BNSF Clovis Sub
- Thread starter Dermmy
- Start date
cascaderailroad
New member
Vaughn Over/Under
Looks like the bridge idea is being edited out ! Good spot and good input. Teamwork !
Looks like the bridge idea is being edited out ! Good spot and good input. Teamwork !
Tis what ya get when ya write lots o stories for books and such....All the words just come out right and for the right moment.....Its like they say.....Theres 2 kinds of words...Inside words and outside words...Inside words stay in...Outside words come out...That time an inside word popped out.......:hehe:
cascaderailroad
New member
Vaughn,NM
Vaughn,NM
There are wing walls, or stone walls someplace. There is also a stone tunnel portal that is an object, to place in front of things at any angle. And you say "Cajon" tunnel won't work ? Some of your bridges look close to looking acceptable. Practice placing digholes, then different variations of laying track THROUGH the digholes. Add some type of wall or spline. Wouldn't sweat the small stuff, nobody would have noticed...until now !
Vaughn,NM
There are wing walls, or stone walls someplace. There is also a stone tunnel portal that is an object, to place in front of things at any angle. And you say "Cajon" tunnel won't work ? Some of your bridges look close to looking acceptable. Practice placing digholes, then different variations of laying track THROUGH the digholes. Add some type of wall or spline. Wouldn't sweat the small stuff, nobody would have noticed...until now !
Last edited:
Not a tunnel - as I said in an earlier post more of a culvert. It certainly looks like a tunnel in that pic, but it is more a consequence of the angle of view. Try this angle....
It can't be modelled as a tunnel/culvert in Trainz because of the snap-to-grid thing to accomodate the dighole. If anybody has a better solution than a bridge, fire away....
Andy
EDIT: ROFL - Cascade google-earth's quicker than I do
Last edited:
Try this tunnel Andy. It doesn't dig its own hole so you can use the dig hole tool kuid 38408:28009 that only digs out one triangle instead of four. This tunnel is "Tunnel 1 1 Track California style, 38408:38000. This tunnel is the second tunnel coming out of caliente headed to the Tehachapi loop.
Clem
Clem
Last edited:
Good thought Clem, but the angles are all wrong....
Maybe a custom terrain spline would fill the dighole spaces, but there is also a gaping chasm behind the tunnel facade on the non-dighole side. The tunnel would need rebuilt with a solid block on the ends rather than 'front only', and it still wouldn't look right. A double tunnel might work, the prototype enginneers must have had the same problem, they have used a wide culvert set square to the overhead track and run the low track through on a skew. Either way, I would need a culvert with the ends set at almost exactly 45 degrees to the run of the track...
Andy
Maybe a custom terrain spline would fill the dighole spaces, but there is also a gaping chasm behind the tunnel facade on the non-dighole side. The tunnel would need rebuilt with a solid block on the ends rather than 'front only', and it still wouldn't look right. A double tunnel might work, the prototype enginneers must have had the same problem, they have used a wide culvert set square to the overhead track and run the low track through on a skew. Either way, I would need a culvert with the ends set at almost exactly 45 degrees to the run of the track...
Andy
Last edited:
Good thought Clem, but the angles are all wrong....
Maybe a custom terrain spline would fill the dighole spaces, but there is also a gaping chasm behind the tunnel facade on the non-dighole side. The tunnel would need rebuilt with a solid block on the ends rather than 'front only', and it still wouldn't look right. A double tunnel might work, the prototype enginneers must have had the same problem, they have used a wide culvert set square to the overhead track and run the low track through on a skew. Either way, I would need a culvert with the ends set at almost exactly 45 degrees to the run of the track...
Andy
Need more dirt, must have more dirt.
The nice thing about this tunnel, you can set it on any angle you want. Its not locked into a set angle like ones with a dig hole built into them.
Ok- much tweaking later I admit it's do-able...
...but I don't like it! It is no closer to the 'real' culvert than the bridge was - the wing walls are reversed, the levels on the DEM are different (and I'm not fixing that, either the UP has to go into a cut or Vaughn yard has to go about twenty feet up in the air) and the scenery tweaking in the overhead view is dead ordinary....
The bridge is wrong, but so is the 'tunnel'. IMHO the bridge looks better...
Andy
...but I don't like it! It is no closer to the 'real' culvert than the bridge was - the wing walls are reversed, the levels on the DEM are different (and I'm not fixing that, either the UP has to go into a cut or Vaughn yard has to go about twenty feet up in the air) and the scenery tweaking in the overhead view is dead ordinary....
The bridge is wrong, but so is the 'tunnel'. IMHO the bridge looks better...
Andy
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
I think the tunnel looks fine, good enough to please most people...you can always come back weeks from now and replace it, or tweek things later on. Don't let the small stuff drive you nuts. Your doing a great job ! A long distance route.
Who do I know who is good with Gmax????? LOL
Still wouldn't work. The vertical separation between thew two lines is significantly less in the model than in real life, a fact I hadn't realised until The Great Bridge/Tunnel Conflab started! The DEM levels must be wrong. The UP line is (and should be) on the ground. The BNSF fill level is taken from the level of Vaughn yard which again is (more or less) on the ground. To get the required vertical separation would require either a ridiculously steep climb out of Vaughn yard (on a fill yet) or a total reworking of all the ground levels for about two square miles. The fact that Vaughn yard is built and working, as is the UP passing loop and the spiral easement linking the two (which was a pig to get right) also mitigates against a ground level re-work. In short, for many and varied reasons, the bridge wins!!!!
Andy
Last edited: