In my experience calculating the angles for different localities for eclipses is not as helpful as might be supposed. For one thing, to pin configurations down to a minute of time often seems artificial - I mentally allow an orb of time for eclipses, as well as phenomena like solar returns. This disposes of questions like whether the eclipse chart should be drawn for the conjunction of the lights in longitude, or the moment of maximum obscuration.

(It's not commonly realised that there is a strong notional element in some of the times so confidently listed in the ephemeris, as will become clear if you compare the times given for aspects of the major planets in different ephemerides. There is often no 'correct' time: it depends on which formulas the compiler prefers. So it is astronomical nonsense to erect charts for, say, the minute of a conjunction for different capital cities, because such conjunctions cannot be that nicely calculated.)

Rather than rely overmuch on the angles, I favour examining the charts for those entities - organisations, institutions, individuals - which seem pertinent to the inquiry. The eclipse configuration, or the eclipse point itself, may engage some radical chart. Of particular importance are those eclipse aspects which repeat a radical aspect.

Girolamo Cardano, Comment to the II book of Tetrabiblos, par. 26 (I know that Anglosaxons prefer Seven Segments because Lily quotes it, but that is just a juvenile work):

If it is necessary that the eclipse is seen, so its strength does not depend on the fact that both Lights are exactly on the same line, which is called ecliptic.......In fact Ptolemy judges the magnitude of an eclipse according the extension of the places interested and the intensity of the effects: but in solar eclipses, because of the distance of the aspect, often happens that the Sun is more obscured when the Moon is leaving the ecliptic, and it would be lesser if the Moon would be on the same line. So the strength of the eclipse is in the lacking of light, and not from the proximity of the Moon to the ecliptic, even if I don't deny that this distance too is important for the magnitude of the effect. margherita

MarkC wrote:
It does seem that a lot of traditional astrologers still look at solar eclipses even when they are not visible from a specific location. For example, I have read Steven Birchfield and Yuzuru here state they still give some consideration to eclipses in this way. Lunar eclipses are obviously visible all across the earth. However, I assume the traditional view would only consider them astrologically significant in a night chart with the Moon above the horizon and the Sun below.