Answers.Body: <p>Since the lips of slope bricks rest half a plate below the two-plate-thick roadplates, a solution might be.... to elevate the whole track by half a plate. This can be done with baseplates:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XTTL8.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XTTL8.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/bbTs3.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/bbTs3.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Of course, this assumes that your train tracks will be elevated by one baseplate all around. But that's OK because we've learned from sets <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=4539-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">4539-1</a> and <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=42557" rel="nofollow noreferrer">10128-1</a> that it's meant to be done that way, right? <em>Right</em>?</p>
  <p>And there's the problem of aligning/attaching the baseplate to the roadplate.</p>
  <p>Luckily, we can use the SNOT techniques described at <a href="https://forum.brickset.com/discussion/26463/plate-versus-baseplate-height-how-to-align-them" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://forum.brickset.com/discussion/26463/plate-versus-baseplate-height-how-to-align-them</a> , and disguise the connector as the support for a barrier:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XHjiK.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XHjiK.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/UDgzI.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/UDgzI.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Dh622.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Dh622.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-16T11:56:43.100Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-16T11:56:43.100Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: IvanSanchez
Answers.Body: <p>There's now an &quot;official&quot; answer to this question thanks to the summer 2022 <a href="https://brickset.com/sets/60335-1/Train-Station" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Train Station (60335)</a>:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/V4qcp.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/V4qcp.jpg" alt="60335 Box" /></a></p>
  <p>This set includes a level crossing that is built as follows:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/A1UyP.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/A1UyP.png" alt="Step 120" /></a></p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/OmI5p.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/OmI5p.png" alt="Step 122" /></a></p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/3M7xV.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/3M7xV.png" alt="Step 135" /></a></p>
  <p>This doesn't make use of any novel elements, and the part used to create the ramp up to the tracks is <a href="https://rebrickable.com/parts/88930/slope-brick-curved-2-x-4-x-23-no-studs-with-bottom-tubes/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">88930 Slope Brick Curved 2 x 4 x 2/3</a>:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4cTFc.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4cTFc.png" alt="88930 part render" /></a></p>
  <p>While this is a somewhat different approach than the larger ramps used in my question, the same basic issue is still present with a half-plate high bump in road:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/i1yQY.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/i1yQY.jpg" alt="Level crossing bump" /></a></p>
  <p>Overall, I think the look works alright. The choice to transition to light gray at the crossing to make it clear that there are different materials in play helps to remove the expectation that there would be a clean and flush interface at that point.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/okeRx.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/okeRx.png" alt="60335 level cross photo" /></a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-10-11T01:07:12.757Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-10-11T01:07:12.757Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Answers.Body: <p>I would try and use part <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=15068&amp;name=Slope,%20Curved%202%20x%202&amp;category=%5BSlope,%20Curved%5D#T=C" rel="nofollow noreferrer">15068 Slope Curved 2x2</a> to go from road to track. Have you tried this?</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/SWTCR.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/SWTCR.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Edit: upon closer inspection, I think this gives the same result as your ramps, just with a shorter slope, so this might not be a useful suggestion.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-13T12:38:08.977Z
Answers.Text: This is a useful suggestion, but you are correct that it has the same basic issue as the longer ramps.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-13T05:42:55.010Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-13T05:42:55.010Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Phil B.
Answers.Body: <p>It occurred to me that you could use 8-stud-long tiles, tilted ~3 degrees, resting on plates at different heights.</p>
  <p>Side view from a quick LeoCAD mock-up:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/uZlLN.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/uZlLN.png" alt="side view of mock-up" /></a></p>
  <p>Since clipping the tile to plates at different heights might stress the tile, I suggest to place it resting on top of tiles at different heights.</p>
  <hr />
  <p>Edit: After several iterations, I think the ramp should be better made out of 2x4 tiles, resting on top of tiles at the railtrack side, and free-standing at the roadplate side, like so:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6f4O8.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6f4O8.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/65hp7.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/65hp7.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>That's trivially built with 1x4 tiles, 4x8 plates and 1x8 plates.</p>
  <p>There are variations of this kind of ramp, depending on the parts available. For example, the following uses <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=15068#T=C" rel="noreferrer">15068 2x2 Slope, curved</a> instead of tiles. I'm assuming the slope would help the ramp to slide in place a bit better, plus the 2x2 plates help the ramp to not slide alongside the track:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/jSAmZ.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/jSAmZ.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Note, in the image above, how the tiniest bit of yellow plate is visible to the right of the blue slope - that means the assembly is so slightly over 8 studs long (when tilted), which makes it pretty much impossible to use hinges for the ramp.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/iLaVb.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/iLaVb.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>A similar anti-slide arrangement can be made roadside. I suggest using <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32028#T=C" rel="noreferrer">32028 1x2 plate with door rail</a>, on both sides of a 1x10 plate, with tiles on top, like so:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/UG2O9.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/UG2O9.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>I guess that could be easily replaced with &quot;1x1 plate with teeth&quot;.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-15T20:31:40.780Z
Answers.Text: Is it possible to fit any hinges underneath? So that it would have at least some connection points.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alex
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-15T20:42:48.547Z
Answers.Text: I was considering using [4276 1x2 plate with hinge](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4276), but then there'd be a slightly-smaller-than-one-stud gap that I don't know how could be filled.
Answers.UserDisplayName: IvanSanchez
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-04-15T18:24:59.437Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-04-16T08:43:35.767Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-04-16T08:43:35.767Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: IvanSanchez
Body: <p>I'm interested in integrating a train level crossing into a city layout using the new road plates, but I've been struggling to figure out the best way to do this. Here's an example level crossing for reference (7936):</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/qtk38.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/qtk38.jpg" alt="7936 photo" /></a></p>
  <p>The space between the rails is built up using a plate and a tile to make it even with the rails and 3 plates higher than the surface. Ramps are then used to bring cars up to this level. That works well enough, and it can be used with the previous road baseplates if everything is built on a baseplate, but things are trickier with the new road plates:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/z9wqQ.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/z9wqQ.jpg" alt="new road plate example" /></a></p>
  <p>These are exactly 2 plates tall, which is why I'm struggling to figure out how to best use them for a level crossing. Here's my naive attempt:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6f6sYjBM.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6f6sYjBM.png" alt="rails too high attempt" /></a></p>
  <p>That's not terrible, but the rails are one plate higher than the surface of the road, which certainly isn't ideal. I could obviously raise all the roads up by a plate, but that also seems a bit annoying for a large layout given that all of the City sets expect the road plates to be sitting directly on a table.</p>
  <p>I've tried using curve slopes such as 71771:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/t9Ykp.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/t9Ykp.jpg" alt="71771" /></a></p>
  <p>However for the height to work out the front lip of the slope has to be sitting 1/2 plate below the surface of the road, which also doesn't look great:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/2thGBuM6.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/2thGBuM6.png" alt="1/2 plate offset using curved slopes" /></a></p>
  <p>This seems like a common use case that TLG would have considered, especially given that they'll likely create a level crossing set at some point using this new system. Am I missing an obvious way to make this work? What is the simplest way to create a flush level crossing using the new road plates?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-13T08:41:02.667Z
Comments.Text: Have you considered the [crossroad](https://i.sstatic.net/FfGjY.png) from 60198? I'm not familiar with these road plates, but the [ramps](https://brickset.com/parts/4211819/ramp-6x8) used in that set are big and come in quite a few shades of grey.
Comments.UserDisplayName: mindstormsboi
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-13T12:47:08.807Z
Comments.Text: @mindstormsboi I did consider those ramps. They work well with the previous baseplate roads, but the new road plates are 2 plates tall, so those ramps ends up being too tall (unless I build up the track).
Comments.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-15T15:08:52.953Z
Comments.Text: You could raise one side of the road by putting a plate underneath it (thus making the whole section of road sloped). But that's not very elegant.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jan Windemuth
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-15T21:08:32.420Z
Comments.Text: I think the most elegant solution would actually be to raise the road plates by one plate. While a bit annoying, you can use them to add stability to the road connections
Comments.UserDisplayName: Matthew Jensen
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-08-30T14:53:10.323Z
Comments.Text: You could also do the inverse and raise the tracks by one plate, which then allows for the use of various two-plate-high slope elements.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Matt Bowyer
Tags: <building><trains><city>
Title: Train level crossing using 2021 road plates
UserDisplayName: jncraton
ThreadText: # Train level crossing using 2021 road plates
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-13)
  
  I'm interested in integrating a train level crossing into a city layout using the new road plates, but I've been struggling to figure out the best way to do this. Here's an example level crossing for reference (7936):
  
  [![7936 photo](https://i.sstatic.net/qtk38.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/qtk38.jpg)
  
  The space between the rails is built up using a plate and a tile to make it even with the rails and 3 plates higher than the surface. Ramps are then used to bring cars up to this level. That works well enough, and it can be used with the previous road baseplates if everything is built on a baseplate, but things are trickier with the new road plates:
  
  [![new road plate example](https://i.sstatic.net/z9wqQ.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/z9wqQ.jpg)
  
  These are exactly 2 plates tall, which is why I'm struggling to figure out how to best use them for a level crossing. Here's my naive attempt:
  
  [![rails too high attempt](https://i.sstatic.net/6f6sYjBM.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/6f6sYjBM.png)
  
  That's not terrible, but the rails are one plate higher than the surface of the road, which certainly isn't ideal. I could obviously raise all the roads up by a plate, but that also seems a bit annoying for a large layout given that all of the City sets expect the road plates to be sitting directly on a table.
  
  I've tried using curve slopes such as 71771:
  
  [![71771](https://i.sstatic.net/t9Ykp.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/t9Ykp.jpg)
  
  However for the height to work out the front lip of the slope has to be sitting 1/2 plate below the surface of the road, which also doesn't look great:
  
  [![1/2 plate offset using curved slopes](https://i.sstatic.net/2thGBuM6.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/2thGBuM6.png)
  
  This seems like a common use case that TLG would have considered, especially given that they'll likely create a level crossing set at some point using this new system. Am I missing an obvious way to make this work? What is the simplest way to create a flush level crossing using the new road plates?
  
  **Tags:** building, trains, city
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Have you considered the [crossroad](https://i.sstatic.net/FfGjY.png) from 60198? I'm not familiar with these road plates, but the [ramps](https://brickset.com/parts/4211819/ramp-6x8) used in that set are big and come in quite a few shades of grey.  
  > **username_0**: @mindstormsboi I did consider those ramps. They work well with the previous baseplate roads, but the new road plates are 2 plates tall, so those ramps ends up being too tall (unless I build up the track).  
  > **username_2**: You could raise one side of the road by putting a plate underneath it (thus making the whole section of road sloped). But that's not very elegant.  
  > **username_3**: I think the most elegant solution would actually be to raise the road plates by one plate. While a bit annoying, you can use them to add stability to the road connections  
  > **username_4**: You could also do the inverse and raise the tracks by one plate, which then allows for the use of various two-plate-high slope elements.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2021-04-15. Score: 10 | Accepted answer
  
  It occurred to me that you could use 8-stud-long tiles, tilted ~3 degrees, resting on plates at different heights.
  
  Side view from a quick LeoCAD mock-up:
  
  [![side view of mock-up](https://i.sstatic.net/uZlLN.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/uZlLN.png)
  
  Since clipping the tile to plates at different heights might stress the tile, I suggest to place it resting on top of tiles at different heights.
  
  ---
  
  Edit: After several iterations, I think the ramp should be better made out of 2x4 tiles, resting on top of tiles at the railtrack side, and free-standing at the roadplate side, like so:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/6f4O8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/6f4O8.png)
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/65hp7.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/65hp7.png)
  
  That's trivially built with 1x4 tiles, 4x8 plates and 1x8 plates.
  
  There are variations of this kind of ramp, depending on the parts available. For example, the following uses [15068 2x2 Slope, curved](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=15068#T=C) instead of tiles. I'm assuming the slope would help the ramp to slide in place a bit better, plus the 2x2 plates help the ramp to not slide alongside the track:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/jSAmZ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/jSAmZ.png)
  
  Note, in the image above, how the tiniest bit of yellow plate is visible to the right of the blue slope - that means the assembly is so slightly over 8 studs long (when tilted), which makes it pretty much impossible to use hinges for the ramp.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/iLaVb.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/iLaVb.png)
  
  A similar anti-slide arrangement can be made roadside. I suggest using [32028 1x2 plate with door rail](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32028#T=C), on both sides of a 1x10 plate, with tiles on top, like so:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/UG2O9.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/UG2O9.png)
  
  I guess that could be easily replaced with "1x1 plate with teeth".
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: Is it possible to fit any hinges underneath? So that it would have at least some connection points.  
  > **username_5**: I was considering using [4276 1x2 plate with hinge](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4276), but then there'd be a slightly-smaller-than-one-stud gap that I don't know how could be filled.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2021-04-16. Score: 4
  
  Since the lips of slope bricks rest half a plate below the two-plate-thick roadplates, a solution might be.... to elevate the whole track by half a plate. This can be done with baseplates:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XTTL8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/XTTL8.png)
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/bbTs3.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/bbTs3.png)
  
  Of course, this assumes that your train tracks will be elevated by one baseplate all around. But that's OK because we've learned from sets [4539-1](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=4539-1) and [10128-1](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=42557) that it's meant to be done that way, right? *Right*?
  
  And there's the problem of aligning/attaching the baseplate to the roadplate.
  
  Luckily, we can use the SNOT techniques described at <https://forum.brickset.com/discussion/26463/plate-versus-baseplate-height-how-to-align-them> , and disguise the connector as the support for a barrier:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XHjiK.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/XHjiK.png)
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/UDgzI.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/UDgzI.png)
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Dh622.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Dh622.png)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2022-10-11. Score: 4
  
  There's now an "official" answer to this question thanks to the summer 2022 [Train Station (60335)](https://brickset.com/sets/60335-1/Train-Station):
  
  [![60335 Box](https://i.sstatic.net/V4qcp.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/V4qcp.jpg)
  
  This set includes a level crossing that is built as follows:
  
  [![Step 120](https://i.sstatic.net/A1UyP.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/A1UyP.png)
  
  [![Step 122](https://i.sstatic.net/OmI5p.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/OmI5p.png)
  
  [![Step 135](https://i.sstatic.net/3M7xV.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/3M7xV.png)
  
  This doesn't make use of any novel elements, and the part used to create the ramp up to the tracks is [88930 Slope Brick Curved 2 x 4 x 2/3](https://rebrickable.com/parts/88930/slope-brick-curved-2-x-4-x-23-no-studs-with-bottom-tubes/):
  
  [![88930 part render](https://i.sstatic.net/4cTFc.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/4cTFc.png)
  
  While this is a somewhat different approach than the larger ramps used in my question, the same basic issue is still present with a half-plate high bump in road:
  
  [![Level crossing bump](https://i.sstatic.net/i1yQY.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/i1yQY.jpg)
  
  Overall, I think the look works alright. The choice to transition to light gray at the crossing to make it clear that there are different materials in play helps to remove the expectation that there would be a clean and flush interface at that point.
  
  [![60335 level cross photo](https://i.sstatic.net/okeRx.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/okeRx.png)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2021-03-13. Score: 2
  
  I would try and use part [15068 Slope Curved 2x2](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=15068&name=Slope,%20Curved%202%20x%202&category=%5BSlope,%20Curved%5D#T=C) to go from road to track. Have you tried this?
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/SWTCR.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/SWTCR.png)
  
  Edit: upon closer inspection, I think this gives the same result as your ramps, just with a shorter slope, so this might not be a useful suggestion.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: This is a useful suggestion, but you are correct that it has the same basic issue as the longer ramps.  
  
  ---
  
  