Is turnouts good enough as workflow?

I am confused. The Turnout Connection Editor will create a horizontal alignment from the .1 of one turnout, through the connection and to the .1 of another turnout. This horizontal can be used down stream for vertical alignment, cant etc. Also, within the Turnout Connection Editor, if the solution requires that one of the turnouts moves then it updates the turnout geometry as well as the total horizontal geometry.

The advantage of the turnouts and the connection editor is that these tools understand and maintain the turnouts base definition and the bending rules (i.e. when a turnout is placed on to a circular arc).

So I need some more information on where you are having issues.

Regards,

R. W. Bradshaw

The first question that I need to ask is "Do you place turnouts in circular curves?"

If the answer is yes, then you should use turnouts and the associated turnout commands. Why? Because the branch geometry needs to be bend / flexed based upon rules which are built into the turnout commands (and the software).

If the answer is no then you could use horizontal elements and those commands. And you as the designer will need to make sure that the length's, radii, crossing angle matches with the standards for any given turnout.

The issue that I am seeing is that you want to create a single horizontal alignment from one mainline through a cross-over / connection to a second turnout and continuing along a second mainline. ( Or even from one mainline through a turnout that connects to some other alignment) On this single horizontal you want to create a vertical and possibly even a cant alignment. And on that single horizontal, you would want to copy the vertical and cut it at the .1, create a gap along the branch (which you will fill in) and then pick up the associated vertical on the second mainline. Well that gets tricky! I have done something similar with the Export to Plasser and Export to Matissa Addin's, but that functionality is not in an actual command!

With all that said, I would be interested in hearing what other users are doing.

Regards,

R. W. Bradshaw

The main problem that I see is the first that I mentioned:

Unknown said:

If I have existing alignment. Very complex one, and I want just to add some turnouts on both ends. The Connection Editor creates new alignment for every turnout that I want to add to that existing alignment. Then to have all in one ( because I want to create longitudinal profile through the turnouts as well) I must recreate all horizontal and vertical geometry in some third alignment (or fourth if I want turnouts on both ends).

If the result was merged in destination alignment it would be great.
---
I was just curious about last one.
---
If I need to place turnout in circular curve it would be The tool :)

Hi Aleksandar and Richard,

Since we are discussing the pros and cons of the turnout/Connection Editor workflows, I'd like to add on cons when creating a cross-over with cant (f.ex. the two mainline tracks are curved and parallel elements).

In this situation the RailTrack would not take the "false" cant of one of the turnout curves into account, which would result in unexpected cant calculation and it also affect the later calculation, like vertical alignment, roadway design, cross-section etc.

Regards,
LiPeng