[Jovet]

roeter, on 09 September 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

The basic problem here is that in real life, there are two different types of speed restriction which can be set by a signal :

• Speed restriction due to diverging route - speed limit sign beyond the signal will lift this restriction, allowing the train to regain normal line speed.
• Speed restriction due to restrictive aspect - A speed limit sign beyond the signal has no effect on this restriction, as it applies to the next signal.

At the heart, the main difference between signal speed limits and speed limit signs is that signal speed limits are transient. They are temporary, or very localized. Speed limit signs are permanent.

I do not see why a speed limit sign should cancel a signal speed limit (such as for a divergence). I thought that's what the "speed limit" SignalType was created to address—which is a great idea. Such a SignalType can be placed at the exit of an interlocking and programmed to relieve the signal speed limit only if it's appropriate to do so. This is great.

The problem I see is both the signal speed limits and permanent speed limits trying to interfere with each other. They are just both layers, which is why the MSTS approach (the lowest of the two is the current speed limit) makes great sense to me.