[roeter]

For some obscure reason I cannot see the pictures you include in your post, all I get is "Your IP is blacklisted". Where this blacklist is taking place I do not know - Elvas Tower, my server, my laptop? Anybody any idea?

Anyway, back to the problem. If it is not really necessary that the first leg of train 17 preceeds train 40 but this can wait until 40 has departed, then a $wait could be set for 17 to wait for 40 - provided this is really the first leg of 17 and there are no other overlaps between the paths for 17 and 40.
If, however, the first leg of 17 must indeed take place before 40 departs, you have the classic problem with a reversal going back up a path which is common for a following train in both legs before and after the reversal. Splittig train 17 is then the only solution. Splitting train 40 will not help.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[VicenteIR]

Rob, you don’t see my images at all or just in the last post? In any case, I've changed the server of image hosting and my last post was updated.
https://i.ibb.co/XCNs3WX/Run-Activity-2020-05-25-16-22-46-24.png
I don't think that splitting of train 17 will also help me.
This is because I encountered a similar situation again and again. What I described happens when the location is occupied by a static train and another train approaching the station claims the track sections ahead the static consist. Could this be due to the signal logic?

if (enabled && (block_state() ==# BLOCK_OCCUPIED) && (next_state <# SIGASP_RESTRICTING)) 	{state = SIGASP_RESTRICTING;}

If so, I need to modify my signal files...
I posted here a question about function approach_control_lock_claim(). That function as described in blueprint looks like possible solution for my problem.

Thank you
Oleg

[roeter]

VicenteIR, on 25 May 2020 - 01:07 PM, said:

Rob, you don’t see my images at all or just in the last post? In any case, I've changed the server of image hosting and my last post was updated.

Your pictures were indeed also blocked on all previous posts. But I can now see the pictures in both your last and previous post.
It's the dispatcher hud in your previous post which actually tells the story - and a quit surprising one at that.
The multiple reversals of 17 have somehow confused the deadlock logic, and the switch ahead is actually blocked by the deadlock processing - even though 17 and 40 are moving in the same direction at this point. It looks like the deadlock processing has set up a 'deadlock trap' at this switch for one of the other legs of 17.
As the deadlock processing is independent from the signalling, changing the script won't help here.
Two things might perhaps sort this problem. One is to set a "$wait /notstarted" command for 40 at the stop location, making 40 wait for 17. The deadlock processing is prevented from setting 'deadlock traps' when a train has a wait command for the other train.
The other option is to split 17, with the first train formed of the incoming leg of the train to the pickup, and a new train formed after the pick up.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[VicenteIR]

Rob, by my fault we discuss the problem in two threads. Please, let my know when I should continue: here or in "Update Timetable Mode & Signalling".
I'm glad that finally you can see the images. (Obviously old server was from Russia and they blocks everything normal that exists on the Earth)

I still think that the point is a consist without power units when the following train reserves sections "through" this consist. I have a different situation on my Timetable with the same result. In that case there are no reversal points on the path of attaching locomotive. It sheduled to attach by $attach = train command, case to exist and the approaching train behind the static still reserves sections ahead.
If a power unit is connected to static before approaching train claiming, no surprises happens and everything is works as planned.

[VicenteIR]

From the .log file:

Quote

Information: Train XXXX (44) : Looped at 360

What does that mean please? :curiousPC:

[engmod]

Hi Rob,

>For some obscure reason I cannot see the pictures you include in your post, all I get is "Your IP is blacklisted". Where this blacklist is taking place I do not know - Elvas Tower, my server, my laptop? Anybody any idea?

It is most likely to be your IP that is banned, you need to talk to your ISP.

[roeter]

VicenteIR, on 25 June 2020 - 10:00 PM, said:

From the .log file:

Information: Train XXXX (44) : Looped at 360

What does that mean please?

A train always tries to clear its path ahead. Sometimes, when trying to clear that path, a section is found ahead of the train which somehow is already occupied by that same train. This can happen when the train is in a loop-track (or balloon-track), and is looking at its own tail. It does, however, also occur sometimes when the train is reversing and due to some previous error, not all sections the train occupied earlier have been properly cleared.
In this situation, the program tries to sort the problem by checking the actual occupied position, and by checking if there is indeed a real loop.
Sometimes, however, the program cannot properly sort out the problem, and as the section cannot be cleared as the train itself is apparantly still occupying that section the train is stuck, and the state is set to Looped.
If this happens when there is no actual loop track, it is caused by an earlier error when not all previously occupied sections were properly cleared.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[Traindude]

I am new to the world of running in timetable mode and I am encountering a problem:

Even though I specify a $forms command with a runaround (or "turnaround" since it uses a loop track) maneuver, and even though I've clearly specified the path for the runaround, the consist still dissappears when the first train terminates, and reappears when the next train begins.

What am I doing wrong?

[Aldarion]

are the two trains in the same timetable?
Can you show us the command line?

[Traindude]

Aldarion, on 18 July 2020 - 01:22 PM, said:

are the two trains in the same timetable?
Can you show us the command line?

Here's the timetable and the path of the runaround maneuver. As you can see I've tried to do this the way OR wants, but to no avail.

[VicenteIR]

I think that is not correct to set $forms command in this way. The command need to have a common section of both paths. The "runround" qualifier must be started and terminated also at the same section. It is for turn power units around the consist were $forms takes place.
You can form a new train at start position of your "runround" path, to terminate it at the end point with one more $forms command forRt1_Run1_Trip2 train.

Regards
Oleg

[Traindude]

VicenteIR, on 19 July 2020 - 03:45 AM, said:

I think that is not correct to set $forms command in this way. The command need to have a common section of both paths. The "runround" qualifier must be started and terminated also at the same section. It is for turn power units around the consist were $forms takes place.
You can form a new train at start position of your "runround" path, to terminate it at the end point with one more $forms command forRt1_Run1_Trip2 train.

Regards
Oleg

Thanks. I tried you suggestions and it worked!

One more question, though:

In creating timetables for the Downtown Trolley route, I am creating them based on a "service day" that begins at 4 AM on any given day and continues until 3:59 AM, which is technically on the following day. So even though the last train may be booked to begin after midnight and technically on the following day, it is actually running as part of the previous day's schedule. For example, if a train scheduled to depart at 12:30 AM on a Saturday, it is still, in terms of the 4 AM service day start time, running under Friday's schedule.

After reading the OR manual, I am under the assumption that, since OR timetable mode acts as if service days began at midnight, then I have to include the last "previous day" departures as part of the following day's timetable file. For example, the last trains from the "Friday" schedule must be included in the "Saturday" timetable file, and so on.

Since I am creating separate Weekday, Saturday and Sunday timetables (the latter also being in effect on major holidays), this overlap can be a bit confusing, but I think I've got the general idea, so I need to make the following timetables:

1. Monday (includes "Sunday" schedule trains before 4AM)
2. Tuesday-Friday (includes "Monday-Thursday" schedule trains before 4AM)
3. Saturday (includes "Friday" schedule trains before 4 AM)
4. Sunday (includes "Saturday" schedule trains before 4 AM)
5. Monday Holiday (Sunday schedule, includes "Sunday" schedule trains before 4 AM)
6. Tuesday-Saturday Holiday (Sunday schedule, includes "Weekday" schedule Trains before 4 AM)

Is my assumption correct in this regard?

[roeter]

You can start the timetable at 04:00, and include trains after midnight by using the $next qualifier for the start-time, so a train with starttime 01:00 $next will not start at the beginning of the timetable but after midnight at the end.

If there is no overlap of services this will work fine. If there is an overlap, you may need to include trains around the overlap time twice, i.e. both at the beginning and the end.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[VicenteIR]

I've a question about the "location linked passing path" process. How does it work at locations where detaching/attaching and other commands of consist replacemants takes place?
I mean when the path of train is through the location whirh detaching of power units at the head and continues (leaving the location) my logic says that if an original platform is occupied by another train, the arriving train will taken to free platform. It's loco(s) will detach static consist and will continue on it's path. Will an attaching loco with path to original line (platform) been attached to the correct consist on passing path?

Regards
Oleg

[roeter]

VicenteIR, on 04 August 2020 - 05:35 AM, said:

I've a question about the "location linked passing path" process. How does it work at locations where detaching/attaching and other commands of consist replacemants takes place?
I mean when the path of train is through the location whirh detaching of power units at the head and continues (leaving the location) my logic says that if an original platform is occupied by another train, the arriving train will taken to free platform. It's loco(s) will detach static consist and will continue on it's path. Will an attaching loco with path to original line (platform) been attached to the correct consist on passing path?

Regards
Oleg

No, I fear that's too complicated for the system to work out. It would require the system to automatically adapt the path of both the detached engine and the new engines to the new location of the train, and that's just not possible at present. In fact, there might not even be such a path - in complex station areas, it might well be that the siding where the engines are to go to or come from, are not connected to all platforms.
So the combination of passing paths at locations where also detach/attach actions are to take place could lead to real problems, and trains getting stuck.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink