Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Correcting Track Alignment?

  1. #1

    Question Correcting Track Alignment?

    I have come across at least two cases where adjoining track are not lined up properly. In particular, one set of track is lower (or higher, depending on how you view it) than the adjoining track section!

    One case is in Landeck (Europe 2 route; Innsbruck to St. Anton), and the other in Marias Pass version 5 near the summit.

    Trains passing over these misaligned tracks will jump a bit, but there haven't been any derailments, so far. But that might happen for faster trains (I have to test this yet)?

    Is there a way to align these tracks properly without having to redo the entire route, or without ruining the existing route? I understand that changing track layouts might affect the signalling (and other aspects of the route) making it behave unpredictably and might make the route become effectively unusable(?)

    So how to (re) align tracks without causing any issues to the existing routes? Is it possible? If so, how?

    Thanks.

  2. #2

    Default

    The track alignment on the default MSTS routes is mostly rubbish. Crazy gradient changes and all that.

    Correcting misalignments can be tricky with interactives installed. You can try opening the route in TSRE, deleting all interactives on the stretch affected (any interactive between junction nodes), correct the track by slightly rotating, then restoring the interactives.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    Are these misaligned pieces in double-track areas. If so, it will be effectively impossible to get rid of that jump without tearing up the track and relaying it.

    Also, Joe is right about the wonky track in the MSTS default routes. The maximum grade in the real Marias Pass never exceeds 1.8% (hats off to the GN surveyors), but MSTS somehow wound up cracking 5% in the pass

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Carolina's
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    5% gradients.

    Wow,

    No wonder I can never get a train over the pass without crazy numbers of helper units.

    How did they manage to bungle up that bad I wonder?

    Robert

  5. #5

    Default

    Comments noted, thanks.

    Yes, I suspected correcting any track issues would require a fair amount of additional work ("interactive" issues to deal with as well), unfortunately. I was sort of hoping there would be a utility that would allow (minor) corrections to track layout without having to deal with any other aspects as well; a "quick fix". But it appears that a quick fix is not (yet) possible.

    The track at Landeck is basically single track, although there are other tracks nearby (unaffected by track misalignment). The other tracks are far enough away so that all the tracks are considered to be single track.

    The track at Marias Pass is actually double tracked. But the second track is not misaligned like the first track. The grade according to Open Rails is up to 2.6% with very brief excursions to around 3.1% (I think). The section of misaligned track is on or near level grade (0%).

    The original Marias Pass route that came with MSTS has excessive and unrealistic grades (about 5%). Marias Pass 5 that has this track misalignment has grades not exceeding ~ 3.1% (although even that is a bit high and unrealistic according to early post of ebnertra000 which states grades are limited to 1.8%).

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NW 2156 View Post
    5% gradients.

    Wow,

    No wonder I can never get a train over the pass without crazy numbers of helper units.

    How did they manage to bungle up that bad I wonder?

    Robert
    Following the low res DEM terrain rather than track charts in all likelihood.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joe_star View Post
    Following the low res DEM terrain rather than track charts in all likelihood.
    Probably. The 1.8 number I stated comes from GN and BN track charts. I'm actually impressed that they managed to keep the grade that low given the terrain

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    5,175

    Default

    Well it was built 20 years ago! We have come a long way since then...
    Vern.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebnertra000 View Post
    Probably. The 1.8 number I stated comes from GN and BN track charts. I'm actually impressed that they managed to keep the grade that low given the terrain
    I dont do US routes so I usually only have 30m DEMs at best and no track charts. Working off the terrain and google earth/maps more often than not results in lots of rework when pictures or other data sources come up later on to give more info.

    I just had to correct signifcant trackwork on one of my projects when I uncovered some technical information that showed the maximum gradient was 3%.I had got up to 5% when purely following DEM terrain and google data!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •