Train track intersection/block signal question.

[Dog]

I cant figure this out, what I want is for one track to always yield, can it be done? Track a merges with b, I want track a to always run without delay and have anything on track b yield to a. It doesnt seem that the signals can allow this however as the only way ive been able to get them to work at all is to have both yield to each other. Its a short stretch of track where they merge before splitting. All I want is anything that is merging from track b to always yield but I cant seem to get the signals to do that. If I place just one block signal it says signal loops and doesnt work. Im about to just split the tracks instead.

[Vectorspace]

You can't do that unfortunately. No matter how you signal it, it will always be whichever train gets their first will have priority, and whichever gets their second will wait

[Dog]

Thats so lame. It seems only logical to me that a single block signal would accomplish this but nope. Oh well, split tracks it is.

[Player 1]

Train signals are crushing me. I can't figure out any of it.

[Eiko]

I haven't tried to do something similar myself and don't know exactly what your full goals are, but it seems like you could get something like what you want by defining a block of track with three signals. One at the intersection between track B and the merged track (but still on track B), one at the end of the merged section right before they split, and one well back on track A far away from the intersection. That way, a train arriving from track A would be occupying the block long before it arrived at the intersection.

[Dog]

Perhaps that could work, would be easier to try if they can fix the block section color bug. Cant see the blocks in 8 atm.

[Huren Ogeko]

Originally posted by Dog:

Thats so lame. It seems only logical to me that a single block signal would accomplish this but nope. Oh well, split tracks it is.

Train signals work much like they do in real rail networks. All they do is report if the track ahead is clear or not. Path signals use a little more complex logic by only checking the path through an intersection. but for the most part its the same thing. If the block or path ahead is clear then the light is green, otherwise the light is red.

The color block bug is something they will hopefully fix when they come back from vacation.

[Dog]

Originally posted by Huren Ogeko:

Originally posted by Dog:

Thats so lame. It seems only logical to me that a single block signal would accomplish this but nope. Oh well, split tracks it is.

Train signals work much like they do in real rail networks. All they do is report if the track ahead is clear or not. Path signals use a little more complex logic by only checking the path through an intersection. but for the most part its the same thing. If the block or path ahead is clear then the light is green, otherwise the light is red.

The color block bug is something they will hopefully fix when they come back from vacation.

Yes, which is why a single block signal should be able to do what Im wanting. Check the immediate intersection/area ahead and if not clear then stop the flow. But it doesnt work like that. I have to have a series of signals on both tracks and at both ends of the conjoined stretch of track, otherwise they just flash the broken symbol. All I want is a yield sign...

[Huren Ogeko]

It should work just like that. If the block ahead is clear it lets traffic through otherwise you would have crashes if it let more then one train enter a single block.

Essentially all train signals are yield meaning you only stop if the track ahead is occupied. A stop sign would require the train to stop no matter what before proceeding and this really has very little purpose in train networks.
If your original post though you said you want track b to always yield to track a but train on track b shows up..the track is clear and it then proceeds it is no longer safe for a train on track a should it arrive later. So what you are asking is a signal block that can predict the future and hold up train B because train A will soon need the track but isnt there yet.

If I have a mission critical train that needs to be move without delay then it gets its own private track.

[Dog]

It doesnt though. If I place just the single block signal it says signal loops into itself. So if I then place another one behind it, the original turns green and then the new one will be red, blocking traffic forever. Until I place another new one behind that which then does the same thing as when placed the 2nd signal. With the now 3 placed, the first 2 will be green and the 3rd will be red, forever. Never allowing traffic past it. It doesnt make any sense. The only way to control the traffic for this short stretch of conjoined track is to have block signals on both incoming lines and again at the exits of both. It isnt what I want because I only ever would want the one line to yield to the other so the main line NEVER EVER slows down EVER. A simple yield signal would do this but the signals as they are do not allow this ability. Both tracks have to have signals and will always yield to each other. I simply split the tracks.

[Dog]

I think it just clicked in my head as to why this wont do what I want. I need a signal that checks the other track some distance back, not only the track ahead of me. I get it now. Man I feel dumb. Now I see why both tracks need the signals. Its so simple but for some reason was eluding me.

[Huren Ogeko]

Originally posted by Dog:

It doesnt though. If I place just the single block signal it says signal loops into itself. So if I then place another one behind it, the original turns green and then the new one will be red, blocking traffic forever.

You do know you need more then one block. When it says the block loops on itself that means the block ahead of the signal is the same block as the one bind the signal. All you created is a paradox. A single signal will never work. You need two block at a minimum but in practice you probably need many more then that.

Originally posted by Dog:

Until I place another new one behind that which then does the same thing as when placed the 2nd signal. With the now 3 placed, the first 2 will be green and the 3rd will be red, forever. Never allowing traffic past it. It doesnt make any sense. The only way to control the traffic for this short stretch of conjoined track is to have block signals on both incoming lines and again at the exits of both. It isnt what I want because I only ever would want the one line to yield to the other so the main line NEVER EVER slows down EVER. A simple yield signal would do this but the signals as they are do not allow this ability. Both tracks have to have signals and will always yield to each other. I simply split the tracks.

I think you are losing grasp on how signals and logic works. It might help if I had a screenshot or diagram of the track layout and exact signal locations so it easier to see in a visual fashion what is going on and what you want to do.

[Huren Ogeko]

Originally posted by Dog:

I think it just clicked in my head as to why this wont do what I want. I need a signal that checks the other track some distance back, not only the track ahead of me. I get it now. Man I feel dumb. Now I see why both tracks need the signals. Its so simple but for some reason was eluding me.

Sounds like you sorted it out. So you can ignore my last post but the looping thing is the main issue you need to understand. you cant create block paradoxes and expect the signals logic to figure it out.

[Dog]

Would probably be a lot easier too is the block colors werent broken atm.

[Huren Ogeko]

yea I agree there 100%

[NZ.Zero]

Either way, 2 tracks would be better. Tracks are cheap and then you have no delay.

Originally posted by Dog:

Would probably be a lot easier too is the block colors werent broken atm.

how are they broken? works for me