Cut & cover tunnels

[merry]

Hi,
I have been thinking of a possible new type of construction...and I don't see it previously, or as 'denied', so here goes...

In rail networks, and especially in urban environments, tunnels are not always constructed by boring a hole through the ground.
It is common to 'simply' dig a long trench, and build a roof over it, allowing the street or buildings to be built on top afterwards. The rails (or road) can then be built in the tunnel later.
The method is widely used in metro networks - most of New York Subway, the District/Circle/Metropolitan lines of the London Underground, much of the Lyons Metro, etc. because it is perceived to be cheaper. it is more disruptive (the existing surface build has to be demolished first), but that seems to be more of an issue today than in the past.

In Simutrans, I'd propose the creation of a type of 'elevated ground' - rather like elevated ways - that can be built anywhere, and allows other structures or ways to be built on top as though it's plain ground. The space underneath would similarly allow normal construction (yes, why not build a station waiting hall or mail warehouse underground?). The feature would behave rather as elevated ways do now, in that virtually any item can be built underneath, including junctions, diagonal ways, etc. But the same would be true on top - the item would behave as a 'generic' elevated way. There might be a max speed of ways on top of cut & cover roof.
Costs would need to reflect the generic nature of the feature: it should be something like an elevated way, less the cost of the way on plain ground, plus a bit to account for the added complexity/benefit

Now, I suspect this would require some possibly significant programming work. The graphics look (to me at least) as though they could be culled from existing ones...well, we can hope anyway.

So, does anyone else think this is a good concept?
And does anyone fancy having a go? Whilst i'm a player, my programming skills are very limited (scripts-R-us!) and do not include C/OO environments. And you really don't want my artwork...CAD? Yes!, Art? No!

Cheers,
Merry.

[VS]

IMHO...

That's quite complex to interact with, as a player. I'll have to dig a trench, build a possibly special way there, then cover it. Sounds like a lot of additional clicking and maybe content (graphics, code), only to feel "as if" doing something "the right way". If at all, I'd see this simply as a construction cost bonus (-50%?) for tunnels right under empty tiles.

As to buildings... using the same buildings underground and above ground is simply weird. It would make more sense to add buildings that can be built only underground, which has been proposed numerous times. Then, just use the same logic as with tunnels. The current system with same stations in tunnels is less than ideal in that sense, but... it's there now.

Finally, a poor man's version can be done, as long as you use only ways and stops/stations. Cut a trench using slope tools, build the "tunnel" way there, finally build an elevated way on top of that to cover the thing. To make this graphically perfect, take graphics from a normal way, put these on top of fabio's elevated tiles (in pak128 svn, folder material) and voila - elevated way that fakes ground.

You can disregard this - it's not an authoritative view Or, if you want to dispute my view instead, I consider the first paragraph my central argument.

[prissi]

We had something like that in 88.xx. But the current tunnel construction is much more powerful with the underground mode and also much less hassle to built.

[The Hood]

Or you could build a trench/cutting, lay track, and then add an elevated way on top - nearly all cut and cover tunnels run just under roads, e.g. subsurface lines on the london underground.

[Colin]

There used to be a way of doing this before we had underground slicing. I used it quit a bit but I don't have it anymore and, I can't remember what it was called. Someone here will pont the way, I wouldn't mind having it again too.

[jamespetts]

This is a nice idea, and the answer that one can do things just as easily with the new tunnel code doesn't really address the point, since the whole idea of cut and cover tunnels is that they cost less to build, but cause more disruption above ground. The real issue with it, though, is how players can easily interact with the ways beneath the covering, which is potentially problematic.

[ӔO]

if you use cut and cover, it would be possible to run faster roads inside a city, since elevated ways don't get paved over by city roads.

[Ters]

But the road below would become a city road, wouldn't it? So you would end up with a slow "tunnel" and a fast surface street, rather than the other way around.

[Vonjo]

or

[ӔO]

But the road below would become a city road, wouldn't it? So you would end up with a slow "tunnel" and a fast surface street, rather than the other way around.

put some rail under it

[Fabio]

The real issue with it, though, is how players can easily interact with the ways beneath the covering, which is potentially problematic.

Using Sliced Underground view does the trick, as it hides bridges as well, if you select the level of the underway.

[merry]

Thanks for all your comments.

I have thought of one other benefit - IRL it is not uncommon for station buildings to be adjacent to a bridge, over the tracks (in the UK, the Great Central was fond of this, as were other companies building in already built up areas. An 'elevated land' (which is what this really provides) would allow such a construction. it is beneficial for adding to station facilities in an existing urban environment. Or just because it looks nice (to you) to do so!

On a related thought, has anyone considered implementing station facilities underground? Concourses, mail centres, etc - again, this is a benefit to those building in an urban environment.

Anyway, thank you all for your support of the ideas & constructive criticism - now, does anyone have ideas of how to get it implemented  ...if it's considered useful enough, and anyone has time, of course. Unfortunately I am not blessed with C skill, nor artwork (CAD yes, art no!), nor (most seriously) time. So my thanks go to all those who do give time & skill for my and others enjoyment.

TTFN,
Merry