Passing sidings, signals and cornfield meets

philskene said:

I've been following this thread with great interest.

When the Interlocking Towers and then the Enhanced Interlocking Towers came out I experimented with them. Extensively. And from time to time have returned to see if I can solve the problem of AI and Player trains on a single track line with passing loops - the problem of the "Mexican Standoff" or the "Cornfield Meet".

This video highlights the problem:


The yellow locomotive is controlled by the Player, the grey by AI.

In the first part of the video (no Signal Link) the AI train takes control of the switch. The Player cannot access the passing loop. In the second part of the video (1:05 onward) Signal Link is configured and the Player retains control of the switch.

Try as I might I cannot achieve the latter using Interlocking Towers. To those who have experimented even more than me, can it be done?

Phil

Click to expand...

I have been working on this for a while. I love driving against randomly generated AI traffic just to see what I meet along the way. I have been through various iterations, but I have found a robust solution with PGuy’s EITs with the set up described by Davie_UCF on page three of this thread.

https://forums.auran.com/trainz/sho...nst-AI-Traffic-and-Control-of-Junctions/page3

I set paths for each direction - in this case RH siding to main to RH siding - and use navigate commands to track marks just in front of the path entry signal. I have not needed the ITSetPath rule. Setting the path assignment to Automatic lets my train and AI take clear paths at or near track speed.

I have let this run for hours with randomly generated traffic in both directions. I can pop in and drive my own train in either direction without need for commands or throwing switches. As I approach the entry signal, the EIT sets my path once it is clear.

I would think that too many signals on a single track lead in, would allow too many trains into all the blocks ahead ... were as a single signal just prior to the start of the single track lead in switch (ie: 10 miles prior) would stop all traffic from entering that single track block, if an oncoming train was attempting to take over the long block

cascaderailroad said:

I would think that too many signals on a single track lead in, would allow too many trains into all the blocks ahead ... were as a single signal just prior to the start of the single track lead in switch (ie: 10 miles prior) would stop all traffic from entering that single track block, if an oncoming train was attempting to take over the long block

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean. But in any case it depends how it's set up.
With towers you could have as many signals as you like but it would still only let one train onto the single line if the tower section went from the last signal on the double line to the first on the exit (the next double line section).
That's how I have it on my US route. There is also a signal protecting the exit of the single line which without towers would cause the Mexican stand off as it sits on the single line with a train on the double/loop trying to get on.

With towers this doesn't happen and that signal can be used realistically, that is to inform the driver which line he is taking (as in some situations the double might have another diverging route closer than the next signal could be, or the loop could be bidirectional or in most cases it just helps the driver know the next aspect).

In the UK where I'm a driver the above is common practice, you wouldn't have a diverging route without a signal close to it even if on a single line.

Edit:
An example from a route I drive

Not sure if this is still good or not, or out of date or not.

http://trains.0catch.com/Tut4-IntroToSignaling.htm

fourteen said:

Not sure if this is still good or not, or out of date or not.

http://trains.0catch.com/Tut4-IntroToSignaling.htm

Click to expand...

That was my introduction to signaling years ago and, as far as it goes, it's still the bible.