double/multi track layouts and train switching, etc

[Blurplegirl]

My gosh I have had this game for years starting with TF1 and even with the newest updates which are nice and better QoL it still doesn't solve the mind boggling problem of why trains won't switch sides when the other side isn't clear....???? I mean... really?!

at each station I have an X type crossing and a signal protecting each side; why the heck is *this* so dang hard for the game to get it together?!

I also have a Y setup from the train depot, somehow this area the train will only use one side rather than both tracks for some reason but changing which platforms are primary and allowing it to use an alternate platform (there's an option to do it per station on the line) yet trains still need a free and clear path when the other track is readily available.

I don't get how this game's simple track mechanics can't even do the simplest thing! Heck even Cities skylines has this issue and just you wait, CS2 will have this problem also!

I have tried every signal combination, one way, two way, protecting every junction point vs protecting a large block of junctions and I removed a duplicate switch and still doesn't fix anything short of putting in a turnaround loop should not have to do this.

[Vimpster]

If I understand you right, you are expecting dynamic pathing, where the train can see that their path is blocked and choose an alternate path. I can only speculate that the reason they do not allow this is for performance reasons. The fact that they added a limited form of that ability to stations was actually quite shocking to me. I certainly would not expect it to ever be added to travelling in general. Also even them having added it to stations has introduced an ongoing issue that results in trains getting lost, or taking extremely long detours, if you have any loops in your system.

[Blurplegirl]

turned out had one too many signals... really? how am I supposed to protect the other side's crossing?

[Blurplegirl]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

If I understand you right, you are expecting dynamic pathing, where the train can see that their path is blocked and choose an alternate path. I can only speculate that the reason they do not allow this is for performance reasons. The fact that they added a limited form of that ability to stations was actually quite shocking to me. I certainly would not expect it to ever be added to travelling in general. Also even them having added it to stations has introduced an ongoing issue that results in trains getting lost if you have any loops in your system.

I thought dynamic pathing had always been a thing, I mean cities skylines has the same issue as well as many other railroad sims that only focus on railroad designs.

[Vimpster]

Originally posted by Blurplegirl:

I thought dynamic pathing had always been a thing, I mean cities skylines has the same issue as well as many other railroad sims that only focus on railroad designs.

No, there is no dynamic pathing here. The vehicles have to strictly follow the designated path of their route and can never divert from it, with the exception of alternate platform selection at stations if setup.

Unlike games like the old Transport Tycoon where trains did use dynamic pathing and would happily go around a section of track that was blocked.

[Blurplegirl]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

Originally posted by Blurplegirl:

I thought dynamic pathing had always been a thing, I mean cities skylines has the same issue as well as many other railroad sims that only focus on railroad designs.

No, there is no dynamic pathing here. The vehicles have to strictly follow the designated path of their route and can never divert from it, with the exception of alternate platform selection at stations if setup.

Unlike games like the old Transport Tycoon where trains did use dynamic pathing and would happily go around a section of track that was blocked.

That game seemed to do just fine with that ;)

but I figured a block signal only protects the path in front of it so if there's no train there it should theoretically go on that track if its free even if that means switching but alas it doesn't; maybe TF3... surely PCs are capable of this without performance issues (at least higher end PCs?)

[Tsubame ⭐]

There is no such thing as too many signals, unless they are badly placed in such a way to allow trains to block each other up.

As stated before there is no dynamic pathing so the best way to avoid issues and bottlenecks is to design the tracks and lines as to avoid conflicts with each other.

Strict follow the path line mechanics is the standard rather than the rule. Easier to implement, both for developers and players alike.

Besides, the way routing is implemented in the game is significantly better than CS, where there is no signaling and tracks are unidirectional, unless using two way single tracks, which is impractical to do intensively given CS's mechanics and limits.

[Blurplegirl]

Originally posted by Tsubame ⭐:

There is no such thing as too many signals, unless they are badly placed in such a way to allow trains to block each other up.

apparently I've been doing it wrong all my life, I put signals for each direction when it wasn't even needed thus created the conflict apparently... and I was able to get it to sorta dynamically pick which track at a double switch junction so it kinda does have it sorta with a little "trickery" I was able to let it keep going in the same direction or move to the other side if it wasn't available but yes that would ultimately create conflicts, I know but multi platforms are sometimes needed.

As stated before there is no dynamic pathing so the best way to avoid issues and bottlenecks is to design the tracks and lines as to avoid conflicts with each other.

See above ^^ but yeah I get its limited, too bad :(

Strict follow the path line mechanics is the standard rather than the rule. Easier to implement, both for developers and players alike.

Besides, the way routing is implemented in the game is significantly better than CS, where there is no signaling and tracks are unidirectional, unless using two way single tracks, which is impractical to do intensively given CS's mechanics and limits.

I don't remember it being like that, but its been awhile so you're probably right.

CS2 is out now, so I'm really curious to see how they did this.

[Metacritical]

Originally posted by Tsubame ⭐:

There is no such thing as too many signals, unless they are badly placed in such a way to allow trains to block each other up.

well there is from an efficiency standpoint, signals should be used sparingly unless a particular stretch of track is used by multiple lines.

too many signals cause trains to bunch up which can be problematic. you only need a minimum of one signal for every train on the line.

for lines that go A > B > C > D > C > B > A, i always leave one stretch, usually at the end of the line, empty of signals to help reduce bunching.

[Zapp]

Originally posted by Metacritical:

too many signals cause trains to bunch up which can be problematic. you only need a minimum of one signal for every train on the line.

No you want lots of signals except the space between two signals should always exceed the longest train.

Talking about unidirectional track here (each track of a double-tracked line, for instance).

Bidirectional track (any single-tracked line with traffic in both directions) needs to stay completely unsignalled, unfortunately.

[Metacritical]

Originally posted by Zapp:

Originally posted by Metacritical:

too many signals cause trains to bunch up which can be problematic. you only need a minimum of one signal for every train on the line.

No you want lots of signals except the space between two signals should always exceed the longest train.

Talking about unidirectional track here (each track of a double-tracked line, for instance).

Bidirectional track (any single-tracked line with traffic in both directions) needs to stay completely unsignalled, unfortunately.

you really don't, more signals causes more problems than they solve, since they don't really solve anything. the only time more frequent signalling is needed is when tracks are being used by more than one line. they will be more useful for single tracks, which i concede i hadn't considered that as i never use single tracks other than very early game when track and trains are less within budget.

as the game progresses and trains get faster and there are fewer trains on the line i go around removing signals, for unbunching reasons as already said.

[Blurplegirl]

yep if all I had were two trains and two tracks and they can switch sides on their own; no signals needed, but since I introduced a 3rd train on another line where that particular train does have to cross multiple tracks at one end and halfway through it must pass through a station where the other two trains regularly share both platforms which means they cross over.

I forget if TPF2 has collisions, OTTD does and when they collide you lose the entire train :( so I'm assuming its the same for TPF and TPF2

[Vimpster]

Originally posted by Blurplegirl:

I forget if TPF2 has collisions, OTTD does and when they collide you lose the entire train :( so I'm assuming its the same for TPF and TPF2

There is no collision in this game. Though the game will do all it can to avoid trains colliding, if you can trick them into colliding they will simply clip through each other.

[Tsubame ⭐]

Originally posted by Blurplegirl:

yep if all I had were two trains and two tracks and they can switch sides on their own; no signals needed, but since I introduced a 3rd train on another line where that particular train does have to cross multiple tracks at one end and halfway through it must pass through a station where the other two trains regularly share both platforms which means they cross over.

I forget if TPF2 has collisions, OTTD does and when they collide you lose the entire train :( so I'm assuming its the same for TPF and TPF2

No, no accidents or collisions of any kind in the entire TpF/TF series. As Vimpster said, it is very hard to make trains touch each other. Easier way likely is on very tight passing tracks. It is much easier with other vehicles, including private vehicles, especially ships on waterways and small tight bus/truck stations.

Either way, all it happens is that vehicles just clip/pass through each other, and nothing happens to the vehicles involved. Likewise, if you have assets such as trees in the way, or even mountains, for airplanes.

While broadly speaking many mechanics are similar to OTTD and other business transport tycoon games, TpF is a separate game with its own set of rules.

[Blurplegirl]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

Originally posted by Blurplegirl:

I forget if TPF2 has collisions, OTTD does and when they collide you lose the entire train :( so I'm assuming its the same for TPF and TPF2

There is no collision in this game. Though the game will do all it can to avoid trains colliding, if you can trick them into colliding they will simply clip through each other.

ah well then signals aren't that important then :P wish I had known that...

[Zapp]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

There is no collision in this game. Though the game will do all it can to avoid trains colliding, if you can trick them into colliding they will simply clip through each other.

It helps to realize that the devs have not intended for crashes to be a thing. The signal system together with unrealistically fast breaking ensures crashes can't happen.

So why would they code something they never intend happening?

I find the easiest way to see this is for cars and citizens. They often clip through each other.