I have seen that multiple times before.
Works ok but you should preferably keep turnarounds out of the intersection, atleast in busy areas
I have seen that multiple times before.
You have chain signals there, at least on the 4 lane version, so the position is valid. Simply replace them with rail signals.
I think perhaps I am not understanding you. I have rail signals on the exits and chains signals on the entrances to the junction. This is how it need to be for the junction to work.
At the exit where the last 2 rails merge you have chain signals before the merge and a rail signal after the merge. You can replace that by 2 rail signals before the merge and none after.SkiCarver wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pmI think perhaps I am not understanding you. I have rail signals on the exits and chains signals on the entrances to the junction. This is how it need to be for the junction to work.
Ahh, I am with you now and yes, I could do that. thanks.mrvn wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:58 pmAt the exit where the last 2 rails merge you have chain signals before the merge and a rail signal after the merge. You can replace that by 2 rail signals before the merge and none after.SkiCarver wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:55 pmI think perhaps I am not understanding you. I have rail signals on the exits and chains signals on the entrances to the junction. This is how it need to be for the junction to work.
Yeah it would be more of a gimmick / proof of concept. But in a way you can see this as a railway bridge, just imagine the S-piece being elevatedhansjoachim wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:36 am It can drastically improve small intersection, but in mine intersection and some others the limitation of throughput is merging lanes.
I consider using this as cheating and taking away challenge.