simulating a ctc interlocking. sort of.

[justinroth]

So I was messing around a bit with a way to set a signal to danger for a certain period of time. Basically it consists of a seperate short length of track with an invisible loco, some track marks and triggers. example:train A is approaching interlocking, the signal is set to danger because invisible loco (on a seperate isolated track somewhere hidden away) is stopped on a.trigger, using trigger multiple signals. As train A approaches signal, it then triggers invisible loco to start its command list, which would be something like, wait five minutes, drive to trackmark A (thus releasing the signal) wait five minutes, then drive to trackmark B (which would be the initial point by the trigger to set.signal to danger) and the repeat, it would wait.for.the next.train and so on.....thoughts?ideas? is there a rule out there to make this simpler? is this an old trick I just discovered?

 

[Isegrinns]

I´m not much of a signal guy, but the invisible train sounds like a plan.
Maybe you can "un-portal it once it did its job.
Another idea would be an invisible siding for it to wait till the first train passed.

 

[justinroth]

I´m not much of a signal guy, but the invisible train sounds like a plan.
Maybe you can "un-portal it once it did its job.
Another idea would be an invisible siding for it to wait till the first train passed.

Isegrinns, the invisible loco would be on its own short length of track far away, it would return to its original positiion after X minutes

 

[Kennilworth]

Hi

You don't need an invisible loco to do this, just use an ordinary one. The piece of track can be anywhere on the route, perhaps hidden behind a backdrop or hill. I don't remember this idea being used to control signals but I seem to recall it being used to control trains running to a timetable a few years ago. The loco tripped triggers which allowed other trains to start at their correct departure times.

In fact the loco wouldn't need to move, it would just need driver commands to be able to work. Start with a Wait for Trigger to be tripped by the approaching train and then set the signal to red. Follow this by a wait for 5 minutes and then set the signal to automatic. The last command would be Repeat. As the loco doesn't move you could put as many of them as required for the route onto the short length of track.

Regards

Brian

 

[Dermmy]

The idea would work, but I'm kinda confused as to why we want a red signal when there is no 'real' train on the route making a conflicting move.....

 

[DaveL]

Not uncommon for all signals at an interlocking to be red unless they are needed to be green.
That way nothing should ever (haha) enter the interlocking without a green signal.

DaveL

 

[justinroth]

Hi

You don't need an invisible loco to do this, just use an ordinary one. The piece of track can be anywhere on the route, perhaps hidden behind a backdrop or hill. I don't remember this idea being used to control signals but I seem to recall it being used to control trains running to a timetable a few years ago. The loco tripped triggers which allowed other trains to start at their correct departure times.

In fact the loco wouldn't need to move, it would just need driver commands to be able to work. Start with a Wait for Trigger to be tripped by the approaching train and then set the signal to red. Follow this by a wait for 5 minutes and then set the signal to automatic. The last command would be Repeat. As the loco doesn't move you could put as many of them as required for the route onto the short length of track.

Regards

Brian

I assumed an invisible loco would help as far as computing power goes?
Also, if the loco never moved away from the trigger multiple signals trigger, how would the signal clear? I am a little cornfused, unless you're stating there's a command for "set signal to red" and "set signal to auto"

 

[Dermmy]

Not uncommon for all signals at an interlocking to be red unless they are needed to be green.
That way nothing should ever (haha) enter the interlocking without a green signal.

DaveL

And that's my point - that's exactly the situaution in Trainz without the need for any invisible trains, triggers or other 'clutter'. All sigs will default to red unless a train is approaching at which point they will turn to green. I'm not knocking doing it another way, I'm just curious as to why?...

If you have a prototype situation where all trains are brought to a stand before proceeding, just make sure the next two levers after the interlocking sig are set against the intended route and the red won't clear till the train comes to a stand. If necessary a couple of invis junctions/levers will do the job in a way I would think easier and more realistic than 'invisible' trainz lurking behind the landscape.

Or maybe I'm missing the point....

 

[justinroth]

I guess I wasn't thinking prototypically. Would be a waste of fuel to stop a train for no reason, brain farts! I thought this was a practice I observed at a busy interlocking here in Columbus, but in reality those trains were being stopped for a reason, though they seemed to sit for quite a while before an opposing movement occurred. It seemed to me that maybe it was an interlocking thing.

 

[Azervich]

Forcing signals to red might actually be a good idea for Interlocking Gate Crossings, when the Gates are set for Road Traffic the 2 Pos Signal is set to danger by the signalman or the gate keeper for hand operated gates, Trainz however keeps the signals green when Gates are closed to Railway Traffic when they Should be at Danger.

Where I live there used to be a 2 Pos signal leaving South Geelong to Warrnambool, the signal would always be at danger and the signalman won't set it to clear until the crossing lights have been flashing for 30 seconds as it's unprotected, 'in 2010 they put protected gates and removed the signal' this is also something trainz doesn't model in signalling.

 

[justinroth]

Forcing signals to red might actually be a good idea for Interlocking Gate Crossings, when the Gates are set for Road Traffic the 2 Pos Signal is set to danger by the signalman or the gate keeper for hand operated gates, Trainz however keeps the signals green when Gates are closed to Railway Traffic when they Should be at Danger.

Where I live there used to be a 2 Pos signal leaving South Geelong to Warrnambool, the signal would always be at danger and the signalman won't set it to clear until the crossing lights have been flashing for 30 seconds as it's unprotected, 'in 2010 they put protected gates and removed the signal' this is also something trainz doesn't model in signalling.

So you could use this as a timer

 

[Dermmy]

LOL - sorry to spoil you plans, but in reality railroads go a long way to try to make sure every train approaches a green signal wherever possible, the alternative - as you rightly say - eats fuel! A green signal of course is not always possibe, and sometimes it's not even practical, but a signal that deliberately stays red is a very unusual beast indeed!

The interlocked grade crossing though - now there's a thought! I reckon ATLS could possibly handle that as it stands, and if not I think an ATLS signal tied to the crossing state wouldn't be too hard an addition. Boat! Where are ya......

 

[boat]

Errrr, I'm here!

Well, without going into too much detail, from what I understand you're trying to do, most of this is kinda what ATLS was designed to do.... (although I'm not completely sure what you are trying to do).

"A short piece of track with an invisible loco on it" is effectively what an ATLS Slave is. Only with an ATLS Slave the loco doesn't move, it just has its physics turned off and on in response to the ATLS Controller instructions.

As for a signal tied to a crossing state, my Sen City signals will do that as they have optional ATLS control. So if you're using ATLS to control the crossing barriers then you can link that in with the signal to make it red when the barriers are closed to trains.

Incidentally Dermmy, I take your point about not leaving signals red but in Trainz it's the best way to do it when externally controlling trains with signals. Both ATLS and ASB Crossover, (and Turnout for that matter) default to red and stay forced red when no trains are about. That's not a problem so long as you put the activating triggers far enough out so the signals turn green in time for the train not to slow down, (providing of course the route is clear). If you do it the other way and turn a green signal red without warning you may have a SPAD as another train may be on top of that signal when you do it.

See www.boatztrainz.co.uk

Did that help?

Boat

 

[Dermmy]

Hi Boat - that was quick! I'm still not entirely sure about the OP, and I suspect the original point of the thread is now somewhat moot, but the other thing....

I honestly don't know USA signalling practice well enough to know if it applies there, but certainly back home in Aus crossing gates are (or at any rate were) protected by signals. Irrespective of the track conditions, a signal protecting a grade crossing couldn't be pulled 'Off' if the barriers were open to road traffic. 'Normal' sigs in Trainz ignore the crossing state but it's interesting to hear that you have signals that can be tied to ATLS crossings. I might experiment a bit.....

Andy

 

[JCitron]

Andy,

Over here the only time I've seen signals controlling crossing gates is when there are trolley cars (trams) that need to cross intersections such as that down on the MBTA Green Line out to Newton. Most other signals remain green unless there is a reason to set them red. Sometimes though, secondary lines that cross a main line are required to stop and receive permission to cross. In Trainz I simulate this with a Type 04 signal on the secondary line along with the invisible junctions as pointed out above.

John

 

[Williamb73]

In easy terms,

I use a ATLS Slave
Put a ATLS Trigger on the Slaves track (the slave already has a hidden invisible loco)
Put an ATLS Trigger on your interlocking track then set it up man!!!!

 

[jadebullet]

The idea would work, but I'm kinda confused as to why we want a red signal when there is no 'real' train on the route making a conflicting move.....

In the operation of an interlocking plant, it was very common for the interlocking signals and switches to remain locked for a set amount of time before the interlocking operator could route a new route involving those switches and signals. This is especially common at busy interlocking plants with many different routes that can be set. If there was no time delay, an inattentive tower operator could route one train through 18 switches of the interlocking. Then he moves onto routing the next train and because of fatigue, or not paying attention, he could end up routing the second via a route that intersects the previous consist's route, causing a collision.

With the time delay though, if the tower operator tried to route a consist via one of the locked routes, he would not be able to change the locked points or signals. I think that most plants had a ten minute delay, but I am not 100% sure.

 

[justinroth]

I was messing around with ATLS on a blank board, video stuttered around the triggers and slave(driver mode). Anyone ever have this problem (why I have never used the system in my route)

 

[Azervich]

Maybe this video might be of interest for interlocking signals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdJcvvzxBGs

Cheers.

 

[Dermmy]

In the operation of an interlocking plant, it was very common for the interlocking signals and switches to remain locked for a set amount of time before the interlocking operator could route a new route involving those switches and signals. This is especially common at busy interlocking plants with many different routes that can be set. If there was no time delay, an inattentive tower operator could route one train through 18 switches of the interlocking. Then he moves onto routing the next train and because of fatigue, or not paying attention, he could end up routing the second via a route that intersects the previous consist's route, causing a collision.

With the time delay though, if the tower operator tried to route a consist via one of the locked routes, he would not be able to change the locked points or signals. I think that most plants had a ten minute delay, but I am not 100% sure.

This could be a situation where international terminology differences are getting us in stife!

By definition interlocked junctions and signals CAN'T be set in conflict, there are electrical and/or mechanical locks to prevent a signal being cleared till the route is set, and the same junction interlocking also prevents conflicting moves being set. This applies to both modern electrical interlocking and old-style lever interlocking. In an interlocked frame if say Lever 1 is pulled then any other lever in the frame which sets up a potentially conflicting move physically can't be pulled, it is mechanically (or electrically) locked to prevent exactly the sort of mistake you describe...