When you get stuck in Surveyor, look at MS Virtual Earth!

JCitron

Trainzing since 12-2003
This past weekend, I became "Surveyorized". No matter what I tried, I could not unlock the brain freeze that came over me. For the past few weeks I've been going gang-busters with my texturing and landscaping of my Enfield and Eastern. In the north, I added in a DEM from Fishlips. In the south, I added a few baseboards, and was actually coming close to finishing up the southern half (What can be considered finished is the subject of an altogether new thread.)

Anyway, Saturday the brain refused to work, and I could not for the life of me get the landscape to come out right. I then tried the usual tricks. I went for a ride in Driver on my own route. This didn't help the brain cramp, but it helped fix a few glitches I noted. Hmmm. I drove some downloaded routes. Nope - didn't work either. I looked at train books, nope, topo-maps, nope!

I then took to the Internet, and played around with Microsoft's Virtual Earth. I love the bird's eye views of different areas, and I've gotten lost in this nifty site before! Instead of looking at pretty farms and rolling landscapes, I went right for the big cities. The rest of Saturday, and all of Sunday, or until my hand nearly fell of my wrist, was spent following railroad lines in and out of New York City, Philadelphia, and greater parts of New Jersey.

The Long Island Railroad is interesting to follow, and would definitely be a good route (or parts of) to model some day. These are all mostly high-platform lines with 3rd rail, although the loco-hauled outer-island lines are pretty cool too. The new EL around Kennedy Airport is really cool. These are really small EL cars, or some LRVs (I couldn't tell), but they run on standard gauge track all the way up to Jamaica.

All the track and trains in and around New York City is really fascinating. I found the Sunny Side yards, the Hell's Gate Bridge, and followed the tracks everywhere. Sadly though it's hard to stomach how much has been abandoned in some cases foolishly. These lines in many cases could be converted or opened up again for other rail use such as light-rail transit. This is in fact happening on the New Jersey side, and I was happy to see the Hudson-Bergen Lightrail system being built. Remember the photos are at least 3 to 5 years old so they are a bit behind.

The rest of New Jersey was both happy and sad. There's lots of ripped up tracks. What I found interesting too is what showed up as an active line on the mini-map turned out to be a string of powerlines in reality. In other cases, there was no mention of rail lines anywhere, and only a string of powerlines. I follwed these too when the deep-down railroad-hunch told me that this used to be a rail line. Sure enough, an off-angled building, an open cut here, and an old bridge abutment there proved me right.

The same was true for greater Philadelphia. The huge amount of ripped up trackage around the city is sad though with lots of former street-running track all over the place, and routes shown as active, but nothing more than grassy grades with lots of trash around.

So now that I'm refreshed, and full of ideas I'm back in Surveyor to finish up the south end of my route. This is where the River line and the main lines diverge for the first time. At this point in the route, the yard in Acton will have the Enfield Mill branch, and a small yard, based on one I saw in New Jersey. The old mainline will pass next to Acton, and through North Enfield with a high-level commuter station. The final resting place for the commuter trains will be a portal "to Boston", but there will be a fair-sized terminal in Enfield to match the size of the city. This will be based on a station I saw around Philadelphia. Besides the yard and trackage ideas, I also came across some nifty industry ideas and a multitude of industrial park ideas.

The side trip to MS Virtual Earth proved fruitful and well worth the time spent.

http://maps.live.com/

John
 
John - A well written description. I have been using Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/) for the same purpose, to recreate a now closed line in South Australia. I did take a look at Microsoft's Virtual Earth early last year but it did not impress me. After your post I had another look and they have made major improvements.

I had a look at the area that I am working on in both rival systems.

The aerial images used by both seem to be the same (not a surprise) but the map quality/detail is vastly different between the two.

Both show roads, railway lines and rivers/creeks but Google Maps shows detail down to the property fence lines while Microsoft's Virtual Earth does not. This makes a huge difference to my project.

Both systems showed the line where the abandoned tracks are still present but only Google Maps showed the original railway right-of-way, as indicated by the fence lines, in those areas where tracks have been removed.

I hasten to add that these comments only apply to the area that I am modelling.

Peter
 
If I remember correctly, I once saw a thread that showed how to get images directly from Google Earth into Surveyor to use as a building aid. I have no idea about how it worked or where the thread was, however.
 
Ask.com (www.maps.ask.com) offers similar maps to Google. Usually a combination of WorldWind, Google Earth, and Ask maps. I can find some good pics of what I'm looking for.


peter
 
John - A well written description. I have been using Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/) for the same purpose, to recreate a now closed line in South Australia. I did take a look at Microsoft's Virtual Earth early last year but it did not impress me. After your post I had another look and they have made major improvements.

I had a look at the area that I am working on in both rival systems.

The aerial images used by both seem to be the same (not a surprise) but the map quality/detail is vastly different between the two.

Both show roads, railway lines and rivers/creeks but Google Maps shows detail down to the property fence lines while Microsoft's Virtual Earth does not. This makes a huge difference to my project.

Both systems showed the line where the abandoned tracks are still present but only Google Maps showed the original railway right-of-way, as indicated by the fence lines, in those areas where tracks have been removed.

I hasten to add that these comments only apply to the area that I am modelling.

Peter

Yes, however, if you use the birds eye veiw function, you can veiw the line from several different angles, it is much clearer, and everything is in 3D!

In my oppinon, for trainz, MS Virtual Earth is much better than google earth.

John
 
I have used all of the available map and terrain viewers mentioned above except for the government site. For some reason the web designers that work for the government make them so overly complicated for what they are ment to do.

To view topo-maps, I go over to www.maptech.com, and pick the area I'm interested in. I like their historic maps as well because these show old trolley and interurban lines that have long since disappeared, and no longer even appear in photographs. The site is free, but you have to click on an okay button to close a pop-up about their products.

I can understand the fristration when one system shows one thing, and another has similar, but different information. This I think has to do with where the companies got their information from. A long time ago, I worked as a typographer, and used to typeset maps, or really the street names, etc. for a client of mine. One of the maps was a current one of my town, and he completely eliminated the very active rail line. I asked him about it, and his comment was that he doesn't bother with the rail lines, and then he changed the subject. So here we go, someone in the future will scan one of his lousy maps into a database, and then someone like us will end up confused because the rail line is missing from the document!

Anyway, for my use, the Virtual Earth is the way to go as Trainzmaniac2006 (John) says. The 3D-view is the best part even though it doesn't cover every area yet. In this view, I saw the Acela running along somewhere in south Jersey, as well as other freights, MOW crews, and passenger trains running and at platforms.

John
 
We should distinguish cartographic maps and aerial images by their purpose. In the first stages of a prototypical route building project we create a DEM-based terrain and transfer topographic features, like railway lines, roads, water, built-up areas etc to our terrain. We aim for maximum accuracy here. The maps we use are topographic ones, and they have coordinates. We may also incorporate aerial images, which have to be shot from a vertical perspective (so-called orthophotos), The aerial images have coordinates, too. We may process our sources manually with HOG, basemaps or similar or we may do it automatically with TransDEM or possibly other tools, but we always involve coordinates One of the advantages of Google Earth is the relative simplicity of accessing image coordinates.

I am sure, other map and imagery data sources can play a significant role, too. Those aerial images shot from an angular perspective could be helpful in later stages of the project, when erecting buildings. I have yet to be convinced of the benefit of vector-based road maps like those presented by Google Maps, as long we have much better topographic maps of the same area.

BTW, TIGER, still popular among route builders working with HOG in the US, is going WMS in the future. There are already at least two WMS portals online, fed by TIGER data, one via GIDB and another one as an open source project. The first one currently has a projection problem, and the other lacks the railway layer. However, even with a properly working TIGER WMS portal, I would always prefer topographic maps over TIGER because of their superior quality.

geophil
 
Back
Top