Hi Mitchell
I did nearly the same thing.
I started by using a grade crossing in the centre of the double crossover for
block 40 you had made it with two lines crossing so half of block 40 was
unattached to anything.
If you can get the each switch and the crossing into separate sections it will
make life less complicated, currently the 2 west switches are in the same
section. I set block 06B and 01 to a section each.
What I was going to do next was to re do the transit flagging the new section
for block 01 (with extra signals) as safe along with the S106:107 and S41:42.
The first and last sections do not need to be flagged. This transit can then be
allocated by safe sections , which will only allocate if all sections between
the safe sections can be allocated at once, so it doesnt stop anywhere else. To
do the job properly you will need to break up some of the larger sections, and
internal signals cost you nothing.
Steve G.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Mitchell via Groups.Io" <mitchell.scott93@...>
Date: November 12, 2018 at 7:56 AM
Hi steve,
Cheering! If you could send some of your missing rain this way, that would be
fabulous.. haha
I deleted all of my SML and sections, auto-regenerated and then deleted
sections S01:S06 and S02:S06.
I then created a sections
S01:BLOCK40 (Blocks 08B & 40)
S02:BLOCK6 (Block 06)
BLOCK6B:S06 (Block 06B & 01)
In theory this is seperating the LT5 turnout from both of the blocks coming
into it.
This solved the problem of overlapping, however now the train at S01 allocates
to across the crossover TO LT5 (BLOCK6:S06 boundary) and prevents the outer
circle train allocating, even though the S01 train has a red signal.
Am I on the right track but havent gone deep enough yet? or am I skewing away
from what you beleive could be the answer?
In a perfect world, the two up and down lines would allocate freely, and then
when 37254 sees an "opening" or free path to S06 it allocates across and the
other two trains wait for the crossover and anything head to be clear.
I'd have thought choosing a Priority in auto train creation would decide which
train gets the allocation when they want the same section, But I've never seen
it come into effect.
I do feel like if we are having opposite experiences while testing the same
file with the same sequence of events and sensors, there has to be an
inconsistancy between us that could be the clue to the problem, maybe I have
an issue with my JMRI that you do not?
--
Thanks
Mitch
