Problem with level crossings

[Ron_Smith]

I have been building routes since 2003 and just recently been having trouble with the level at crossings (perhaps I am getting to old for this).
I use GWR and UK Level crossings and find that even with checking that the surrounding terrain is at "zero" when I attach the track and road splines there are "missing" areas that
the appropriate tools do not rectify. If I set the rail height etc. I have road missing at the crossing spline point and vice versa I don't recall this problem with earlier versions.
I am not the most technical when it comes to route building but I do like everything to look right.
Any suggestions will be most welcome.

Ron

 

[kenneth18278]

I had this same problem for a while, then found a solution that works for me. First you need to set the "Fixed vertex height" in Menu > Options by putting a tick in the box. Then, open up the Terrain tab, either set the height in the box, or click the Plateau button, and click and drag over the whole area of the crossing. Some of the track and road will disappear, so go into the Objects > Splines and click on "Advanced" and click the "Smooth" button (the far right one) and then click on the disappeared road (you may have to click more than once). Repeat in the track tool clicking on the disappeared track after clicking the "Smooth" button.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Ron_Smith]

Thanks Ken - I have been following this method and did check again but still get some part of either track or road not showing. Back to the drawing board !!
I'll do some experimenting with a new baseboard and no other conflicts.
Ron

 

[mezzoprezzo]

Which level crossing/s are causing the problem? I have a few GWR and UK ones and don't recall any major problem after flattening the terrain where the crossing is placed. They don't seem to like sloping ground.

If you haven't solved it, it might be worth posting the specific kuid/s of the rogue crossing/s so that we can test out some ideas on the same asset.

 

[carr]

I have had the same problem, especially if placing a level crossing close to a station. I usually check the height of the station spines then put the same height level into the terrain tool, apply to the ground where the crossing is. This will cure the problem along with smoothing the roads, which should be attached before levelling the ground height.

 

[Ron_Smith]

Thanks everyone for the information - I have been experimenting and it seems that some road/tracks/crossings are not compatible. I have substituted "road 1" (the road I have been using) and some other roads seem to be OK.
GWR double and single level crossings show (on level terrain) track spline point 0.01 and road spline point -0.22 before any splines are attached - using 1 track wood and road 1 it just will not smooth out and leaves part of road missing.
I have found some other splines which seem to work as required.
Thanks again for input.

 

[Fabartus]

Thanks everyone for the information - I have been experimenting and it seems that some road/tracks/crossings are not compatible. I have substituted "road 1" (the road I have been using) and some other roads seem to be OK.
GWR double and single level crossings show (on level terrain) track spline point 0.01 and road spline point -0.22 before any splines are attached - using 1 track wood and road 1 it just will not smooth out and leaves part of road missing.
I have found some other splines which seem to work as required.
Thanks again for input.

I'm actually surprised we don't see more of this kind of thing. Given each object (mocrossing, track, road) each has a height spec, the order in which you 'smooth' things matters quite a bit as mentioned above in the earlier suggestions. I suspect merging spline sub-types in TS12 hasn't been helpful either.

You seem to have been bitten by a set of warring assumptions in the way the assets connect, ground themselves, and expect to interact with others. If you really like the road spline asset you are replacing, you might try examining both the replacement and the one which failed and see what the difference in programmed offsets looks like. You could then perhaps clone the desired one, tweak the spec as a transition asset. Maybe a few stepped transition assets where each successive join steps the offsets in AN ATTRACTIVE INCREMENT until the normal road ground spec is reached.

Good luck! // Frank

 

[Fabartus]

Actually, let me confess my ignorance and piggy-back a related question since it was alluded to above...
Is there anything such as a mocrossing made on an angle across the slope (gradient of the terrain) where one track is definitely a bit down hill from the other? I HAVE PICS of real ones... Right John!

The real world is full of such in hilly terrain, so having a set of such would be useful if prototyping a neighborhood. True, using AJS crossing system and such assets you can set up whatever nowadays, but for quick and dirty build it and get past the need, a mocrossing one can stick in would still be useful and far faster to set up. // Frank

 

[Ron_Smith]

Thanks for all the above - I have found some splines that work ok - will probably stay with these.

 

[ray_whiley]

My solution - lay the desired road to within a few metres of the crossing. Join it to the crossing with invisible road. Overlay this with an unconnected length of the desired road and adjust its spline point heights.

There seems to be no common height for road and crossing attachment points. I find GWR crossings leave a step up from some roads to crossing surface.

Ray

 

[bnsf50]

Actually, let me confess my ignorance and piggy-back a related question since it was alluded to above...
Is there anything such as a mocrossing made on an angle across the slope (gradient of the terrain) where one track is definitely a bit down hill from the other? I HAVE PICS of real ones... Right John!

The real world is full of such in hilly terrain, so having a set of such would be useful if prototyping a neighborhood. True, using AJS crossing system and such assets you can set up whatever nowadays, but for quick and dirty build it and get past the need, a mocrossing one can stick in would still be useful and far faster to set up. // Frank

You can do this in surveyor if the proper lines are in the config file. Check the config file to see if these lines listed below are in it. If they're not you can add them, then in surveyor click the rotate button and rotate while holding down the shift key, you can hold down the ctrl key at the same time for finer tilt increments. Now the only caveat here is the crossing builder has to have built the crossing with the track in the east west alignment in the 3d modeling program. If the crossing was built in a north, south orientation then it will tilt front to back rather than side to side.
Have a look at one of my crossings for reference, mine all have these lines in the config.

rotate-yz-range -10,10
rollstep 0.01
rotstep 0.01

 

[Fabartus]

You can do this in surveyor if the proper lines are in the config file. Check the config file to see if these lines listed below are in it. If they're not you can add them, then in surveyor click the rotate button and rotate while holding down the shift key, you can hold down the ctrl key at the same time for finer tilt increments. Now the only caveat here is the crossing builder has to have built the crossing with the track in the east west alignment in the 3d modeling program. If the crossing was built in a north, south orientation then it will tilt front to back rather than side to side.
Have a look at one of my crossings for reference, mine all have these lines in the config.

rotate-yz-range -10,10
rollstep 0.01
rotstep 0.01

Excellent! Knowing the keywords to look at should help a lot. Alas I'm sufficed with more intellectual stimulation (catchin up here on the forums) than time to experiment or even just work in Surveyor right now, but I'm bookmarking your answer for when construction projects or rain let me get indoors to Trainz once more with some significant time to Trainz!

Parsing your answer again, I intuit the N-S definitions will add a gradient to the Tracks, should one wish an Unlevel crossing... which is also very useful indeed. In fact, that lack may qualify as a pet peeve!

What in your experience is the effect if you rotate then level terrain to either of the two splines--would the N-S defined versions fill in the high side gap. Shaping the road splines in a layout is far easier than having some track types look right, so I can see both being useful. I think I recollect using level terrain on a mocrossing asset, but I'm not really sure. Haven't been able to do any route building this past year so I'm out of practice! Thanks again! // Frank