I hate laying or trying to repair track in TS 12!

[JCitron]

Not to be argumentative, but simply stating the facts........................
The point here is that properly laying the track roadbed prior to laying track is very important. I certainly will agree that laying that roadbed is not only an annoying task..................it's a downright pia!
And this is directed to a certain someone who knows darn right better..............................
Tracklaying direction is an URBAN MYTH! It affects nothing other than the direction in which signals and other trackside objects face. I know of no other way it affects operations. This has been discussed many, many times in these forums. It may effect engine headlight directional operation, but that is a script issue, not a track issue.

Absolutely! The old urban myth thing, which I stated a few times now but got ignored.

The direction though does help with track bendy issues I noticed and of course the direction of the track objects. Having the track going in the proper direction makes placing signals and whatnot so much faster.

Regarding the stuck down spline points... This wouldn't be a problem if it was like this right from the beginning, but like most things here the course was changed and now we have to fiddle with things to match what we've done before. For new track sections I don't bother fiddling with the height, but when fixing older track it's a bit of a pain.

 

[steamboateng]

Top of the evening to you John. I didn't ignore you, that's why I was surprised to see it!
At most I admit it's 'helpful' to lay track in a given direction, but certainly not necessary; as I'm sure you have run into many a situation where you really can't define which direction a track should be laid, not to speak of two way track, which is most necessary for yard and switching shunt 'runarounds'.
Personally I feel it's a non-issue. I'm rather more concerned with the laying of roadbed, which can 'make or break' track work. I honestly feel that 99% of track work problems lie with the amount of care that was put into the roadbed.
As for the 'change' in how track splines are handled I can only say "it's about time". A spline point referencing a ground height parameter is a lot more reliable than one referencing an arbitrary point in space. Splines can be raised or lowered from that known reference point, and returned to same. A split from prior builds it its; but a necessary one, which supports consistency in defining that track work.
On the other hand I totally support your recommendation to add spline points to junction track work. Adding 3 spline points close to the 'junction' spline itself fixes that junction in location, height, and angular diversion. I do this with all my junctions.
Best regards
Mike

 

[JCitron]

Top of the evening to you John. I didn't ignore you, that's why I was surprised to see it!
At most I admit it's 'helpful' to lay track in a given direction, but certainly not necessary; as I'm sure you have run into many a situation where you really can't define which direction a track should be laid, not to speak of two way track, which is most necessary for yard and switching shunt 'runarounds'.
Personally I feel it's a non-issue. I'm rather more concerned with the laying of roadbed, which can 'make or break' track work. I honestly feel that 99% of track work problems lie with the amount of care that was put into the roadbed.
As for the 'change' in how track splines are handled I can only say "it's about time". A spline point referencing a ground height parameter is a lot more reliable than one referencing an arbitrary point in space. Splines can be raised or lowered from that known reference point, and returned to same. A split from prior builds it its; but a necessary one, which supports consistency in defining that track work.
On the other hand I totally support your recommendation to add spline points to junction track work. Adding 3 spline points close to the 'junction' spline itself fixes that junction in location, height, and angular diversion. I do this with all my junctions.
Best regards
Mike

Agree on all points. This should have been done a decade or more ago. As I said. it's not bad for new track, but old stuff can be a pain. The other painful place is road crossings. You need to raise them up a bit when adding them in on old track because they tend to be low, which causes a bit of a bump when driving!

There are times, like when building runaround tracks and sidings that it's necessary to run the track backwards, however, for main lines I find it easier to run up one way and then down the other. This helps get that diverge right with the tracks. On the main lines I keep my spline points together so it's easier to adjust the spacing. I noticed that too. If the spline points are kept together, adjusting the spacing at each one keeps the spacing consistent. It also helps in adjusting the track heights if necessary so you don't need to chase them up and down. I simply raise both at the same time.

Top of the evening to you too. I'm replacing trees on another route to import into T:ANE. It's a biggie so it takes time between replace functions so I post here.

John

 

[steamboateng]

Actually I ain't doin' nuthin'!
I working up the testicularity to write a config for the 'cat wires' splines.
I find procrastinating to be quite comfortable right now!
Mike

 

[JCitron]

Actually I ain't doin' nuthin'!
I working up the testicularity to write a config for the 'cat wires' splines.
I find procrastinating to be quite comfortable right now!
Mike

I do a lot of that too. It's so much easier sometimes.

To go completely off-topic. I looked at the bridge again today. There's some kind of metal underneath the truss so no details at all. They lopped off that siding bridge I mentioned on the phone. The only place it exists now is in Trainz!

Asset replacement is going very slowly in TS12. I never realized how doggy that version is.

John

 

[steamboateng]

As I mentioned earlier, the 'under bridging' was probably a result from late 60's to 70's lawsuits regarding 'dumping trash on my car' lawsuits.
However, not to worry...................Ronald and Nancy determined these suits were totally irrational and irrelevant. Politicians and 'Big Buisines' has since determined that 'dumping trash on my car' is a non issue; except when someone gets hurt; then a $200k settlement (lawer gets 60%) is the normal answer.
It's all taken care of, John. Rest easy.

 

[Vern]

The 'spline point' action in TS12 build 61388 is default and normal. Just like real railroad practice, one must build the under laying grade to support the track. Now what's wrong with that, besides its annoying?

Unless of course you're splitting the track across a gorge or valley to assist in placing the bridge, at which point it drops to the valley floor. As noted it still occurs on ground you have levelled due to the bug in track sitting 0.2m above the ground. Try creating a complex junction in 61388 where track is on a rising gradient, damn frustrating. Actually a typical instance for me would be laying a track across the gorge and temporarily putting in a spline point at either end to create the approach embankment (then deleted once the bridge in place). The track should split and maintain the gradient but it doesn't and drops to the floor.

And besides we're not building a railroad in the "real" world. We're building a representation in a virtual world on our PC's. Just as we're told we need to adapt signalling practices from the real world to what works in the sim, the tools need to deliver within the capabilities of our PC's how to create a reasonable representation. We're doing it with keyboard and mouse, not an army of coolies labouring away with pickaxe and shovels!!

Of course it will never get fixed in TS12 now but I have a sneaky feeling from my limited dabbling in TANE the "new" (ha) sim does exactly the same behaviours splitting splines over a void you are later going to fill with a bridge, the only saving factor being that TANE seems to have addressed the terrain not smoothing right up to the track base.

 

[steamboateng]

O.K. Let's get real and let's get Trainz. First off, Trainz track, all of it, is designed to be .3m above grade at the railhead. And I agree, we are not building a 'real' railroad but a simulation. However, all simulations, games or whatever; as long as they are represented on your monitor depend on X,Y, Z coordinates to place those items. Does it make sense to reference those assets to a 'ground' coordinate or should N3V base its locations on an arbitrary point in space. The answer is obvious. I'm not going to argue N3v/Auran's previous entries. Let it be stated that "they saw the light".
Secondly, your other points are invalid, inaccurate and out of context.
Best Regards
steamboat

 

[cascaderailroad]

Overall ... There is very little wrong with Trainz tracklaying ... It all boils down to the OP not knowing enough about tracklaying, as he is an extremely inexperienced user, wishing that Trainz would be a perfect program, and would somehow magically lay track for him.

I have absolutely NO problem with laying complex track in Trainz !

 

[scratchy]

haha you guys are funny. I agree with Vern, if you want to do complex track work efficiently, inserting a point and it staying at the same height is the best option. But then maybe I should leave it to the experts

 

[JCitron]

haha you guys are funny. I agree with Vern, if you want to do complex track work efficiently, inserting a point and it staying at the same height is the best option. But then maybe I should leave it to the experts

I agree. If you insert a point in the track, it should match the others already inserted and not create a complex mess! I learned the hard way to measure what I want the height to be and then put the new spline points in, then put in the correct height in to adjust the track. As I said for previous track done, this is a pain in the you know what, but for new track it doesn't matter so much.

@Cascaderailroad... First He's a new user who hasn't faced this before. Second. Have you laid new track in TS12 SP1HF4?


John

 

[steamboateng]

My apologies to Vern. He is quite right about setting height. I misread his post, being awake way too far into the am, bleary eyed and tired.
There are times when setting the roadbed is problematic such as changing grades or junction diversion off of a grade. The track may show up rippley or bumpy or have a noticeable dip. Selecting the 'Set Spline Height' tool and simply tapping a spline point near the offending section of track will often resolve the issue.

 

[Vern]

My apologies to Vern. He is quite right about setting height. I misread his post, being awake way too far into the am, bleary eyed and tired.
There are times when setting the roadbed is problematic such as changing grades or junction diversion off of a grade. The track may show up rippley or bumpy or have a noticeable dip. Selecting the 'Set Spline Height' tool and simply tapping a spline point near the offending section of track will often resolve the issue.

I have learned to take note of the gradient prior to splitting the spline as you can then re-apply the setting and get things back where they should be. Not so easy in the case of a complex junction where the best thing to do is ignore the gradient profile and lay it out on the level.