|
Hedera Helix posted:After careful consideration, the team from the Great Something Something has found a way to connect all of the disparate lines into Hartshire, allow trains to move both through and around the city center, and do so with a minimum number of condemnations. The trick is to draw most of the traffic through the as-of-yet undeveloped parts of the city: Anyway, I have to say that I like this plan. It does connect all the tracks. Things that I noticed from all of the plans: - No allowance for stockyards. Freight and Passenger traffic appears to be going to the same station, which isn't always the best scenario. We could always have a freight stockyard in the area to the north which freight trains can be diverted to; this will extend the life of our GCS - No tram expansion. As part of our rail expansion, we could have tram lines cross dual purpose rail bridges and expand service across the river. This could be a big help in convincing the public to support our plans - Single tracked bridges. Maybe this is just that we don't have granularity, but I'm concerned that train bridges will end up becoming bottlenecks. I'm hoping that at least one of the rivers across the BFR will be double-tracked. - Adding rail lines to industry within the city. If you look at a lot of cities, you'll see old rail lines in lots of random places. We could better serve the city by adding lines to areas of industry; why bother sending your freight on a teamster's cart when you can just have the railway pull up to your factory door? I'm hoping that the appropriate dual/multi-tracking will be hand-waved into existence from the general plans.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
 Choices, choices... Volmarias posted:Anyway, I have to say that I like this plan. It does connect all the tracks. Yeah, me too. I cleaned it up a little bit in the above picture (and forgot a connector  ) but it's simple and straightforward.quote:Things that I noticed from all of the plans: I was looking at it from a macro level, as were others I think. We could go on and on about the details but I think those are for Chichlidae to decide on and fill in. Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Can we improve the road bypassing Hartshire into a dual carriageway with a lush 30' -40' median in the middle. You'll thank me later. Plus it will make a great avenue for the gaudy "new money" Victorian homes later. I am also endorsing helix's idea. Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
If you were to add the western connector four others had to that plan it'd look ace I think. Keeping the existing stations and linking all of the lines together seems to work out well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
It needs to have random missing direct movements to be period-accurate.  At least one between lines movement should require backing all the way into a station and then coming out of it instead of taking a simple set of switches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It needs to have random missing direct movements to be period-accurate. The station on the west bank of the smaller river can't get to Chesterford without backing out towards Oliver. I think it's perfect!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It needs to have random missing direct movements to be period-accurate. Nah we can all be anachronistic to the max here, just watch how these carefully laid out plans will create massive 'wrong side of the track' slums later. Add this tram yo: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:The station on the west bank of the smaller river can't get to Chesterford without backing out towards Oliver. I think it's perfect! Yes but the line it's on and get directly across if it skips that station so that doesn't really fit. I propose this instead!  There, a nice big missing movement that surely will not be rectified until a century later!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Yes but the line it's on and get directly across if it skips that station so that doesn't really fit. Ah, I see what you're saying. What would be the "in period" justification for missing a link like that? Competing companies not wanting to cooperate? Landowners not wanting to sell to the railroad? Sheer stupidity and inability to read a map?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
 (Rough draft) Repeating my suggestion of an industrial yard by the lake. Complete the Y with a single line allowing direct goods line access from west to the new yard, avoiding them having to go through the central station. Kill the build up area inside the Y and build a proper switching yard for engine and passenger stock maintenance. I would also suggest simplifying the track from the mainline into the central station to remove sidings that won't be needed with the new central yard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Nah we can all be anachronistic to the max here, just watch how these carefully laid out plans will create massive 'wrong side of the track' slums later. This. nielsm posted:
Also this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Ah, I see what you're saying. What would be the "in period" justification for missing a link like that? Competing companies not wanting to cooperate? Landowners not wanting to sell to the railroad? Sheer stupidity and inability to read a map? Generally a combination of landowners wanting a higher buyout price than the railroads are willing to pay, plus neither involved railroad being all that willing to put up the money for something that might benefit other railroads more than them. You see missed connections like that fairly frequently across America at this time period And in the short term the railroad guys don't see a pressing need for it and assume they'll be able to wait it out and buy up the land later for the connection, which may or may not ever happen!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Considering the projected 7/8-fold increase in total population in the next 150 years combined with the ever increasing average dwelling space per capita, Nutmeg's most respected scientists and engineers have published their vision on the spread of population in the new millennium:
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Edit:nm
Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Koesj posted:If you were to add the western connector four others had to that plan it'd look ace I think. Keeping the existing stations and linking all of the lines together seems to work out well. This is probably my favourite as it is both parsimonious and links everything up. We've only been talking about railroads so far though and we need to consider other cross river connections. How about adding these bridges:  Would the one near the Opiantic line terminal impede shipping? Using the new bridges to extend the tram lines across the river would also be a sound idea imo. [e] Actually, the more I look at it the more I think the central bridge would be better of on the other side of the rail bridge. [re-edit]Amended:  You can then expand the tram on the other side as needed. Also, removed the West bridge since the tram one also accommodates carts, pedestrians etc correct? If viable we could also try to extend the tram over the existing northeast bridge beyond its current terminus. [e] fixed mistakes... Munin fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Munin posted:Also, removed the East bridge since the tram one also accommodates cars correct? It's currently 1860-1870. Automobiles don't exist yet so you're dealing with horse carriages which are generally narrower than cars end up being. Many bridges will probably end up needing to be replaced in future decades when automobiles and motorized trucks and buses become popular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
This is so much more fascinating than anything I remember doing in history class, and would surely have resulted in better long-term retention. Is there anyone in this thread who is an educator who could comment on how well this project might work in a modern American high school? Clearly the instructor would need to know a good deal about history/transportation/economics, and the students would need to have some way of collaborating after the initial FYGM period of roads/canals/rails, but for an honors/AP class in the internet age I don't see either of those being insurmountable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
As our great cities expand I believe we should follow the example of Ildefons Cerdà's work in Barcelona and plan a massive grid with strict form-based sunlight and ventilation laws lest our cities fall into disease ridden slums! Proper sunlight and air access is the key to physical health as we know, and a strict logical grid is the planning of the future!  His recent visionary work in Barcelona is surely an example for all modern cities to follow. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It's currently 1860-1870. Automobiles don't exist yet so you're dealing with horse carriages which are generally narrower than cars end up being. Many bridges will probably end up needing to be replaced in future decades when automobiles and motorized trucks and buses become popular. oops, said cars and meant general traffic... Something I also just thought of. What's that the top of the railheads we want to set up our through line and central station on? It might be a bit difficult to convince an industrial Baron to move his factory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
nielsm posted:
Oh crap, are we supposed to be putting in double/triple/quadruple tracks and railyards, instead of a general "new line(s) go here" marking? Um, assume that my map contains no single tracking at all, and places railyards in the undeveloped areas of north central Hartshire. If we're voting for other peoples' plans, then I vote for nielsm's plan. And for broadening Ring Street and putting trees in the median. Cichlidae, are we supposed to be putting in tram lines as well? Or, rather, can we?  Baronjutter posted:As our great cities expand I believe we should follow the example of Ildefons Cerdà's work in Barcelona and plan a massive grid with strict form-based sunlight and ventilation laws lest our cities fall into disease ridden slums! Proper sunlight and air access is the key to physical health as we know, and a strict logical grid is the planning of the future! Haussmann's plan for Paris is a better model, since it applies to districts that already exist.
Hedera Helix fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
 I had a try at this, too. It's a little cut off on the southern and eastern edges, but whatever, you get the idea. Pretty similar to existing ideas, but with an extra leg in the southwest. And I actually drew in the tram line 
ZombieApostate fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Koesj posted:If you were to add the western connector four others had to that plan it'd look ace I think. Keeping the existing stations and linking all of the lines together seems to work out well. It's also at the junction of (what should be) the two major tram lines. Extend the shoreline one to go further up the coast and split the northern loop into two N-S tram lines that terminate in the burbs. Build tram lines further up and sell tramside property to finance the extension 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:It's also at the junction of (what should be) the two major tram lines. Extend the shoreline one to go further up the coast and split the northern loop into two N-S tram lines that terminate in the burbs. Build tram lines further up and sell tramside property to finance the extension I also want us to build out a us to build out a wonderful public transport system. Then we can all go "gah" as it all gets torn down when cars make an appearance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Munin posted:I also want us to build out a us to build out a wonderful public transport system. Let's drain the old canal, put an electrified train in it, and build an avenue above it. They would never demolish that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Being roughly central in the state, it's likely that Hartshire will become a "centre of the universe" for freight, with tonnes of possible journeys passing through it yet not stopping. Therefore, as well as unifying the system inside the city, it's important we provide as much diversionary capacity just outside the city as possible. Most existing designs seem to do a pretty good job of this on the eastern side - my design adds a western diversionary route through East Hartshire (bringing it its first railway line thus potentially allowing passenger services too) along with a south-to-east chord (avoiding the need for reversing movements for freight via Farmingham and Meridian or Meridian and Winton) and finally two options for a southern route over the river - one when it's quite wide, one when it's quite narrow. I notice I've sort of just been beaten to the northerly one though. I'm interested in people's opinions as to which is better - I'm not sure the bridge required for the northerly one is cost-effective and the southerly route is probably more direct for most journeys likely to use it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Let's drain the old canal, put an electrified train in it, and build an avenue above it. They would never demolish that! Rochester's Subway was rather poorly located to serve transit needs, which is why the service ended. It is similar to why the Cincinnati Subway was never finished and opened. Old canal beds, while a convenient source of right of way for putting transit in, often end up being poor routes for passenger demand. If I remember right the Newark City Subway ended up being the only canal bed to subway conversion that lasted not just more than 30 years, but is in fact still running.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Either way, you guys are creating some fantastic interstate cooridors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Rochester's Subway was rather poorly located to serve transit needs, which is why the service ended. It is similar to why the Cincinnati Subway was never finished and opened. And which I ride every day to work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Aren't there going to be some problems with all the level rail crossings downtown?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Aren't there going to be some problems with all the level rail crossings downtown? Historically this was "solved" by railroads hiring guards to sit around crossings, and sometimes by them having a dude on horseback riding in front of the train telling people to get out of the way. There were tons of accidents but noone really cared, and these railways generally didn't start to get elevated or buried in the city centers until the 1900-1920 timeframe. These riders would even be on the city streets up until the 1940s, like this dude next to the NYC High Line, which was built to replace the surface level west side line the train is running on:  And in the 1930s: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Nice boxcab dude 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Rochester's Subway was rather poorly located to serve transit needs, which is why the service ended. It is similar to why the Cincinnati Subway was never finished and opened. Earlier in the thread (at least I think it was this thread) someone posted pictures of some unusually wide roads and asked why they were so wide. People then dug up some historic photos of the tramway that ran through it and mentioned how extensive the network used to be until it all got ripped out. As an aside, looking at the general map it looks like Opiantic/Boltic could turn into a really messy conurbation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Being roughly central in the state, it's likely that Hartshire will become a "centre of the universe" for freight, with tonnes of possible journeys passing through it yet not stopping. Therefore, as well as unifying the system inside the city, it's important we provide as much diversionary capacity just outside the city as possible. Regardless of which plan we end up going with, we should probably implement this as well. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive, that is, in which case we can surely wait another decade, right? Install Gentoo posted:Rochester's Subway was rather poorly located to serve transit needs, which is why the service ended. It is similar to why the Cincinnati Subway was never finished and opened. Point taken. Actually, making a canal-subway in Hartshire would be an awful idea, since the canal has only a tiny portion within city limits, and is off to the side instead of being centrally located.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend posted:Either way, you guys are creating some fantastic interstate cooridors.  Have been finding out I know gently caress all about pre 1930s transport plans during these last couple of pages, esp. wrt North America. Embarrassing
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
I know this fellow that has 10,000 starlings ready for importation to beautify our new parks. Let us promenade to the birdsong heard by Shakespeare! Who's with me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Koesj posted:
What you have to remember is that with the exception of World War I and passenger service, there has always been private ownership of railroads in the US. Of note, particularly to this situation, was the creation of Belt & Terminal railroads by competeing railways in the same city to facilitate switching operations. I hate to sperg out about this but I would hold off building rail belts until the next decade for realism sake and to simulate this kind of "cooperative" railroad forming. Speaking of railroads, after a somewhat profitable but horribly mismanaged existence (including building an extravagant station in Opiantic which promptly burnt down) the OVER has sold at a significant loss to the Cove State Railway out of Salvation in hopes of buying more Nutmeg railroads to form a single line from Salvation to New Cork via the Nutmeg Coast. They convert to standard gauge and rename themselves the New Cork, New Sanctum, and Salvation Railroad to reflect their intentions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Here's my idea: I think the one movement we can definitely ignore is the SW-NW lines (Oliver and Chenchester) as every other city can connect to Mutnap by going through Boltic, so there would be very little traffic wanting to make that movement. I also moved the E-W connector to the north side of the switching yards because there will be trains sitting on those sidings, so at-grade crossings would not work. Sure, we could move the yards like someone suggested, but that would be expensive and not fit with the self-centered business practices. Just for shits and grins, I added a tram line to East Hartshire (which will travel on the same bridges as the trains, just widened a bit) and another loop up to the northern waterfront neighborhood to promote orderly expansion. 
Bow TIE Fighter fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Something I've been wondering, isn't it problematic to have a level crossing between regular heavy rail and a road with tram tracks in it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Considering the projected 7/8-fold increase in total population in the next 150 years combined with the ever increasing average dwelling space per capita, Nutmeg's most respected scientists and engineers have published their vision on the spread of population in the new millennium: My friend, it is clear that, by that time, we shall build vertically! Cities reaching to the Heavens are the future of our people. Grundulum posted:This is so much more fascinating than anything I remember doing in history class, and would surely have resulted in better long-term retention. In the hands of a motivated instructor, it could be an incredible lesson. Do one or two decades per period, maybe have different classes compete with one another... Baronjutter posted:Proper sunlight and air access is the key to physical health as we know, and a strict logical grid is the planning of the future! As you can see, Hartshire's newest districts are already laid out in a rectilinear fashion. The City will likely install a unified sewerage system once this dreadful war is over; Science has shown that unpleasant smells are the source of disease, after all. Jonnty posted:Being roughly central in the state, it's likely that Hartshire will become a "centre of the universe" for freight, with tonnes of possible journeys passing through it yet not stopping. Therefore, as well as unifying the system inside the city, it's important we provide as much diversionary capacity just outside the city as possible. And who is going to pay for all that? Three new railroad bridges across the Fukov when we can barely maintain one as is? Better to fill our old canals with gold than cover the land in redundant railways! Mandalay posted:Aren't there going to be some problems with all the level rail crossings downtown? Any man too ignorant to get out of the way of an oncoming train does not deserve an ounce of our protection. Are we to spend countless thousands on bridges for invalids, when our brave men are dying every day on the front lines for want of boots and chloroform? Dick Trauma posted:I know this fellow that has 10,000 starlings ready for importation to beautify our new parks. Let us promenade to the birdsong heard by Shakespeare! Who's with me? Haha, nice reference, but you're a decade early! nielsm posted:Something I've been wondering, isn't it problematic to have a level crossing between regular heavy rail and a road with tram tracks in it? Not yet, but in due time, it is certain to cause some issues. To all you city planners: I'm glad to see so many great designs! This time tomorrow, I'll announce the new layout and provide the next city to fix. Keep churning away toward consensus!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
nielsm posted:Something I've been wondering, isn't it problematic to have a level crossing between regular heavy rail and a road with tram tracks in it? In this era it is done all the time. Sure there's plenty of accidents and damage and even fatalities but that's not considered important. If I remember right, by 1880 there were some places in Chicago where horse drawn trolley car tracks, cablecar tracks (it didn't used to be only San Francisco with them!) and steam-powered heavy freight rail tracks would all cross each other at grade! And this was considered ok and "safe enough". Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 23:25
|
|