simonjackson1964

Up to now, I've generally used random number generators to release trains randomly from a depot (originally a fiddle yard, more recently a virtual depot). This can generate quite realistic train movements and intervals, but with the introduction of the updatable departure board, I felt the need to update it with the trains... In fact, as I said, this was why my terminus was never finished - I couldn't get my head around the annoying fact that this loco took longer to get from the depot to the departing train than the train was waiting at the station. I know, it's irrational, but I have a certain level of OCD due to mild, high-functioning autism, and this make me want things to work properly. It's why I spent ages figuring out how to make the turn indicators work when road vehicles were turning off the main road, then only included vehicles with working indicators on that layout. I'm just over-thinking it. But the issue of having a train wait at a station for the same length of time as it takes for that train to clear the platform when leaving...? It's weird!

Greetings, upside-down person... I see where you're coming from on that, and I get the idea that, for a big layout with multiple stations, that definitely works. My issue actually arose from a layout I built but never finished, that was a city terminus station. So, follow me on this scenario: A locomotive-hauled passenger train pulls into the station and stops. The locomotive uncouples, and all the passengers get off... A new locomotive exits the depot, and makes its way to the same track, couples up to the back of the train (now the front), while this is happening, the carriages are cleaned. Then all the new passengers get on, and the train leaves, and as soon as it's clear, the loco heads out of the platform to the depot... In the real world, the longest part of that operation is the time when all the passengers are getting on the outbound train, maybe 20 minutes. Now, if we do this in real time, that's a long time to have a train sitting at a station platform in a model. In the real world, even the busiest stations will sometimes have several hours go by with no train movements, especially at night! But on a model you want to keep things moving, keep them interesting. So we use a fast clock to speed things up, and instead of 20 minutes, the train is sitting at the station for 2 minutes (say). But now we have the issue of the locomotive making its way from the depot. At a scale speed of 20km/h it has to travel maybe 500m, which will take it 1½ minutes, but as the station is on fast time, 1½ minutes actually represents 15 minutes. So the locomotive has crawled from the depot at 2km/h, by the fast clock. Obviously, the solution is to have the locomotive come tearing out of the depot at a scale speed of 200km/h. So, here's my thought. Is there a way, or can a way be created, to use the double/triple speed button, from within the EV?. I suppose one could use the "set time" action, to move the time forward by 20 minutes between each train movement, but it feels cumbersome. By the way, I don't have V9, because I haven't been using V8.5 much, and I'm short on cash right now.

I have to say that one of the most frustrating aspects of any model railway, is trying to construct a realistic timetable. The problem is basically one of scale. If I have a model train, travelling at a scale speed of 60km/h, it will take 60 seconds to travel one scale kilometre. But if I want to use a "fast clock" where one second of real time equals one minute of model time, then that train has actually taken an hour to travel one kilometre, and is therefore travelling at the incredibly unrealistic (except on Britain's railways in the 1980s) speed of 1 km per hour! The obvious solution to this is not to use a fast clock. But, if I want to create a realistic timetable, that means I have to literally have the simulation running all day and night. Or at least pause it and save the position every few hours. The other solution is to compress the lengths of things, so that trains that are 12 cars long are represented by a single vehicle (for example). But honestly, that takes all the fun out of it! You might as well just run the control panel...! Does anyone else have any thoughts on this subject?

I'm not sure if this is happening, but one ting I have found happens is, if you have the "automatic acceleration" enabled on the road vehicles, the one that is supposed to stop as the barrier comes down will instead keep going if it is following too close to the one in front. I did come up with a solution for this, but since I lost my computer last year, I don't remember what it was. I do know it involved turning off the automatic acceleration for each vehicle as it approached the crossing, then (I think) turning it back on again when the vehicle speed reached zero, or it safely cleared the crossing... I'm not even certain if that will be of any help, or if it is even relevant - you might have already thought of it... Let alone whether that is actually what I did or exactly how I did it.

Level crossing barriers are something that a lot of people seem to have trouble with. I've had my fair share of issues with them - mostly on the road vehicle side, with cars nor stopping, pushing other cars into the path of the train, not starting again. It has taken quite a bit of work to sort them out and make them behave . So I'm wondering if there could be a way to make them a bit more intuitive? Signals didn't use to have built in track contacts, but they have since V5. And now these all integrate with routes to control train movement. Could something similar be done with the level crossings? Integrate a track contact for the rails, to close them and automatically count the number of trains on or heading for the crossing, and at the same time force all road traffic to stop when the lights start to flash and start again when the barriers open? I mean, it's something that needs to be done on every level crossing, if you intend to have it work realistically, so why not take the code and the track contacts and make them into one "black box" unit...?

... I have to ask this, because... Does the Steam version of MBS also support Diesel and Electric?

That's why I use the + sign on the end of the track!

The other possibility is that the train is still over the track contact that sets the speed to 30kph when it hits the second contact that sets the speed to 20. I've had this happen before, and it creates a conflict in the system, causing the train to ignore the speed set by the second contact and keep moving at the speed set by the first. There are a couple of possible answers: one is (obviously) to shorten the train or lengthen the gap between the contacts, but this is not always possible. Another is to increase the breaking time of the locomotive, and remove the intermediate contacts. The train should then slow down realistically. My final solution is one I'm not sure will work, and it depends on how you have things set up. If you use the "Decelerate to" option on the contact itself, and don't use the "Accelerate to" option, these should work cumulatively. A train already travelling slower than 30kph will not be affected by a command to slow to that speed. ........................... Edit to add: I have tested this (at V8.5) and it does exactly what it's supposed to. However, the problem ten comes when you start the train again, as it will still be sitting on one or more contacts telling it to slow down. The solution is to have an event that turns off all the deceleration contacts, when the signal is changed (Note that this will also work even if the train didn't stop!)

OH! That's what that does!

Just my 2p worth here: There's always alternative ways of doing something. For example: set a global boolean variable to true before calling the subroutine. At the end of the subroutine, set the same boolean to false. Then the second part of your main routine becomes an event that monitors that variable. When it changes, if the value is True, do nothing. If the value is False, do the second part of the action. Just saying...!

This is the case even if you have a single track piece such as a diamond crossing, if the track does not include a switch. You can get collisions no matter that you have used a single track segment for the crossing. The only safe way is to ensure that all crossings are switchable, thus the route selected will block the others.

Thanks. It's just a shame it's too complex to get actually working! Maybe I'll come back to it some day!

Thanks. It's slow going for a number of reasons, but I'll get there, possibly before v9!

@EASY, Brilliant! Wish I'd thought of that! ... Except you got the times the wrong way around, but hey, that's cosmetic! Still a great slution!

Sorry to chip in here, but I'm not sure that the answer given answered the question asked? Of course, I could be wrong, in which case please ignore me! Goetz said that it is not possible to change the time that the day settings and night settings switch over, and Neo stated that this will be available at V9, but the way I read the question is that Ern45 is asking if the default time setting for day and night that are set by the day/night toggle button can be changed. Currently, these are 12:00 Noon and 00:00 Midnight. It is possible to change the time that the layout is at, simply by editing the time in the edit box next to the day/night toggle button, and then saving the layout. However, whenever that button is used, the time will always go to either noon or midnight. I don't think there is a way around this, other than to manually change it. I did try and create an event that would do the trick, but in order for it to work, simulated time needs to be running....