me the liberty of butchering your map, 2020 oughtta look a bit like *THIS MAP!*
> At least if all the reasonable rumors I have heard come true.


That would be some kind of sweet.

It appears that you've swapped the colors for the NCH and the City of Miami.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 31, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That being said, I have heard rumors that Montana, Washington, and Idaho has discussed funding a revived North Coast Hiawatha, Idaho and Oregon have discussed a revived Pioneer, and I'd say that if the Pioneer and NCH came back, the equipment order needed would also bring back the Desert Wind. None of this is beyond the informal discussion stage, as far as I know.


Boy, it would be nice, but I just don't see it happening ... especially the NCH. It's certainly popular here in Montana to publicly express support for the train, but but I see absolutely no evidence of any substance behind those words, and I think the odds of this state writing a check range from slim to none. North Dakota has shown even less interest in the train, and there's not a chance in the world they would chip in. Same for Idaho, which is also very fiscally conservative, and would obviously be more interested in the Pioneer proposal. But the amount of money allegedly involved is just way too much, and it would go against the grain of too many of the local politicians.

But like I said, it would be nice. And that's definitely a pretty map.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 31, 2009)

Oops.


----------



## sunchaser (Dec 31, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Keep in mind that Amtrak can only run what Congress allows them to run. If they don't have the money, they will cut the lowest performing trains that run through the middle of their system. Cutting the Desert Wind and Pioneer was not ideal, but cutting the SWC or CZ would have been worse. They had to cut something- it was a zero sum game.
> That being said, I have heard rumors that Montana, Washington, and Idaho has discussed funding a revived North Coast Hiawatha, Idaho and Oregon have discussed a revived Pioneer, and I'd say that if the Pioneer and NCH came back, the equipment order needed would also bring back the Desert Wind. None of this is beyond the informal discussion stage, as far as I know.
> 
> Further along is extending the Heartland Flyer to Newton. I have heard that if a LD bi-level equipment order is placed, and that extension occurs, Amtrak intends to experiment with the possibility of running through coach and sleeper cars from the Flyer to the Southwest Chief. Since it is not intended to be funded, the through cars would have to be profitable. I'm confident the sleeper will be. It may end up only being a through sleeper.
> ...



But why do we have to wait until 2020? Can't we have it all- sooner? (Whine, whine!)


----------



## cirdan (May 5, 2011)

This thread is absolutely fascinating.

To get a basic grasp of a system's topology the simple map with straight lines and absolutely no non-essential information is ideal.

Does anybody have a historical map of Amtrak. I've been trying to do some reading on the general history but find it all a bit confusing.

Ideal would be one map with routes shown in three colors:

color A for routes that Amtrak operated from the onset and still runs today, realignemnts/diversions not affecting any major destinations can be considered as such unchanged routes.

color B for routes that Amtrak operated in the past but has abandoned

color C for routes that Amtrak has introduced (including diversions/realignemnts that affect major destinations)

This would help create a better impression of where the growth has been and where the retrenchment has been.


----------



## transit54 (May 5, 2011)

cirdan said:


> Does anybody have a historical map of Amtrak. I've been trying to do some reading on the general history but find it all a bit confusing.


This may be of interest to you:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10282/the-evolution-of-amtrak-1971-2011/


----------



## cirdan (May 5, 2011)

transit54 said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Does anybody have a historical map of Amtrak. I've been trying to do some reading on the general history but find it all a bit confusing.
> ...



thanks, much appreciated


----------



## henryj (May 5, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Keep in mind that Amtrak can only run what Congress allows them to run. If they don't have the money, they will cut the lowest performing trains that run through the middle of their system. Cutting the Desert Wind and Pioneer was not ideal, but cutting the SWC or CZ would have been worse. They had to cut something- it was a zero sum game.
> 
> That being said, I have heard rumors that Montana, Washington, and Idaho has discussed funding a revived North Coast Hiawatha, Idaho and Oregon have discussed a revived Pioneer, and I'd say that if the Pioneer and NCH came back, the equipment order needed would also bring back the Desert Wind. None of this is beyond the informal discussion stage, as far as I know.
> 
> ...


It's nice, but could you at least bring that "Texas Chief" down from Ft Worth to Houston and north from Newton to Denver. And you left poor Atlanta just sitting there isolated, if we are dreaming here then connect Chicago to Jacksonville vis Atlanta. Other than that I like it.


----------

