[Csantucci]

roeter, on 25 January 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

What I could perhaps do at short notice is, at least for AI passenger trains, to check for any possible path if it would take that train away from a booked platform stop and then invalidate that option. It would mean that certain locations are not available for passing, but it would keep AI passenger trains to their timetable.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

This is a very good idea. I hope you will do that.

[railguy]

I just tried out the new code. The results were not good. Here is what I set up: The player train was set up with a path going westbound on the main track. At each siding, I placed a "Begin passing path" at the east switch. What I did NOT do is put an "optional path section" using the highlight tool either before the east signal, between switches, or after the west signal. If I should have done this, it may be why things didn't work. For the opposing eastbound AI train(s), I simply gave them an eastbound path on the main with no passing paths created for them. My westbound train was a long freight, the first eastbound a short passenger train.

At the first meet, the westbound player train got an Approach signal, then Restricted Approach, then a Stop signal on the main at the west switch of the siding. The short eastbound passenger train got a Stop signal at the west switch of the siding. The player train was too long for the siding, but the eastbound passenger easily would have fit on the siding. The eastbound passenger should have taken the siding, proceeded to the east signal, where it would wait for the westbound player train to clear the east switch, then the passenger should have proceeded east.

I'm not sure what I did wrong, except maybe not put the optional path sections between switches on the player path. What say ye?

Thanks.

[steamer_ctn]

Hi Rob,

roeter, on 24 January 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Release X1955 introduces new "passing path" definition and processing.
Passing paths can be used to allow trains to pass one another on single track routes. The required passing paths are defined per train path in the MSTS Activity Editor.

Sounds like a great advance.

roeter, on 24 January 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

When possible passing locations are determined for each pair of trains, the train lengths are taken into consideration. A location is only 'valid' as a passing location if at least one of the trains fits into the shortest of the available passing paths.

How is the available passing path measured? For example, is it just between adjacent points? If a passing loop has a point midway along the loop for siding, is the full loop considered, or is the passing location just measured between one of the loop end points and the midway point?

How would the scenario be handled if two passenger trains are due to cross on a single track? Normally the first one arriving would stop at the platform, and then reverse into the loop to await the arrival of the passing passenger train. Either one could be the player train.

Thanks

Peter

[roeter]

steamer_ctn, on 25 January 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

How is the available passing path measured? For example, is it just between adjacent points? If a passing loop has a point midway along the loop for siding, is the full loop considered, or is the passing location just measured between one of the loop end points and the midway point?

Length of loops (either the passing path or the main line itself) is measured from the diverging point (switch where passing path starts) to where the lines join again, or to the signal protecting that junction. Overlaps and stopping distances are taken into account. Intermediate sidings are not taken into consideration.
This length is not quite correct if there are multiple paths as these may diverge at a different location as the point where they diverge from the main line, but this is the best that can be done for the moment.

Quote

How would the scenario be handled if two passenger trains are due to cross on a single track? Normally the first one arriving would stop at the platform, and then reverse into the loop to await the arrival of the passing passenger train. Either one could be the player train.

That most certainly is not a standard procedure, and actually is not possible unless set up in the activity using reversal points.
If attempted to switch the player train in this way using Manual Mode it could lead to trouble as the 'deadlock' processing is switched off in Manual Mode.

As I mentioned earlier, procedures around passing loops differ greatly per country and it is almost impossible to create a program which can handle all those differences automatically.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[roeter]

railguy, on 25 January 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

I just tried out the new code. The results were not good. Here is what I set up: The player train was set up with a path going westbound on the main track. At each siding, I placed a "Begin passing path" at the east switch. What I did NOT do is put an "optional path section" using the highlight tool either before the east signal, between switches, or after the west signal. If I should have done this, it may be why things didn't work. For the opposing eastbound AI train(s), I simply gave them an eastbound path on the main with no passing paths created for them. My westbound train was a long freight, the first eastbound a short passenger train.

At the first meet, the westbound player train got an Approach signal, then Restricted Approach, then a Stop signal on the main at the west switch of the siding. The short eastbound passenger train got a Stop signal at the west switch of the siding. The player train was too long for the siding, but the eastbound passenger easily would have fit on the siding. The eastbound passenger should have taken the siding, proceeded to the east signal, where it would wait for the westbound player train to clear the east switch, then the passenger should have proceeded east.

I'm not sure what I did wrong, except maybe not put the optional path sections between switches on the player path. What say ye?

Thanks.

You should indeed use "begin passing path", and not the (rather elusive) optional path setting.
Which of the two trains should have taken the siding depends on who arrives first, not on the length. But indeed, one or the other should have done so.
On what route are you trying this - and how far away from the starting point of both trains was the loop, and at what time was the AI train started (in relation to the player train)?

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[railguy]

Rob,

The route is Northwest Version 6. Both trains started some distance from the meet point (several sidings with passing paths available to both along the way). Checking the Dispatch window, the AI short EB train reached the west switch of the meeting siding first and stopped. The WB AI train started at 14:00, the player train at 15:00. I used "begin passing path" for the player train only.

I'm going to try the activity again with "Begin passing paths" set and optional pass section set for the track between switches where Passing paths are set for the player train, and see if that makes any difference.

[railguy]

^I tried the activity again with the optional path implemented. Same result. I likely mess with it some more over the weekend when I have some time to dig deeper into what might be causing the issue.

[roeter]

An update to the new passing path processing is committed in version X1971.
This corrected an error which sometimes caused a train to take the wrong path at a passing path location.
If this still doesn't sort the problem, could you then please upload the activity files (without consists)?

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink