Set chain signals to red via circuit network

[ikarikeiji]

Suggestion: allow a connected chain signal to be set to red by a circuit network signal just like a regular signal can be set to red.

Why?
I wanted to add additional conditions to some junctions in my network, mainly to give priority to certain trains.
However, if you want to set a signal to red via the circuit network, it currently has to be a regular signal, not a chain signal.
So to gain the ability to make it red on demand, I lose the ability to have the signal automatically red when there is no free path ahead.
Even though you can connect all the exit signals instead of the chain signal, that has two problems: you have to connect ALL of them, including new ones if you modify the junction (easy to forget), and it will force ALL chain signals leading to those exit signals to red, not just one chain signal, undermining the intent to give priority to one entrance over another.

I imagine it should be fairly simple to make this work, given it's already implemented for regular signals.

See viewtopic.php?f=66&t=58394 for the original suggestion thread, where it was pointed out that connecting chain signals to the circuit network was made possible in 0.16, but not the ability to set them to red.

[Tekky]

I agree with the suggestion.

I cannot think of any reason why chain signals should not be able to be forced to red by the circuit network. It seems just as important to me to be able to force chain signals to red as regular signals.

[<NO_NAME>]

It would simplify my rail crossing blueprint. Right now I have to have normal and chain signal one after another because I have to both stop the train and make sure that it won't enter on the crossing if it have not enough space to leave the stop. I don't think this always works, though. Setting chain signal to red would solve the problem.

[McDuff]

Also, being able to read chain signals (including which ones are on blue) could open up some really interesting programming possibilities. Probably. Can't think of any right now but this is factorio and I'm sure someone will do something fascinating with that functionality

[mp0011]

Also, being able to read chain signals (including which ones are on blue) could open up some really interesting programming possibilities. Probably. Can't think of any right now but this is factorio and I'm sure someone will do something fascinating with that functionality

I am quite sure You can read it in 0.16.

[Tekky]

Also, being able to read chain signals (including which ones are on blue) could open up some really interesting programming possibilities.

I am quite sure You can read it in 0.16.

I guess he means that it should be possible to directly determine why a chain signal is blue, i.e. to read which following signals are red and which following signals are green from the previous chain signal itself.

However, I see no need for this, since you can read the state of the following signals directly using the circuit network.

This is a bit off-topic in this thread, though, because the OP's suggestion is not about reading chain signals, but being able to force chain signals to red, as is already possible with regular signals.

[Teraka]

We can already disable rail signals through conditions on the circuit network, but we can only read from chain signals. I don't see why we aren't already able to disable chain signals as well, and there's a number of situations where you would want to disable a signal but aren't able to change it to a regular signal.

[Tekky]

I agree.

However, this has already been suggested in the following thread:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58453 Set chain signals to red via circuit network
EDIT: Now that the threads have been merged, the above link points to the current thread.

[Koub]

[Koub] Merged suggestion into older topic with same suggestion.
@Tekky : Thank you for pointing out .

[JasonC]

Currently, regular signals can be closed by a circuit network, but chain signals can not.

I would like the same "close signal" circuit network option that regular signals have, but for chain signals.

The behavior of a chain signal closed by a circuit condition would be identical to the behavior of a chain signal if a train were sitting just after the signal -- it would turn red; nothing complicated.

This would allow constructs with circuit-controlled signals to be placed on tracks without breaking up existing signal blocks.

[ssilk]

Nothing speaks against it, but I ask me why? I mean can you show examples, where this would make sense?

[coppercoil]

Nothing speaks against it, but I ask me why? I mean can you show examples, where this would make sense?

Once I designed large cross for heavy traffic with multiple waiting lanes where trains were allowed to change the lane if there’s train already waiting ahead, AND they were denied to change the lane if multiple ones were available. This kinda should have to optimize internal intersections . There were chain signals everywhere… I found a workaround by placing regular signal connected to farther signals to imitate chain logic, but it was complex and unnatural.

[ssilk]

And what if you place a normal signal in front of the chain signal? No space, he?

I don’t want to teach, and at the same time I think when I read that it’s too less space used for the tracks.

[Olacken]

And what if you place a normal signal in front of the chain signal? No space, he?

Then if you put a chain signal behing it it would chain on the normal signal you put not the chain signal in front of it.

[coppercoil]

And what if you place a normal signal in front of the chain signal? No space, he?

No, there's too litle space for signals on a curved rail segment . Straight segments were also blocked because of multiple intersections.

I don’t want to teach, and at the same time I think when I read that it’s too less space used for the tracks.

I don't like space in the structures. I always design compact

[ssilk]

But trains like space. Much space.

I won’t discuss your problem away, but the description would let me think about using the destruction planner and redesign the whole tracks with this problem - instead of thinking about new types of signals for questionable usage. I’m 100% sure this is will be always possible.

[coppercoil]

I think description says we want to make smart and complex designs, and that’s because we are not satisfied with simple design anymore, and that is why we keep playing Factorio. OK, I probably should speak for myself only.

The problem is, regular signal breaks the chain behind itself. If you want control something non-trivial, you must break a chain. That’s not good for a complex circuit-controlled cross.

[ssilk]

The problem is, regular signal breaks the chain behind itself. If you want control something non-trivial, you must break a chain. That’s not good for a complex circuit-controlled cross.

I use chain signals for those cases, where I don’t want a train to go into a “big block” (no better name for that yet) until there is no way out of it. Do you want the trains to not go over the signal for this reason? If you don’t want a train to go into that big block, you need to turn the first outgoing signal just to red. For any other usage I need a screenshot.

[coppercoil]

Outgoing signals are far far away. Those crosses may be really large, especially if trains outgrew L2C4 . Passing many signals across entire junction would be even more ugly and unnatural. Chain signal closing is natural. Actually, chain signal is equal to regural rail signal, just one feature added.

[Olacken]

Actually, chain signal is equal to regural rail signal, just one feature added.

A fork is a equal to a spoon just one feature added.
A key is equal to a piece of metal just one feature added.
A door is equal to a wall just one feature added.
Your hand is equal to your foot just one feature added(assuming you have at least a hand and a foot).