Single Line Puzzle

Hi Guys again I call upon the Brains Trust ...

I have looked in the search but I don't seem to looking for the right thing or asking search the wrong question...



In my Diagram

I have a piece of single track with a level crossing .. (thats all good got that sorted...)

I have traffic coming in from a portal every 20 mins.. on C. Heading for A but Sometimes head for B to use the refueling Shed..on B1 and B2 (not shown)

I have traffic coming out of the main yards on B. heading for D. sometimes E.

Trouble is that sometimes I get one train at each end just sitting there without moving how can force the issue and sort it out for them??

G and F is a road track that cross' the single track using a std Level Cross and is basically separate from the single line except for some triggers to set the invisible Signals on either side of the Crossing for the oncoming Trucks (trains) using trigger signals rule... signals stay red while boom is down and lights flash...(I have not included the triggers of signals for the road/track as it does not effect the the main rail/track

I'm not sure what is needed here.. but it is puzzling me...

I'm using 2 aspect signals Facing away from the Single track.. (yes I do have points motors inplace.. they are just not shown.. )

this is not easy

The signals going to A+D, turn them around facing away from the single track.
Set the points in surveyor to go to A+D.
And maybe a signal on the single track at one end only.

I reckon the signalling is OK, it certainly follows the conventional wisdom.

Mexican Standoffs are almost inevitable with AI traffic on an arrangement like that, what is happening is that two AI trains are clamoring for control of the same junction, probably the one between A and B.

There is a 'Release Junction' driver command which is ideal for situations like that, but unfortunately it needs to be inserted into the Driver's command line after things have gummed up...

Andy

Edit: I just noticed your direction markers. The only one accomplishing anything is on C. Depending on what is beyond A and D you may need one at the other end of those tracks, but as drawn they are doing nothing. They are easier to implement if you think of them as 'No Entry' markers rather than as 'Direction' Markers...

I recon you need a diverge signal on the single line for trainz approaching the AB junction. Also in a setup like this you need to be very carefull about the way your points default. It is usually better if you can set the default direction of the points so that each train only has to change one set of points, especially where two or three junctions are close together.

Cheers,
Bill69

Chris --

I'm not certain, but with some creative thinking this might help:

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=83432&highlight=mexican

Unfortunately the Linker is not yet up on the Download Station.

Phil

Bill69 said:

I recon you need a diverge signal on the single line for trainz approaching the AB junction.

Click to expand...

Only if you use 'smart' signals and set them up right! With conventional signals that is just another potential standoff, which fouls the level crossing and leads to bad behaviour on the road. Drivers will start speeding and overtaking in dangerous places. Joking, but not about the sigs! With 'traditional' sigs you have it pretty right.

I agree with Bill's comments about default lever positions though, changing that can make a world of difference...

Andy

hi mate

you need to have signals at the end of your dead end roads.
place them just before the buffers and that should fix the problem

sometimes i needed a second dwarf set before the main exit as well.

AI works weird with things like that

if not, sent me an email and i will talk you through ti

it took me a long time to work that one out for my caboolture to rockhampton route in 2006

i did win in the end

cheers
ron

I would remove the signals at A and D. The track direction has been set in such a way as these signals are not needed. Although the results aren't prototypical in appearance, the less signals the better for smooth operations, unless you enjoy mucking about in triggers and the like. I do not.

B and E are problematic, depending on the train orders. If an train occurs at B, ordered to go to E, and one occurs at E, ordered to go to B at or near the same time then they have no route to resolve the standoff. For this reason I would add a passing siding in the center of the schematic.

Thanks for the help with this I used the Signal linker works a treat....

just another thing to list when I release the route...

Glad to be of assistance. That Linker is an excellent piece of kit.

For the past decade or two I've been asking Justin Cornell to put it on the Download Station.

Maybe if you can ask too? Politely, of course.

Phil

LOL if you have been asking for a decade LOL chances of me getting it on there Slim.. very slim.. But I'll give it ago...

targanon said:

Thanks for the help with this I used the Signal linker works a treat.....

Click to expand...

Will you still get a standoff without a passing siding in between? Even if the signals are linked, I don't see how it would help that situation.

I"m not sure what you mean ..

But I have used a linker at each end of the single track.. locking out the incoming track, from each end if there is a train on the single track section.

the only place there is cause for concern for me is now from incoming from E.

I have tested it a a few times and it works for me as is.