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

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

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

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:


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

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?

  • Have you considered the crossroad from 60198? I'm not familiar with these road plates, but the ramps used in that set are big and come in quite a few shades of grey. Commented Mar 13, 2021 at 8:41
  • 1
    @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).
    – jncraton
    Commented Mar 13, 2021 at 12:47
  • 1
    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. Commented Mar 15, 2021 at 15:08
  • 2
    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 Commented Mar 15, 2021 at 21:08

4 Answers 4


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

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

enter image description here

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 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

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

A similar anti-slide arrangement can be made roadside. I suggest using 32028 1x2 plate with door rail, on both sides of a 1x10 plate, with tiles on top, like so:

enter image description here

I guess that could be easily replaced with "1x1 plate with teeth".

  • 1
    Is it possible to fit any hinges underneath? So that it would have at least some connection points.
    – Alex
    Commented Apr 15, 2021 at 20:31
  • I was considering using 4276 1x2 plate with hinge, but then there'd be a slightly-smaller-than-one-stud gap that I don't know how could be filled. Commented Apr 15, 2021 at 20:42

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 enter image description here

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 and 10128-1 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 enter image description here enter image description here


There's now an "official" answer to this question thanks to the summer 2022 Train Station (60335):

60335 Box

This set includes a level crossing that is built as follows:

Step 120

Step 122

Step 135

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:

88930 part render

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

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


I would try and use part 15068 Slope Curved 2x2 to go from road to track. Have you tried this?

enter image description here

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.

  • 2
    This is a useful suggestion, but you are correct that it has the same basic issue as the longer ramps.
    – jncraton
    Commented Mar 13, 2021 at 12:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.