Invisible train.

[1S811985]

No. Not the kind of invisible train that can occassionaly crop up when running a scenario, the one that can only be discerned by a set of couplings flying past. Rather a train that is deliberately made to be invisible during play. What possible use could such a thing be, I hear you ask? Doubtless as you slowly shake your head and wonder what I could have been imbibing on a friday evening that could move me to suggest such a thing!

Well, anyone who has dipped their toe into scenario creation will be familier with the, shall we say, odd behaviour of the RW signalling system. Its been my experience that the problem seems largely to be down to trains entering or leaving signalling sections at some midpoint junction or siding. The signals then throw a wobbly because a train hasn't fully passed through the signal section.

Often, this can be resolved by running an AI train completely through the section in question but such a train can be unwelcome from the point of view of the scenario being written. There is a limit after all to the number of light engine movements that one can expect to encounter in real life. Or it may simply be that such a movement just isn't right for a particular location or a particular time in a particular scenario.

Now, if only one had an invisible locomotive to hand, one that will show up normally in the editor but is invisible during actual gameplay. I for one can think of more than a few times when such a thing would have come in handy during scenario writing.

I assume, of course, that such a thing is actually possible from a modelling point of view?

Cheers

1S81

[choccy]

It happens quite a lot in RW and has from launch. The best policy to alleviate the problem is to start the AI train doing the disappearing act at a different time or location or both. It probably happens because the dispatcher detects some kind of problem- quite often a groundless one. AI trains do other things when they are unhappy. They can disappear from the real world altogether or quite simply stay put taking no notice of their start time or any following one whatsoever.

Mark

[1S811985]

Eh, yes.

There's a clue in the words "No. Not the kind of invisible train that can occassionaly crop up when running a scenario".

1S81

[gptech]

Eh, yes.

There's a clue in the words "No. Not the kind of invisible train that can occassionaly crop up when running a scenario".

1S81

Give that one a saucer of milk..........

[1S811985]

Give that one a saucer of milk..........

Or perhaps a response to the original post. Maybe thats asking too much?

[FoggyMorning]

To be honest I think what is really needed is better signalling by route builders. It's one of the trickiest aspects to get right and it's very easy to miss a possible train movement when placing the signal links, which can cause the signals to "lock up"

Steve

[1S811985]

Agreed. The signalling system is one of the weakest strings on RW's bow and it would be nice to see improvements in future routes. I'm not sure that existing routes could be easily upgraded though, not without the possibility of 'breaking' existing scenarios as AI often has to be scripted around the signalling and its limitations.

I have simply abandoned many attempts at scenario creation because of signalling issues. Sometimes they can be worked around, either by re-timing train movements or using the "There's a signal fault, phone the box by pressing TAB" pop-up message routine, but more often than not these days I simply give up and move on to something else.

Hence the suggestion that an "invisible" AI could be of some use as a signal-section clearer-upper.

Cheers,

1S81

[spikeyorks]

Having used "invisible" AI services extensively in MSTS (both Freeware and Payware) to get around limitations in that sim, I too am interested in how easily such a model could be created in RW.

It was a very useful "tool" in MSTS activity creation (in fact I would say that it was essential) and the same may prove to be true in Railworks.

Perhaps a model builder could tell us?

[gptech]

Give that one a saucer of milk..........

Or perhaps a response to the original post. Maybe thats asking too much?

There was a response to the original post, admittedly by a poster who was mistaken about the nature of the original post.

[Oldpufferspotter]

Hi,
I can only speak of my own experience in creating my own fictional route, and I offer these remarks for what they are worth, hoping that they may be useful. Although my route is a fictional one, I am building it to operate in the proper prototypical manner.
So far I have used two types of signal, John Yelland's GWR semaphores, and the default UK 2 aspect and 3 aspect colour light signals. I have not used any ground signals yet for goods yards etc.
I only use the following types of signal:
Distant, Home, Home and Distant (on the one post), each with only one link, the 0 link next to the signal post.
Home, Home and Distant, each with only two links, the 0 link next the post and link 1 beyond any sets of points that need to be protected by that signal.
Junction signals with only three links, the 0 link next the post, the link 1 on the main track (the tallest of the two arms) and the link 2 on the diverging track. These links 1 and 2 may also protect any number of points occuring between the junction signal and the next signal.
The link 1 can be placed beyond more than one set of points. I have one or two signals where the link 1 protects as many as three points, and they work perfectly well.
I do not use any of the signals with multiple links.
I use the three aspect clour light signals in the same way.
Now, as I understand it but have not yet used it, if you want your train to enter a goods yard, you should use a signal with a link with a number with an E suffix. E standing for Exit the main signalling area and Enter an area without main line signals, i.e. a goods yard controlled by ground signals which work independently from the main line signals.
When exiting a goods yard onto the main line, you should use a ground signal which does work in conjunction with the main line signals. I believe this signal is called an Exit signal.
As I say mine is a fictional route. I decide where to put my signals and they all work quite happily as per the real thing. However, I can imagine on a prototypical route anyone with only a limited knowledge of real life signalling would be tempted just to place a signal that looks like the one in real life, but which users will find does not in actual fact work like the one in real life. Only a full knowledge of how RW signals are set up and how RS.com intended them to work can cure that problem.
Finally my one all-guiding rule is to Keep It Simple; In other words, no multitudinous links! And do not be tempted to place a link between each set of points on the one track being protected by one (non-junction) signal. One link will do the job.
regards Ted.

[Kromaatikse]

It is technically possible to have geometry which appears in the editor but not in-game. The 390 addon (Pendolino) uses that to show which way around each vehicle should be in the consist. You could very easily make a loco with only that type of geometry to drive around - and would be useful for artificially inducing signals at Danger and for presetting the way through manual yards.

[Traveller54]

Isn't the simplistic approach just to have a loco (the smallest) in your shed and omit the .GeoPcDx file? I have found that doing this (by accident!) just shows the buffers 'in-sim'!!