Hello. I am new to route building and I have a problem related to superelevated tracks and junctions. When I place a junction on a curved superelevated track, the superelevation will be removed and the track will get a ugly separation in the track. See the picture below. I wonder how I can fix this and make a junction with a superelevated track. What have I forgotten? How do I proceed?
in the prototype, the whole switch is canted in the roadbed: which when the main route is the diverging track, leads to serious transversal forces in the track and sideways motion in the train thus generally to be avoided due to the maintenance needed
But still not possible in Train Simulator to my knowledge. Switches are dynamically drawn (in reality a kind of animated object) which is also why they look different. And they were never updated with the elevation option.
There is a junction on super-elevated track in the original Woodhead route, and several in the West of Scotland Lines route, so it certainly can be done. But they are hardly satisfactory as you encounter a nasty lurch as you pass over them. Personally, I removed the super-elevation for a more pleasant ride. John
And that happens because, as i said, it really can’t be done. At least not correctly and satisfactory.
It isn't right to say "can't" when it "can". At least two routes have done so, and their developers must consider it acceptable, even if not perfect. The result is a rough ride but it works - unlike "elatn's" illustration. So somebody knows how to make it work (even if not up to some people's expectations) but alas that someone is not me. John
I vaguely remember you just need to create extra gradient arrows on the canted turn out and main track, then finely adjust the gradients to make it as smooth as possible?
If memory serves, the issue with Woodhead isn't (just) the switches but there are some jumps in track elevation. Most old routes have such a bug or two, it's the 76 that exacerbates it. Visually the Soldier Summit track also has a jump at every single switch, but that's just visual. I wonder whether it's possible to rotate the entire switch. One logical explanation for the restriction is that it changes the grade and it might be clumsy to calculate. If you simply place a (straight even) superelevated track and then a junction, after turning 90° the track will be on a grade matching the superelevation %. If you have model train switches, it's super easy to try out. You can kind of see this complicated geometry in the pic above. Of course physical rails are and can be twisted a little. And of course on the pic the inside track is at lower elevation. Back to reality, in a curve like that, the outside rail has to descend to the level of the inside rail by the time the switch ends, mandating that the turnout is a short grade. A really mini rollercoaster. Probably that's why the inside track is lowered because the logic is the same there, the turnout must rise and suddenly you have the inside turnout end above the outside turnout. (Again, just play with two toy switches or just pieces of paper.) .. And then the section of straight track is a compromise between superelevated straight track and a casual wiggle.
I think RW Woodhead was built just before Superelevation as a track property was introduced in RW3:TS2012.
It is based on easements though? which has been there since the beginning? - Although I remember the original Portsmouth direct route was done with easements on purpose for that "future reason" (Portsmouth was just before my time at DTG) That being said though as far as i know you can do junctions on easements just not superelevation, I guess needs more code for that to work but may be too much and could break things? (I'm only guessing but then again the news on TS1 has been very quiet - and i know nothing about it sadly - so not a case of me "not saying because i'm not allowed" - I don't' know anything )
Easements are the line the curve ends (ideally clothoids), but not vertical cant angles (SE), which was introduced in TS2012. Referred to the cab jolting in early routes, in the worst case of Ruhr-Sieg which had no easements and superelevation, where your ICE would derail at the speeds it's supposed to drive in scenarios. Glad we have Hagen-Siegen V3 (V4 is in the works). If junctions on superelevated tracks are possible in TSC I don't know - maybe there's too few instances where it would be needed (high speed junctions in curves). So implementing that could have posed more technical problems than obvious. atomicdanny As long as there's content (and there is, the community is still highly productive) TSC is alive . And v75.8a does the job well. We know DTG - you know DTG. Silence means everything, and is the answer. Important was the recompilation which made the code future proof (though the old VC2007 code still works too). For me, TS is more valuable than ever at the moment. I cannot hide the fact that I do not like TSW and everything around it. (And the more I took a dive into its files, the more I disliked it ) The fact alone that I can move a tree while playing a scenario and can seamlessy continue is brilliant. Inline editors rule. No bloody UE cooking. Plain and simple xml is what TSC is. Love it. I just noticed that xls2lan.exe doesn't work anymore because it's depending on an old MS Access OLE service (Microsoft.ACE.OLEDB.12.0). Tried to translate route destination markers, instead of receiving an "en.lan" file, Utilities.exe wrote directly to tracks.bin. Oh well, fair enough. Even that has a safety net in TSC, .lan + <Localisation> tags in the xmls...
