Problems with Dearnby route

Probably not a serious issue, wonder where v25 came from? Third party asset or some Payware I don't have. I'm tempted to suggest save a copy of 25 and then delete it and see if that solves the issue, however that might break whatever uses v25.

Yes, it is always dicey when taking something out of the mix, because you never know what was dependant on that.

The LilB's Script Library v1.4.5.7 for <kuid2:103021:100525:21> would seem to be a more recent version of the :25, because the :25 version shows as V1.4.5.6.

I've no idea where the :25 modified version came from. Is there a way to check?

Heinrich505 said:

I've no idea where the :25 modified version came from. Is there a way to check?

Click to expand...

Just a suggestion: sort by installation date and see what else was installed at the same time.

Peter

Beginning to think there are too many versions of too many scripts!

A thought, as I've just sorted out an issue with a missing dependency that wasn't missing as there was a newer version, just by running a database repair, I wonder if that might help?

Also maybe deleting the contents of cache\library may fix the issue, it rebuilds when you run the routes.

I'll try the database repair, as I'm not sure how to go about deleting the contents of the cache/library.

Oddly enough, there was no installation date for the :25 modified version so I can't compare it to what else came up that day.

Heinrich505 said:

I'll try the database repair, as I'm not sure how to go about deleting the contents of the cache/library.

Oddly enough, there was no installation date for the :25 modified version so I can't compare it to what else came up that day.

Click to expand...

The cache folder is a sub folder of the one shown in Install in the Launcher settings.

Database repair didn't change anything. I'm still running the :25 modified version.

One other small problem, which should be noted by anyone updating or just using the Trainspotter sesson for Dearnby. After 1 - 1.5 hours running this session I've had a buildup of stuck trains from Westacott back to Dirncombe. This was caused by one of the non-portal trains, driven by Zdenka, trying to execute a Runaround command from Westacott down platform. This runaround using the main running lines came to a standoff with another train, causing the blockage.

A simple solution is to eliminate the Zdenka train, but changing the Zdenka commands to use Westacott bay rather than the main down platform would probably work.

At present I am, for my own entertainment, installing EITs for all the Dearnby stations, with sufficient paths to enable all of the portal and non-portal trains (other than the narrow guage and mini ones) to work. This should make the running and routing of trains around the complex Dearne-on-Sea area work more smoothly.

Peter

pwjohnson said:

One other small problem, which should be noted by anyone updating or just using the Trainspotter sesson for Dearnby. After 1 - 1.5 hours running this session I've had a buildup of stuck trains from Westacott back to Dirncombe. This was caused by one of the non-portal trains, driven by Zdenka, trying to execute a Runaround command from Westacott down platform. This runaround using the main running lines came to a standoff with another train, causing the blockage.

A simple solution is to eliminate the Zdenka train, but changing the Zdenka commands to use Westacott bay rather than the main down platform would probably work.

At present I am, for my own entertainment, installing EITs for all the Dearnby stations, with sufficient paths to enable all of the portal and non-portal trains (other than the narrow gauge and mini ones) to work. This should make the running and routing of trains around the complex Dearne-on-Sea area work more smoothly.

Peter

Click to expand...

Curiously I came across this one as well probably a bit before everything jammed up and spotted the problem as it was occurring, I deleted the Zdenka train which I was actually following at the time.

In testing it was always a bit of a cliffhanger seeing if the branch line shuttle could achieve the run-around and disappear back up the branch before a train arrived (and got held up) on the main line. It seemed to make it a lot of the time but, seeing as it can be a source of major congestion if it doesn't, we'll seek to avoid that situation in sessions for V3. Thanks for highlighting it.

pwjohnson said:

At present I am, for my own entertainment, installing EITs for all the Dearnby stations, with sufficient paths to enable all of the portal and non-portal trains (other than the narrow guage and mini ones) to work. This should make the running and routing of trains around the complex Dearne-on-Sea area work more smoothly.

Peter

Click to expand...

Hi Peter, I have done the same thing in TANE SP4 and everything does tend to run pretty well. Still working on a session but hope eventually to upload it to the DLS. A couple of gotchas that I came across that might spare you some grief / hair-pulling. If you come across a situation where an EIT path just will not activate, it could be due to a problem with a signal. I found 2 which were not apparently connected to the track - at least not in a way that the EIT recognised. One was the platform signal at Hawkwell Quay station; another was on an overhead gantry between Dirncombe Junction and Wharf Crossing. There could be others elsewhere on the route.

A simple move / move back operation fixes the issue if you don't care about saving the route under your own kuid. My solution was to bind any 'bad' signals to a hidden session layer and replace them with a like for like copy inside my session.

Anyway, good luck with the many hours (believe me!) of EIT fun ahead for you.
John

Hi John,

So far I have just finished defining all the paths needed; next stage is to produce schedule library snippets of commands and finally to update the driver commands themselves, so I haven't yet tried to run with paths. But thank you for highlighting those signal problems; I will look out for them - as you say many (more) hours down the track!

I have found it not quite but almost necessary to define a few extra signals (for example to avoid an unnecessarily long distance to the path exit signal), which I've done using invisible signals in another layer, though I don't at present have any plans to upload my version to the DLS.

To Neville: as a quick fix you could direct Zdenka to Westacott bay instead (I think it's just a single command change). I know there is another train (Edgar) which does a runaround from the bay, but if these two manage to avoid locking themselves out over the various single track sections then maybe they'll cope with the runaround. I don't know exaclty how the runaround command works but the layout of tracks around the bay platform would seem to give it more of a chance. Anyway, the worst that can happen is that these two end up glowering at each other rather than clogging up the main lines!

Peter - noted. Thanks.

Vostrail said:

Hi Peter, I have done the same thing in TANE SP4 and everything does tend to run pretty well. Still working on a session but hope eventually to upload it to the DLS. A couple of gotchas that I came across that might spare you some grief / hair-pulling. If you come across a situation where an EIT path just will not activate, it could be due to a problem with a signal. I found 2 which were not apparently connected to the track - at least not in a way that the EIT recognised. One was the platform signal at Hawkwell Quay station; another was on an overhead gantry between Dirncombe Junction and Wharf Crossing. There could be others elsewhere on the route.

A simple move / move back operation fixes the issue if you don't care about saving the route under your own kuid. My solution was to bind any 'bad' signals to a hidden session layer and replace them with a like for like copy inside my session.

Anyway, good luck with the many hours (believe me!) of EIT fun ahead for you.
John

Click to expand...

Two interesting bits in this post!

The apparently unattached signals you mention - I'll investigate those in the V3 route I have at the moment. I know that signals can attach to stuff other than tracks, if one is incautious in their placement. But generally I test all signal and junction arrangements with a test session that puts opposing consists through them in an AI fashion, to make sure the AI can detect and operate both the junction switches and the signals as intended. Could you post the signal numbers here and I'll have a look at them, in V2 and V3?

I've attempted and failed with EIT so at the moment I'm writing schedule library routines instead. These switch junctions and signals via a consist driver's AI call to the schedule library routines for entry or exit from a complex area such as Dearnby on Sea stations & yard complex. The junction switches and signals exclude other consist until the driver has completed his manoeuvre, then release all the junctions and signals back to automatic.

This is EIT the hard way, perhaps. But I find the EIT stuff difficult to grasp and configure to the necessary degree. I'd be very interested in seeing your or Mr Johson's EIT'd Dearnby & District session, though. Perhaps I can learn enough to once more adopt EIT - but successfully. Send me a PM if you're willing, you lads.

Lataxe

Hi Lataxe,
I’m away for a few days, but will post the signal ids when I get back. Cheers,

John

OK, back at my PC now. The 2 signals which gave problems for the Enhanced Interlocking Towers were:

Signal 6493966 (Hawkwell Quay platform)
Signal 769070 (Gantry signal on Slow Down approach to Badgercombe, from Wharf Crossing)

John

Vostrail said:

Hi Peter, I have done the same thing in TANE SP4 and everything does tend to run pretty well. Still working on a session but hope eventually to upload it to the DLS. A couple of gotchas that I came across that might spare you some grief / hair-pulling. If you come across a situation where an EIT path just will not activate, it could be due to a problem with a signal. I found 2 which were not apparently connected to the track - at least not in a way that the EIT recognised. One was the platform signal at Hawkwell Quay station; another was on an overhead gantry between Dirncombe Junction and Wharf Crossing. There could be others elsewhere on the route.

A simple move / move back operation fixes the issue if you don't care about saving the route under your own kuid. My solution was to bind any 'bad' signals to a hidden session layer and replace them with a like for like copy inside my session.

Anyway, good luck with the many hours (believe me!) of EIT fun ahead for you.
John

Click to expand...

John,

I had a look at the two signals you identified for me as misbehaving with your attempts to include them in an EIT procedure. They do seem to be attached to the track in the the normal way and react to a test-loco placed in front of them within Surveyor. (Both in T:ANE SP4 and in TRS19 Platinum).

But your solution of moving the signal a bit then back again, to get EIT to recognise them, suggests that the issue is something to do with the internal machinations of the Trainz software. I've had other instances of things appearing in the route layer, working as intended but not being recognised or found when attempting to include them in an AI instruction. As you say, grabbing and moving the offending object seems to solve the problem - as though the Trainz software only notices them after they do a little dance.

There's the not dissimilar syndrome of parts appearing (or rather not appearing) as missing from an asset, such as the turntable with absent track, mentioned elsewhere. A similar "fix" of grabbing and moving it back& forth (in Surveyor) immediately fixes the issue. (The track on the turntable suddenly appears and all is well). Or operating the turntable via a click on the red/green arrows in Driver works to similar effect.

I wonder if N3V have knowledge of this syndrome? Perhaps its worth the raising of a bug report? But the turntable problem, for example, doesn't seem to appear in TRS19 Platinum, only in T:ANE SP4 ..... which already has a poor reputation for being glitchier than SP3.

Lataxe