Tram tracks on plain land

[Sirius]

In extended, it doesn't seem to be possible to build tram tracks on plain ground. These do always require a road underneath.
Is there any particular reason for this? It is possible in standard, so this must have been an explicit design decision in extended.

Particularly, I'm asking this as a pakset co-author, bringing pak192.comic to the extended world.
We had a discussion about this topic and came to the conclusion that it made a lot of sense to allow tram tracks on plain grounds.
In the real-world this is calles a "green track".
See the example images of different Green track types below:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/2206_Amsterdamer_Stra%C3%9Fe%2C_G%C3%BCrtel.JPG
https://img.fotocommunity.com/strassenbahn-aus-berlin-in-karlsruhe-ee6316a6-8043-4deb-923d-9aa80fdf1a74.jpg?height=1080
https://www.1000steine.de/de/gemeinschaft/forum/img/6932-1500827935.jpg
Okay, the last one was a joke.

If you don't want to allow such tracks in some cases, might a parameter like "can_build_on_plain_ground" be an option?
Something like a "can_build_on_road" mght be useful in addition, that way light rail tracks that cannot be places on the road could be defined, which would allow us to organise the menu a little better.

[jamespetts]

The idea of tram tracks is that they represent track inset into a road to be the same height as that road. This makes no sense on plain ground: there need to be sleepers and all the other trappings of ordinary rail. Given that ordinary rail is compatible with a tram system, this is sensible.

If a pakset author wishes to have green track, which is not the same as tram track, then I suggest that this is better coded as rail with way constraints.

[Flemmbrav]

Honestly in Germany green track feels very much the same as tram track.
Both make use of sleepers build under the surface.
In plus, even in ouur size, you really can't see a difference between a tram track placed on gras and a green track.

I sadly missed the opportunity to take pictures of it last week when they renewed tracks close to my home.
The sleepers in use looked very much like the ones in use for "Rheda" ballastless track.
"Rheda" is also the system in use for our local green track. For more see this: https://www.railone.com/products-solutions/urban-transit/ballastless-track-systems/trams-and-commuter-railway-systems/rheda-city-green

I want to avoid having two different kinds of way that look exactly the same.
I expect it to be confusing to most players.

EDIT: i actually found it, the Rheda system is also available for standard tram applications: https://www.railone.com/products-solutions/urban-transit/ballastless-track-systems/trams-and-commuter-railway-systems/rheda-city

Honestly, while there are differences in the track profile in use, these really are minor and not to be seen on any Simutrans related scale.

[Sirius]

I'll just repost the second image.
Can you see the sleepers? I can't!
https://img.fotocommunity.com/strassenbahn-aus-berlin-in-karlsruhe-ee6316a6-8043-4deb-923d-9aa80fdf1a74.jpg?height=1080

I just found a picture of a green track under construction. You can see the exact structure of it. As Flemmbrav mentioned, it's the exact same type of track as built on roads, just covered by grass instead of tarmac.

That type is quite common in at least Germany, Switzerland and Austria.

Duplicating these exact same tracks to allow these being placed on roads as well as on plain ground doesn't make much sense to me.
It's a workarround at cost of usability. Players will have to use the railway menu as well as the tram menu when buildng such systems.
Thus, I'd really like to add light rail tracks to the tram menu whilst adding "normal" rails to the rail menu especially because the rail menu us quite filled up due to normal gauge and meter gauge already.

[jamespetts]

The track in Freakh's second picture is not tram track: it is railway track with turf in between the tracks. The sides of the rails are still not flush with the ground either side of them; this is not inset track. Tram track is actually quite fundamentally different to railway track in design: it has a channel for the flanges, similar to what can be seen in Flemmbrav's second link (the far side of the channel is clearly visible).

The Rheda system looks unusual; I have not heard of that before, and it is ambiguous from the description whether Rheda Green is just railway track covered in turf as in Freahk's second link or whether it is actual tram track inset into grass rather than pavement.

[Vladki]

Ok, have a look here: https://www.onemanbrnoblog.cz/verejna-doprava-v-brne-a-na-jizni-morave/

The article is in Czech, just scroll down and you'll find two pictures of tram track (with groove) covered in turf. You can see the turf is up to the top of the rail. And also pictures from the construction.

Also on some places we have grooved tram track covered with fine gravel, so that service trucks can go over it. So even if grooved rail is more expensive than classic rail, and trams can use classic rail, grooved rails are used on some dedicated tram tracks.

[Sirius]

Let's keep it short. There are many different types of green track systems. Some use grooved rails (which I believe is the word for rails with a "channel for the flanges" you refered to, whilst others use "normal" rails.
If that's the all deciding criteria that matters here, I'll just throw in some images of green tracks that have such channels.
A detailled image of a green track with grooved rail somewhere in this world

An article about different green track types in Würzburg. It's in German language, so just watch the pictures. All of these tracks are green tracks, includng the under construction pictures. The ones built in Würzburg have a channel, the images without are from tracks in Berlin.

Last but not least, Here is a link to REGUM, who seem to offer green track solutions for any kind of rail, including grooved rail.


Regardless of this, what's the point against adding a dat parameter to allow a specific tram track to be built on ground, prefarably with the option to allow it only on ground?
Even in pak128.britain-ex, the related menu is translates as tram/light-rail, so why don't we add this very simple parameter to tidy the menu up?
It would simply be much more userfriendly if players have to handle only one menu, instead of two when building light-rail systems.
If you don't like the feature, you don't have to use it in pak128.Britain, but pak192.comic really wants to use it.

Edit: And finally an image of the green track system in Chemnitz, to which the ingame graphics of our tram tracks fit quite well.

[jamespetts]

The fundamental difference that is intended to be captured by the distinction between tram and railway track is that tram track is inset into a roadway whereas railway track is built on unsurfaced ground. The grooved/channelled rail is the mechanism whereby tram tracks are built into roadways.

The images in the above threads show, so far as I can make out (some are ambiguous because they are very closely cropped) are of track inset into a narrow turf strip in the middle of or at the side of a road. This is quite different from "tram" track being used to cross open countryside as the proposed change would permit.

If the suggested distinction between tram and railway track is not that tram track is inset into a roadway whereas railway track is not, may I ask precisely what you envisage that that distinction should be? There needs to be a clear and coherent basis for this distinction so that all other design decisions can be fully consistent with the function and nature of the distinction. "Light rail" is not a sufficiently precise category, as it is not sufficiently clearly delineated from "heavy" rail, and the actual weight bearing capacity of the tracks themselves are already much more specifically simulated. Bear in mind that the tram/railway distinction must be one that works, not just in the modern era, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, too.

[Vladki]

The question is what do we want to simulate as the main distinction between tram and train track. In my point of view it is grooved or not... The grooved rail itself is more expensive and the groove itself is usually not deep enough for classic train wheels. Also grooved rail may be used for track embedded in streets, but there is nothing preventing you to use it on dedicated tracks.

The only thing I see is that building a track on empty land is probably cheaper than embedding it into existing street. So it just could be be that building (upgrading) tram track would mean automatically upgrading the road too?

[freddyhayward]

The distinction is that light rail tracks are more expensive and less capable than heavy rail tracks. It does not usually make economic sense to build grooved light rail tracks in the countryside, so let that be the constraint instead of an artificial one. I see it more fitting with the core philosophy of simutrans-extended.

[jamespetts]

If all that is intended for a distinction is the cost and which vehicles can use the ways, this can be achieved using way constraints. The only reason to have a different way-type is to allow tracks on top of roads. I am not aware of any use of grooved track in open countryside.

[Vladki]

Here in Brno we had quite a lot of them, but recently they were replaced with classic rail. I'll try to find some photos.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prague_Hodkovicky_tram.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reko_TT_N%C3%A1dra%C5%BE%C3%AD_Hole%C5%A1ovice_-_Trojsk%C3%A1,_pohled_k_Trojsk%C3%A9.jpg

[Sirius]

They do exist (as shown in many many images above and I could continue spamming the forums with even more), it make sense for gamplay reasons (no need to fiddle with two menus),they won't break any balancing (they are usually more expensive to maintain and less capable than "normal" rail), there is a pakset demanding for this due to their own design of light-rail and if you really hate the idea that much, we can simply add a parameter to allow such tracks on plain grounds. You don't have to use it.

So why the hell do we still try to find artificial argumentations against it?

For sure, defining tram/light-rail tracks as a track that is put on roads, there do not exist tram/light-rail tracks on plain grounds, as per definition, a road is not a plain ground...

In the real-world, things are different. Most light-rail systems in Germany, Austria, Switzerland any very likely many many more countries use rails on roads, rails on grass, rails on gravel and rails concrete plates, which might still not be a complete list.
All of these are constructed with low axle loads, too low to carry heavy rail, so it does not even make sense to add a green track with such an axle load to the the normal rail menu, as it cannot carry any normal rail vehicle anyways.
Eventual constraints might make things even worse.
It does not make any sense to add a rail track, which cannot be used by any non-light-rail vehicle due to constraints to the heavy-rail menu.

Way constraints can NOT be used to add "normal" rail tracks to the light-rail menu.

[Ronin1996]

What about gravity railways? Railways up mountainsides I don't think they use regular tracks. Here in the states, the first "railway" in America was a gravity railway built during the French and Indian War by British troops so they can haul equipment to a fort in Upstate New York. So it makes since to have tram tracks on land. Or we can have a special track that does this. It can resemble a tram track but can operate on land and act as a normal railroad track.

[Sirius]

I don't understand the relation tbh.
It is possible to connect "normal" rails to tram/light-rail tracks, and it is possible to use such routes by any rail vehicle, for sure considering axle loads and constraints.
The points in this thread mainly is usability. Handling two construction menus when building light-rail is annoying and confusing and on the other hand, realsim. Real-world green tracks, at least in some systems, are not quite different from their on-road equivalent, so it does not make much sense to add two different types of track that do actually represent the exact same type except from their cover, especially as graphically these would be the exact same ingame.

[Vladki]

What about gravity railways?

I think this is off-topic. Tram in simutrans is a railway built in the middle of street (german strassenbahn). All other tramways (as used in mines etc..) can be simulated using normal (or narrow gauge) track with respective speed and axle load restrictions.

[Flemmbrav]

The distinction is that light rail tracks are more expensive and less capable than heavy rail tracks. It does not usually make economic sense to build grooved light rail tracks in the countryside, so let that be the constraint instead of an artificial one. I see it more fitting with the core philosophy of simutrans-extended.

I want to support this.
In the outside world, green tracks and tram tracks are very much the same.
To prove this, I took 4 pictures of that yesterday:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/588668227119480832/764508492052299786/PXL_20201009_152316249.jpg
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/588668227119480832/764508492928122920/PXL_20201009_152313198.jpg
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/588668227119480832/764508493683884082/PXL_20201009_152308438.jpg
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/588668227119480832/764508494463893544/PXL_20201009_152302181.jpg

Pictures taken are at this position:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0050367,8.4295101,451m/data=!3m1!1e3

The grass track is used to drive through the park while the cobblestone track is used passing a square.
The same track system also expands further noth crossing multiple asphalt streets and finally merging into one around 1km up north.

It's the same system of tracks.
The same sleepers.
The same isolation.
I saw them build in in a different section of tram but sadly did not end up taking pictures.



As a small fun fact, this part of track is connected with the usual train network providing services to the whole region.
For these services special trains are needed costing around twice as much as a usual tram and 1,5 times as much as a usual train.
Extended already brings the features to create /  make the need of trains like that. All that's left is a proper implementation of tram tracks (which somehow work fine in Standard) and the vehicle / pakset implementation.

[Vladki]

I think that it is all down to a restriction made by james quite some time ago, that tram tracks must be built on road or at most one tile out of the road. Forcing use of regular track for dedicated tram tracks.

Imho this restriction is useless. There is nothing in real world that prevents use of grooved rails on dedicated tracks. Even if it may be considered non economical, it is possible.

One of the design rules was to allow what is technically possible, even if it did not exist in reality...

[jamespetts]

This appears to be an issue about the distinction between tramways and light railways. Tramways are tracks built into a flat surface, almost always a roadway, level with that surface. In Simutrans, tramways are tracks that can be built over road tiles.

Light railways may or may not include elements of tramway, but are generally more inexpensively laid, can take a lighter axle load load, often have sharper corners, often have less expensive (and therefore weaker) bridges and, by reason of the foregoing, usually have lower speed and weight limits than main line railways. Light railways are sometimes standard gauge and sometimes narrow gauge; are sometimes urban and sometimes rural.

Tramways, meanwhile, can be used with light rail or heavy rail: although most tram networks are urban light rail networks, there are a number of instances in the UK historically where main line (heavy) rail have used tramways, such as the Weymouth Harbour Tramway:

Class 33/1 33107 - Weymouth Harbour Tramway. by Martyn Hilbert, on Flickr

In Pak128.Britain-Ex, we have a tramway way constraint intended for light rail tramways, and then a special type of heavy rail tramway that lacks this constraint to allow construction of heavy rail tramways such as the Weymouth Harbour tramway.

The functional definition in Simutrans between the tramway and the railway menu is between tramways (whether for heavy or light rail) and railways (whether heavy or light). In other words, the tramway construction tool is intended specifically for that type of way that is built on top of flat surfaces (usually roads) so as to be flush with those surfaces, whereas the railway tool is intended for that type of way that is built in open countryside. This reflected in the graphics; for tramways, only the lines of rail are shown, whereas for railway (whether light or heavy), the sleepers, ballast, etc. are shown.

The "green tramways" shown are, without exception, built, not in open countryside, but immediately adjacent to roads, on road beds, and the grass is turf added after the construction of the tracks. They are also a peculiarly modern invention. Their construction, and no doubt their economics, are fundamentally different to the construction of light railways in open countryside.

The purpose of the limitation on building tramways not on roads is to avoid the absurdity, common before the restriction was encoded, of having long tracks in the countryside of ostensibly embedded rail where there is nothing but bare earth into which to embed it. In reality, it would not be possible to build such lines.

The confusion here, I think, is likely to have sprung from the historical naming of the tram menu option in Pak128.Britain, a leftover from the Standard version from the 2000s when it was first created, which names this menu, "Tram/light rail tools". This is probably an erroneous name, which has remained simply because nobody has so far thought to change it, for, whilst most tramways are light railways, some tramways are not, and many light railways are not and do not include any tramways.

I can understand those wanting to build light railways incorporating some elements of tramway may wish to use one menu rather than two; but the people wishing to build a railway network incorporating both heavy and light non-tramway rail would then have to use two menus instead of one, so the overall ease of use for all players would not be greater.

The only reason to have a separate tramway waytype in Simutrans-Extended, rather than simply using way constraints, is to allow the building of rail lines on top of roads. Blurring the boundaries between tramways and light railways when, as explained, a light railway may or may not include tramways and a tramway may or may not be a light railway, is not ultimately a means of making things easier for users, especially when the boundary between light rail and heavy rail is often blurred in reality (e.g. a somewhat lightly laid branchline off a main line that occasionally has through traffic from the main line but has to use somewhat lighter engines than would otherwise be the case, or an urban railway line, such as the Metropolitan Railway, now considered part of the London Underground, an urban light rail network, but once was just a short main line railway company, the transition between which was subtle and incremental, and the distinction between which even now being more in the electrification type, rolling stock interior layout and service patterns than in the nature of the basic infrastructure itself).

The fact that there is a clear and precise distinction between tramways and railways but a much less clear and precise distinction between light rail and heavy rail is a sufficient reason to have the conceptual boundary between tram and non-tram rather than between tram/light rail and heavy rail, and on top of this there is the game function distinction of tracks that can be laid over roads, as well as the different economics of laying track on virgin terrain compared with laying track in a pre-existing road bed, which difference it is important to simulate. I would suggest that it is necessary to remove the reference to light rail in the tram menu in Pak128.Britain-Ex to make this distinction clearer.

I hope that this clarifies matters.

[Flemmbrav]

So the way i conclude that is that is that there really is no reason not to give the player the choice to use tram tracks on normal ground?

Bringing tram track to the track menu is moree a choice of paksets and a thing that could be done already if the pakset maintainers would choos to.
In fact we have been discussing that for pak192.comic.

[jamespetts]

So the way i conclude that is that is that there really is no reason not to give the player the choice to use tram tracks on normal ground?

I am not sure how that follows: tram tracks, as explained above, cannot be built on undeveloped ground. They are inset into an existing road bed (whether covered in asphalt or, as in the recent "green trams", turf). Thus, the economics of building them is different: they do not require their own trackbed because they re-use an existing road bed, but need that road bed adapting for their purposes. Track on open ground requires a separate trackbed. Thus, it does not make sense to allow players to build tram tracks, priced for inserting into an existing road bed, on unmade ground.

Also, since tram tracks are, by definition, tracks which are inset into something, almost always road, there is no reason for players to be able to build tram tracks on land into which there is nothing that they can be inserted. The only reason currently for allowing them to be built one tile off a road is because there is otherwise no way of connecting them to rail lines or tram depots, which cannot be built on roads.

Bringing tram track to the track menu is moree a choice of paksets and a thing that could be done already if the pakset maintainers would choos to.
In fact we have been discussing that for pak192.comic.

Yes, indeed, if there really is a concern about having too many menus for players building light rail networks incorporating a mix of tram and rail lines, this would be the optimum solution.

[freddyhayward]

Also, since tram tracks are, by definition, tracks which are inset into something, almost always road, there is no reason for players to be able to build tram tracks on land into which there is nothing that they can be inserted. The only reason currently for allowing them to be built one tile off a road is because there is otherwise no way of connecting them to rail lines or tram depots, which cannot be built on roads.

If that's the case, there's no use allowing for them to be built one tile off a road since heavy rail tracks could simply be used.

[[C] Ranran]

If that's the case, there's no use allowing for them to be built one tile off a road since heavy rail tracks could simply be used.

Building a tram depot can be a bit tedious.
In addition, the maximum speed and cost of a normal railroad track are different.
It is better to create a separate track for the tram, which has its own appearance and cost.

[jamespetts]

If that's the case, there's no use allowing for them to be built one tile off a road since heavy rail tracks could simply be used.

The trouble is that heavy rail tracks cannot be built on roads - and tram depots also cannot be built on roads, so depots require these single tiles.

[freddyhayward]

Building a tram depot can be a bit tedious.
In addition, the maximum speed and cost of a normal railroad track are different.
It is better to create a separate track for the tram, which has its own appearance and cost.

I don't see how any of these are important. it is only one tile, so the cost does not matter. It is covered by the depot so the appearance does not matter. It is not traveled in regular service (and trams usually have much lower maximum speeds anyway), so maximum speed does not matter.

[freddyhayward]

The trouble is that heavy rail tracks cannot be built on roads - and tram depots also cannot be built on roads, so depots require these single tiles.

If the depot cannot be built on roads, and heavy rail tracks cannot be built on roads, what is the problem? The heavy rail track can simply be built off the road.

[[C] Ranran]

As James explains, if the tram tracks can't extend beyond the one-tile from the road, I don't think they can connect to regular tracks.
It will be divided between the road and plain tiles. I think it is necessary to make a junction from the side at the railroad crossing.

[freddyhayward]

As James explains, if the tram tracks can't extend beyond the one-tile from the road, I don't think they can connect to regular tracks.
It will be divided between the road and plain tiles. I think it is necessary to make a junction from the side at the railroad crossing.

They can easily connect to regular tracks, just select the regular track and click and drag as normal.

[Sirius]

Sure they can!
1. Build tram tracks on road only
2. connect the "heavy" rail
Done.

If the road is straight at the location where you want to enter, you can also do it the other way round without any problems.
1. Build the "heavy" rail track to the road, which will create a level crossing there
2. attach the tram tracks, which will converte the level crossing into tram tracks
Done.

I still fail to see any advantage in defining a green track, that has the exact same values and graphics as on-road variant, over defining a simple dat file parameter that permits players to build that specific type of track beyond the boundaries of the road network.
Defining such a track type might result in the exact same "issue" you noted: Players might use such tracks to build an interurban light rail network.

If you suspect to see too many interurban tram tracks on plain ground in your pakset, that is not a problem.
Simply do not use that dat file parameter in your pakset, just like you should not define a standalone green track coded as "heavy rail"

[jonbridg]

Excuse me for wading in at this point! Could someone please clarify, does the tram-track in pak128-Britain include the cost of the foundations below it? If it can only be built on roads (where the foundations have already been built) I would assume not?

EDIT: Aha, sorry, this was answered earlier:

I am not sure how that follows: tram tracks, as explained above, cannot be built on undeveloped ground. They are inset into an existing road bed (whether covered in asphalt or, as in the recent "green trams", turf). Thus, the economics of building them is different: they do not require their own trackbed because they re-use an existing road bed, but need that road bed adapting for their purposes. Track on open ground requires a separate trackbed. Thus, it does not make sense to allow players to build tram tracks, priced for inserting into an existing road bed, on unmade ground.

I still fail to see any advantage in defining a green track, that has the exact same values and graphics as on-road variant

If James' point above about roadbed is true, any track laid off-road will have a higher cost to account for building the foundations. The values wouldn't be exactly the same.

If it can be coded to work in the same way, I would support tram-track being added to the railways menu. I don't have a problem using multiple menus myself, though it is irritating when they stack and hide each other!

[prissi]

Green track does not use the road bed, since their purpose is to ,ake unsealed area. Also in many German cities (epsecially is prussia) where there was the law that house has to built as far from the other road sie as they were hight (due to fire) and thyus the raod were very wide, the trams run in the middel in a dedicated geen bed. Still this were tram rails, totally unsiutable (and thus with different axle limits) for heavy rail.

These green rails were actually more like turf railsways, no ballst, just some wide spaced sleepers in sand. Of course with time they sank and become quite uneven. I experience such tracks a lot in East Germanhy after the end of communism, Thus green raisl shoudl be rather cheaper, not less because you can do maintenance whenever you like, while opening a road is a major operation needign lots of permits from townhall etc.

[jamespetts]

Green track does not use the road bed, since their purpose is to ,ake unsealed area. Also in many German cities (epsecially is prussia) where there was the law that house has to built as far from the other road sie as they were hight (due to fire) and thyus the raod were very wide, the trams run in the middel in a dedicated geen bed. Still this were tram rails, totally unsiutable (and thus with different axle limits) for heavy rail.

These green rails were actually more like turf railsways, no ballst, just some wide spaced sleepers in sand. Of course with time they sank and become quite uneven. I experience such tracks a lot in East Germanhy after the end of communism, Thus green raisl shoudl be rather cheaper, not less because you can do maintenance whenever you like, while opening a road is a major operation needign lots of permits from townhall etc.

From this, it appears as though green rails have a different maintenance and construction cost profile both to tram track and ordinary heavy rail, which would be a sufficient reason in itself to have separate versions for these.

As to the menu issue, is there support for adding tram tracks to the rail menu in Pak128.Britain-Ex? I should be interested in people's views on this. On the one hand, it will allow people constructing light rail to use only one menu; on the other, players might find it confusing to have a tram menu separate from a rail menu yet have tram things in the rail menu.

[Vladki]

I do not have a problem with separate rail and tram toolbars, but joninig them might be good as well. If tram rails are available in rail toolbar, I would put everything there and get rid of tram tooolbar altogether.

[Sirius]

As to the menu issue, is there support for adding tram tracks to the rail menu in Pak128.Britain-Ex

Organising things by throwing them all on a huge heap of stuff seems contradictory to me.
I want to improve usability, not trample on it!
Throwing everything into the same menu does not organise anything. Sure, we don't need to open two menus, but it's simply even more chaotic.

At least in my opinion.

I'd rather welcome moving light-rail related stuff into the light-rail/tram menu.

As it seems like we won't be allowed to improve usability the simple way, I thought about a more complicated one.

A dat file parameter could be used to stick different rail types together, so we can simply drag tram tracks and that will build the selected tram track on roads as well as the related "usual" rail on plain ground.
In pak192.comic, I expect both to be coded the exact same, except from one being tram track, the other one being "real" tracks, but other paks might for sure handle this differently.

Is that an acceptable solution?

[Phystam]

For more sophisticated and general option, I suggest adding menuconf parameters for constraints (permissive and prohibitive). It should be like this: "ways(2,1,0,0)" and the parameters are waytype, system_type, permissive, prohibitive, respectively.
If the object does not have permissive or prohibitive constraint options, it should be like this: ways(2,1,-,0).