[ebnertra000]

 Traindude, on 24 September 2020 - 02:53 PM, said:

What's the point? It'd be better to leave the signal aspects intact, but instead add the "name" or indication of the next signal (example: "Proceed", "Approach", "Advanced Approach", "Restricting", "Stop and Proceed," etc.). This could potentially be used to help individuals who are unfamiliar with signal aspects and their indications.

That works with basic signal systems, like the default Marias Pass trash heap, but any modern signal system would need some way to know what name to show, and there are very few systems with less than eight names (there are eight aspect tokens, from STOP to CLEAR_2). In the case of the CROR system, there are, what, 36 different names possible? Personally, when I make a signal set, I include a rule sheet so people can learn the system. There's usually a logic to them that makes remembering the rules easier, unless you're C&O.

On an only slightly related note...if a cab signal is to provide information on the state of the block one's train is currently in, wouldn't the cab signal always how said block as occupied? There's always a train in the block that that cab signal is reporting on - the very train that cab signal is sitting in. Such an interpretation of cab signal function is most curious, I must say

[vince]

Quote

On an only slightly related note...if a cab signal is to provide information on the state of the block one's train is currently in, wouldn't the cab signal always how said block as occupied? There's always a train in the block that that cab signal is reporting on - the very train that cab signal is sitting in. Such an interpretation of cab signal function is most curious, I must say

Back in the 80's I had several cab rides in the old MU Metroliners between NY Penn and Washington.
Cab signals in these units showed block ahead condition.
I visually confirmed this as the cab signal unit showed the same aspect of every signal we approached.

vince

[eric from trainsim]

I like the option of disabling.

Now... how about disabling signals entirely?... ;)

[Csantucci]

I don't think I will use this feature. However if implemented, I expect that the default will be signal aspects shown.
If the concept is that no dynamic route information is shown, I'd suggest that also diverging switches ahead not to be shown when the disable option is set.

[Coolhand101]

 Csantucci, on 25 September 2020 - 12:16 AM, said:

I'd suggest that also diverging switches ahead not to be shown when the disable option is set.

I have already done this via alpha on the track monitor texture :)


Thanks

[ebnertra000]

I do like the idea that if signals aren't shown, then neither should switch states

Quote

Back in the 80's I had several cab rides in the old MU Metroliners between NY Penn and Washington.
Cab signals in these units showed block ahead condition.
I visually confirmed this as the cab signal unit showed the same aspect of every signal we approached.

vince

That's what I was getting at, if in a rather roundabout way

[YoRyan]

 ebnertra000, on 24 September 2020 - 05:18 PM, said:

On an only slightly related note...if a cab signal is to provide information on the state of the block one's train is currently in, wouldn't the cab signal always how said block as occupied? There's always a train in the block that that cab signal is reporting on - the very train that cab signal is sitting in. Such an interpretation of cab signal function is most curious, I must say

You've got it backwards. It's the physical signal that's reporting the condition of the block ahead. The cab signal does not "look back" at the state of the signal just passed (which, of course, is now showing "Danger"); it's reading the pulse codes transmitted continuously through the rails. If you play RailWorks, Train Sim World, Zusi, or... any other train simulator that wasn't rushed to market by Kuju, you'll find that the cab signals report the state of the current block.

Think about it: Cab signal-equipped railways still need to be operated by trains with missing or malfunctioning cab signals. They enhance safety but they're not there to provide the train driver with any more information than the act of glancing out of the windshield would.

 vince, on 24 September 2020 - 06:06 PM, said:

Back in the 80's I had several cab rides in the old MU Metroliners between NY Penn and Washington.
Cab signals in these units showed block ahead condition.
I visually confirmed this as the cab signal unit showed the same aspect of every signal we approached.

Sigh and I've ridden contemporary trains on the NEC where the engineer clearly does not initiate braking until after the train has passed the first non-Clear distant signal.

Not that you're particularly interested in hearing otherwise, but here's the NTSB report on the 1987 Maryland wreck:



The pattern (for those of you who can't read PRR aspects) is

Heads:     Clear    Approach           Stop
             o         o                 o
      -------|---------|-----------------|
Cab:   Clear    Clear    Approach [------]
                                  Restrict

The Restricted aspect is special case; the PRR system can transmit it in advance of any Stop signals, once the train has passed the mid-block code change point (the small vertical line on the diagram). But otherwise, the general rule is that you can expect your cab signals to reflect the state of the signal you just passed.

[YoRyan]

 Csantucci, on 25 September 2020 - 12:16 AM, said:

If the concept is that no dynamic route information is shown, I'd suggest that also diverging switches ahead not to be shown when the disable option is set.

Interesting idea. So what we're really getting at is some kind of difficulty scale for the Track Monitor. The precise label eludes me...

[Genma Saotome]

75 years ago, when the Western Pacific installed a poor man's CTC on portions of their line, the signals at sidings included a large lunar *white) indication that instructed the crew to stop the train before the switch, have the brakie get out and throw it. He'd climb back up as the train moved forward and when stopped again the rear brakie would leave the caboose and return he switch to normal. Repeat exercise on exiting siding.

And STANDARD practice all over North America was to flag any road crossing not otherwise protected. So that necessitated stopping on the far side and waiting for the head end brakie to walk back to the locomotive.

Try getting any player to do those tasks!

[roeter]

 YoRyan, on 25 September 2020 - 08:10 AM, said:

You've got it backwards. It's the physical signal that's reporting the condition of the block ahead. The cab signal does not "look back" at the state of the signal just passed (which, of course, is now showing "Danger"); it's reading the pulse codes transmitted continuously through the rails. If you play RailWorks, Train Sim World, Zusi, or... any other train simulator that wasn't rushed to market by Kuju, you'll find that the cab signals report the state of the current block.

Not all cab-signal systems are continuous. There are/were many systems which use some sort of transponder. In that case, the system will show the aspect of the last transponder which the train passed, regardless of any changes in the aspect ahead and also regardless of the position of the train in relation to the signal to which the transponder is linked. Transponder-based system are, for instance, the German INDUSI, Belgian 'crocodiles', UK AWS. And to make it even more interesting, these all work differently, some not showing actual aspect but only trigger on possible safety infringements.

Back to the topic. What about speed restrictions set by signals? These are usually aspect-related. So if you do not show the aspect, should you then still be showing signal-related speed restrictions? If so, it is rather inconsistent. But if not, it's rather confusing as speedpost-related speed restrictions are still shown (I presume).
So, a bit of a dilemma there.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink