Railroad crosses is missing and are needed!

Home Forums General Discussion Railroad crosses is missing and are needed!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14595
    HNA
    Participant

    When I start playing on a new map because I did some foolish mistake on my last game, lesson learned starting from scratch. Everything goes smoothly, the game looks beautiful and allround very realistic. Sure somethings are missing, but I’m sure the devs are working on it. However after the last update,which I hoped would be the update where they would implent that one thing that bugs me; railroad crossings.

    As we all now the only way to create something similar to this with the same purpose of getting a railroad to go somewhere, but a another rail is blocking it’s path. Solution in the real world would be doing something like the above picture shows. Train Fever solution is to spend alot more money than needed by bulding a bridge.

    Sure it does look fancy and cool, however for me who has some experience with how railroads work, plus the fact that bridges costs more in maintance than an actual railroad crossing would. So instead of having to build a bridge, I would like to something like this:

    It serves the same purpose as in-game version does only that it is much more simplier to build and cheapier to maintain, but are as well more realistic. I think this is something that needs to be implemented in a future update, for the sake of realism and the fact it costs alot of money to build a bridge cross section.

    #14601
    Tattoo
    Participant

    I honestly don’t think they know how to implement them or they would have been in game already. Either that or they’re just too damn lazy to try. One has to wonder since all over the world, track crossings like above are used everywhere but not in Train Fever. lol.

    #14637
    Gasolene
    Participant

    What you’re referring to is a level junction or diamond junction or flat junction.  This is not needed nor should it be implemented.  I’ll explain…

    In real life, those kind of crossings are generally considered a nuisance and require trains to travel very slow over them, there’s no good reason to use them.  You may see these on light rail or trams, not major heavy rail commuter lines.  Train fever does not include the correct type of signal and the complexity of that signal would frustrate most people. e.g. the NYC subway avoids these types of crossovers as they create more headaches than solutions – there few spaces they remain are a headache in rush hour.

    A merge is considered a more simpler and safer.  This is where on line merges with the second before diverging.  This type intersection can be achieved with basic path signals included in TF.

    Most people complaining about missing diamond crossovers have no idea how complex the signalling would be.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Gasolene.
    • This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Gasolene.
    #14643
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I registered only for this. There are two types of crossing that I think are really needed in TF. I remember that in Locomotion you can mix them how you want and signaling was really easy.

    The double crossing

    The double junction

    #14648
    simonmd
    Participant

    I’ll second the above, especially the double junction. What a PITA it is to split a set of double tracks at the moment! If you can do it in something as relatively simple as Cities in Motion, this is a BIG omission from TF.

    #14662
    HNA
    Participant

    @Gasolene that is true what you’r saying about the diamond cross, however there should be an elternative to it when it’s to complicated. Like the double englishman(picture below), or that’s what we call it. It’s more practical than a standard diamond cross.  

    This kind of crossing allows the train to go faster trhough it than what the diamond does. It allows the train to change into another track (only the top version allows that). There is a similar way to mimick this ingame, but due to the required distance between each junction forces the tain to use a longer time getting to the other side.

    #14664
    Norfolk_Chris
    Participant

    The simple (diamond) crossing (pic 2 above) is far more important than the complicated double slip crossing (pic 1).  (The pathing through the double slip is far more complicated as it consists of four (4) switches plus one crossing.)

    The simple crossing is vital to produce double junctions as shown in alex_dg66’s post above.  They are common on all railways worldwide. Even CIM2 has them!

    #14687
    LB
    Participant

    I think they should implement as many crossing/junction types as possible. Basically, if it can be done in the real world, you should be able to do it in game.

    Also, is it just me or are double tracks spaced slightly too far apart? This includes tracks at stations. I think if the spacing was reduced a bit, we could squeeze a lot more track in a smaller space.

    I’d also like to see tram tracks laid in a similar way to rail instead of the current method of “painting” roads. I don’t think it would be too hard to enable “track snapping” to roads, or lanes of roads and being able to lay one track at a time, not double tracks everywhere. Some cities have trams only down the centre of the street which allows traffic to drive either side of them. Also, where are the tram catenaries?

    #14694
    coujou
    Participant

    I think the devs just don’t know, how to implement it. It is such an essential thing, that if they did, it would be possible at the very beginning. I think they will try to do something with it, but it will be some kind of compromise, no free and realistic building, but some kind of prefabricated pieces of track – e.g. X junction for 70kph, 120kph, 200kph and so on. Notice, that they are also successfully avoiding to implement multithreading, which, in my opinion is the biggest pain in the ass from the beginning. Maybe they are not able to do this either.

    #14709
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Even so, if they can’t do it they should inform us. Prefabricated pieces aren’t really that bad, at least they would save us a lot of trouble.

    #14711
    n00b
    Participant

    From the outside, it isn’t possible to decide what is hard to do and what is easy in the train fever code. It might be that implementing crossings would require a complete internal rewrite of core components. It might be that it only requires some effort that hasn’t been of high enough priority until now. It might be that there are several tasks already being done or on the to do list that are required to allow starting with crossings. I’m pretty sure we will see them in one way or another – or we will see a final statement that they are not possible.

    Until this notice has been posted, I’m pretty sure everything will be done to get crossings into the game.

    #14753
    Gasolene
    Participant

    I’ll second the above, especially the double junction. What a PITA it is to split a set of double tracks at the moment! If you can do it in something as relatively simple as Cities in Motion, this is a BIG omission from TF.

    It is not an omission, double junctions are currently possible using a switched double junction.  They take about 6 seconds to create, and do not use any additional space.  Definitely not a PITA.  Maybe u just need to see an example.

    CiM does not reflect realistic railroad design.  Most modern networks use a switched double junction, single lead junction or Flyovers (NYC subway).  Again, it’s not the crossing that is complex, it’s the signalling.  Maybe CiM does not realistically model signalling.  I have used Train simulators (Tz2012) to create crossings, and what a nightmare getting a simple signal to work and be efficient.

    #14757
    LB
    Participant

    I’m sure that a crossing for rail would be just as easy/difficult to implement as a crossing for a road over rail. You would very much hope that they are at least working on the road crossing, so a rail crossing should happen at the same time as the road crossing anyway.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by LB.
    #14760
    Tattoo
    Participant

    Sorry, wrong post.

    #14763
    Norfolk_Chris
    Participant

    @Gasolene

    It is not an omission, double junctions are currently possible using a switched double junction.  They take about 6 seconds to create, and do not use any additional space.  Definitely not a PITA.  Maybe u just need to see an example.

    I would like to see one that has the same capacity, AND occupies the same space as well!

    Another omission is that tram tracks cannot be laid across level crossings.  This happens in real life in many places.

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