YAPP / PBS Junctions and Stations

[Jade Ghost]

Hi Everyone,

First off I love the YAPP signals that are now in the nightly's. I have completely re-worked my junctions and had to re-think what is possible in OTTD. But are there any good tutorials/topics about how to use PBS signals for junctions and stations? I have looked around the boards and the OTTDcoop wiki but haven't found a complete list or examples. I did find these pages:
http://www.openttdcoop.org/wiki/PBS
of course the Junctionary
http://www.openttdcoop.org/wiki/Junctionary
Brianetta and ostlandr have some good advice on PBS here:
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=39024#p719875

But I have not yet found any good YAPP/PBS examples.

So I would like to start offering up some PBS Junctions and stations we can all critique and learn from each other.

On the large 3X8 Junction I am not using priorities as discribed here:
http://www.openttdcoop.org/wiki/Priorities
I'm just using on/off ramps to move trains on and off the MainLines.

Post your PBS/YAPP Junctions and stations as well.
Feedback would be appreciated.

[FooBar]

There are some station and junction examples in the wiki and some more advanced things here.

Because I like realistic rail networks and have created all but one screenshot displayed at those pages, you will not find anything extraordinary there. That's why I probably can't help you with feedback on your screenshots Your last one has this enormous amount of rail but no single train on it. I'd say go for a nice and simple 2x1 junction without bridges.

Just put some trains on your layouts and see if they work.

[Jade Ghost]

I've been working on MainLine / SideLine junctions with priorites using PBS.

here are some screen shots showing PBS signal placement and why its so important to get the signals just right.

first shot is of 6 trains coming to a junction. 4 are on the ML and two are coming from the SL.



Notice the PBS on lines C-D-E-F are far in front of the physical junction. this allows those trains to reserve their tracks first and then the SL trains on lines A-B.



Next, the lines C-D reserve their tracks and finally A-B will reserve the two tracks in the "on-ramp" area.
If lines lines 3-4 or even 5-6 had been open the trains would have merged onto the ML right away and not moved to the on-ramp area. Now notice that train B got to it's PBS signal first and blocked train A from entering the on-ramp. this shows that I placed the PBS on track A to far back and should have placed it further up the line, so that train A could reserve it's track first.



Finally, the trains C-D-E-F have moved on. Train B is stopped at the end of the on-ramp waiting for a ML to open up, and train A has moved into the on-ramp area.

Also notice that another set of trains have shown up on lines E-F, and train E got to it's PBS first and is now blocking train F. I might need to adjust the placement of those PBS as well.

[konakona]

This is a new station style I'm working on using YAPP, but it still could be better. I'm trying to get trains to wait at the entrance when all platforms are full instead of circling inside (my attempt was the weird messes at each entrance, i thought trains would go to another exit if I put it there and then stop at the light behind it, but they ignore it) or if a train is already in there when the stations become full (eg, two trains enter at the same time, and one takes the last platform) it should go back to the entrance and wait, unless there's already a train at both entrances, in which case it should circle, but have priority over trains at the entrance (that bit will probably be very hard =P). But I don't want to loose any of the YAPP, because some of the blocks of track are pretty big, it would slow down trains a lot.

The advantage of this station is that it's an extension of a mainline, yet it barely disrupts the traffic on it and as far as space goes, considering the mainline's going to be there either way it's pretty compact and with sharp corners kept to a minimum. Plus it has a large capacity with all platforms accepting trains from both directions and allowing them to turn round if they need to leave in the direction they came. And you can make it with fewer platforms if you need it more compact or you need the money.

I really need help on this one please, I can't think of anything to fix even one of the problems. Also, I get the feeling the solution is going to be incredibly simple and make me look like an idiot =P lol. Looking forward to everyone's input. =)

[Brianetta]

konakona: Wow. In the last game I played on my own server, I had a busy route serving four or five cities all in the space used by that one station and its associated track.

[Eddi]

the solution is easy, just remove all signals directly before the platform, only have signals after the platform, that way, trains only go into free platforms, because the occupied platforms are already reserved

[konakona]

the solution is easy, just remove all signals directly before the platform, only have signals after the platform, that way, trains only go into free platforms, because the occupied platforms are already reserved

I'm afraid this will still cause all the trains to go to the inner circle and go round till there's a free platform.

Anyway, I started from fresh and the new version seems to work very well. The only problems are that if a train is entering a station, as far as the entrances know, that whole block of 6 six is full until the train is through (not a big problem and unlikely to turn the entrance light red, so I'm not too bothered by it, but a fix would be great), the other is I think the parts where trains perform a U-turn may be too short, this isn't too hard to fix, but I'll see how it goes before I change it because doing so will increase the travel distance and there'll be sharper corners, so they're travelling further and slower.

konakona: Wow. In the last game I played on my own server, I had a busy route serving four or five cities all in the space used by that one station and its associated track.

This one's a bit bigger lol, only one square wider though, I needed it for the new pre-signals, actually, maybe longer as well lol. And I didn't really need two bridges connecting the two sides, but it looks better that way so I did =P lol.

EDIT: sorry, forgot a bit of track on the top part just after the entrance, but it's on the bottom so just look at that =P saves me having to make another image and re-upload it lol.

[el koeno]

I'm working on a level junction design that maintains flow at moderate traffic levels. Here it is:

[el koeno]

EDIT: Man I'm stuffing up with the attachments. I wanted to add something after the picture my previous post and then it showed up in a new post... oh well, here's what I wanted to say:


The junction allow trains to move around trains that would otherwise block them. In the end I would much prefer a mainline trains to reserve a few blocks ahead if possible, to makes sure no other trains (e.g. oncoming trains turning left where trains drive on the right) can block them. You'd simply have to create safe waiting locations for the waiting trains. Until of course waiting times get out of hand, and you'd build overpasses.

[audigex]

Guys, PBS doesn't mean there's no point using bridges anymore... you can use PBS to vastly improve standard junctions using similar layouts and abandoning complex pre-signals.

[FooBar]

Agreed, but not using bridges is way more fun.

[osai]

Agreed, but not using bridges is way more fun.

I don't agree. Check my analysis and more about YAPP.

[frankh]

Check my analysis and more about YAPP.

Thanks for the link. There are some very interesting concepts.

[FooBar]

I don't agree. Check my analysis and more about YAPP.

That's personal taste. I like to build somewhat realistic networks. That includes going round mountains and lakes rather than going through or over them. Same for bridges, I only use them I really need them.

[Eddi]

my problem with bridges/tunnels is always that they are quite unflexible.

arbitrary tiles under bridges helped significantly in that aspect. next step would be custom bridge heads and diagonal briges, neither of which seem to be anywhere within reach currently.

[Elukka]

I like doing my not-so-horribly-busy junctions without bridges or tunnels. PBS actually makes it work, which is awesome. I think it looks better and is also more realistic. Well, they recently built a junction with a bridge nearby in real life, but that is a busy mainline.

[el koeno]

I agree: I don't like the OTTD coop style so much. But for properly functioning junctions we'd still need a priority system. That shouldn't actually be that hard to make...

[AntBUK]

Here's me just chucking track down and hoping for the best ^^ lol

it works ^^

myjunction..png (34.48 KiB) Viewed 6099 times

[osai]

I don't agree. Check my analysis and more about YAPP.

That's personal taste. I like to build somewhat realistic networks. That includes going round mountains and lakes rather than going through or over them. Same for bridges, I only use them I really need them.

Well, you were talking about 'fun' not about 'taste' (imho its very easy to 'just build' some tracks and add some path signals).
Of course the tastes differ and I wanted to show some other points of view, i.e. the efficiency of tracks built with path signals.

Regards, Osai

[ostlandr]

In my experience, PBS makes all the regular junctions flow better. Also, instead of making the "shared" part of the junction (where the tracks actually cross) as small as possible like you do with the regular signals, PBS lets you expand this without screwing up the flow, as multiple trains can now pass through so long as their paths don't conflict. Especially with a low-traffic branch off a busy 2-way main, just "branch" off with a level 45 degree intersection, set up the PBS signals correctly, and it flows nicely. When and if traffic backs up because of crossing movements, then and only then will I spend the capital on a bridge.