Interlocking tower

In TANE SP2, having trouble finding a dependable interlocking tower for use in crossing protection. I have tried the Crowcombe and Enhanced TRC models. Both are buggy and the TRC one loses all input path data when Trainz starts. Does anybody check these things before releasing them to the game? Obviously not. If anyone knows of an interlocking tower that works consistently, plz advise. THANKS

Hi greymaster

I have been using the Enhanced Interlocking Tower in all its iterations since it was first released and have had no issues with them losing paths. Either there is something wrong with your installation or you are not setting them up correctly. If there was a problem with them as you suggest the forum would have lots of complaints like yours and it doesn't.

Things to check - make sure you have the EITs in the session layer and not the route layer and check that you are using the correct version for your build number. The EITs and their associated rules and driver commands were updated when SP2 was released.

Regards

Brian

Thanx. I have set up the towers many times, and if there is an errore, tower flags it. Using the Safetran signals, or is there a better type? One problem is that after the crossing path has cleared, the tower will not release adjacent junctions to let waiting trains proceed. During the setup I saw no reference to EIT, don't even know what these are. My build is 90945 whatever that means. I love trainz and had no AI problems or problems like this in TZ2009. Anyway, thanks again.

Hi again

EIT = Enhanced Interlocking Tower

The EITs have a parameter that you can set for releasing paths. Try setting it to Clear on drive so that each junction is released in turn as the train clears them. Have a read of this document on the wiki http://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/Enhanced_Interlocking_Tower which will give you an insight into the different parameter settings that can be used.

Regards

Brian

Kennilworth said:

Things to check - make sure you have the EITs in the session layer and not the route layer

Click to expand...

Why?
If one has a Route with 3 EITs and 5 Sessions, one would need to set up 15 EITs instead of just 3.


I put everything* into the Route Layer and have no problems with EITs.

*Obviously excluding Driver Commands and Rules.

Hi

I've been using ITs and EITs since they were first introduced and have had issues in the past with them being placed on the route layer. It may be that any such issue has been resolved in the many updates that have since come out but I have always put them on a session layer since.

The towers are only set up once on a base session so when I need to create a new session I just load up the base session and use save as to give it a new name. You can also put any rules to be used in the base session and your new session will then also contain all of the same rules without having to re-enter them all again. Also the Driver Command rule will just contain the driver commands that you use without having to set them all up again.

If you want to use towers on a built in or DLC route then you have no other option than to put them on a session layer as the route layers are locked.

Regards

Brian

Hi Brian and Ecco.

There is no problem to use ITs and EITs at the route level, if you take care that all their path objects (signals, junctions, crossings) are also defined in the route layer. All paths keep a list of all their path objects using an internal GameObject id reference that are checked at initialisation and during path processing. If a path object belongs to a session layer inside a tower defined in a route layer, when you will use your route with another session the object reference inside the path will be invalid and the path and tower will be broken with a lot of side effects.

But as long as all your path objects are in a route layer, there is no problem to have your interlocking tower also at the route layer.

Hope this helps.

Regards.
Pierre.

Hi Pierre

Thank you for the explanation. That will be why I've had issues in the past as I add invisible signals at times to end paths at a point where it is more convenient and buffer stops (bumpers) where they are missing from sidings. These are always added on the session layer.

Regards

Brian

Kennilworth said:

That will be why I've had issues in the past as I add invisible signals at times to end paths at a point where it is more convenient and buffer stops (bumpers) where they are missing from sidings. These are always added on the session layer.

Click to expand...

My golden rule is to place all visible track objects, plus invisible junctions and invisible track, in the base "route-layer" with the track. Invisible signals I usually place in a separate route layer - it makes it easier to delete them all if I decide that they are not needed. The only track objects I ever place into session layers are trackmarks and triggers because these can vary from one session to another.

Kennilworth said:

The towers are only set up once on a base session so when I need to create a new session I just load up the base session and use save as to give it a new name.

Click to expand...

I only use one Session/Route so I forgot about the copy/paste capability.

Interlock tower

Kennilworth said:

Hi greymaster

I have been using the Enhanced Interlocking Tower in all its iterations since it was first released and have had no issues with them losing paths. Either there is something wrong with your installation or you are not setting them up correctly. If there was a problem with them as you suggest the forum would have lots of complaints like yours and it doesn't.

Things to check - make sure you have the EITs in the session layer and not the route layer and check that you are using the correct version for your build number. The EITs and their associated rules and driver commands were updated when SP2 was released.

Regards

Brian

Click to expand...

Thanks again. I will follow your suggestions, everyone. The route in question is a double-track line that splits by junctions (forming a Y type shape) to either side and creates a diamond where the left track crosses the right track. I have set up paths that pass thru junctions and that seems to be the problem, as the EIT will not release those junctions. But I'm a little closer to solving this now, and thanks for all the inputs.