Looking for tips : how to make a viaduct

[belgian46]

Hello everybody,

Within my route ( created with transdem ), I would like to make some viaducts. One of those viaducts is a viaduct with tracks, roads, etc...

In the setting above ( absolutely awful ) - I would like to make a viaduct where the road is placed below the baseboard level and the track remains on baseboard level.

Has anyone already made such a type of viaduct?

If yes, how did you make it?

Is there a method to get the squares flat ( squares where the road is laying )?

How do you make a realistic viaduct ?

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[PerRock]

Lay the road down where you want it, then hit the adjust terrain button (it's got some other fance name I'm forgetting). it's in the advanced menu for both splines & track and looks like a red & white dashed line with a green box below it. You can see it in this picture, just to the right of the one being highlighted.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7349/68425233.jpg

peter

 

[bendorsey]

As an alternate go into the config file and delete the attached track section. That way you can place the tracks and roads wherever you want. You might have to add a height adjust line to the config file. I can't remember if it has one or not (its been several years since I made it).

For something fancier - send me photos and basic dimensions and I can make it for you.

Ben

 

[belgian46]

Lay the road down where you want it, then hit the adjust terrain button (it's got some other fance name I'm forgetting). it's in the advanced menu for both splines & track and looks like a red & white dashed line with a green box below it. You can see it in this picture, just to the right of the one being highlighted.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7349/68425233.jpg

peter

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your reply.

Smooth spline S - that is the name of the button. I just did a test, and the squares became flat.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[belgian46]

As an alternate go into the config file and delete the attached track section. That way you can place the tracks and roads wherever you want. You might have to add a height adjust line to the config file. I can't remember if it has one or not (its been several years since I made it).

For something fancier - send me photos and basic dimensions and I can make it for you.

Ben

Hello Ben,

Thank you for your reply.

I already have your bridges, broad gauge arch, etc .. which will do nicely. However, thank you for your offer. Very much appreciated.

Here some screenshots of the things I would like to create within my route ( at Zeebrugge ).

I just had some difficulties getting the roads on a lower level and to get it presentable. My picture in post 1 shows my very poor tryout.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[martinvk]

One thing you need to consider is: is it easier to raise the bridge or lower the river? In your case, that means, raise the tracks up on embankments or lower all the land around the tracks. Had a look at the area you showed in your screen shots and around N51.33 E3.25 in GE, most of the land seems lower than the tracks. It might be easier to just raise the land under the tracks. Than you just have to create a few underpasses to let the roads go under the tracks.

 

[Jerker]

G'day belgian46,

I believe martinvk has found the crux of your problem, Kurt. As a long standing railwayman (Driver for 25 years. Signaller for a further 10), I observed immediately that the two locations you show in your images were situations where the track has traversed a small valley (one of a not very great height - 10 or 15 meters depth, perhaps), where the road is at the bottom of the valley (where perhaps a small stream may have run at one time to create the valley in the first place), through which the track has been laid on an embankment (being constantly at the same elevation across the valley - to maintain a constant grade) Were the road not there, there would most likely be a small culvert to allow the stream to pass under the track. In the case of the Freeway, although the 'valley' may be man made, the indications are that we are still in a natural valley and the track is raised on an embankment...

...if the 'smooth' tool has solved your problems, carry on, regardless. Keep in mind though that TransDEM can only reproduce the 'terrain' according to the figures provided for it. Unless those figires have the resolution of the U. S. 1/9 arcsec (or even the 1/3 arcsec) versions, things like embankments and cuttings are NOT going to be reproduced in that terrain (and need to be created manually, based on knowledge of the specific location)...

Jerker {}

 

[AntonyVW]

I tend to agree with jerker. The photos to me suggest that the track is on an embankment not ground level. Maybe with a wider angle on the photos this would be more apparent. I would personally go for a road at ground level and raise the track on an embankment. I do have to add though that I built a section of a fictional route which contains the track on the level with the road diving below it. It just does not look natural at all but in my case was the only solution to a limited area. The reasoning behind it was that in my case the rail lines were built first and the planners could not fit in an over bridge for the road so had to go under it. But then in a fictional route you can justify most things as they are after all fictional just not prototypical.

 

[belgian46]

One thing you need to consider is: is it easier to raise the bridge or lower the river? In your case, that means, raise the tracks up on embankments or lower all the land around the tracks. Had a look at the area you showed in your screen shots and around N51.33 E3.25 in GE, most of the land seems lower than the tracks. It might be easier to just raise the land under the tracks. Than you just have to create a few underpasses to let the roads go under the tracks.

Hello Martinvk,

Thank you for your reply. I did notice than raising a bridge is a lot easier than lowering a road.
I will take an older backupfile of my route and do some experiments. Especially some tests must be done with raising some baseboards and see what effect it has on the neighboring baseboards or scenery which is placed on a baseboard.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[belgian46]

G'day belgian46,

I believe martinvk has found the crux of your problem, Kurt. As a long standing railwayman (Driver for 25 years. Signaller for a further 10), I observed immediately that the two locations you show in your images were situations where the track has traversed a small valley (one of a not very great height - 10 or 15 meters depth, perhaps), where the road is at the bottom of the valley (where perhaps a small stream may have run at one time to create the valley in the first place), through which the track has been laid on an embankment (being constantly at the same elevation across the valley - to maintain a constant grade) Were the road not there, there would most likely be a small culvert to allow the stream to pass under the track. In the case of the Freeway, although the 'valley' may be man made, the indications are that we are still in a natural valley and the track is raised on an embankment...

...if the 'smooth' tool has solved your problems, carry on, regardless. Keep in mind though that TransDEM can only reproduce the 'terrain' according to the figures provided for it. Unless those figires have the resolution of the U. S. 1/9 arcsec (or even the 1/3 arcsec) versions, things like embankments and cuttings are NOT going to be reproduced in that terrain (and need to be created manually, based on knowledge of the specific location)...

Jerker {}

Hello Jerker,

Thank you for your reply. By reading your answer, I noticed that I did forget a very important element regarding embankments. Embankments are created on the train line Knokke-Brugge and they are especialy present after leaving the station of Duinbergen going into the direction of Heist.
It could well be that the making of the viaduct in the neighbourhood of the train tracks will become totally different.
I will first check google earth where those embankments are present, before I continue the route building.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[belgian46]

I tend to agree with jerker. The photos to me suggest that the track is on an embankment not ground level. Maybe with a wider angle on the photos this would be more apparent. I would personally go for a road at ground level and raise the track on an embankment. I do have to add though that I built a section of a fictional route which contains the track on the level with the road diving below it. It just does not look natural at all but in my case was the only solution to a limited area. The reasoning behind it was that in my case the rail lines were built first and the planners could not fit in an over bridge for the road so had to go under it. But then in a fictional route you can justify most things as they are after all fictional just not prototypical.

Hello AnthonyVW,

Thank you for your answer. My idea was to create a reality route. However, more and more, I have to leave the real situation and do some improvisation ( not always simple and it does take more time to find the right solution ).

Best regards

Kurt :wave: