Signals on bridges

[chuggles]

Is it likely that signals on bridges will make into the standard game any time soon?

I'm aware that this has been suggested before and exists in the form of patches; I'm starting this thread to suggest signals on bridges as a priority for inclusion in the standard game.

My argument would be that as the game advances, some features of the early days come to seem more and more ridiculous; for example, it's hard to go back to not using cargodist after having tried cargodist once. Bridges without signals are one of those now annoying standout features for me - naturally a short bridge might not need one, but on long bridges where two trains could realistically follow each other, one has to stay at the head and wait for the other to get out.

Also, for those of us who like using bridges for building raised up tracks in cities - a common feature IRL - this also causes problems.

Like everyone else here, there are loads of great features from the patches that I'd like to see put into the standard game, but I'd suggest this one as a priority over things like underwater tunnels as it seems like a 'core' element the lack of which becomes more galling by the day.

[Alberth]

/me likes the challenges created by current bridges and tunnels.

Anyway, it needs a new way to represent tunnels and bridges in the map. Also, it needs a way to edit placement of signals at bridges and in tunnels, probably.

[chuggles]

Alberth - that's true, and is something I probably should have considered, currently bridges do provide a bottle-neck challenge.

[YNM]

Anyway, it needs a new way to represent tunnels and bridges in the map.

Indeed, the current implementation of bridges and tunnels now are just a warp in space.

[chuggles]

Hmmm - YNM, could you explain that to me in simple terms if you've got time?

[WWTBAM]

Basically when a train enters a tunnel or a bridge, the game wipes the train off the map whilst knowing that it enter the wormhole and then restoring it's location when it announces that it has left the matching wormhole at the other end.

[YNM]

could you explain that to me in simple terms if you've got time?

Look at this post. For bridges, it's quite simmiliar, apart for you being able to change the height of the running train.

[Dave]

As a "realistic" player, when would I see two trains on the same bridge or in the same tunnel? Never in the UK, I would have thought.

[FLHerne]

As a "realistic" player, when would I see two trains on the same bridge or in the same tunnel? Never in the UK, I would have thought.

But then, when would you see bridges that are as long as cities?

Edit: Also, there was a signalbox in the middle of the old Woodhead tunnels, and another in the tunnels under London that are now the Thameslink core - both built to operate block signals and so separate two trains. (The signals of course still exist).

[TinyMusic]

As a "realistic" player, when would I see two trains on the same bridge or in the same tunnel? Never in the UK, I would have thought.

Well, an underground section counts as a tunnel right? Then most subways around the world would have at least two trains in the same tunnel, right? So it would be realistic?

[Dave]

As a "realistic" player, when would I see two trains on the same bridge or in the same tunnel? Never in the UK, I would have thought.

But then, when would you see bridges that are as long as cities?

Edit: Also, there was a signalbox in the middle of the old Woodhead tunnels, and another in the tunnels under London that are now the Thameslink core - both built to operate block signals and so separate two trains. (The signals of course still exist).

Yes quite, Thameslink and the underground are very significant exceptions. Bridges though? Conventionally, most tunnels and bridges are considered a safety hazard so are left as a block.

Signals may be ON bridges but the TTD scale surely doesn't make this necessary.

Can't imagine the signals still exist on the Woodhead mind!

All this said, I would enjoy the presence of both in the game!

[FLHerne]

As a "realistic" player, when would I see two trains on the same bridge or in the same tunnel? Never in the UK, I would have thought.

But then, when would you see bridges that are as long as cities?

Edit: Also, there was a signalbox in the middle of the old Woodhead tunnels, and another in the tunnels under London that are now the Thameslink core - both built to operate block signals and so separate two trains. (The signals of course still exist).

Can't imagine the signals still exist on the Woodhead mind!

I think they actually do (nobody bothered to strip them out, even when the original pair of tunnels was replaced by the electrified ones). There were pictures somewhere, looked rather dusty...

[supermop]

Seeing as nearly the entire New York subway system is either in tunnels or elevated over streets, I see signals on tunnels and bridges ever few hundred feet whenever I ride anywhere. This is also what I've always wanted this feature for - high density urban rapid transit lines. It's tricky enough having to destroy or obstruct a city with embankments and cuttings for all of the stations, curves and pointwork, the need to lengthen these sections to fit signals is often frustrating.

[Eddi]

maybe a concept for bridges would be: short, flexible (i.e. switches, signals, bends) sections can't be high. long sections can be high, but not flexible (e.g. a suspension bridge). same would apply to tunnels

[chuggles]

As a "realistic" player, when would I see two trains on the same bridge or in the same tunnel? Never in the UK, I would have thought.

I suppose not, but then I think 'bridges', the items in the game, really correspond to two different real life things (given the way many of us use them): actual bridges, and tracks raised over the roads on viaducts.

Real life bridges may not often have signals, but stretches of track raised above roads do.

Raised tracks are of course possible without bridges, building the tracks on a ridge with foundations; but that doesn't look so realistic and blocks roads.

[chuggles]

Eddi, that's a very interesting idea.

Bridges with bends would require quite a lot of new graphics to be drawn (presumably?) but a working model could be done with basic, placeholder graphics?

[YNM]

but a working model could be done with basic, placeholder graphics?

Do it as long as you think it won't glitch.

For the flexible bridge idea : Is it possible (how complicated is it) to make something like an elevated way in the code of OpenTTD ? Limited to a height of exactly one from ground, they can be constructed normally as you would place ground level track, with signals and stations, with addition of able to pass directly above everything except airports and tall buildings. There was a same suggestion (I forgot where by now), he said he would try to work on it, but I'm not sure through.

[chuggles]

Passing over buildings (or anything but roads and rails) might be difficult to implement from what I've read elsewhere but I for one would love that idea - to get over roads you would just use a bridge as normal

[chuggles]

Erk to rephrase that: presumably you would have normal raised railway blocks that nothing could pass through underneath and then use bridges where you wanted passing points. Because the raised railway can only be 1 high you'd still have to use bridges for big spans, keeping the challenge intact.

[chuggles]

This could be included very simply by making it possible to have a 1x1 tile raised on foundations without needing a slope?