Colorado Discussion Thread

User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 439
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#581 Post by Xaagon » 23 May 2020 02:48

@Shiva Yeah, no passenger trains between Colorado Springs and Denver. There was talk of building it, but in the end the money just wasn't there so they're widening I-25 instead... but the catch is that the new lanes will be toll.

There is a train line that runs next to I-25, but it is freight only... mostly coal going from Wyoming to Texas, but I've seen other stuff too like chemical cars and windmill parts.

@flight50 Though Trinidad is larger, I kind of see Walsenburg making the map as at least a scenic town probably even having a gas station. It's kind of necessary for a realistic US-160/I-25 junction. Trinidad could also exist like this if we get US-350 or the eastern plains extension of US-160.

Fort Collins I think is ok where it is... Cheyenne has more room to move to the north.

Boulder is well known, I think we at least get the signs that point to it and a stub of US-36.

Yeah, the Columbia is huge - both around Portland and even up in Kennewick. I kind of like it though... look forward to what we'll see when we get to the big rivers in the midwest.

Shiva
Posts: 1801
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#582 Post by Shiva » 23 May 2020 03:30

Xaagon, I did check out a bit earlier today, my time, Walsenburg I-25 and US-160. Yes please to that one. Atleast as scenic.
I would like to have Trinidad's US-160 too, if possible. + US-350. But Raton NM is so close!
How will SCS do that area?
Or will they skip the part of US-160 between Trinidad and Kansas stateline?
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.

ALT2870
Posts: 126
Joined: 07 Mar 2020 06:39

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#583 Post by ALT2870 » 23 May 2020 07:24

I don't see Boulder being a marked city rather it would be blended in with Denver. Boulder is more of a name then a city if that makes sense? I agree with Xaagon that it will probably have road signs with a stub of 36.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 15317
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#584 Post by flight50 » 23 May 2020 12:56

I am fine with Boulder having just signs for it. I mentioned it above. Are there any landmarks for Boulder to let people know its Boulder? Like any structures, buildings or is there a unique sign other than a plane green city sign.

This is how I see Northern Colorado playing out. I have a separate sketch that has E470 in it but I honestly don't think it makes the game. So I won't post it. That's extra road SCS has to map and Colorado will already be packed with other roads. So in by book, no toll road.

Red = main roads that are in. I hope US-36 or CO-119 goes thru Boulder to get it at least absorbed into Denver.
Blue = major interchanges. the two center ones is going to be an issue. SCS might do best if the I-25@US-36 is pushed North a bit. That clears a little more space for the Southern junction. That area is tight. SCS might have to make Denver more like 1:15.
Magenta = must have cities
Yellow = absorbed cities

As long as we the right industries off the interstates, Denver can get enough surface streets to link the entire city around Denver to make it accessible in multiple directions with on/off ramps. At least one on the off I-25 North of I-70. One off I-70 East of I-25. One off I-25 South of I-70 and yes....one on I-70 West of I-25. Squaring up surface roads around the I-70@I-25 is what I'd like to call, uniting the city. Surface rds can branch off from there for all the industries or companies SCS wants to add. Not a ton can go North though as that eats into the I-25@US-36 interchange. E470 does offer shortcuts to both I-70 and I-25 but it's just as easy to just run into the center of Denver to go the direction you need to go without the E470 in. Considering E470 is not a loop/spur, I don't think it comes. I-270 and I-225 is just too close for scale to make them short cuts but they'd be better options imo.

Image

User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 439
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#585 Post by Xaagon » 23 May 2020 15:36

Not sure about that whole section of US-36 plus CO-66 making it (though it would be good if they could do that). I like the idea of having US-34 from Loveland to Fort Morgan, but I kind of want CO-14 from Fort Collins to Sterling more. It's mostly flat there so maybe they could do both? I think Fort Morgan has a chance at being a marked city.

fra_ba
Posts: 348
Joined: 17 Feb 2018 09:37

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#586 Post by fra_ba » 23 May 2020 15:53

I25&US34 interchange is probably in as some of its assets is in editor right now! I also think Greely will be a marked city

Larry71490
Posts: 1851
Joined: 08 Mar 2019 23:27
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#587 Post by Larry71490 » 23 May 2020 17:08

@flight50 I disagree. I feel 470 is needed.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 15317
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#588 Post by flight50 » 23 May 2020 17:37

@Xaagon. For CO-66, I figure it or CO-119 needs to happen if coming in from the North. Without either, we have to travel all the way down to Denver just to travel back North. So some ramp to get West before Denver helps. Same with US-34. Its short and it contains Greely. @fra_ba, that is aweseom to know if Greeley has assets and could be marked. We sooooo need JBS and livestock. I sure hope they double back to Utah and add JBS in Hyrum, UT. There is a sub out South of Logan to do UT-165 to UT-101 and JBS can come off that. There is plenty of space.

Anywho, Xaagon, I'd love to have both US-34 and CO-14. I think US-34 needs to go to I-76 for the same reason as CO-66. We would have to go all the way down to Denver to go North to Greeley. I don't see US-85 coming but I could be wrong. If US-85 paralleled I-25, sweet deal. If everything is flat East of I-25, both US-34 and CO-14 can fit. Cut planes can make easily work of mountainless terrain. It would be like two city streets. Or what about this. They just do CO-14 from I-25 to Sterling but do US-85 down to Greeley. That's one less intersection off I-25. That might work out the best especially if Ft. Collins is in for sure. Then in Greeley branch off to US-34. I revised the map.

I added Green roads to the map
Solid Green = secondary
Dashed Green = alternate to solid green

Image

User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 439
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#589 Post by Xaagon » 23 May 2020 18:44

Looking that far east I would also include CO-71.

I like the idea of having parallel roads to I-25. If we could get US-85 or US-287 from Denver to the Wyoming border (I think with Wyoming we get US-287 from Fort Collins to Laramie), there would be an easy alternate route for detours. South of Denver they could include CO-83 to Colorado Springs for the same purpose.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 15317
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Colorado Discussion Thread

#590 Post by flight50 » 23 May 2020 20:11

Yep, US-287 continuing to Texas and then thru Wyoming should be the plan so it needs to go all the way thru Colorado. Considering US-287 picks up off CO-14 vs off I-25, that increases its chances of not only continues but grants CO-14 from US-40 to I-25 and then to I-76 very valid. US-34 in whole would be nice but I don't know if the mountain models will allow it West of I-25 to parallel CO-14. If the devs can some how make the mountains have less girth, it could work. Perhaps cut planes. If they can somehow mirror the mountains but splice them vertically that could work maybe. I don't map so I am unsure how it works.

I am sure East of I-25, US-385 should run North and South. Being flatter lands, or at least less mountainous, I am sure there is room in between US-385 and I-25 to have CO-71. Whether it is CO-71 or CO-59, one or even both helps start the density East of I-25 and into the Great Plains. If Eastern Colorado doesn't bring a decently dense set of roads, I would be concerned about the rest of the Great Plains. Mainly Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas because they have some serious country road density. Roads in the Great plans should come like large city blocks. If cities now can have grid blocks, so should the country side of the Great Plains. Mapping should be much much easier in the GP. Huge fields of crops can easily incorporate State Highways. I don't think back roads in the GP will be an issue but SCS will have to make them numerous and entertaining. I hope that the amount of farming in these dense area are tripled. Pretty much every 10-20 miles in these dense areas should have some type of farm. Fruit, vegetable, live stock, poultry, dairy, hogs or eggs. Would be nice to get 3-5 different companies per each of those I named for the entire Great Plains region. As we move East, another set of companies. I think farming per region, the devs can refresh the markets with new life.

I have little hope for parallel roads like US-85 or CO-83 to parallel I-25, but lets hope. If US-89 didn't come as a complete road in Utah, a state that has room to add more roads, I am thinking Colorado doesn't get US-85 nor CO-83, at least day one. But I do love CO-71 and US-385 being parallel. Both connect to I-80, I-76, I-70, US-34, US-36 and US-50. If that's not a grid, I don't know what else is.

If we can get Eastern Colorado with a grid at the least like this, we are good imo. Hopefully there can be a tad more density though.
Image

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flight50, supersobes and 7 guests