a new "Pre-signal" type

[follow]

Whoever implements...

I see one problem that needs to be addressed.

Situations where there is not enough place to put presignals far enough.
Especially if rail crosses two roads one just after another...

[Villem]

Finally something atleast makes something similiar

[honnza]

just make the crossing go red when there's a train in the crossing's signal block. Easy to implement and understand. Hard to use effectively. Perfect

[Brianetta]

just make the crossing go red when there's a train in the crossing's signal block. Easy to implement and understand. Hard to use effectively. Perfect :-)

Simple idea, and one I devoted a whole thread to a few months back. Unfortunately, "easy to implement" is based on an assumption. That assumption is that there's any internal representation of a signal block in the game. There is not. The game sees signals and paths, and that really is it - there's no such thing as a signal block, in the source code.

[Dave]

The patch guys got it sorted by applying PBS IIRC... Don't you guys have a PBS system in place?

[Sebastiaan]

The patch guys got it sorted by applying PBS IIRC... Don't you guys have a PBS system in place?

Not in the trunk. There is a (buggy) version of PBS in the MiniIN.
Still, it's easier to make the roadvehs go over bridges than to place additional signals for every crossing.

And no, using normal signals wouldn't work because I, amongst others, use a 2tile distance, which means just before and just after the crossing.. vehs would still be screwed then

In real life too, most busy lines and especially those with faster trains have no crossings at all. Or at least, they are working at removing them. See it as a challenge to keep buses alive

[Brianetta]

And no, using normal signals wouldn't work because I, amongst others, use a 2tile distance, which means just before and just after the crossing.. vehs would still be screwed then ;)

This is why train operators need some form of penalty for collisions as well. If they're given the means (by PBS, for example) to make crossings safer, they should also be given the incentive.

In real life too, most busy lines and especially those with faster trains have no crossings at all. Or at least, they are working at removing them. See it as a challenge to keep buses alive :)

Laudable, but town growth means an ever increasing number of crossings in the game. What makes this even worse is that, unlike real life, the railway company usually can't replace roads with road bridges.

[Bjarni]

I think the solution would be to wait for the new PBS to be done (It will take a while) because without it, you don't know if the train is actually crossing the road or if it is turning at a switch before the crossing.

The early activation is real life is actually nor to clear the crossing for road vehicles, but to ensure that the train can come to a complete stop before the crossing if it malfunctions (power died or something like that). The delay to clear the crossing for road vehicles is actually only the time from the flashes start to the barriers move.

Another interesting fact from real life is that 95% of all collisions are caused by human error from the road vehicle driver. If everybody just followed the law, most of the accidents would not happen. This goes for close to all accidents on the roads, but that's another story.

[DaleStan]

Another interesting fact from real life is that 95% of all collisions are caused by human error from the road vehicle driver.

Only? I would have guessed higher.

In fact, the only ways I can imagine for a car to be stuck on the tracks and it not be driver error is for (1) one or more of the wheels to fall off, or (2) one or more of the t[iy]res to blow at such a time that the car comes to a halt on the tracks.

All other situations, AFAICT, involve either racing the train (incredibly stupid), willfully stopping on the tracks (not much smarter), or leaving insufficient stopping-distance.

OK, one more mechanical failure: brake failure. But that one's iffy, because an engine-brake is pretty effective, and in some vehicles (all manuals, and automatics that don't shift out of drive into neutral when the engine dies) you can force the wheels to turn a completely dead engine.

[0] But that's a (third-hand) horror story for another time.

[Bjarni]

Another interesting fact from real life is that 95% of all collisions are caused by human error from the road vehicle driver.

Only? I would have guessed higher.

I guess it depends on where in the world you are. I can't remember how often they have an accident in USA, but they got enough to make it sane to count them as accidents/day. We (Europe) got way less. I guess USA got more dare devils or something.

[DaleStan]

[0] But that's a (third-hand) horror story for another time.

Hm... I seem to have lost the reference to that footnote, which was something to the effect of:

"... since wheels don't fall off (unless you have an incompetent mechanic who put the lug-nuts on backwards[0]) ..."

[Brianetta]

In fact, the only ways I can imagine for a car to be stuck on the tracks and it not be driver error is for (1) one or more of the wheels to fall off, or (2) one or more of the t[iy]res to blow at such a time that the car comes to a halt on the tracks.

With respect, you're lacking imagination. A good one is a fire under the bonnet (or hood, if you're North American). It'll stop the car fairly effectively, and few people are willing to lend a hand pushing a burning car off the railway.

Another possibility is towing a trailer across the line, which somehow manages to become attached to a rail (yes, some people manage to dangle things). Given the choice of (a) trying to find what snagged, and free it, (b) evacuating the line and using the railphone, most would choose (b). (b) would also be the recommendation of most railway companies.