Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:52 am

I think that the scene shown is a great textbook example because it shows how seemingly simple locations contain quite some complexity, but not because the scripts are so complex but because the prototype is.


The GWR where classic for installing a Forrest of ground signals.
The SR was very economic with ground disc and show how little was required to meet the regulation.
This have been a delight to see how both companies approach signals and is reflected in the route.

The wrapper is nice case for do as you please. You could span KWL16 and 13 to beyond switch 9, but then you would need an inner link for each beyond switch 12 or we might miss some very short light engine that reverses at 12 without touching the signal links beyond link 9. So it is just the same total number of track links, whether you use a wrapper or not. Also whether you prefer to have the wrapper depends on whether you easily get the links right or not there. If link 0 does not follow all the numbered links there, you have a hard to detect problem.


The reason I use this method is spanning signal links across link 0 for KWL11 seems to affect the reaction time for KWL11. With no links across and treating each crossing set as an independent set of signal gives the best results.
Once the signals are working you will find they prepare up to 3 stations ahead.

In the down direction, we have no choice but to have two ground signals, blame GWR. 8 clearly is a home signal (independent disk in terms of my scripts), 11 could be a dependent disk if you like, or just the same as 8.

I could use the dependent disk but I prefer not to use them unless required as they always display one route or the other. Seeing a green light on the other track in the reverse direct is confusing and something I prefer to avoid.
Your statement about dependent discs in the Reference Manual 1.0

5.4.4 Dependent disks
Their prime drawback is that they do not constitute block signals for AI, so reversing to the wrong
line to let another train pass will shock AI trains far and wide. Like section signals they clear
without giving information about the next disk. They are meant to be placed beyond a home signal
which would not clear unless the path is set to the next running signal. So you would need the first
disk in a row of disks on the wrong line to be an independent one, and follow that by dependent
ones. But since every crossover could be the starting point of a wrong-line run, this is not an option.
In short, dependent disks are not the first choice for wrong-line signalling.


This is a case here the dependent would be protected by the independent discs and arm.
My reason for not using is the disc display.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:35 am

Brentor is a great comparison to Kingskerwell as it is an SR station with a similar layout.
Single siding and crossover from Up to Dn Main.
Not a signal after signal example but a different approach to signal installation.
Brentor SD 01.jpg

Brentor Signal Diagram
Brentor 02.jpg

Brentor Stn south signals.
Brentor 03.jpg

Brentor Up Main BTR02 clearing speed set to 15 mph.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:43 am

Brentor 04.jpg

Ground Disc BTR05 with inner link between switch 8 & 9.

Brentor 05.jpg

Dn Main Start BTR15 with inner link between switch 8 & 9.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:54 am

Brentor 06.jpg

Siding ground disc BTR07

Brentor 07.jpg

Dn Main ground disc BTR06
This signal has 3 routes and a inner link between switch 8 & 9.
Dn Main reverse to Up Main Link 1
Dn Main reverse to Dn Main Link 2
Dn Main reverse to siding link 3

Note the SR did not install a signal for the Dn to Up main crossing.
The extra links are hidden speed signs.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby AndiS » Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:31 am

Auscgu wrote:AndiS

The crossing timber statement.
The track cutting theory.
I am a big fan of cut track to improve the track crossing timbers and I have seen signal issues resolved by cutting.

This correction will help, I messed up what I was trying to say.


:lol: I never worried too much about the crossing timbers although they certainly can need a little care. All I ever worried was about those closed flange ways that derail your train when you try to pass such a sick place.

Now I fully understand.

Auscgu wrote:The 3 link for signals KWL11 & KWL13.
This is a belt and braces approach and a hang over from route indicators and complex signals.

I don't mind belts and braces. I even recommend such an approach ... until someone discusses performance in a complex layout. This is not a complex layout, so there should be no impact that you can feel.

Auscgu wrote:At this location I am getting a weird track feed which changes the disc to green on the opposite track.
Could be a UK signals as the stations beyond have not been converted.
I find you get a few odd feeds through the filters.
The first distance arm will not always react.
Not an issues as aware of the problem and when the other stations are converted the problem will be resolved.


I was always worried about these filters. I tried to make them not too stubborn so you get some distant signal working ok, but that may have opened some hole for some message to get through that has some unplanned effect somewhere.

As you say (and I always said), best go without them.[/quote]

Auscgu wrote:These crossing have hidden speed signs as the location does not have speed signs in the pictures.
A lot of speed changes for railways are covered by regulations and you see very little speeds signs on railways.
Speed signs are require to show the speed change in the Hud so you don't have blind speed changes.
I always put them inside the signal links so you don't affect the signal link info transfer.
This method see to be reliable and follows your principle of nothing inside the signal links.

Alright. No problem there then. Actually the links of any speed sign will not interfere with any signal link anywhere for all I know.

Have you tried using the signal speed for such places? Without the checkbox ticked (the one for approach control), there is no change in signal behaviour, but the speed will show in the HUD. But I cannot remember whether that worked for signals that have "is stopping" = false in their .bin file. Maybe they are ignored and that is the reason why you need speed signs. I for one would mark the speed limit as a track property, but maybe selecting the track pieces is a chore.
AndiS
Top Link Driver!
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:48 pm
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 308 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Tue Dec 14, 2021 2:34 pm

Have you tried using the signal speed for such places? Without the checkbox ticked (the one for approach control), there is no change in signal behaviour, but the speed will show in the HUD. But I cannot remember whether that worked for signals that have "is stopping" = false in their .bin file. Maybe they are ignored and that is the reason why you need speed signs. I for one would mark the speed limit as a track property, but maybe selecting the track pieces is a chore.


I have tried before and found that it does not display the speed in the Hud.
It does limit the speed below track properties and you get a speed error.
If you check the approach control then it hold the signal arm from clearing until the speed is reached.

I was not sure so I retested in my signal test route.

SigSpd 01.jpg

The track speed is set to 45 mph for main line and 15 mph for sidings.
I have set the speed to 10 mph and checked the Approach control.
The result is no speed display in the Hud prior to the signal.
The approach control set the signal clear speed to the speed in the box.
If you exceed the speed set in the signal speed box you get a speed error.

SigSpd 02.jpg

I have set the speed to 10 mph and unchecked the Approach control.
The result is no speed display in the Hud prior to the signal.
The signal clear at any speed but you still have the signal speed error as set by the speed box.

Brentor 03.jpg

This confirms my reason for installing the speed signs.
The speed is displayed in the Hud prior to arriving at the speed change.
You have no signal speed error if you place the signal speed in the signal ID Fields.
The signal ID is BTR02 in the first field and speed is $~15 in the second field.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby AndiS » Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:08 pm

Does not speak for the game too much but then again I can even understand their logic: They introduced the feature only for Continental and US signals, where the signal aspect indicates the speed limit. So you can see it as far as you can see the signal and not showing the next signal aspect in the HUD or elsewhere is a move towards authentic driving experience that is ok.

But in the case of UK signalling, it is another feature to write off.
AndiS
Top Link Driver!
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:48 pm
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 308 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:00 am

AndiS,
I will get back to the signal after signal issues.
Bit pushed for time and getting the scenarios finished for route release is the first priority.

For scenarios when you have station stops I want the distant signal to show at warning and the start signal to hold the train for some time.
Using North Tawton as the example.
North Tawton is a typical station with a distant, home and start signal.
NTawton 01.jpg

Distant signal
NTawton 02.jpg

Home Signal code is for a home signal
NTawton 03.jpg

Start signal code is for a section signal
I know this is the default but I find it a useful reminder.
Obvious in this situation.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby Auscgu » Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:12 am

To stop the signal from clearing I use a Delay scenario predictor.
NTawton 04.jpg

Delay predictor and time set for 1 minute delay.
No issue with this as it works.
The problem is as soon as you place a predictor on the track it forces the rule 39 feature to the signals prior to the predictor.
NTawton 05.jpg

Can I use a callon predictor to clear the signals up to the delay predictor?
I have put one in place but it does not work this far from the home signal.

Can this work?
Do I need to code the preparation distance?
Is there a better way to achieve this feature.

It was common practice with semaphore signals to clear to the start signal but not clear the distant.
This is a scheduled stop for the service so the driver is expecting to stop.
With the predictor placed you have to slow to the arm clear speed in this case 15 mph.
Auscgu
Passed Fireman
 
Posts: 133
Images: 50
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Signal Issues with AndiS Scripts

Postby AndiS » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:09 pm

I would fix it by increasing the speed at which the home clears.

We are digging in deep mud here. Rule 39 clearly applies and the wording about the "near stop" is what it is. But we have lots of contemporary reports that some signallers were quite quick in their clearing the signal in such cases and many of these reports are accident reports where the investigator puts part of the blame on the signaller just because of that.

On the other hand, in a place like this, if the distant is closed and the starter is closed, how much harm will there be done when the signaller clears the home when he sees that the driver really remembers the scheduled stop?

You can easily fix this by increasing the speed to reach and the sensing range to what you consider prototypical. With the brakes of those times, the train will not run very fast at the home anyway.

The call-on thing is a garden path, starting with the fact that you have to stop (or run very slow) to get a call-on aspect.
AndiS
Top Link Driver!
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:48 pm
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 308 times

PreviousNext

Return to Route Creation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron