I was wondering what was the best way to get a road across the tracks would be in this situation.
The road must cross three tracks on a curve. The track is HO unitrack and on 2” foam on top of plywood. Track centres are 60 cm apart.
I am not keen on a grade crossing as the passenger train will stop with the coaches over the grade crossing which will annoy the drivers of the cars waiting to cross the tracks. Other options are an underpass but with the track depth only 2” from the plywood base I am not sure if there will be room for something like the Walthers underpass kit, or a bridge over the track.
How do others get the roads across the tracks, pictures would be useful for reference too?
Exactly how much room do you have, before and after the tracks? You don’t seem to have many options. I would just go with a grade crossing. If you’re limited on space, that’s really your only option.
A track plan would be useful here, post that please.
You could do like George Sellios did on his famous Franklin & South Manchester Railroad - use a bridge that starts out at the high level right at the edge of the layout, there are no approaches to it.
Then have the roadway slope down to level ground once its across the tracks. This slope could be made as steep as you are comfortable with, but would still take up quite a distance.
Or you could just use the grade crossing idea, passenger trains block crossings all over the place and it really shouldn’t make much of a difference in your world of scale people!
Yep, just what I was gonna say…build a bridge over the tracks. Or underpass for the road under the RR tracks. Is very prototypical, evidence of that is everywhere where RRs go.
I wouldn’t give up on the underpass idea so quickly. Two inches is more than enough clearance for most HO vehicles. Paint yellow warning stripes on the bridge sides, and add some limited-clearance ahead signs along the approaches. Every so often, just for fits and giggles, you could jam a semi under there. Happens all the time in the real world.
I would go with the underpass. Think of the various modeling opportunities of each option. A grade crossing is OK, and you can add simple crossbucks for a rural road, flashers for heavier traffic, and crossing gates for a busy thoroughfare. An overpass would likely start as an elevated road on a sloped berm, with guardrails for the sides, and then transition to a bridge over the railroad and come back down. An underpass gives you the opportunity to use either open ties or a ballasted surface for the railroad, and a whole host of bridge types, although the triple-track curve probably limits you to a girder bridge as the most practical choice. The underpass walls can be a sloped surface, or you can use a stone retaining wall.
An underpass made by removing the 2" foam would give you a scale 14.5 ’ clearance. by fudging the roadbed a bit you could pick up another foot or foot and a half. this would work. i do like the overpass idea though.
The underpass would give you the option of extending passenger platforms across the road, and the ramp down would be shorter than the ramp up to an overpass.
You would also have the option of installing a large sign and flashing red lights:
WARNING! FLOOD HAZARD! Do not enter when red lights are flashing.
This thought inspired by several underpasses in Tucson, AZ, which have that problem.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with grade crossings)
Many years ago I lived in Grand Island, NE. The UP mainline passes right throught the middle of town and many of the main roads pass under the tracks. There are fence gates across the roads at the entrances to the underpass. When ever there was a gully-washer, the police would run about closing the gates specifically in order to prevent someone from driving straight into 8 ft of water.
Don’t forget the bridge structure will take a significant chunk out of that distance. Could possibly cut the available height in half. That is assuming you would not want a thru girder type bridge for that particular area. If you do, then the distances would be fine I would think, give or take a scale foot or two. I won’t come over and measure so one probably could not tell anyway[:-^].
That being said, you could cut into the surface and drop the vehicle road surface an inch (or however much the bridge support structure hangs down) and be back to the sufficiant amount of 14.5.
Surface crossings are fine but let’s face it, somewhat boring if that’s all you have on the layout. I would explore either an underpass or an overpass whichever you think would make better scene. Either will probably take up as much space as the other. Just my opinion. It’s your railroad.
Amtrak’s NE corridor here in CT has many places where an underpass was obviously added to remove a grade crossing. Their clearances are about 12’, and they flood all the time!
What a creative idea! Around here there are SEVERAL underpasses under the NS RR lines. They all have huge sump pumps {when they work} but none have more than a low clearance height sign.
Oh well…anyone who decides to drive through them when they are full of water deserves what they get!
There are safety standards that determine what kind of warning signal should be used depending on both road traffic density and visibiliy at the crossing.
A rural road with good visibility up and down the tracks may get by with just crossbucks, but the same road with visibility restriction must have flashers. The other choice is the train has to stop and a flagger (brakeman) must stop traffic while the train passes. This is the case on some crossings that the Brooks Preservation Society uses on their runs out of Belfast, ME.
Another case are crossings that the Maine Eastern RR has on the old MEC Rockland Branch. Most have flashers, but some private crossings have just crossbucks; however, the crossings on Main St and at Cooks Corner in Brunswick have crossing gates due to both visibility restrictions and traffic density. Another crossing about 1/2 mile east of Cooks Corner and near a Lowes and Walmart has just flashers, but the visibility is less restricted.
allow me to introdduce you to a place called Avon Indiana. There exists a state highway calld 267, that crosses a CSX double main. This is well and good, except to the west of the crossing is a set of crossovers, which funnels trains into the proper tracks of the Big Four Yard which begins 300ft from there or so. Any train of signifcant legth taking on fuel, or being drilled into the Hump yard will tie up that crossing for 15minutes to an hour and a half or so. Yes, I’ve seen switchman tell drivers it’ll be a while.
Point is, I wouldn’t be too worried about tiing up that crossing. Other points to condsider:
Is the train capable of loading at the back, or is it going into the crossing with the engine/head end blocking? If you can open one lane, and board passengers intot he observation car, a guard can direct traffic around the train.
Are you only makign a commuter stop? If it’s laess than 15 minutes, the drivers can wait. Any more, then yes, a concession may have tgo be made. Also, if you are adding or removing coaches at the statgion, sucvh as through sleepers or the dining car, then leave the train on the other side of the road to do that.
Thanks for the interesting ideas. I think I will try the underpass. Hey I could even flood it with a truck stuck under the bridge. Lots of fire trucks pumping it out and police etc. Could be quite a scene.
Do you think the Walthers Art Deco highway underpass kit could be made to fit (2” high) or would I be better with a girder bridge and concrete retaining walls.
