Interlocking Towers with AI consists

[TheBrook]

I am sorry to raise another interlocking tower issue, but I seem to have a problem with AI controlled consist trains. I have read many posts regarding interlocking towers which have helped me greatly to identify my key issue. To conduct my tests, I have created a simple track with 2 loops with a common side (like a squashed figure eight). One train travels around one loop in one direction with another train traveling in the opposite direction on the 2nd loop, with the common side with 2-way traffic being managed by an Enhanced Interlocking Tower asset. After much trial and error, my conclusions are:

• When in manual driving mode, with individual locomotives or consists, everything works perfectly, paths activated and cancelled as expected.
• In AI mode, when individual locomotives are used, everything works perfectly.
• However, in AI mode, when consists are used, the interlocking tower path is cancelled as soon as the consist passes the ENTRY signal, rather than waiting until it passes the Exit signal. This is shown on the Interlocking Tower Manager runtime monitor. I even downloaded a consist from the DLS to prove there was not something wrong with the way that I created my consists, but it had the same problem.

I use Trainz Plus, on build #123794 and using "Enhanced TRC3 invisible Interlocking Tower", <kuid2:61392:8101:78>.

Can anybody advise if I am doing something wrong?

 

[TheBrook]

I am sorry to raise another interlocking tower issue, but I seem to have a problem with AI controlled consist trains. I have read many posts regarding interlocking towers which have helped me greatly to identify my key issue. To conduct my tests, I have created a simple track with 2 loops with a common side (like a squashed figure eight). One train travels around one loop in one direction with another train traveling in the opposite direction on the 2nd loop, with the common side with 2-way traffic being managed by an Enhanced Interlocking Tower asset. After much trial and error, my conclusions are:

• When in manual driving mode, with individual locomotives or consists, everything works perfectly, paths activated and cancelled as expected.
• In AI mode, when individual locomotives are used, everything works perfectly.
• However, in AI mode, when consists are used, the interlocking tower path is cancelled as soon as the consist passes the ENTRY signal, rather than waiting until it passes the Exit signal. This is shown on the Interlocking Tower Manager runtime monitor. I even downloaded a consist from the DLS to prove there was not something wrong with the way that I created my consists, but it had the same problem.

I use Trainz Plus, on build #123794 and using "Enhanced TRC3 invisible Interlocking Tower", <kuid2:61392:8101:78>.

Can anybody advise if I am doing something wrong?

After further testing, I can further refine the problem scenarios. When in manual driving mode:

• With individual locomotives (not consists), everything operates as expected.
• With consists, the interlocking tower path is cancelled as soon as the consist passes the Entry signal when the route is a closed circuit i.e. it is a loop with no junctions turned against the path of the train.
• With consists, everything operates as expected if at least one junction is turned against the path of the train.

Similarly, in AI mode:

• With individual locomotives (not consists), everything operates as expected.
• With consists, the interlocking tower path is cancelled as soon as the consist passes the Entry signal when the route is a closed circuit i.e a loop, with or without junctions.
• With consists, everything operates as expected if the route is a point-to-point circuit.

I hope this helps identify the problem. Can anybody assist with this issue?

 

[Kennilworth]

Hi


When you're setting the path up you will see that the top line is "Path clear method" which has four options. Experiment with these and see if one of them makes a difference.

I'll often throw together a simple route to test an idea out but I find that the best way is to try it on an actual route. My own preference is to use the option "Clear on drive" which allows each junction to clear as the consist leaves it but this can be changed depending on the circumstances of a particular situation. Loops of track as you describe can be difficult to get to work correctly and need to be signaled carefully. I have made extensive use of EITs to control single line sections over the past 6 or 7 years and have no issues with them.

They do have a steep learning curve which can be frustrating but it is worth persevering with them and I use them on all my sessions now.

Regards

Brian

 

[stagecoach]

I would suggest that the EIT is seeing the rear of the consist. As you drive to the entry signal it triggers the path, but because the EIT can also see the end of the consist it thinks the train has cleared the path. EIT can see a long way down a track and the only way to shorten the distance is to use EITPath triggers.

 

[TheBrook]

Thank you both for taking the time to respond to my issue – much appreciated. I think Stagecoach is spot on when he thinks the EIT is seeing the end of the consist. I subsequently did try the use of EITPath tiggers. They did delay the start of the path selection, which I can see would be useful, but it did not seem to prevent the EIT seeing the end of the consist and thus it still released the path upon passing the entry signal.

Although you both may think it strange that I am playing around with loops, it is because I am creating a simulation of my physical model train layout. Model train layouts often have ‘continuous running’ by means of some sort of loop. I want to see how realistic can a simulation be compared to a physical layout. My physical layout makes extensive use of automated complex operations so I am beginning to think Trainz may not be suitable in that aspect, although it has many other wonderful features.

 

[ianrein]

HI I also have an Interlocking tower problem
I have set the Tower up to protect a diamond crossing and I have got it working
The train with priority 1 enters the junction clears it and changes the signal on other track to green
So far so good. But the signal will not change to green on first track when second train has past
The setup
---S1-----\\------S6---------S7-----------S8------------------
---S5------\\------S2--------S3-----------S4------------------
Trains are moving left to right
I know this is not true to correct working but this is just to see how this is set up
Paths are set as S1 to S4 with External Object S5 priority 1 and S5 to S8 with External Object S1
I am not sure I need both external signals just one on first line
Would you take me through setup. please step by step
Btw I was looking at Brians post and on the tower Im using there is no Path Clear Method
There is just the Path Name Entry Signal Exit signal Edit. and Remove
The Tower Im using is Crowcombe Heathfield
Is Path Clear Method essential to correct working? If so that could be the problem

 

[Kennilworth]

Hi ianrein

It's years since I used the Crowcombe Heathfield tower and unfortunately I can't remember anything about using it. I'm getting a bit long in the tooth these days and my memory is rapidly deteriorating. Sometimes I can't even remember which route I'm supposed to be working on.

I use the "Enhanced Interlocking Tower", rules and driver commands by author "pguy" from the DLS in conjunction with Track Circuit Blocks which are built in. The EITs have many more options including the Path Clear Method. You don't need to use the extra options and can leave them at their defaults but they can be very useful once you get familiar with the system. With the EITs there is an option to give a name to a crossing which can be added to any paths which use that crossing and this prevents any conflicting paths being set. It's a nice simple system and is really useful for station or yard approaches which can have a number of crossings and single or double slips.

Regards

Brian

 

[stagecoach]

Use the Enhance Interlocking Tower, It is invisible in driver and can sit beside any signal box. When using the crossover, you must also use the Exclusive set instruction. Place a C+ Note track asset and give it a code, the asset is not used, it is just to make a note. Each path that crosses this note needs to have the code in the exclusive sets so the two paths can see each other.
Dont use external objects as they are all in the same tower. From S1 you need two paths, one straight on and one to the right with the exclusive code. The same applies to S5.
S1 to S8
S1 to S4 with code
S5 to S8 with code
S5 to S4

 

[ianrein]

Hi stagecoach
Just to clarify
I have two separate tracks crossing each other with no connection apart from the cross point
Example X not Y
I am trying just a two signal block to see how to set it up
I have it set so.that when one train clears the crossing and
passes the signal past the crossing the signal on the other track changes to green. This is what I want but when that second train has passed the crossing and cleared the next signal the entry signal isn't clearing
The paths I need are S1 to S2, S3 to S4
I tried this setup with the Interlocking Tower and got this problem
Now using Enhanced Tower on test route
What do I need to put in Executive set instruction?
Also What is a C+ Note track asset?
Would you also tell me what should be selected under EIT path options
Ive just worked out how to protect a crossing like this so please bear with me. This looks a lot simpler than setting up triggers TIA

 

[stagecoach]

Set 4 paths S1 to S6, S1 to S2, S5 to S6 and S5 to S2.
<kuid:243828:1940> C+ SO Note (Track) Red Nameable from DLS.
Place the track object (in with the signals) on one of the tracks in the X and name it (like S1256).
Enter the code into both the S1 to S2 and S5 to S6 paths in the exclusive sets membership (in the top part). This will only allow one train to be on the X at any one time.
S1 and S5 should be set to proceed as the starting signals for all paths.
A train approaching S1 will take control of S1 and the path it needs. If a train was approaching S5 it would have to wait as it can't set a path to either track.
If trains come from the opposite direction you would again need 4 paths, set up in a similar way.

 

[ianrein]

Just tested this and I have the same problem
My trains are running left to right and each one does not have a choice of route therefore only two paths are needed. I see what you mean though if I had trains going in both directions on both tracks I have four possible routes
To sum up
Train is passing S1. onto crossing
Once this train clears S2 S3 changes to green and releases the second train
The problem is that when this train passes S4 S1 doesn't change to green
Would I be right in assuming that the fault is on the second path as the Tower isn't telling the entry signal S1 to change to green?
Does it matter which track the C+ is put?

 

[ianrein]

Ok I think I have solved the problem
I was only running two trains to see the setup and the signals were staying red
So I added a third train and the junction was released. There would appear to be
a fail safe rule built. in that if there is no train approaching an entry signal the junction is kept on red
I have been trying to solve this problem for ages I didn't know how to set it up
How do you use triggers? That's another thing I haven't picked up
I know they're used to for a certain train to do something that releases
another train or have I got it completely wrong?

 

[ianrein]

Hi Keith
With this setup will one note at X the crossover be sufficient or do all routes need one
on Points 1 and 2 as well? The problem is that paths BA and CH are not affected by X
and can run through junction with X occupied but tower will not release train on HC while junction is blocked
Paths are in direction of travel BA CD CH FA and signals though not marked are placed before points.
and before and after crossover so that when train has cleared signal after crossover the crossover is cleared
At least that is what I want to happen
Do I need all paths on Tower or just what is using crossover ie CD and FA?
A---------------------------P2---------------------------------------------------B
C----------------------P1-----X--------------------------------------------------D
\ \------------------------------------------------ F
\---------------------------------------------------- H

 

[stagecoach]

Hi Keith
With this setup will one note at X the crossover be sufficient or do all routes need one
on Points 1 and 2 as well? The problem is that paths BA and CH are not affected by X
and can run through junction with X occupied but tower will not release train on HC while junction is blocked
Paths are in direction of travel BA CD CH FA and signals though not marked are placed before points.
and before and after crossover so that when train has cleared signal after crossover the crossover is cleared
At least that is what I want to happen
Do I need all paths on Tower or just what is using crossover ie CD and FA?
A---------------------------P2---------------------------------------------------B
C----------------------P1-----X--------------------------------------------------D
\ \------------------------------------------------ F
\---------------------------------------------------- H

The only conflict is paths CD and FA so only 1. The code should only be in those two paths. The other paths also need setting up but don't require the code BA and CH. C is a start signal and D,H are end signals.
B,F are start signals and A is the end signal.

 

[Kennilworth]

Hi

With regard to triggers.

The Enhanced Interlocking Towers automatically set a path required by a trains Mission Code when the train gets 1Km (0.6 miles) from the start signal. Sometimes this isn't enough for a high speed train or a heavy freight train for example. In such cases you use an "EITPathTrigger" by author "pguy", kuid2:61392:8121:4. I normally place these at least 2km (1.2 miles) before the start signal to ensure that the tower has enough time to set the path up before the train reaches the 1km position.

As each situation is different you may need to experiment with the trigger position to get the effect that you want.

NB I'm using TRS19 so the kuid number may be slightly different for later versions of Trainz.

Regards

Brian