|
Would have been nice to have a scale.  Looking at it again, you could eliminate the line which goes along the south side of Gale, the union station, and follows the tracks north; and one or both of the lines west of the river. Gale College might not like sharing trams with those dirty poors going to work in the factories but they can build their own tram if they want it.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
In light of these recent findings, here's a revised proposal: Changes include fewer trams, the placement of the railyards and connector lines, and leaving the street pattern in Old New Sanctum be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
There isn't a scale bar on the mat, but I believe a switch yard should have more length of straight track. So I propose that the station be changed so that rail traffic can travel straight through. Something like this:  *Switch yard should have more than 4 tracks. Buildings/roads can be moved/realigned if there is not enough space.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Alright, it's about time to wrap up New Sanctum, so as long as everyone's had his say, I'll show the new configuration this afternoon. One question, since people seem to differ on it - are we changing the station downtown to a through station, or will it remain a terminus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
A through station will probably have fewer tracks, but might have a chance to have them longer. However it might also be a rather expensive operation to pull all of it up and leave the rail lines inoperative for a good while during the re-construction. Do it if the other factors allow for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
A through station would be best. The three-way union station (where one direction would be a terminus until we can build a bridge across the Fukov) looks good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
I'm hovering towards a through station but it looks like it would be more destructive. That's also why I'm not sold on setting up a barge/bridge right next to the city center as clearing the space for track and infrastructure would be a pain for limited gain in my opinion. Not to mention that being near the river mouth would require a longer and more expensive bridge which will take longer for us to get the technology to build. Munin fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Sure, on the short term it's less destructive, but a central city like New Sanctum really needs a through station. It's far more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
Actually never mind we want through stations if possible. I don't think most trains are reversible in a similar way the modern ones are. IIRC they don't have locomotives at both ends. Failure to think in period there... (again)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
YOU CAN'T HAVE A TERMINUS ON A MAINLINE! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!!! But seriously, why on earth would you have the clear trunk line across the state owned by one railroad have 2 termini. Also I stand by my plan of having the bridge upriver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Munin posted:Actually never mind we want through stations if possible. I don't think most trains are reversible in a similar way the modern ones are. IIRC they don't have locomotives at both ends. You can always detach the locomotive and re-attach it at the other end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Munin posted:Actually never mind we want through stations if possible. I don't think most trains are reversible in a similar way the modern ones are. IIRC they don't have locomotives at both ends. Steam locomotives are certainly able to drive backwards, the problem is that the driver can't see what's going on at the other end of the train! (You wouldn't be able to handle goods shunting if you couldn't make the train drive both ways.) A workable, if expensive, way to handle a terminus would be to have one or two spare locomotives at the station, and place an outward-facing one on the train and decouple the one that pulled it in. Then when the train has left, the previous locomotive can also leave the station and reverse at a wye or some such. (It isn't a problem for it to leave backwards now, since there isn't a long train in front of it blocking vision.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Yes, terminal stations were almost always avoided except as the actual terminus of a line. Compare the original Grand Central Depot plus its successors Grand Central Station and grand Central Terminal in New York City to the New York Penn Station as an example.Jeoh posted:You can always detach the locomotive and re-attach it at the other end. That will involve first backing the train out of the platform track up to a point that the locomotive can detach and get to something that will turn it around though. Highly inconvenient for any trips that involve stopping at the station as an intermediate stop on a longer route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Would there be turntables yet to turn an engine around?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Would there be turntables yet to turn an engine around? I don't know the historical timeline for turntables, but I'm fine with building one, so long as you can find room for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Yeah, there are ways and means but all of them would take a good long time to do or involve a lot of faffing about and/or the use of spare locomotives which would again take time. Also, a turntable for engines would not obviate the need for the locomotive to somehow bypass the train to get to the other end. Anyway, looking at the infrastructure needed to properly deal with the ability for trains to back out I don't think it would save a meaningful amount of space. Essentially, whatever setup we use should be able to easily accommodate through trains. That said I also think we should set up the bypass line around East Sanctum to deal with freight trains etc which don't use the terminus. Trains which might be heading for the barge terminal would be another example. Munin fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
In situations where there were multiple lines coming into a city, the railroads would form a belt & terminal railroad to spread out the cost of operating the stations,bridges,ferries, or belt lines around the city. Eventually some of these were bought out by the dominant railroad but some operate today. Either way, its completely plausible that the companies operating in the area would want to interchange traffic so completely bypassing West Sanctum and at least a partial bypass of New Sanctum would be built. I can't see how you could negotiate the grades needed for a downtown rail crossing in New Sanctum with out some serious demolition, especially in 1870. Also a turntable is unnecessary. A reversing Wye is sufficient unless you have shops. But were getting to far into details, just build the drat thing. Edit: basically a thru station on the New Cork-Hartshire line is essential to avoid a massive clusterfuck in the future. Plus it makes sense because both segments are owned by the same railroad. Ron Pauls Friend fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Would there be turntables yet to turn an engine around? Rail turntables were invented in the 1830s so yes. But you can't build them in the actual station and they're also not suitable to be built on the tracks approaching the station either. You pretty much only see them in large freight yards and at a railroad's shop facilities with roundhouses and the like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh, it's in Long Beach? I'll be down there in a couple weeks; might give it a shot! If you want to grab a drink, give me a shout.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:If you want to grab a drink, give me a shout. I'm cool with that, provided we have the free time. PM me your cell number. ----- Let's see how New Sanctum turned out! You proposed a lot of improvements, but we didn't have the time/cash/clout to install them all. Some tracks are still single-tracked, but with provisions for future improvements, and there aren't as many tram lines as we'd have liked. On the other hand, New Sanctum has a lot more land opened for development, and West Sanctum has a new park and tram line.   This evening, we will have a look at our third and final city - but which city is that? The FIRST CITY TO GET THREE VOTES will be the one we fix up. Vote quickly!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
New Cork. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend posted:In situations where there were multiple lines coming into a city, the railroads would form a belt & terminal railroad to spread out the cost of operating the stations,bridges,ferries, or belt lines around the city. Eventually some of these were bought out by the dominant railroad but some operate today. Either way, its completely plausible that the companies operating in the area would want to interchange traffic so completely bypassing West Sanctum and at least a partial bypass of New Sanctum would be built. e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
I vote for Waterbridge. Fairport looks to be a bigger city, but Waterbridge has way more rail connections and it looks like 3 stations, so it could use our help the most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I vote for Waterbridge. Fairport looks to be a bigger city, but Waterbridge has way more rail connections and it looks like 3 stations, so it could use our help the most. I think Fairport would be more interesting because all we've done are river constraints. Fairport's coastal geography would be new.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Are we ready to build zeppelin routes yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:I think Fairport would be more interesting because all we've done are river constraints. Fairport's coastal geography would be new. Waterbridge only has a small river, so it's not a problem to build over it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
I say we do the Middleport-Meridian area, then we'll have covered most things along Fukov.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Waterbridge only has a small river, so it's not a problem to build over it. In that case, I think the Opiantic-Boldic corridor would be most interesting because we have the opportunity to work with (1) mountainous constraints, which were historically the bane of railroad builders and (2) regional planning issues in two towns beginning to grow into one conurbation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:In that case, I think the Opiantic-Boldic corridor would be most interesting because we have the opportunity to work with (1) mountainous constraints, which were historically the bane of railroad builders and (2) regional planning issues in two towns beginning to grow into one conurbation. Second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Ron Pauls Friend posted:Second. I change my vote to this, because this sounds more interesting than my suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:In that case, I think the Opiantic-Boldic corridor would be most interesting because we have the opportunity to work with (1) mountainous constraints, which were historically the bane of railroad builders and (2) regional planning issues in two towns beginning to grow into one conurbation. Emphatically this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I change my vote to this, because this sounds more interesting than my suggestion. Alright, that makes three. I'll draw it up tonight  grover posted:Are we ready to build zeppelin routes yet? 1920s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
I love the game and all that, but Traffic Engineer question I noticed this sign here, and I was curious, the first time I drove past it, thinking it was a 45, and kept going at 45 until I saw a 50 curve, then I hit 55, and I wanted to ask, are these signs common in the Northeast? I don't like them only because it seems simpler to put up a Speed Limit 55 instead, and if it is slowing people down, a Reduce Speed Ahead sign will do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:I love the game and all that, but Traffic Engineer question We don't have them up here, no. They're much more useful where there is a prevailing speed limit (say, 65 mph) with infrequent interruptions. Up here, there is a new speed limit sign every time the zone changes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
  Same colors as before, with black contours for reference, since it makes a big difference here. We can see some problems right away. First off, north of the river, there is quite a slope. Because of that, and the tight ROW, the main rail line is single-tracked, and cannot be double-tracked. Even the station in downtown Opiantic is only 2 tracks wide, but the station on the other side of the river is more important. But look at that: there is no road access to the other side of the river! Rail and trams make it over, and there is a ferry, but that's all. We'll have to fix that, won't we? OBJECTIVES 1) Improve cross-river road access in Opiantic 2) Build infrastructure for rapid expansion in the southwest of Opiantic, as the land is much flatter there and ripe for investment 3) (Optional) Stake out a park for the two cities Get to work! For the Nation!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
I really would love a basic scale bar or something on these guys, I have a hard time wrapping my head around what we're looking at otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Why does that southern rail link between Opiantic and Boltic cross a topo line like it just doesn't care?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I really would love a basic scale bar or something on these guys, I have a hard time wrapping my head around what we're looking at otherwise. 5 miles / 8 km between the center of the two cities. Mandalay posted:Why does that southern rail link between Opiantic and Boltic cross a topo line like it just doesn't care? The contours are pretty flat on that side of the river, so it might go 10 or 20 feet up in elevation in half a mile. Not really a huge deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
The K&W is quite excited about the possibilities for expansion in Opiantic: The major feature of note is the creation of a union station in south Opiantic, replacing two of the city's stations entirely. Traffic coming in from the west is rerouted into it, easing pressure from the line in the city's north side. This union station is to be the new center of the tram system, and sits adjacent to an attractive, master-designed city park. Another park replaces the old southside terminal, but that one quickly fills up with hopheads. Boltic also gets a park, one meant to recreate the lush forests that once spanned Nutmeg and provide good hiking opportunities. While small at the moment, that city's fathers believe that it will eventually cover much of the north hills, in areas too steep to properly develop. Hedera Helix fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
I'd have preferred to do Opiantic-Boltic later when we would have had a real salad to deal with.  It would be nice if we could find some way to get double tracks through but that looks rather unlikely if we want to keep both the central Opiantic and Boltic station on the main line. One thing to ease things along would be to make the southern line more accessible so that you could route any freight trains around the lines which need to carry passengers. As an aside, were freight trains a thing in that period or was it mostly mixed? Did it depend on the region? If we were to set up a park I'd propose setting it up in the clean fresh air of the slopes above Opiantic. It is away from the noisome river and also not prime building land whilst still being very close to the center of town. East-West Opiantic bridge wise we'd probably should go for two. One above the inlet from the other river and one below.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 10:59
|
|