Diamond Crossing Dissapointment

Home Forums General Discussion Diamond Crossing Dissapointment

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #19436

    Although I am delighted to see a new patch, the much-anticipated “diamond” crossing is a disappointment. This is not a diamond crossing in the traditional sense. It is what we would call a “scissors” crossing.

    A read diamond crossing would be much more useful. I hope we really will see one soon. It would allow us to create proper junctions which is what we need.




    yes it is a bit of a dissapointment as it is not applied fully

    merging tracks is the real reason for needing a X crossover so feeling a little let down by this one 🙁

    lets hope that the next patch (after another few months) will correct this issue


    We are sorry about the confusion! As stated in the heading of the announcement and in the patch notes, we implemented a diamond crossover.

    The term diamond “crossing” slipped into the text by mistake, but was corrected due to your feedback.


    The game needs a proper “diamond” crossing – a way of crossing one track with another. It would lead to much more useful track formations.


    I’m really disappointed that Urban Games mis-understood our requests for a crossing to create realistic double track junctions.  This type of junction is used commonly all over the world.

    How can a game that is all about railways not have this from day one?


    Sorry guys, but diamond crossings almost never used in Europe. So it’s understandable it’s not one of first features in the game. Diamond crossing means traffic lights, and the train stops not-on-the-station to wait for another train to pass. In fact, transport companies pay heavy penalties for any off-station stops or even slow-downs. Taking into account busyness, speeds and strict timetables here in Europe the diamond crossings are simply unimaginable.

    It’s like putting a crossing with traffic lights on a highway – can you imagine that? Also, one train slows down means all the following will have to slow down or stop. Loss of lots of money.

    However I agree that aesthetically the diamond crossing is an awesome thing; it exist and managed in modern life in many countries. So it should be implemented.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Mike.

    Sorry but simply not true, Diamond Crossings ARE used extensively in Europe and are certainly NOT as you describe “crossings with traffic lights” !!

    Example 1, a complicated Diamon Crossing junction outside Newcastle Station inthe UK,


    That is an extreme and very complicated example, here is a more common example which you will find in EVERY rail network in Europe at some point, I guarantee it,


    That page had several different views of a junction near Cheshunt in the UK and you can clearly see how usefull the diamond crossing is. The very name comes from the Diamond shape it makes when the first line crosses over the second to enable the lines to branch from each other. Basically, ANY double track line that wants to split into two double tracks MUST USE A DIAMOND CROSSING!! So sorry, to say they are not common in Europe is just plain wrong.


    • This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by simonmd.

    Awesome first pic! 😀

    Hm.. I admit you’ve got the point these exist, especially near stations, I agree. But these are for junction reasons not crossing. When 1 2-track splits into 2 2-tracks for example. But still agree with me they are inefficient because the train on the crossing track makes incoming train wait for it to cross, and vice versa. In the second drawing there’s a conflict between the Up Southburry and Dn Cambridge lines. In absolutely all new constructions I’ve seen in Belgium, Germany or Switzerland they always use the bridge over the track, the motorway-style.

    But yes, near stations where speed is slower these are quite helpful.


    Mike –

    You have no idea what you’re talking about! Diamonds are used extensively – most often at junctions as in this case:

    Such a feature in Train Fever would be very useful.



    Ah now I get where the diamond comes from. I’d be curious to see some of your maps. My railways are quite simplistic and I’m wondering how to improve traffic to reduce times., This would be convenient indeed. same station pier sharing 2 lines.


    I was more talking about like this one:

    India's famous diamond crossing

    But for double-track junctions it’s a different story, i agree with you.

    However, rather than it’s cheaper and simplier, it’s still less efficient than the one with the flyover:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_junction (look the E type)

    Thus, in all my setups in TF i always do the flyover one – I hate when trains wait outside the station 😉


    Yes, it’s double track junctions that we have been campaigning for; they are a common feature of railways all over the planet.  Their most important feature is that they save space in restricted situations.  (See Perchpole’s pic above.)

    Flyovers are very good in separating conflicting traffic flows but the downside is they cost lots of money, and most of all they take a lot of space.

    The lack of this type of junction betrays a lack of basic railway knowledge by the developers.


    He he like Ubisoft send a crew to Tibet while making Far Cry 4, it wouldn’t hurt to send Urban guys to a week of “Live My Life” experience with drivers and techies on the real railroad 😉

    Traian Trante

    The main and biggest problem of thsi game is that the map is too small. Industries are too close to each other. Cities are too close to each other.

    So we have to squeeze all kind of crossings all over the place and we have to make sure that they are speedy enough to to affect your line performace. At the end you end up with half of your rail newtwork beeing made of junctions, intersections, bridges, etc, etc, etc.

    So it’s normal to want all kind of tools like diamond crossings to save space.


    Please give us the proper crossings. but also please don’t ignore the fact that the map is simply too small for trains. This is the main issue and it should be given priority.


    @Traian I completely agree with you !

    In the forums someone mentioned that there is a possibilty to have less cities and industries in a large map by modifying some parameters.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.