- This topic has 29 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
sry , i was talking about the other side , the point where the red line go to the green one on the way back
Ah ok. Here is the other side: http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/35224121191182398/E038EF1D0BA090D550AB593879E959A699BB9C43/
hum … , so the game force the use of the second line …. how anoying ….
not many solution here :
1 put another depot for the red line (with a Y section to be connected from both side) and remove the problematic connection that cause the red line to switch to the other one
or remove the connection on the other side , by building a bridge or a tunnel for the green line
but i think the first choice is the easier and less expensive one
but now , what is the purpose of the red line ? , freight or passengers ? , is this connection absolutly neccesary or not ?
Green is passengers, so several trains that is why I made double track.
Red is cargo, only 1 train.
The connection is not absolutely necessary, cause its a connect to the depot. The depot doesn’t need to be connected to all track all the time. But everytime I need to replace or add trains I will need to rebuild the connect and delete afterwards.
hum , not neccesary , you just need to put the depot on the other side and make the connections to the green line on the other side as well , the green line isn’t connected to the station so there is no reason for the red line to switch in that way
Yes. Restructuring would solve most problems. But the point is that a waypoint is a much easier solution. Also this is an encounter of 2 lines. Imagine when the network grow more.
Lets hope they do. Many things was promised, even signals to city streets. I’m expecting a lot of patches and new features. I hope the sales was according to their expectations.
+1 for a waypoint system. I’ve had the exact same problem with lines merging after adding a crossing via switches.
The problem is created by wrong lay out design, not the lack of way points or bugs. Based on what the TS has tried to achieve I have created an example of a crossover with a depot connection. The design is working as a flawless running Swiss timepiece. The depot is drive-able from the four tracks by trains running from East to West before the have passed the cross over switches. For creating lines all the four tracks are guided by one way signals.
Remember, a one way signal is only passable by trains driving to its front side, trains can not pass a one way signal from the back side. A two way signal controls only the train traffic that is driving to its front side but two way signals allows trains that they pass the signal also from its back side. With the one way signals you create one way traffic flow, two way signals allows the trains to drive on the track in both directions.
One way signals are meant to block line traffic flow into unwanted tracks. thus plays an important role in your route setting. Also notion that the signals you place manually act as entrance signals, allowing trains to ENTER a part of the line route. The invisible by the a.i. placed signals act in Train Fever as exit signals. these exist at the station platform ends, the depot exit track and on the three switch tips too. The manually placed entrance signals co-operate with the automatically by the a.i. placed exit signals. Not knowing this and not realizing how simple but refined the TF route guidance works is the main reason of frustrations and complains. I find out that we even don’t need an additional way point tool if the working of the Train Fever signalling system is fully fathomed.
As you can see on the picture below, two double track lines (the red and green line) are joining at the cross over and use further to the west together the double track railroad. At double tracks trains drives in my lay out on the right side. As you can see are all trough going tracks protected by one way signals. Only the depot track is bi-directional and there is no entrance signal to the cross over placed there, making that in the lay out the depot track itself belongs also to the cross over section, resulting that traffic driving from and to the depot is protected by cross over entrance signals A and B and also by signal C if a from east to west driving green train is moving towards signal C. There is one green and one red track that allows route setting form west to east and there is one green and one red track that allows route setting from west to east. The crossover makes it possible that all the trains that are coming from the east can enter the depot track, all trains in the depot set to the red or green line can leave the depot into eastern direction to enter at cross over switch A the red or green route.
To achieve a flawless working crossover it must by protected by proper placed entrance signals for train traffic coming from all possible directions, as in the real world too. The principal part of the crossover protection is done by signal A and Signal B, these signals co-operates with cross-over switches A and B. On the green line is signal C protecting the cross over of the green trains driving over the cross over from west to east. Signal C stops a from east to west driving train if an opposing green train has passed signal A until that train (driving over the cross over) drives with its last wagon over switch C. Thus at the moment that the last wagon of the from west to east driving green train drives over switch C, signal C gives the stopped train there the clearance to start moving. This is how in Train Fever the signals co-operate with the relevant switches, the invisible contact senors that exist in the switches controls the lights of the relevant manually placed signals.
I think you slightly misunderstood the TS’ problem.
It’s not that traffic wouldn’t flow as expected.
It’s that TF assigns paths in a rather strange way. After your crossover switches, you completely separated your lines. The TS didn’t want to do this. He wanted to have them run partly on the same track. In that case, you basically are dependent on your luck whether TF assigns tracks to lines the way you want to, or doesn’t.
Basically, the issue boils down to this:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=312811460
Why does the game do it like that? That’s not only nonsense from a human point of view, but also is not even the fastest connection (because using the switches slows the train down). I could, in this rather simple example, solve the issue with a one-way signal, but the point is:
I shouldn’t need any signals forcing the line on their intended track, and it would be a bit of a hack. The TS can’t even do this in his setup, because signals don’t work for assigning lines to tracks.
This issue has very little to do with signaling, and very much with pathfinding for lines, which often is quite a PIA.
@Varana. It is not TF that assigns paths in the rather strange way. Such things are caused by serious flaws in a layout design. I have discovered also a small flaw in my design.. it’s the existence of the in fact unnecessary signal D. A long train that is stopped by that signal can create a deadlock at cross-over switch B.
The main problem of TS was that he didn’t find out how to create a situation that all problems for trains to drive to or from his depot are solved. In my example showed in my post before there are no path finding problems to the depot. And the green en red lines east of my cross over are separated by design, exactly working as intended my me.
In answer to your question (regarding the link to your picture) I have a simple answer. Also your design has critical flaws. Viewed from the driving direction, you have placed signals short after the passage of a switch, why? Knowing that signals situated just behind a switch are placed at a wrong spot belongs to the basic knowledge of layout design in this game. Further, you have placed two way signals at one side along the route and at the other side one way signals, what is the meaning of that?
Below is a picture of an example I have created for you. The flaw in the mainline in your design is fixed by proper placed one way signals at the correct spots, and my trains can drive from and to the depot from both directions. Is this the situation you wish? Oh.. the red route on the main line can also be achieved by placing two way signals there, creating the same result.. but I never use two way signals if not needed.
One-way and two way signals: There are one-way signals further down to the right, making these tracks one-line as well. I usually don’t bother changing all signals on a track to one-way, when there’s one set of them already in place.
Yes, the signals just behind the switches are inefficient. But they should in no way affect how the line is drawn over the tracks. Especially, they should not cause the line switching tracks (and they don’t). So they’re not relevant for this issue.
My point, however, is:
As I said in my post, placing the one-way signals within the switch area should not be necessary. The lines should not change tracks, regardless of whether I place those signals, or don’t. There is no reason to change from the lower to the upper tracks here, and the lines should run on separate tracks even without those signals. If I need to place those signals, TF’s pathfinding is odd.
And the issue in douglas’ setting was not about signals. TF changes the tracks on which a line runs when you place switches. That’s the problem. In my example: TF for some reason chooses to run the line on the upper track. I have to force it to use both. And not just once, but every time there is a possibility of changing tracks, TF tries to do that.
In this case, that can be solved by placing signals (even though it shouldn’t be necessary). TF should create the line just like in your image, even without the inner signals.
But there are settings like the one douglas posted, where signals don’t suffice, and TF has to be told by waypoints where a line is supposed to go.
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.