Combining RoRos

[Baldy's Boss]

Two separately acquired AIs each had RoRo delivery stations at the same powerplant.
The more recently acquired station (at right in the screenshot) was served by a single train (not really adequate to keep the distant mine happy) pulling severely limited wagons.I upgraded the equipment and endeavored to combine the tracks,as shown,while adding a third platform to the station continuing in use.Are the signals and switches crashproof in the event of more trains being added?
If so,I'll demolish the now disconnected station.

[Eddi]

signals are always crash-proof, so long as you do not modify them or the tracks while a train is nearby.

but those signals are definitely wrong, and will cause trains to block tracks they are not supposed to, harming your throughput.

[Alberth]

If you
- Don't change signals while trains use them,
- Don't use the "ignore next signal" button of a train, and
- Always enter each block either by path signals or by block signals, but never both at the same time (for the same block),

things are always crash proof.

At worst, you get a deadlock, which can be nice puzzle to solve, although your signal spacing is an advantage if that happens, plenty of room to build emergency extensions or emergency depots to store trains temporarily.

[Baldy's Boss]

signals are always crash-proof, so long as you do not modify them or the tracks while a train is nearby.

but those signals are definitely wrong, and will cause trains to block tracks they are not supposed to, harming your throughput.

So an empty train cutting in front of others that would otherwise be leaving is a worry,but its getting T-boned by one of those trains attempting to leave anyway is not?

[Alberth]

signals are always crash-proof, so long as you do not modify them or the tracks while a train is nearby.

but those signals are definitely wrong, and will cause trains to block tracks they are not supposed to, harming your throughput.

So an empty train cutting in front of others that would otherwise be leaving is a worry,but its getting T-boned by one of those trains attempting to leave anyway is not?

You asked for crash-proofness rather than performance.

Crash means two trains colliding, burned wagons all over the place, 5 people dead, that kind of thing.


As for performance, there is no better teacher than experience. Just let it run, see how it behaves, and fix it if it doesn't operate according to expectations.

[Baldy's Boss]

That's what I referred to...you were assuring me that the trains in the station would not attempt to leave despite an exiting train cutting across their path...so crashing was not a worry.

I have found from experience that a train coming in from the north tends to stop at the first entry signal at a track,and not proceed unless specifically told to ignore the signal,which causes a log-jam of trains coming from the west that are unable to make their deliveries.The signal causing this backup is one that was built by the AI when it built the station,and is not part of my extensions.
I don't know the fix,though removing the signal might be all that's needed.

[Chrill]

This should be enough. After the exit, leave space for the number of tiles required for the train. I might have miscalculated these because but yeah, if trains are 5 tiles, leave 5 tiles of empty space after the exit.

[Baldy's Boss]

Here's a screenshot of the problem,and a save in which it is likely to happen yet again.Without the specific instruction to proceed,an entering train from the north will usually,though not always,enter and not budge from this position,holding up all entering trains from the west...no matter how far away other trains are at the time of its entry.

[Chrill]

Put signals at the end of platforms, not at the start of the platform. Remove the one in the middle of the exit junction. Leave space after the exit. Problem solved.

You're missing a signal at the third platform which means your train is blocking itself since it's in the same zone as the platform itself.

[Alberth]

Here's a screenshot of the problem,and a save in which it is likely to happen yet again

For path signals, anywhere where you put a signal means "Yes train, it is ok to stop here if you cannot proceed". As such, you most likely do not want to have a signal closely following a junction.

The second point with path signals is that when a train enter a block, it will plan a route through the entire block, until the next signal. By adding a signal after a platform, you are
a) saying "yes train, it is ok to stop here" (That would happen immediately after the train tries to leave the platform, when it arrives at the tile with the signal.)
b) the block ends here, no need to continue planning the path.

[Eddi]

b) the block ends here, no need to continue planning the path.

that, and you do not fall into the trap that behind the platform it might choose a random path, instead of a path to the next destination. (IIRC, it does try that, but it cannot always figure out the next destination.)

[adf88]

For path signals, anywhere where you put a signal means "Yes train, it is ok to stop here if you cannot proceed". As such, you most likely do not want to have a signal closely following a junction.

Not most likely but sometimes IMO. There are pros and cons of such a setup. Trains won't be blocking a junction, true. But increasing distance between signals lowers the throughput.

In this example, removing signals after the junction would make things worse:

1.png (33.91 KiB) Viewed 1908 times

But here, the extra space after junction is justified:

2.png (97.61 KiB) Viewed 1908 times

Optimal setup is base on many factors like:
- throughput vs. occupancy of certain segments!!!
- whether you play with breakdowns or not (with breakdowns it's important to keep signals dens even thought you have gaps in some places e.g. tunnels/bridges)
- how well trains accelerate

[Baldy's Boss]

The combined RoRo station at Malbrook Valley still needs attention.The platforms have recently been extended to accommodate the new Chimera trains from Windchurch,making it harder compressed between the powerplant and the town of Malbrook (which dislikes the construction projects and won't allow a road tile to be cleared and lowered so that all three platforms can have trains exit and head north.

More vexingly,it needs a signal replacement.Right now any one platform being in use leads to all trains from the west refusing to proceed to either empty platform without a direct order.
What's the fix?

[Sylf]

For a multi-platform ro-ro station to function, you need signals after each platform.

[Baldy's Boss]

There's clearly more to it than just having a signal after each platform.I'm still having the trains from the west line up,though the ones from the north find an empty platform without difficulty.

[Chrill]

You had the wrong signal on entry. Fixed it for you.

[Sylf]

Ah right, I forgot to mention. The signal that's hidden behind the station's label was an entry signal - it had to be changed to path signal.

[Baldy's Boss]

With throughput straightened out,I have closed the old Dunby Woods station and routed new trains from Marlow into the Malbrook Valley tree.
I hope I'm not hitting bottlenecks.