Transport Tycoon Forums

If your intent is to have both platforms be filled with trains from either direction, you might try an exit signal sitting on each platform end. But I don't think this would be very efficient and would quickly lead to gridlock.

the "works without signals" myth only applies when the station is at the end of the line. you must use two-way path signals there (exit signals also will not work properly)

My typical circular setup , clock/anti , I used one way path signals .Easy enough to expand ,just add multiples of 2 platforms for stations .

To elaborate on the post by Eddi, you are missing the two-way path signals directly around the platforms, see https://wiki.openttd.org/Signals#Basic_two-way_station Note they are facing toward the platforms!

At the connecting tracks between stations, the normal strategy is to leave enough room to fit an entire train between a junction and the first signal after the junction. In that way, it will never block the junction if it has to wait for the signal. In your picture, the one-way path signals halfway on the inner track would not be there, since there is no 4 tile space before it (assuming 4t as train length, matching the length of the platforms).

sudanec wrote:Thanks to all of you. Yes, I am aware with the path signals next to the station it will work, that is the normal setup. However, I was hoping there is a way to save one tile and use some "implicit" working of the station as a safe waiting point.
Anyway, thanks for your reactions.

Ah, right.

A train entering a block with a path signals claims a path to the next signal or to a dead end. A terminus station will work without additional signals as it counts as a dead end.

If that is not feasible, the claimed path behind the platform should not cross tiles needed by trains from the other direction. The obvious solution is to add a signal directly behind the platform, or to separate platforms and tracks for a single direction only, eliminating the need for junctions.
It may also be possible to design a split to both platforms such that traffic from the other side does not use the same track, eg by a bridge rather than a junction. Not likely to be more compact though, so mostly a theoretical solution, I think.

Other option can be to rotate the station 90 degrees, and enter the platforms from one side, and exit at the other side. In that case you only need signals at the exit side.


None of the above beats adding a tile with signals at both sides, it seems

As such.

Technically you could perhaps go for this variation that avoids the signals at the stations by using depots instead (no space saved of course): I'm not rating the idea very highly though Might not even work, actually. ^^

I like the idea, but indeed, it fails in the sense that a train will not always leave, since the next train that was waiting in the depot before the platform will claim the tile in front of the depot, thus blocking the path of the leaving train.

I think it actually works, since trains reserve through the station to the depot. So exiting trains always have priority. But it might be that there are cases were it breaks - as you can see, it's a signal-less network, except for the ones to ensure trains go in certain directions. I wondered whether having multiple depots between stations would confuse them (without giving explicit orders) but that seems to work fine, too.

If I used, say, waypoints instead of those one-way signals I'd claim it'd be possible to build a network without signals. ^^;

Pyoro wrote:If I used, say, waypoints instead of those one-way signals I'd claim it'd be possible to build a network without signals. ^^;

I think you'd need at least one PBS signal somewhere, otherwise the built-in depot signals would act like block signals, so only a single train could be out at a time.

I remember that someone made a new output stream that generated a graphviz file from the program. Don't know if it was ever published, I had a quick scan through the issues, but I didn't find it. It might be at the development forum, but I didn't try that.

Alberth wrote:I remember that someone made a new output stream that generated a graphviz file from the program. Don't know if it was ever published, I had a quick scan through the issues, but I didn't find it. It might be at the development forum, but I didn't try that.

?!? viewtopic.php?f=32&t=72741

agentw4b wrote:

Alberth wrote:I remember that someone made a new output stream that generated a graphviz file from the program. Don't know if it was ever published, I had a quick scan through the issues, but I didn't find it. It might be at the development forum, but I didn't try that.

?!? viewtopic.php?f=32&t=72741

Yep, looks like it, thanks.

Alberth wrote:

agentw4b wrote:

Alberth wrote:I remember that someone made a new output stream that generated a graphviz file from the program. Don't know if it was ever published, I had a quick scan through the issues, but I didn't find it. It might be at the development forum, but I didn't try that.

?!? viewtopic.php?f=32&t=72741

Yep, looks like it, thanks.

It might be possible to send out the information via adminport, but unfortunately I do not know any program that would behave against Adminport as a client program or an intelligent text editor.

All of the adminport tools seem to me very poorly documented or not very suitable for use by someone who does not have a great programming experience.

If I used 2 server games on the same server as a client-server for the admin port, do you think one game can send data and the other game receive data if they have the same IP and the same adminport?
The connection port for players would of course be different.

you cannot ever run two programs on the same IP and Port