[Docmartin]

Hi Derek,

After installing tsection.dat build 56 I got the following message in a white box superimposed on my load screen:

"Open Rails detected a track section which is not present in tsection.dat and cannot continue.

Most likely you don't have the X tracks or Y tracks version needed for this route."

This raises the question, how can I be using a track section which is not listed in build 56? The entire route is built using only the UK FineScale track system with the exception of one track section from the default track system for the track with water trough/pan retextured to match the rest of the track. I do not use either X or Y tracks. I have, however, used a lot of Dynatrax sections and I wonder whether this may account for the numbering in my local tsection file being out of range. I am still working on the route and have recently added a lot of trackwork to take the route into London Paddington terminus station.

Quote

In the end, I edited my dynamic tsection file to add the track sections which the log file flagged as missing
Bad idea as you are covering up the real error.

I agree. I suppose I should really remove my edits.

Since my problem is obviously a route issue and it seems not an OR bug, if one of the moderators wants to move this thread elsewhere I would be happy with that.

Martin

[engmod]

Can you check the openrailslog.txt on your screen and attach the file here for investigation please?

I need to find out what it is missing.

[engmod]

Hi Martin,

As the route tsection has the number range that the errors are giving us, the problem is not with the global tsection.

Route editing writes to the route tsection.

Tsres is up to 7.012, do you have that version?

Could you zip and attach your tsection42 here please, I need to establish whether it is as posted by Steven.

[Docmartin]

Hi Derek,

I attach the files you need to see. The file named plain tsection is my route tsection.dat file (for some reason Windows10 seems not to display the file extension for .dat and .txt files). The numbered tsection files are the global files just in case you need to see them. I was using build 42 until this thread started then tried 44 with no difference in performance.

Yes, I am using TSRE 7.012.

Many thanks for you interest in this issue.

Martin

Attached File(s)

•  Log and 42.zip (722.96K)
  Number of downloads: 31

[steved]

Randy

[Docmartin]

https://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif

[eric from trainsim]

I had a bunch of those that wound up being pieces of track that I had moved without the terrain in place and they wound up several tiles away with illogical XY values in the world file.

[Docmartin]

Quote

I had a bunch of those that wound up being pieces of track that I had moved without the terrain in place and they wound up several tiles away with illogical XY values in the world file

I wonder what exactly this might imply for my route.

Meantime, I have run a few more test activities and got a whole lot of new warning messages. This is all very odd.

Martin

Attached File(s)

•  OpenRailsLog.txt (15.4K)
  Number of downloads: 28

[Docmartin]

This is getting worse and worse. Following eolesen"s post I took a look in Track Viewer for any rogue sections of track. I found one short straight section with a signal at each end which was completely isolated and not needed in the route. So I deleted it together with the signals. Now look at the log file! I will probably have to revert to an earlier version of the tdb and thereby lose some useful edits to the route that I have made over the past couple of days.

Martin

Attached File(s)

•  OpenRailsLog.txt (37.35K)
  Number of downloads: 32

[Docmartin]

Ignore my preceding two posts. I have reverted to a slightly earlier version of the route and as a result am pretty much back to where we were at the beginning. I have managed successfully now to delete the rogue section of track with the signals that I found without this creating the strange entries in the log that I posted in post #19 but I still have track section warnings that I started the thread about.