Embed rail signals into rails

[Harkonnen604]

From many discussions here I saw that there are problems with rail signal placement especially in tightly packed situations when they simply don't fit. I also saw that for this reason 0.13 introduces signal placement markers so you can see that beforehand.

From my personal experience - I got stuck for the first time I used train signals for my trains refused to move. It was a some simple criss-cross intersection. Then I had to youtube a lot to find how to set this up properly. I did not play TTD, so there is no knowledge to inherit. The reason was of course in rail signal placed only one side of the track. Since then it became for me a rule of a thumb to always place signals symmetrically on both sides of a track. Since I am not experienced train networks builder, here comes a question:
Are there any situations where you would want train signal to be located on only side of the track, and putting a signal on the opposite side of the track would break something?.

If the answer is "there are no such situations" - we are down to 4 cases for rail with signals: simple-simple, simple-chain, chain-simple, chain-chain. What I propose is that there is just one single item "rail signal" which gets embedded into the rail (into its middle), consumes no tiles off the track, and works as if two signals are placed in the opposite directions. Switching between ss,sc,cs,cc configurations can be done by "rotating" that item with R key. Also, if some beginner puts by accident chain signal instead of a normal signal through rotation, it will not hurt him a lot, at least his trains won't stop in simple network just because of that.

[sparr]

Your original suggestion in the other thread didn't mention making these non-directional signals or combining signal types. I support your original suggestion. I do not support this suggestion.

To be specific: the reason signals go on just one side of the rail is to make the rail one-way. We put signals on both sides if we want trains going both directions on the same piece of track.

[Harkonnen604]

Embedding signals on both sides can be cumbersome for UI, tile alignment, etc... that's why thinking ahead I thought about putting signals on both sides. If those UI problems are hard to resolve issue, it is still possible to get one embedded signal item, but it will have to support 8 combinations instead of 4. It is also possible that this single embedded-signals item gets some UI for left-click where you can select signal type for each side of the track independently.

Another way to go is to get two more rail types - straight rail with signals and curved rail with signals. These types of rail get some UI upon left-clicking with 3 options for left and right side (none, simple, chain).

[Shokubai]

I dunno what this really solves. Putting the signal inside the rail and automatically making it two way? I feel like it's the same car with a shiny paint job but it's still gonna leave you stranded. I'm VERY MUCH in favor of simplified signal placement but not at the cost of added network complexity when wanted.

[Harkonnen604]

I dunno what this really solves. Putting the signal inside the rail and automatically making it two way? I feel like it's the same car with a shiny paint job but it's still gonna leave you stranded. I'm VERY MUCH in favor of simplified signal placement but not at the cost of added network complexity when wanted.

It solves this from another thread:

It drives me nuts when I'm designing an interchange and I get a hundred pieces of track and a dozen signals laid before I realize there's one tiny space where I need to put two signals and only one fits so I have to start over and make the whole interchange one rail wider.

As for "making all tracks bidirectional" - this was rediscussed in this thread. Tracks can be one-directional with embedded rail-signals, just more work for devs on convenient UI.

[Shokubai]

Then what are you actually changing from current rails? You encounter essentially the same issues with placement on rail crossings.

[Harkonnen604]

Then what are you actually changing from current rails? You encounter essentially the same issues with placement on rail crossings.

With this change you won't need free tile away from rails to place a signal. Sometimes rails are placed so close together that there is simply no place to put signs on both sides.

I'd like to hear more from sparr on that. For example, will it solve the issue if curved rails have embedded signals only in the middle, or are there cases when middle of a curved rail will be crossed by some other straight rail? If curved rails will need several spots to place embedded signs, UI of this proposal may become too complicated to be usable.

[Rseding91]

Embedding rail signals into the rail would serve no gameplay benefit and would complicate the otherwise simple system that rail signals are now. So, no.

[Neotix]

But allowing to place signals inside rails would be beneficial for gameplay (expand possibilities for rail buildings) and almost no changes in mechanic.
Left - actual signals
Right - proposition

[ssilk]

As Rseding I don't see a need for that, cause if you need it you have planned to small or can change the rails. Or just don't use signals. All working solutions and I have a handful more.
So moved to won't implement.

[sparr]

As Rseding I don't see a need for that, cause if you need it you have planned to small or can change the rails.

"planned too small" is silly; I *WANT* to make smaller intersections. Smaller interchanges allow higher train throughput. If I could make every intersection half the size it is now, I would be very happy, and there is no current solution that will have the same effect.

[ssilk]

I *WANT* to make smaller intersections.

And I want bridges.

Smaller interchanges allow higher train throughput.

Bigger also.

If I could make every intersection half the size it is now, I would be very happy, and there is no current solution that will have the same effect.

This effect is quite limited. The usage case is limited.

BTW: If we would have bridges, we would not need such big intersections. Implementing this first would mean, to let other, more useful suggestions wait.

Embedded signals need also 2-3 other suggestions to be implemented before.