Y Tracks: Is this a problem?

I am using the beta vorsion of Roman's Y Tracks thanks to Ottodad's suggestion.
Setting up a beautiful doubleslip is very easy and it only uses seven sections.However, in looking in the activity editor after partially laying out a main station on my new route I noticed that there are no track nodes (the black dots where tracks intersect) at the crossovers used in constructing the doubleslip switches.
I think I am using the correct crossover section, Y1tDblSlip190Xover.s, but there is no track node where the two legs of the 'X' cross.
This may cause a problem with signaling because if a player path and and AI path cross the AI will ignore the player if there is no common track node where the two paths intersect. (The AI will run into the player)I have not yet looked at the singleslip crossing as I have not used them yet.
Here are two pics, one each from the route and activity editor of the doubleslip crossover.
And Otto, much thanks for making this great trackset available!! They make my modeling of ****** Station just perfect!

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a123f33172063e.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a124a9346b6cfb.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, rdamurphy, May-11-04, 05:03 PM, (1) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-11-04, 05:26 PM, (2) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-11-04, 07:07 PM, (4) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, OTTODAD, May-11-04, 07:25 PM, (5) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-11-04, 09:42 PM, (6) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-13-04, 07:28 PM, (7) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-14-04, 06:19 AM, (8) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-14-04, 01:56 PM, (9) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-14-04, 04:55 PM, (10) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-14-04, 06:51 PM, (13) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, markhyams, May-14-04, 05:39 PM, (11) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-14-04, 06:40 PM, (12) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, markhyams, May-14-04, 07:00 PM, (14) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, markhyams, May-14-04, 07:07 PM, (15) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-14-04, 07:17 PM, (17) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-14-04, 07:15 PM, (16) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-14-04, 07:24 PM, (18) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-14-04, 09:41 PM, (20) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, markhyams, May-14-04, 08:01 PM, (19) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, OTTODAD, May-11-04, 05:55 PM, (3) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, rdamurphy, May-15-04, 00:50 AM, (21) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-15-04, 02:48 AM, (22) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-15-04, 03:55 AM, (23) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, markhyams, May-15-04, 04:05 AM, (24) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-15-04, 04:12 AM, (25) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-15-04, 10:47 AM, (26) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, markhyams, May-15-04, 01:33 PM, (28) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, OTTODAD, May-15-04, 04:37 PM, (29) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-15-04, 04:56 PM, (30) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, davidbeach, May-15-04, 08:36 PM, (31) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-16-04, 02:32 AM, (33) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Vince, May-15-04, 10:22 PM, (32) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, roeter, May-18-04, 01:43 PM, (34) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, Roman, May-18-04, 02:31 PM, (35) RE: Y Tracks: Is this a problem?, OTTODAD, May-15-04, 11:05 AM, (27)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

LAST EDITED ON May-11-04 AT 05:05 PM (EDT)

The switches are correct, there shouldn't be any dots where you are pointing to, they tracks CROSS, they don't INTERSECT. In other words, think of a Double Slip as four switches combined with a crossing in the center. You are looking at the crossing, the turnouts are in the corners. There shouldn't be any signalling or routing issues. I might add that those tracks look outstanding and one of the major contributions to TS this year!Rob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hello,there should be no problem as far as the tests and Robs explanation show. In my first attempt I had the center piece designed in the common way, but that results with some odd additional dots in AE. I investigated further in that and found that AE has problems with four switches and a 'real' crossing in the center. So I decided to do a center piece without crossing, and thanks to ottodad, the somewhat 'strange' description of laying an dblslip. You may or may not follow that description, but I recommend to check the tracklayout in AE from time to time, just to eliminate those odd dots. They always occur where the 'fuzzy' logic of RE connects the pieces correctly but sometimes AE has a different view to that matter and produces the dots. Try to simulate that problem by laying xtrack doubleslips and use the crossover piece in the middle. The effect is more obvious when laying track on grades.Regards Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-11-04 AT 08:04 PM (EDT)

Otto and Roman, thank you for your replies which cleared up more questions on Y-Tracks than I asked.

I am having a BUNCH of fun with these new track sections, including, of course, X-Tracks. This is a new experience for me as I never had the pleasure of using any add-on track mods.
Biggest problem for me has been getting familiar with the now long list of track sections.
Is there some way to limit that list?
For instance, I dont need narrow gauge, dual-tracks and unk (whatever that is)Also have a slight problem with the curved points. ie; A1tCurvdPnt10dlftOut and the like.
Placement of this group results in a Extended Shape fail to load error.
The 800r and 1000r curved points work correctly though. ie; A1tPnt1000r12dlft.All in all most of the stuff works good enough for me. Modeling this particular railroad would not have been possible without X-Tracks and now Romans Y-Tracks has taken trackwork eye candy to new heights,and greatly simplified complex tracklaying.
Heartfelt Thanks to Okrasa, Roman and OttO Edit:add extended to shape fail to load.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-11-04 AT 07:26 PM (EDT)

Hi Vince !I like guys who like Tracks and Switches like I do ! I consider them the best part of Railroading, Real, Model or Sim.You can slim down the TSection.dat with the ROUTE RITER, which will remove all Track Items from it not present in your GLOBAL\SHAPES folder. It's under the MSTS File Utils tab Make tsection.dat. But take a copy of it first, just in case ! As for "Missing Shapes" which fail to load, they are track pieces listed in the TSection.dat for which you have no Shape File in GLOBAL\SHAPES.If your are desperate to use them, you can find it in the TSection.dat and from the section it is in, it's creator. However, some of them are no longer to be found by their E-Mail addresses.Take Care, O t t o.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Thanks OttO!

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>>>>The switches are correct, there shouldn't be any dots where you are pointing to, they tracks CROSS, they don't INTERSECT. In other words, think of a Double Slip as four switches combined with a crossing in the center. You are looking at the crossing, the turnouts are in the corners. There shouldn't be any signalling or routing issues. I might add that those tracks look outstanding and one of the major contributions to TS this year!
Rob<<<<Computer crashed in the middle of writing this Sunday night. Back with slick new homebuilt. . .anyway, Rob, thats the problem, no intersection means signals and AI trains on the two legs of the of the crossover do not 'see' each other. The default crossovers do have a cross track node and the signals and AI behave normally. It's a shame having to remove the node on the doubleslip (singleslip too?)due to it's generating those extrainious node dots.
Hey Roman, are they actual track nodes? And how do they affect the running of the editors and the sim?

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Vince,
I believe It won't ever happen that two trains can be on the two legs of the crossover inside the dblslip at the same time! the crossover inside the doubleslip is completly embedded or framed by switches, all of these switches contain correct entries for clearance distance which will reach beyond the crossing. This means every train AI or Player has to ride 42m beyond the beginning of the switch, and in all cases that will be beyond the internal crossing of a dblslip.
To you second question. Every switch is a track node per definition. Crossovers need to have a declared crossover point. 'Real' crossover pieces of Ytrack-set are nodes in that way, only the middle pieces of sgl-slip and dbl-slip are not and need not to be, see above.
Hope that helpsRoman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>>>Hi Vince,
I believe It won't ever happen that two trains can be on the two legs of the crossover inside the dblslip at the same time!<<<Roman,
If the switches are set to straight through they sure can. The AI cannot 'see' the train on the other leg as this screengrab illustrates.
The player (me) was proceeding slowly through the crossover when the AI train rammed me.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a508456b08db23.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Vince,
very interesting to see, I dont know why this happens. I'm pretty sure it does not depend on the lacking crossover definition. The AI train rammed you in the switch wich should be secured by the switch your player train is passing from the frog side.
What happens if you only have the switch in question and nothing else?
As I said before the AI train rammed you in the switch, not in the crossing, as your player train does not cross. In case there is a crosssing definition, your player train won' t touch that crossing, he bypasses it via the two diverging path' of the switches!!I think we need some help from the activity gurus.Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Doesn't matter if path is as shown (player taking left turnout and AI straight thru) or AI crossing player path (no divirging thru switches), both end in a wreck. Because of the lack of a track node common to both paths, the AI cannot 'see' the player. For practical purposes, to the AI's tiny brain the player doesn't exist.Here is a screengrab of a crossing the works on the Maryland Light Rail portion of the NEC4. The default 5 degree crossing I used here has a common node to both player and AI paths.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a54d55560c8490.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I don't think that the clearance distance definition will take care of this situation.The problem is when two trains are approaching the double crossover with both trains going straight through the crossover. In this case, all four switches will be set to the normal position. I believe the clearance distance parameter is designed for AI trains not fouling a trailing point switch that is thrown against it. In this case, neither train has any diverging paths, just straight paths through the crossover, and certainly there are no points thrown against either train; it's as if none of the switches are there at all. So it is my humble opinion to agree that the two trains will not be able to "see" each other, and signalling would not work without having the "crossing node" at the center of the double crossover. I call it a "crossing node" as opposed to a "switch node" because, although they both show up as black dots in the AE, in RE, the "switch node" has a red pole, and the "crossing node" has no pole of any color associated with it. Also in the AE, if you right-click on a "crossing node" there is no option for "take other exit" like there is for the "switch node".Here is an example of a crossing node in the AE. The tracks cross, and there is a black dot. If it were a switch node, the dot would have turned green with the path going through it.
But in the RE, there is no pole where the tracks cross.
Mark

Moffat Road Tabernash to Phippsburg
All track complete
Currently working on Mtracks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-14-04 AT 06:45 PM (EDT)

Ok,
but the Vince' picture definitly shows a player-train bypassing the crossing. What is your explanation for that. That picture shows a ramming which does not happen at the crossing point or is affected by that. The player Train is bypassing the crossover, the AI train is comming from the crossing point and runs in the side of a train on a switch. I suppose that train would have rammed the player train with or without the crossing. Or am I wrong? And exactly that situation needs some investigation/explanation.One explanation for me is that both trains are supposed to drive the bypassing path. This would make sense because the sim would not recognize that. In that case both path# would not join or cross each other and the sim is not aware that those path are too close together?!Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I think the problem is that there aren't any signals in Vince's example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AI trains don't know what to do unless they have signals to tell them what to do.In the second case you discuss above, where both trains drive the divering path and neither go through the crossover, I think the clearance distance definition would take care of it in this situation. As long as the clearance distance was long enough, it would extend beyond the switch node, preventing the second train to come along and take that path after the first train is in the double crossover. This is of course assuming that there are signals installed.Mark

Moffat Road Tabernash to Phippsburg
All track complete
Currently working on Mtracks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Actually, after further thought, I'm going to change my mind about what I said in Message #11.I think the clearance distance parameter will take care of it in all situations, including ones where both trains are going straight through the crossover, because of the reasoning in Message #14. However, I should say that it needs to be tested with signals to find out for sure. Only then will we know. It's always hard to predict what the AI dispatcher will do!Mark

Moffat Road Tabernash to Phippsburg
All track complete
Currently working on Mtracks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Mark,
it needs definitly more testing and I totally agree that the AI dispatcher is kind and mind of its own Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-14-04 AT 07:20 PM (EDT)

No need for signals Mark. A track node is all thats needed to tell the AI dispatcher where the player is.
>>Vince' picture definitly shows a player-train bypassing the crossing. <<This is true Roman. I uploaded the wrong pic. Sorry to have mis-lead you.Here is the one I wanted to use to illustrate the problem. I added another pic from the AE so there will be no confusion.Setup. Bothe Player and AI paths are straight through the doubleslip, IOW, all switches are normal (straight path)
pic 1 AE
pic AI approach from bottom of screen
pic 3 Result. Both trains are (were) approaching the camera.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a55099618a4920.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a553056a2b4808.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a5531d6a8fc99a.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-14-04 AT 07:40 PM (EDT)

Hi Vince,thank you for showing this. I will instantly do a new set of shapes for the slips. You can contact me by email and I will send you a corrected set of shapes for testing. Here in europe its almost 2am so I will do the shapes tomorow.Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hey Roman. . .please take it easy. . .instantly is not a word in my book. Unless you have a better idea, lets try (when you get a chance) a crossover piece with a cross node where the two paths cross. I know you stated earlier in this thread that that caused extraneous node dots to appear in the AE.
Lets give that a try to see if it causes problems. Pimples in the AE would not bother me as long as they don't cause operational problems.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I just did some testing with a regular switch, with no signals, having two trains coming toward the trailing point side. In the AE, the train that got there first would go through the switch, the second train would stop, and then when the first train was clear of the switch, the second train would continue behind the first train.Now, in the sim, the first train would go through the switch, and the second train would slow down as it approached the switch, but it wouldn't stop in time and would ram into the first train going through the switch. I increased the clearance distance values several times in the tsection.dat file, finally to extrememly high values (1000 meters), and every time, the second train would ram into the first.This brings me to one conclusion. The clearance distance parameter upon which Roman is relying to keep trains from smashing from each other is obeyed either (1) not at all, or (2) only with signals. So I would recommend that all further testing be done with signals. I will try to set aside some time to do this very soon.Roman, right now are the clearance distance values set high enough to extend all the way from one switch node to the other switch node on the opposite side of the crossover? I think this is the key.Mark

Moffat Road Tabernash to Phippsburg
All track complete
Currently working on Mtracks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Vince,when in the RE and you check the location of the RED POLES near the 4 Double-SLip Switches indication Switch Nodes, you will notice that their location corresponds with the black dots in the AE.I am testing Y-TRACKS Points exhaustively as I get new pieces and shortly will apply Signalling to them for test in Activities using AI traffic through them.Having done preliminary tests running Players Paths through them in every possible combination, any of their Switches acts just like a normal one ! O t t oThis is what they must like like in the AE, if assembled properly, I also mention in my Double-Slip Tutorial.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Of course you need signals. You would get exactly the same result on a normal switch without signals You would get the same result on a single track without signals. The signals are an integral part of the AI program.Rob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-15-04 AT 03:52 AM (EDT)

OK Rob, I agree on the need for signals but signals are of no use where two crossing paths do not share a common tracknode.
If you lay two 500 meter track sections in an 'X' and signal each track, then run two trains towards the crossing, both traing will have a clear aspect and will crash.
40a5c3e7255f7806.jpg,40a5c3f725925e08.jpg
The next two pics are of a crossing with a tracknode where the two paths cross. The signals now behave as they should, giving the AI train a Red until the players train clears the crossing.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a5cbec34d59c4a.jpg
http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a5cc4b359e23b6.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

missing pics from above post

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a5c3e7255f7806.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40a5c3f725925e08.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Right, but I think what Rob and I are saying is that in order to test the clearance distance parameter, signals need to be involved.Mark

Moffat Road Tabernash to Phippsburg
All track complete
Currently working on Mtracks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Mark,at the moment the clearance distance parameter is set to 42m. That is much more than default switches use. It is calculated from the switch point to allow mathematical clearance for rolling stock.Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mark, the clearance parameter has nothing to do with THIS problem. There is no problem with the clearance parameter with these switches. Rather it is the lack of a center crossing node that causes the signals on one straight through leg of the doubleslip not to "see" the AI train on the other straight through leg of the doubleslip.
Since all switches are set to normal (straight path) the clearance parameter has nothing to do with this problem.Refer to the pics in post #22. This is a crossing without a common track node.
Bottom line Mark, Without a common track node player and AI trains and for that matter, two AI trains passing through a crossover WILL crash EVERY time.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I totally get this now. Thanks for the explanation, Vince.The clearance distance thing I was referring to is for the case when both trains go through diverging parts of the slip (and neither go through the center crossover):First train takes this path:
Second train takes this path:
AI train (on the right) doesn't get a red signal before entering the interlocking:
AI train rams player train:
So my theory about the clearance distance parameter working in this situation is wrong! I thought that it would protect the "other" leg of the turnout beyond the opposite switch node, but apparantly it doesn't, and I'm at a loss as to how to prevent these types of collisions. Help!Mark

Moffat Road Tabernash to Phippsburg
All track complete
Currently working on Mtracks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Just one observation, Mark.This is not a Y-TRACKS DOUBLE-SLIP ! Who would want trackbeds looking like that ? O t t o

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Mark,
afaik no way out! You can do a layout with two overlapping curves and the sim won't recognize this. The same is inside the dblslips when both path are diverging. May be there can something be done with switch-signals acting as real signals, but for now no thoughts how to realize this.Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Roman,It sounds to me, based on this thread that you might want to think about reevaluating the use of "CrossoverShape ( )" for your slips.David Beach.Palouse & Lewiston

Standardized \global\tsection.dat file now at build00023.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi David,'Yes Sir!' Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

This (overlapping paths, all divirging switches in a doubleslip configuration) cannot in any way be handled by the AI dispatcher.
But the configuration where both paths are straight through is OK as long as there is a common crossing node.
To handle the first configuration (all divirging) I can get tricky in the AE by using an invisible engine on it's own little short path moving toward the AI (or for that matter heading toward the player) that will hold the signals in the state you want. It's a very handy way to hold player or AI traffic. Not a fix, just a bandaid.
Lets hope TMTS gets good signaling.

Regards,
Vince Cockeram
NEC Track Team
Author of the NECv4 Route

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hello,looking through these posts, I started wondering if it would be possible to 'fool' MSTS by creating a non-crossing cross-over.A what?Let me explain. I think it would be possible to create a track-piece which would be defined as and behave as a cross-over, but in which the paths do not actually cross. I think the cross-over definition is only used to check the train paths (and thus also set the signals), whilst the actual route of the train is determined by the track section and track shape definitions in tsection.dat. I don't think there is a check on a cross-over whether the tracks actually cross - checks are not MSTS strong points anyway, but probably no one ever thought that somebody might define a cross-over which doesn't cross.I realise that it needs a redesign of the various track pieces, as I have shown below.
The top figure indicates the present situation, the vertical lines indicate the track-piece boundaries. The actual cross-over is in the middle, with the outward tracks of the four diverging pieces touching in the middle.
The bottom figure indicates the new situation, with the actual cross-over (in blue) still in the middle, but the dummy cross-over (in red) now sitting between the diverging pieces. It might be better to offset the dummy cross-over as two cross-overs at exactly the same position might confuse MSTS.Roman, do you think you could try something like this? It would certainly solve all signalling problems! I will give a hand in testing the signals if you want me to.Further, I just want to add my thanks and compliments for these excellent track pieces.Kind regards, Rob Roeterdink

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/40aa4b3a05972ec3.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Rob,the problem is more difficult. the xover-point has to be on both affected tracks, and that causes some trouble. It might be possible to define curved path inside the dblslip which touch, but the trains will ride more or less funny through that construction. The sim guides the trains along the definition of the tracks in the section part of t-section.dat regardless how they look like.
But I will try to do an example of your idea. You can drop me a personal email.Roman

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-15-04 AT 11:07 AM (EDT)

Vince,I quickly threw this combination together:it's blown-up version of the components used in a Y-DOUBLE-SLIP but using a proper A1tXover22_6d Crossover in the center. The Switches are standard MSTS 10d ones connected with shallow DYN Curves. To be certain that individual Y-Switches work the same, try another version of the above using them as well. No doubt they also will, being different to the Double-Slip Switches which however should behave exactly the same. It seems to be the missing Crossover node which is the problem ?You could also try to overlap tracks instead of using a Crossover which probably will cause the same problem as the Double-Slip as it is designed at the moment ?Will be interesting to find out what your tests reveal and help Roman to focus on what is required in his Y-DOUBLE-SLIPS to achieve the same results ! Take Care, O t t o.

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.