|
Volmarias posted:You mentioned that we can't create a railroad bridge across the BFR here? Yeah, at least not until 1870. Road bridges are ok, but train loads are something we haven't quite learned how to deal with yet.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
 Here's my idea: The eastern side of town seems to have a competent station already so we should focus on bringing it together there. The western end of town is a little more difficult, but I'd bring the two stations together just outside of town and use the park space as a impromptu entrance. I also marked an area where we should go ahead and purchase land and prepare for eventual rail bridges. It's only a matter of time before we can bring traffic over the river and we should be ready!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Cichildae, would Gale University be too offended if we were to use them as a hub for a modern, clean, non-horse-crap-or-coal-smoke-emitting cable tram system? Students need to get around the city too, after all.Opals25 posted:
Um... your western station borders a cemetery, and open fields on three sides. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Cichildae, would Gale University be too offended if we were to use them as a hub for a modern, clean, non-horse-crap-or-coal-smoke-emitting cable tram system? Students need to get around the city too, after all. Oh my! I forgot that green meant cemetery! Well, lets just make it a park instead! Can't have no dead bums cramping our progress!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Okay that's a lovely one. Just connect all rail lines outside the city limits via and keep the stations where they are 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
 Let's not get too ambitious seeing as we can't have bridges yet. I connected my lines and the Waterbridge line into one station, and created a new station on the outskirts of town for the Oliver and New Dublin lines. All of the old station tracks can be kept for industrial usage. Maybe put in some docks on the southwest corner? I also reserved space on the northeast side of town for the Big Fukov Freight Yard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Cichildae, would Gale University be too offended if we were to use them as a hub for a modern, clean, non-horse-crap-or-coal-smoke-emitting cable tram system? Students need to get around the city too, after all. I'm betting they'd love that. Once the war is over, Gale is planning on building a coliseum for its budding sports programs. Tram access would be a definite plus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
I take it the little non roaded grey area in the southeast is the industrial area that needs better connections?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Munin posted:I take it the little non roaded grey area in the southeast is the industrial area that needs better connections? Yup! They built up around the tracks, and ship their workers in from the City by train. No road access to speak of!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
 a big fukov railyard on the north side of the city. A station for the west bank of the river. New parks and tram lines. Turn the old central station into a new through station. Add a rail bypass route. Reserve a suitable crossing for a bridge. Added potential development. E: added new roads and a bridge/tram to that area in the southeast. We have metal, and steam power. When can we build a steam powered lift bridge? will_colorado fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:
A reliable one that won't constantly break down in a position hazardous to shipping, and can carry heavy loads, and can cross a river that size with a wide enough shipping channel? Somewhere between 1890-1900.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Here's my rough draft: You might notice certain details in this right away. The first being that it's massively overbuilt, which it is, but there are other aspects to it as well! * Up to four potential sites for railyards have been located, depending on where manufacturing pops up and how much rail traffic a line expects to get. * The connection between the GNU RR and the NS&W is made through existing right of way, albeit with a second track and wyes on each end. * Bypass lines will be made around New Sanctum and West Sanctum, to minimize property claiming and allow freight movement around the city center. This also connects the NCL and the DB&O. * In dashed purple, the future rail bridge across the Fukov, and associated connections, are planned here. * The four stations have become two, in periwinkle. * In eyefuck pink, there are new avenues connecting to the south side of New Sanctum. There will almost certainly be tram lines for these, but I decided it would be easier to see if it was one color at a time on the map.  * In paler pink, some of the cul-de-sacs in Old New Sanctum have been cut through and made into proper streets in order to improve mobility. This will probably be left out of the final plan. * And, finally, there are a million different tram lines, mostly centered on Gale University's Quad. Again, many of these will not make it to the final plan; they're mainly here to give an idea of what a full tram network should look like, and to pad the figures. It's up to Gale as to what gets built. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
 Here is my submission. I went with what would make business sense to the railroads at this time. The GNU is desperate to link its very profitable segments together and establish a single line between New Cork and Hartshire. It already shares a station with NS&W so naturally they would want to continue that arrangement. However, most of NS&W's passenger traffic would probably terminate in New Sanctum so they would have the terminal track. A brick viaduct carries the south thru tracks over the city streets. The southern interchange track between them is an absolute necessity. Then northern interchange to the bridge can be built after 1870 but it will be necessary in any merger with the NCNS&S which it wants to form a single line between New Cork and Salvation. Meanwhile in West Sanctum, the DB&O is on borrowed time. The new station in Hartshire as well as its connections with the booming east bank of the Fukov make the GNU a much better performing and profitable railroad. It is still in the black but will almost certainly be gobbled up by a bigger railroad. The NCL on the other hand has a monopoly on traffic along the western coast and is a likely buyer of the DB&O. The NCL itself is a prize to be won by the railroads in the state. Its station is close to the waterfront and a tram ride away from Union Station. It sees no need (at the moment) to build a second union station with the DB&O. It does, however build an interchange track to connect with the DB&O and the future Fukov Rail Bridge. I added some tram lines around the Gale U area, and a single tram along the river front in West Sanctum, I'll let others suggest roads this time around Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
I daresay that it is high time to look to the city of New Cork and their plans for a park system! A fellow by the name of Olmstead has teamed up with another fellow named Vaux to build their Central Park, and we should see about getting him to design a college or two for us as well. He would do wonders with beautifying the campus of Gale University.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
 Again I'm for keeping the existing infrastructure as much as possible. All the railway stations stay as they are now. The eastern large and small are connected by two tracks, but they don't attempt to connect to the eastern northbound line. Instead, trains in that direction can take the new bypass to the northeast, which will also have passenger yard and engine shop. To the south, two new industrial yards are created, one inland and one by the water. Roads are extended to the industry, and a tram is connected that way for better worker access. Another road bridge across the small river is suggested. I propose a new tram line that passes by the central station and through the central park. West of the Fukov, the two railway lines are just connected by a single track to allow trains to continue after landing in one of the stations. One of them will likely have to close sooner or later, as that line might allow them to compete directly on prices. A tram line towards the south might promote growth there. Lastly, a man can dream, but it would be ideal if the Fukov could be crossed by train by means of a tunnel below it. As if that will ever become possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
Are Rail Barges a thing yet? Because New Sanctum would probably hop on that, even when we have the capability to build a bridge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Are Rail Barges a thing yet? Because New Sanctum would probably hop on that, even when we have the capability to build a bridge. I don't see why not; it's about as dead simple a concept as anyone can devise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
virtual256 posted:I daresay that it is high time to look to the city of New Cork and their plans for a park system! A fellow by the name of Olmstead has teamed up with another fellow named Vaux to build their Central Park, and we should see about getting him to design a college or two for us as well. He would do wonders with beautifying the campus of Gale University. I'd like to take a moment to be a smug Brooklynite and say that Olmsted and Vaux also designed Prospect Park and considered it superior to Central Park.  kefkafloyd posted:Are Rail Barges a thing yet? Because New Sanctum would probably hop on that, even when we have the capability to build a bridge. I support rail barges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
BrooklynBruiser posted:I'd like to take a moment to be a smug Brooklynite and say that Olmsted and Vaux also designed Prospect Park and considered it superior to Central Park. I too support rail barges. Gentlemen, make it so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend posted:
I like that one and we could have barges where the future railway bridge would be mooted. That said it does nothing about hooking up the industrial zone. You could also set up the eastern diversion slightly differently and prevent tearing down buildings. Anyway, we could have rail barges at the mooted future bridge point. This would be my amended proposal (apologies for MS Paint):  You wouldn't build all the roads near the barge terminal right now but we will definitely want sound road access for it as well (especially considering they build up an industrial zone without any...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Hmm, if we're going to do a rail barge at the point where the future bridge is going to go over the river, why would the NCL want to negotiate trackage rights along the DBO when it could just build to the interchange with the bridge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend posted:Hmm, if we're going to do a rail barge at the point where the future bridge is going to go over the river, why would the NCL want to negotiate trackage rights along the DBO when it could just build to the interchange with the bridge. I like this idea - build tracks up to where the bridge WOULD be, set up the barges, then when we can, build the bridge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
The NCL will not stand for locating the future rail bridge so far upriver! Doing so extends the journey into central New Sanctum by so much, it would be quicker to retain the current West Sanctum station and have passengers take the trolley into the city. A trolley line which we don't yet own, even. Are you all seriously going to tell riders from New Dublin and Rockington that they may not have a quick, convenient one-seat ride? That they must wait in the cold air for a transfer? Is that your game? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:The NCL will not stand for locating the future rail bridge so far upriver! Doing so extends the journey into central New Sanctum by so much, it would be quicker to retain the current West Sanctum station and have passengers take the trolley into the city. A trolley line which we don't yet own, even. Well gently caress, no one is stopping you from using the bridge into union station. gently caress the DB&O though. Or build your own bridge at great expense and be bought out by a bigger line Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Some engineering porn  A simple diamond interchange with roundabouts ...  270 meter below ground  (It would be under Kvitsøy) The Norwegian Public Roads Administration put the plans for a new Boknafjord crossing on E39 out to public consultation. Nobody knows if it's actually going to get built. But a 25,5 km dual tube tunnel going as deep as 392 meters below sea level would be pretty rad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
NOBEARD posted:Some engineering porn That is tremendously hardcore! Does that say a 90 km/h speed limit? How much traffic is expected to take that exit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That is tremendously hardcore! Does that say a 90 km/h speed limit? How much traffic is expected to take that exit? 13000 vehicles per day for the main tunnel, 900 for the exit. It says 90 km/h speed limit, but afaik the main tunnel will be dimensioned for 100 km/h. The exit will probably be 70 or 80 km/h as it will be a single tube with 2 lanes. Again, it's not sure if it will be built or not. But building expensive road projects where the AADT is low is a proud norwegian tradition, all those islands needs roads to help the locals move away to the big cities 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
NOBEARD posted:13000 vehicles per day for the main tunnel, 900 for the exit. I'm not sure why they're bothering with the roundabout diamond design, honestly. Since it's all underground, bridges are a non-issue, so wouldn't it be best to go with a directional T?  Or are they perhaps planning to expand that interchange to the northeast (lower-right in the picture) with a fourth leg?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
It looks like the purpose of that exit it access to the island group the tunnel passes, so there wouldn't really be any reason to access the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm not sure why they're bothering with the roundabout diamond design, honestly. Since it's all underground, bridges are a non-issue, so wouldn't it be best to go with a directional T? That seems like a better design actually, don't know why they went with roundabouts. The other direction would end up in the middle of the sea, so I doubt it will be expanded there 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
NOBEARD posted:That seems like a better design actually, don't know why they went with roundabouts. Sealab 2021: Norway Edition
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
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?  Source.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
exo posted:In general, or in that period? Melbourne copes well enough: With the benefits of automatic guards and signalling, it's fine. Our signaling is a dude on a horse, assuming that there is anyone at all. Whoops, the 5:17 express just loving plowed a tram load of children...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:With the benefits of automatic guards and signalling, it's fine. Well, they did have those crossings all the time in the 19th century. You actually did have paid guards at the crossings that would force the trams to halt so the train could pass. It actually worked fairly well!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:With the benefits of automatic guards and signalling, it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
exo posted:In general, or in that period? Melbourne copes well enough: Heh, the Burke Road level crossing - right next to the Monash Freeway, which is the busiest freeway in Australia. What a shocker. The train has to run on a much lower voltage when going over the crossing because of the tram lines (as well as the fact it's gotta go slow because of the tram tracks), which means it runs ridiculously slow when crossing. It causes traffic on the off-ramp to backup onto the freeway, and the exit is just around a blind corner, which causes a dangerous situation for cars coming around the corner. It also used to cause the ramp metering to turn on. Also a stupid number of tram derailments have occurred there in recent years. Why? Because the system is meant to automatically derail a tram if a train is approaching a level crossing (some 1920s technology). It's just unlucky that it kept causing the trams to be derailed on the level crossing... It should be a text book example of how not to do things. DogGunn fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Oct 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Updated plan: You could put a new union station on the site of the existing one, but rotated 90 degrees. The dashed purple and orange lines show how you could fit in all of the existing lines. Until such bridge technology is developed, we will have to use a ferry or barge across the harbor, which is represented by the dashed cyan line. I also added a bunch more trolley lines connecting outer suburbs with Gale and the industrial area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 11:44
|
|
|
You don't need trams on every road...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Munin posted:You don't need trams on every road... Yeah, that is really overkill. You'd have a very hard time laying out stations and routes if there were trams every block, and people can easily walk 1/4 mile to a station - probably more like a mile in this time period, even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Lay down all the tram lines you want, just be aware they're going to be massively unprofitable and the routes are going to be discontinued in a year much less a decade; except for the routes that actually work .
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 01:03
|
|