[देव]

Is it possible to set a particular service path priority, means if a any train service (be it AI or player) is about to block a path of another service is there some way the OR can automatically predict and does not give clear signal to that particular train, For Example consider two services, is it possible to set high priority to one of that service, Since in the activity I am playing the player train is a high priority but still the OR doesn't give a clear signal to it even if the AI train(which is blocking the path) is very far away from it, OR somehow should give signal to the player train it should have not given the AI train clear signal, I know we can do this with waiting points, but for that the whole activity needs to be modified, Dispatcher window also helps in this but in the current activity I did give that train a red signal at a point where it does not block the path, but still OR didn't gave clear signal to the player train.

Is there something that can be added in the .srv file with which OR will prefer that particular train first to proceed?

[Weter]

Hello.
It's possible now in TimeTable mode.
I didn't study activity mode features yet - so can't say for that mode.
In MSTS times, invisible service was used to cheat virtual dispatcher - but it's not fair and demands activity's heavy modification too.
read there and besides

roeter said:

OR does not have a dispatcher function as such. There are three logic processes which control train movements, one is the signalling, the second is the deadlock processing, the third are train commands, but these are only available in timetable mode. All three are worked through the trains themselves.

Signalling control works mainly through the SignalNumClearAhead variable.

Deadlock processing: when a train is started, the deadlock processing searches for deadlocks and possible meets through the full length of the train's path, against all existing trains, also using the full length of the path of those trains (from the present position onwards). Note that reversal points are considered to be end of path in this process. When a train reverses, a full deadlock test is performed again. Because the train length is taken into consideration when testing for possible meets, deadlock processing is also performed again when a train changes its length, due to detach or attach actions.

Train interaction commands, like $wait, as available in timetable mode, are processed during pre-processing and work through links between trains. The required information is linked to the position in the train's path where the command must be activated. As for deadlock processing, the full paths of both trains (upto any reversal points) are checked to establish the location where the $wait must be activated.

The processing of the signalling using SignalNumClearAhead was copied from MSTS, though with the difference that MSTS counted signal heads whereas OR has the option to count (normal) signals only.
The deadlock processing is specific for OR and has no MSTS equivalence. Train commands, of course, do not exist at all in MSTS and also not in activities.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[Laci1959]

Hello

First, you need to clarify whether this is a downloaded task or your own. The second thing is whether a real schedule has been processed or a fictitious schedule has been created.
If you downloaded it, it is possible that the creator did it on purpose. If you've worked out a real schedule, even more so.
Story: There was a task where I waited 20 minutes for the free signal. It was a four cross. That is, four trains happened to arrive at that station at that time. I was the first to arrive and the last to leave. In that year, the trains really ran like that.
If you downloaded it, you must respect the creator's work.
If it's self-made, then anything can be.
It is not that simple to set the priority. It matters a lot whether this is right at the beginning of the task or perhaps later.Another solution can be used

Sincerely, Laci1959

[Weter]

That's true, however fails happen with MSTS (waited 3 hours and nothing)
OTOH, i've just remember BNSF scenic route's issue: one option should be off for activities to run as intended.
Not off - permanent red will be seen.

[engmod]

>Is it possible to set a particular service path priority

That would need to be an entry in the consist file, there is no such entry.

[joe_star]

Weter, on 22 February 2024 - 09:14 AM, said:

Hello.
It's possible now in TimeTable mode.
I didn't study activity mode features yet - so can't say for that mode.
In MSTS times, invisible service was used to cheat virtual dispatcher - but it's not fair and demands activity's heavy modification too.
read there and besides

Hello

When you say in "possible" in timetable mode you mean via wait & follow commands?

Yes but it still needs to be resolved for each train wrt to the prioritised train. Quite tedious when you have a large number as the permutations of crossings and overtakes becomes significant.

I think what the OP refers to is ability to set overall prioritization for a train. E.g.

Priority 1 - express, priority 2 - slow passenger, priority 3 - freight etc

[FS.E652 091]

I confirm what Weter said, in Timetable mode it is possible to give priority to the paths using the appropriate command, furthermore I strongly advise you against using the TSRE5 Activity Editor, it is full of bugs, and it is not necessarily true that the paths as well as the traffics and the functioning of the waiting points is guaranteed, in the whole of 2023 I created more than 50 activities for a scenario with the TSRE5 and I assure you that it got on my nerves and I had to recreate more than one Path and service from 0.. ;-)

[joe_star]

Weter, on 04 March 2024 - 12:23 PM, said:

$waitany

I looked again at this command, it may not be adequate as a true "priority" command

https://www.elvastow...aitany-command/

As I understand, this might work for a "local" service where it makes a stop at every station on the path, but not so for a freight service where you likely do not want to send the freight train into every likely platform siding.

Thanks for the tip though, this might be useful for the "local" trains on my route which do go thru almost every loop line

[joe_star]

Weter, on 05 March 2024 - 06:19 PM, said:

$noclaim

Do you have any examples of this implemented for a particular train?

[Weter]

I don't remember.