[CGW121]

I have been playing with passing paths and have liked how they are working. A couple of suggestions. One would be to have path dependent messages. If you are heading to a passing path you have two choices one is to hold the main the other is to take the siding. Holding the main needs no further information, however on the CGW the rules state that when taking the siding the speed limit is 20 mph thru the switches. It would be nice to be able to have a message pop us before the siding from the dispatcher for the train to take the siding. Another thought is that the superior train to hold the main and the other train takes the siding. Again on the CGW Southbound trains are superior to northbound trains of the same class eastbound trains are superior to westbound trains of the same class. So two passenger trains are meeting of the same class, the northbound takes the siding while the southbound holds the main. It would make for more realistic operations.

[roeter]

CGW121, on 09 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I have been playing with passing paths and have liked how they are working. A couple of suggestions. One would be to have path dependent messages. If you are heading to a passing path you have two choices one is to hold the main the other is to take the siding. Holding the main needs no further information, however on the CGW the rules state that when taking the siding the speed limit is 20 mph thru the switches. It would be nice to be able to have a message pop us before the siding from the dispatcher for the train to take the siding.

On signalled routes, the signal should indicate that. I don't think it is a good idea to send additional messages for things signals should indicate.
On both signalled and unsignalled routes, a speedlimit should be applied to the siding if that requires a lower speed. Allthough the speed-limit cannot be set before the switch, setting it just after it will mean speed of the train will be reduced enough over the swutch itself. These speedlimits would show up in F4 which therefor would operate as your requested warning.

CGW121, on 09 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Another thought is that the superior train to hold the main and the other train takes the siding. Again on the CGW Southbound trains are superior to northbound trains of the same class eastbound trains are superior to westbound trains of the same class. So two passenger trains are meeting of the same class, the northbound takes the siding while the southbound holds the main. It would make for more realistic operations.

That is quite simple : don't set alternative paths for the southbound trains. These will then always hold the main line, with northbounds always taking the siding if required.
Should work - allthough there is still an oustanding report on that which is being looked into. So if it isn't working right now it will soon be corrected.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

[CGW121]

roeter, on 09 February 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

On signalled routes, the signal should indicate that. I don't think it is a good idea to send additional messages for things signals should indicate.
On both signalled and unsignalled routes, a speedlimit should be applied to the siding if that requires a lower speed. Allthough the speed-limit cannot be set before the switch, setting it just after it will mean speed of the train will be reduced enough over the swutch itself. These speedlimits would show up in F4 which therefor would operate as your requested warning.



That is quite simple : don't set alternative paths for the southbound trains. These will then always hold the main line, with northbounds always taking the siding if required.
Should work - allthough there is still an oustanding report on that which is being looked into. So if it isn't working right now it will soon be corrected.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

On the CGW they used Single head searchlight signals. Problem is it shows green for the main and for the siding. I do have speed limits set for the sidings, but I like to run without the f4 box visible. As to superior trains if you are running a local switching train and have a passenger train for an AI, the player train should have to stop and the AI would get the signal. It would be nice to do that with out the double reverse points.

[roeter]

CGW121, on 09 February 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

On the CGW they used Single head searchlight signals. Problem is it shows green for the main and for the siding. I do have speed limits set for the sidings, but I like to run without the f4 box visible. As to superior trains if you are running a local switching train and have a passenger train for an AI, the player train should have to stop and the AI would get the signal. It would be nice to do that with out the double reverse points.

To give warnings on restrictive aspects or taking alternative paths would definitely have to be a user option before it can be introduced. There are too many situations in which it is not wanted.
So that is something for the menu boys to pick up first.

As for priority trains : the program has, at present, no functionality to distinguish between trains and allocate priorities. Perhaps in the future, but it certainly will be quite a while before that is on the cards.
One way to have a player train give way to AI train is to switch the player train to MANUAL mode. In MANUAL mode, the path is automatically restricted to the first signal. So, if the player train is in the siding, switch to MANUAL mode - this will give a clear road to the AI train. However - be sure to switch back to AUTO mode before continuing, even if the signal will not clear. Deadlock-processing is switched off in MANUAL mode and if you were to clear the exit out of the siding using TAB in MANUAL mode there is a risk of a deadlock situation.
If you approach the loop and are signalled unto the main, you can switch to MANUAL and select the siding but you must make sure that no path is yet cleared into the siding for the AI train.

Just suggest you try this a bit and see what happens.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

[CGW121]

roeter, on 09 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

To give warnings on restrictive aspects or taking alternative paths would definitely have to be a user option before it can be introduced. There are too many situations in which it is not wanted.
So that is something for the menu boys to pick up first.

As long as I am wishing It would be nice for older operations, pre 1980 or there about for train order signals to be functional where as in msts they are eye candy. I remember watching the trains at Ingalton in the early 60's the stationmaster would hand orders to the front and rear crew. The signal in front of the station was a 2 light red green signal. Not exactly sure how it worked but if it was red the crew expected to get orders if green no. I am sure others know way more about this than I do but it would be an interesting way to add variety to operations.

[cjakeman]

Hi CGW121

CGW121, on 09 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

It would be nice to be able to have a message pop us before the siding from the dispatcher for the train to take the siding.

Couldn't you add a message to the activity so it pops up the Activity Window just before the siding is reached with a message from the dispatcher?

Just a thought . . .

[CGW121]

cjakeman, on 11 February 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

Hi CGW121

Couldn't you add a message to the activity so it pops up the Activity Window just before the siding is reached with a message from the dispatcher?

Just a thought . . .

Not at a passing path due to sometime you take the siding sometimes the main, hence my suggestion. Again on the CGW since I am most familier with that road, West bound extra #121 would get orders to take the siding at Wasco and wait there for eastbound train #192. Wasco was the 3rd siding west of Ingalton. Would be interesting to be able to have that type of operation. I would guess MP would be able to do that easier but I have never tried that yet and am interested in duplicating that in an activity.

[steamer_ctn]

Hi,

From my perspective I would prefer not to have messages popping up, so it would need to be a user enable/disable function.

Generally, I thought that the signalling was designed to advise crews when they were routed to go into a loop. Would it be possible to change the signal symbols in the HUD to indicate when a train is routed to diverge from the main line? Perhaps the signal aspect with a small arrow in the centre of it indicating the direction of divergence.

Would this be possible?

[markus_GE]

Actually, this is what MSTS does in situations like that - a really helpful function, as sometimes without these "warnings", derailments are programmed
Although in OR I at all don´t run off the rails that often as in MSTS, I think, these arrows for indicating the diverging-or-not option would be as helpfull as in MSTS.

[CGW121]

steamer_ctn, on 11 February 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Hi,

From my perspective I would prefer not to have messages popping up, so it would need to be a user enable/disable function.

Generally, I thought that the signalling was designed to advise crews when they were routed to go into a loop. Would it be possible to change the signal symbols in the HUD to indicate when a train is routed to diverge from the main line? Perhaps the signal aspect with a small arrow in the centre of it indicating the direction of divergence.

Would this be possible?

With a 2 headed signal you would get a clear diverging, someone will correct me if I am wrong, however I am using single head searchlight which do not have that aspect. What I am more interested in than simple messages, is to duplicate train order operations, which on a lot of smaller Midwest Granger roads was quite common. I am not at all sure of how to duplicate the station agent handing orders to the train crew except for messages.