Level crossings approach roads.

[ben_issacs]

Folks, 

Using  any  of the level crossing kits with either Kato or Tomix track means usually that the approach road is at the baseboard level, whilst the road across the tracks is at a higher level, due to the design of the track sections.

This means that  generally there is a ramp section of road up to the crossing which is not very realistic, and sometimes is so steep that any car using it would bottom as it tried to cross.

The approach road could be built up to give a level run onto the crossing, this means that any side roads coming in must either be built up also, or run at an easy slope up to the approach road.

Not an easy solution!

Also, in real life, roads often cross the tracks at other than right angles, which provides more problems for the crossing arrangements.

In these cases, do the booms line at right angles to the approach road, or parallel to the tracks?

I think that I've seen both cases.

Regards, 

Bill, 

Melbourne.

 

 

[railsquid]

54 minutes ago, ben_issacs said:

Folks, 

Using  any  of the level crossing kits with either Kato or Tomix track means usually that the approach road is at the baseboard level, whilst the road across the tracks is at a higher level, due to the design of the track sections.

This means that  generally there is a ramp section of road up to the crossing which is not very realistic, and sometimes is so steep that any car using it would bottom as it tried to cross.

The approach road could be built up to give a level run onto the crossing, this means that any side roads coming in must either be built up also, or run at an easy slope up to the approach road.

Not an easy solution!

 

 

Been there, done that :D

 

Road markings by Rail Squid, on Flickr

[Martijn Meerts]

Actually, going by various pictures and Google street view I watched when doing research on the Enoden line for my T-Trak, I noticed that the majority of the Enoden track is actually on the same level as the surrounding scenery, not on an embankment that gets created by Kato or Tomix track. And there's actually quite a lot of track that isn't on an embankment.

 

For my T-Trak, I've decided to re-design my base modules so the rail sits more or less at the same height, or slightly higher than the surroundings.

[ben_issacs]

Folks, 

Another possible solution to the raised track problem is not to use the Kato or Tomix tracks, but use flexi track, which sits flat on the baseboard and can be ballasted to suit.

More work, of course, but more realism!

Regards, 

Bill, 

Melbourne.

 

[cteno4]

Bill,

 

I would would say that approach leads to less realism as levels at trackside can vary a lot — it’s the track that stays very level. Ditches and small depression occur all the time just off or even under the tracks and going down onto the baseboard negates doing any of these scenes.

 

It’s simple and good to build up your scenery surface a bit to meet needs and allow a bit of variety. Even in really flat areas there some variances and height for drainage, just odd contours that never got leveled off, etc. this the. Allows you to depress your scenery in places a bit as needed. If you force your scenery down onto your baseboard it’s hard to do this without cutting a hole in it) and forces you more into a flatland look, it’s sad to do this with layouts where you can actually can get away with more vertical exaggeration than in real life and pack more scenery into a small place.

 

using flex track gets you lower and allow all freehand layout, but looses all the great things of sectional track like being able to rearrange things at will and ease of installation.

 

jeff

[Sheffie]

I laid my sectional track directly onto the plywood, for the main incarnation of my first layout, and I wish I'd kept a layer of corrugated cardboard beneath it like I did with the first iteration. (I used 6mm (1/8") double walled cardboard - think Lowe's heavy duty storage boxes - for just about all of my terrain.) The higher your track is above a hard baseboard, the easier it is to make artistic moves like the depressions and ditches that Jeff suggests, and the easier it is to use pins and such like to fasten things in place.

 

I really felt like it worked well, to have a layer of cardboard on either side of the track. That created a natural "gutter" between the track and the card, for my added ballast to sit in, while leaving the rails at or even slightly below the height of the surrounding "grass" (cardboard with green cloth over it). 

 

When it comes to level crossings, I think it's best to keep them level - at least until/unless you're very confident about ramping up or down to them. I don't think the little ramps that you get with Kato crossings are worth installing. My roads were slightly below the level of the crossing's road... and it never looked right.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Sheffie

[marknewton]

I agree with Jeff. Running lines are on a roadbed which is built up higher than the surrounding ground level. When they’re crossed by roads there is almost always a ramp or incline to bring the surface of the road up to the head of the rail, even if it is only slight and barely noticeable. I’ve been looking into this myself as the station at Bakuromachi has a crossing at both ends. This photo, taken years ago by my mate Stuart, shows the road ramping up to rail level. 

 

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

[railsquid]

 

1 hour ago, marknewton said:

I agree with Jeff. Running lines are on a roadbed which is built up higher than the surrounding ground level. When they’re crossed by roads there is almost always a ramp or incline to bring the surface of the road up to the head of the rail, even if it is only slight and barely noticeable. I

 

Umm, I'd say "it depends on the crossing and the location". Many of the level crossings I'm familiar with from everyday usage are essentially flat, if there's any slight change in road height it's imperceptible, and certainly not at a scale reproducible at model level. Random example (street view link) :

 

   https://goo.gl/maps/bJfeDLAj1BvjnBZs5

 

(which also answers the question about crossing boom orientation, at least for this example).

 

The Bakuromachi example shown above is (IMHO) at the more extreme end of the "ramp" spectrum.

 

The ramps which come with the Kato/Tomix crossings are certainly very unrealistic.

 

One thing I don't recall seeing modelled are crossings where the running rails are canted, in which case the road surface on the crossing is undulating to match the variations in rail top height.

[cteno4]

I’ve seen the whole spectrum in japan, but I have no idea what is the predominant. My point is to just give the option to do all varieties and not get locked into one kind or another or limit other specific interesting scenery elements.

 

cheers

 

jeff

[Martijn Meerts]

Yeah, it very much depends on country, area, line, and other variables. Like I said, the Enoden track seems to have no embankments for the majority of the line, possibly because it runs close to home and through cities with lots of crossings. Higher speeds lines with few crossings, or track that's out in the open will need the embankments for water drainage and things like that.

 

I'd check Google maps street view for examples, there's plenty of them in all variations 🙂

[cteno4]

Most folks also try to do a lot of different senes/lines compacted into a small layout so giving yourself the ability to squeeze in the variety is important.

 

Pjeff

[bill937ca]

Enoden also has street running.

 

[bill937ca]

Here is a foot crossing on the Fukushima Kotsu with a fairly steep pitch.

 

 

[keiichi77]

I would subscribe to seigen120kaihin on youtube. He posts a few videos a week about level crossings.  Lots of variety and the videos are usually between 2 to 5 minutes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR38vYsF4qJ6zJMKFKdkPig