Slow down at stations

[Fuzzy Logix]

i reckon its a brill idea, as trains would have to slow down for the station wether it was stopping or not due to wind turbulence,
another idea:
what about gradual acceleration/decceleration (inertia) as i don't see an IC125 (Class 43) accelerating upto 125mph in a couple of metres

[SHADOW-XIII]

I think it is not possible .... since no PatchTeam member say anything

[DominionSpy]

I know the devs (or at least one of them) have this policy of not responding to impossible ideas. But if an idea is popular enough to go into 2 pages (erm - like this one *hint hint*), then I think they should at least tell us it's impossible so that people don't keep on discussing it pointlessly.

[Patchman]

It would be pretty difficult. The only way to have it not be difficult is to make it work like Oscar's slow down before crossings. That way, the train would be speed-limited instantaneously on the square before the crossing, i.e. it wouldn't slow down gradually either. Then, immediately it would begin to speed up again.

To either make it slow down gradually, or to make it stay below the speed limit would actually be really complicated. The reason is the same why trains speed up as soon as the engine leaves a bridge tile.

[eis_os]

Haven't I suggested slow down tracks?

But no one actually liked the idea :
Slow down signs before and after a station and the speed would be limited in between...

So I have stop working on it...

[Hyronymus]

Haven't I suggested slow down tracks?

But no one actually liked the idea :
Slow down signs before and after a station and the speed would be limited in between...

So I have stop working on it...

We are sorry, Oskar . How much money do you need to consider it again?

[SHADOW-XIII]

To either make it slow down gradually, or to make it stay below the speed limit would actually be really complicated. The reason is the same why trains speed up as soon as the engine leaves a bridge tile.

but if it would be possible to use the same code from mountains or curves ?

Haven't I suggested slow down tracks?
But no one actually liked the idea :
Slow down signs before and after a station and the speed would be limited in between...

I always wanted this, you know

[SuperTycoon]

*bump* this seems similar to my track speed limits idea, so i though i'd resurrecct this

[krtaylor]

but if it would be possible to use the same code from mountains or curves ?

Hmm. I wonder if that would work?

Of course, you'd still have the problem of the trains "flooring it" needlessly, like they used to do when crossing speed-limited bridges, which makes them tend to break down.

If this could be done it would be cool, not so much to have speed-limited track, or even to slow through-trains down in a station, but to have trains slow down more realistically in advance of a station. eis_os, is it possible for your work to be recycled in this way?

[DaleStan]

Of course, you'd still have the problem of the trains "flooring it" needlessly, like they used to do when crossing speed-limited bridges, which makes them tend to break down.

Didn't Patchman say that wasn't the case?

[Flavius]

Hi eis_os

Personally i would be wrapped if you were coding the Patch again. Have noticed your status of " retired Patch Developer" has discreetly scrolled away or disappeared.

Can we get our hopes up

[krtaylor]

Of course, you'd still have the problem of the trains "flooring it" needlessly, like they used to do when crossing speed-limited bridges, which makes them tend to break down.

Didn't Patchman say that wasn't the case?

Well. They don't break down when speed limited. However, from my observations, it appears that they are more likely to break down when they get OUT of the speed-limited section. It's similar to the known problem of waiting at signals.

[The Irish]

how about introducing some new signals that can limit speed to say 60 km/h or 100 km/h? This would make the train slow down until the next normal signal.
Could for example be used for trains heading into a platform that is not in their direct path?

[krtaylor]

That's been asked before...

[SuperTycoon]

That's been asked before...

but never answered - its been established that its possible

[Raichase]

That's been asked before...

but never answered - its been established that its possible

Well, Oskar gained no support for it when he offered it, and it really seemed like a lot of work for a little benifit.

I put a level crossing after my stations if I want trains to slow down .

[krtaylor]

I don't really have any situation where I want trains to slow down based on a piece of track. I can see 3 situations where it might be nice based on other things:

1. Before a crossing, so trucks don't get creamed. Already in experimental features.

2. When passing non-stop through a station.

3. When approaching a red light. Basically this is my old yellow-warning signal. Very much impossible.

I don't think I would normally denote a particular section of track as slow speed. Why not just go at top speed?

[AndrewA]

Realism. That'd be the only reason I'd use it. Like playing the BR set, I woud limit the Class 91 (Intercity 225 - Design Speed 140mph) to 125mph because it has never run faster in passenger service.
EDIT: Then later in the game you have an "ECML Upgrade" and trains can run at 140mph. A reason for having track speed is that it makes you spend money on infrastructure, normally the thing railways spend least on, if they can help it. Could become very realistic.

An idea, for trains passing through stations, maybe a newstations property could set max speed. So for a country station, it can go through with no limit, but on a really big main through station, say in the UK Birmingham New Street, it has to slow down to 15mph. You set the speed via the newstations grf file. Just an idea, don't know if it'd work.

[cornelius]

EDIT: Then later in the game you have an "ECML Upgrade" and trains can run at 140mph. A reason for having track speed is that it makes you spend money on infrastructure, normally the thing railways spend least on, if they can help it. Could become very realistic.

As a bit of an aside I was thinking earlier about a map/scenario based on the line from London to Hastings via Tunbridge Wells (a, for the BR set and b, because I go to work on it). There, the tunnels are all single track because when they electrified it it would have been too expensive to make them big enough for the electric trains*.

So, er, anyway yeah my point is that making the infrastructure more expensive would be a really good patch because at the moment it's nothing to just flatten some more land and stick another tunnel in. I know there was a map floating around at one point that had been hacked to make landscaping very expensive but would there be any way to have this as a patch feature?

* For reasons unknown this line was originally built to a narrow loading gauge and also always had special narrow trains.

[krtaylor]

1. I know it is possible to adjust the relative costs of track types. I THINK it is possible to adjust the overall landscaping cost but I'm not sure.

2. I doubt that it is possible to have track of different "quality" with different cost. This was mentioned before. It might possibly happen if Patchman ever adds a "maintenance" cost to track and stations, which is on his list but you never know.

3. I think actually the best speed-limit usage would be just as described above. No special track or signs; it's a paramter of particular station types. This way, if you had a high-speed line, you could use a high-speed station that wouldn't slow down the trains; or, if you had a less good station, trains would have to slow down lest passengers get sucked off the platform. This might even be possible to do.