Inflexible platform routing into stub station

[trainrover]

I find it mystifying that trains arriving at grand terminal stations lock onto a platform to which their paths are fouled by another train instead of easily sidestepping to another free platform to which their paths aren't fouled. With path reservations always switched on there seems to be no difference at when the fouling departures present themselves, for arriving trains are adamantly locked onto their platforms. Might somebody please explain the mechanism of this, please, as I wish to iron out any wrinkle in anticipation of my termini become crazily saturated (rebuilding's bothersome)? Knowing when trains lock onto platforms might be especially helpful! Through stations seldom present such stubborness..I wonder if pointless signals at the stub ends of the termini would solve this mystery.


Arrival is deadset on platform right in front of it.

[Expresso]

Well, going straight forward is the best route, so it goes for that platform. Now, if you were to add a couple of bridges and tunnels to that switch-yard from hell, it would probably increase efficiency quite a lot.

Another solution could be to add a bunch of waypoints in front of the desired platforms and give the trains orders for the desired one.

That being said, I don't know for how many trains this things is intended, but it's not very efficient as trains have no means to cross one another. So, you'll always end up with trains waiting for one another.

[Quast65]

2 possible solutions (however its always difficult with these kind of switchyards in front of terminus-stations):
- Place the 2-way path signals at the start of the switchyard (rather than in front of the station) and see what happens then.
- Make (a couple of) outgoing tracks on the far side of the station that you then later merge with your main outgoing track, then (hopefully) some outgoing trains wont have to cross the entire switchyard to get out.

[Kevo00]

If it's a terminus and you have path signals coming into the station throat, you don't need them on the platforms.

You can probably simplify that layout somewhat too!

[Pyoro]

Still strange. What matters are pathfinder penalties. I tried replicating this ... and with all paths having all those crossings it makes them fairly equal, so the trains are happy to pick free platforms.

Wrong track tile in the station or something?

[trainrover]

Thank you! A linked screen capture video and an attached screenshot each lodged at the bottom of my reply here.

Still strange. What matters are pathfinder penalties. I tried replicating this ... and with all paths having all those crossings it makes them fairly equal, so the trains are happy to pick free platforms.

Wrong track tile in the station or something?

The far end of the termini are station tiles somewhat fashioned into buffers (1.25 of video)..it's these that I wonder whether supplanting with signalled regular track might be worthwhile.

If it's a terminus and you have path signals coming into the station throat, you don't need them on the platforms.

You can probably simplify that layout somewhat too!

I've never succeeded at combining path with that other type (name?) of signal (my trains would more often get lost than not proceed period)!

2 possible solutions (however its always difficult with these kind of switchyards in front of terminus-stations):
- Place the 2-way path signals at the start of the switchyard (rather than in front of the station) and see what happens then.
- Make (a couple of) outgoing tracks on the far side of the station that you then later merge with your main outgoing track, then (hopefully) some outgoing trains wont have to cross the entire switchyard to get out.

My 2nd and last (6th) videographed termini themselves have less unwieldy switchyards to them. Depot activity is what messes with my PAX timetabling more than anything else, hence there predominantly being in trios or the 2 and 3 sets of pairs for those 2nd and last stations..entries and exits unnecessarily fouling other traffic is mightily intolerable for me, hence their being in abundance, each with correspondingly long arrival and departure tracks.

So, you'll always end up with trains waiting for one another.

That'll never bother me; the prospect of their not pursuing the free stabling, however, does irk me. But now 50 years later with comparably busier traffic, waiting arrivals do now indeed behave less choosily! Their inflexibility earlier on signified to me inherent riskiness.

https://youtu.be/LXLrI2lhGio

[Badger]

You have 6 lines which trains arrive on but only 3 to depart on so automatically you're going to create congestion. Add that to the way your departure lines are all over to one side of your station and you're creating conflicting movements as every departing train has to cross all your arrival lines. Instead of 6 "in" to 3 "out" arrange your tracks as in, out, in, out, in, out etc etc. You'll massively reduce conflicting movements and you can rearrange your tracks further away from your main station.
By using less track and point work you can restrict the number of platforms any one line can access which will also allow less conflicts. Currently it just looks horrible.

[trainrover]

heh heh..you gotta admit that setting space aside at facilitating cumbersome dépôt manœuvres is indeed mightily rare out there in dem ottdlands, eh.. .. . . I suspect the appearance of compensatory junctions beyond termini throats would displease me were I to alternate entrances and exits out of my stations. There's plenty of slack in my timetabling to accommodate throat holdups.

Just to be clear, it's the unyielding lock onto a fouled although free platform instead of advancing onto an unfettered adjacent bay that I'm querying here ("mechanism").

[Badger]

Are you using some sort of translator?

[trainrover]

oo la..who must've tamed you, eh.. .. . .

[Badger]

oo la..who must've tamed you, eh.. .. . .

Er…. what?

[trainrover]

Adieu, bonhomme.. .. . .

[trainrover]

I've discovered departing trains also locking onto tracks from one of my termini. A brief about the fussy trains follows the following video of them that I recorded.

https://youtu.be/pckUXrPya0I



....................T1
........................T2
P1........................T3
....P2........................T4
........P3........................T5
............P4........................T6
................P5........................T7
....................P6........................T8
........................P7........................T9
............................P8
................................P9

Ignoring all those dots in the schematic above here, Platforms 1 through 9 are all dead-end platforms. Tracks 1 through 3 are exit tracks. Tracks 4, 5 and 7 are unobstructed arrival tracks; Tracks 6, 8 and 9 are also arrival tracks although served by off-screen train dépôts.

After its 2-minute-long wait (cropped), the P9 train has the opportunity to advance to T3, but instead waits until its path toward T2 is freed. Neither train at P5 or P7 advances toward T1 while the P9'er is proceeding toward T2. Only when the signal block along T3 becomes clear does the P7 departure advance to it; after a few seconds, the P5 train finally goes to T1, which had been quite accessible to either train throughout P9er's manœuvre through the 'switchyard'.

Usually, the comings are goings out of my overly-redundant termini are rewardingly fluid. Anomalies such as the scenario recorded here puzzle me. Any substantially explanatory feedback would be much appreciated.