Set chain signals to red via circuit network

[Tekky]

OP's suggestion has already been suggested two years ago in the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58453 Set chain signals to red via circuit network
EDIT: Meanwhile, the threads have been merged. Therefore, this link now points to the current thread.

[Koub]

[Koub] Thanks Tekky, topics merged.

[coppercoil]

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.

Those are incorrect examples. Everbody is able to say some nonsense, that doesn't mean it's possible to win a discussion in such easy way. I will not argue about it.

[Olacken]

Those are incorrect examples. Everbody is able to say some nonsense, that doesn't mean it's possible to win a discussion in such easy way. I will not argue about it.

I will admit the fork one is incorect the other two are in my opinion more debatable
And of course they seems incorrect they were on purpose grossly and overly exagerated
I was not trying to win a discussion just pointing out that saying that one thing is equal to an other if it weren't for a feature when said feature is the only reason this thing was made in the first place is oversimplifying and doesn't make the most convincing sounding argument.

And also just so you know I'm really in favor of this change I at multiple time found myself sighing at the fact that I can't close chain signals

[coppercoil]

Would it be better if I'd say both signals are similar enough to have close control for both?

I really think that chain signal definition is overcomplicated. I believe it's possible to give a better explanation for it, where that "additional feature" is a minor feature, though very useful and must have. That's just a different view to the same things. Newbie players experience difficulties understanding signals just because their concepts are not the very bests. But that's another topic

[Olacken]

Yes that is a lot more satisfying argument

Mys opinion is that it's the oposite actually the are overly simple yet do something so intricated that until you have a feeling for them they feel hard to grasp.

Or at least it's my experience with them I had a hard time dealing with them until on fatefull day where I trully understood them and now If I see any junction / setup of rail signal i can tell at a glance what everything does (Well amost still need to tell them apart and some rail configuration are still clutered)

I would probably still have a hard time explaining it though since I'm not sure what I was not understanding before

[Sad_Brother]

I agree. The ability to close chain signal by logic would be useful.

But to be fair...

I cannot understand why two types of rail signals are different?
I cannot understand why normal rail signal cannot have optional ability to close if next signal closed?
Why we cannot place signals where they are needed and turn "chain" option where we do not want trains to be stopped?

[ssilk]

Well, the chain signals have been added since there had been too many deadlocks for trains. That’s their use case: hold back trains to run into a deadlock.

And chain signals are not similar to block signals. They have a forth state (blue) if at least one direction is open. Trains will eventually reroute because of that.

I’m biased about this, but I try to be fair: for me the need of chain signals is always coupled to these things:
1. A crossing/critical part is too big.
2. Trains of too different length.
3. Too much traffic for two crossing routes.

For #1: as already said a candidate for destruction planner. IMHO Part of the game.
For #2: try to use trains of more equal length. Kind of optimization learning, also part of the game.
For #3: route around that point, more rails, more space, part of the game.

[Sad_Brother]

Thanks for your answer.

Well, the chain signals have been added since there had been too many deadlocks for trains. That’s their use case: hold back trains to run into a deadlock.

And chain signals are not similar to block signals. They have a forth state (blue) if at least one direction is open. Trains will eventually reroute because of that.

Both block signal and chain signal have common use: to control trains.
And they have more common than different. Three common states at least. The only (wanted) difference is the ability to stop train, based on desired output way. I.e. to forbid train to stop on guarded block. I do not think inability to be closed by logic was desired behaviour.

"Part of the game" kind of contradict convenience here.

As I understood from your answer block signal and chain signal are different entities because of historical reason. But I still hope they can be united as rails and curved rails was iirc. So we would not need two stacks of signals and two assemblers.

No offence in case I would be misunderstood.

[ssilk]

No problem.

The reason why I'm still sceptical about this is, that there is no really good reason for that, and that the limitation of this signal can be seen as part of the game. Like that you cannot read and write at the same time from&to a block signal. Nothing which cannot be worked around, and workarounds ae part of the game.

[Sad_Brother]

Nothing which cannot be worked around, and workarounds ae part of the game.

And workaround here as ugly as both signals placed directly one after another.

[ssilk]

Workaround for me here is to rebuilt it from scratch.
Make crossings smaller.
Make only 3-way crossings.
Build paths around the crossing.
Try that the trains drive over the crossings with high speed (no stop before and after, so that the whole part is as free as possible).
Sort the trains by length (that's possible, but not simple), so that the long trains drive a different path.
And so on. Till now I solved any of such problems.

[JasonC]

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

Yes.

Specifically, I had safe railway crossings in mind.

Currently it is not possible to add a railway crossing that stops trains in response to a gate sensor without disrupting signal chains along the tracks. Since you have to put a regular signal in, if that portion of track relies on downstream chain signals, you disrupt it. This is especially an issue with bidirectional track sections, where disrupting the chain with a regular signal can lead two opposing trains into a traffic jam at the gate.

The closest approximation you can get is something like this:

Untitled.png (2.54 MiB) Viewed 5832 times

Where both the gate and the upstream chain signal control the regular signal (same idea for bidirectional tracks). That sort of lets you pass downstream chain signals through the regular signal except you have to choose what to do with blue (you can make the regular signal green, which can lead to downstream traffic jams, or red, which can lead to unnecessary holding of trains, you'd have to pick the lesser evil). You'd turn the regular signal red when the chain is yellow too, which also changes things although not as badly as the problem with blue.

If the chain signal was controllable this would be a non-issue; you could just slap railroad crossings anywhere on tracks without disrupting existing signal setups.

And before you ask it's not really possible to do this crossing perfectly the other way around and reliably close the gate in response to an oncoming train because gate signals don't work correctly for trains (apparently this is "by design" for no reason, though) so it's tough to detect passing trains; if you want to detect trains with signals alone you can get cloes although you have to use some logic; and this type of crossing doesn't work well when you're crossing large numbers of busy tracks anyways.

[ssilk]

Sorry for the long answer, forgot to press submit.

Yes that would be a useful example. But your solution is too straight forward: you can imitate the chain signal here with a circuit. Take the red signal from the former chain signal and OR that with the red signal from the gate. Put that into the block signal and remove the chain signal in front of the gate. Voila! That’s all you need here...

As I said: part of the game to find a solution.

Besides that I wouldn’t built a train crossing (I like the moment when I’m nearly driven over), I wouldn’t built it in a place, where there isn’t space for the train to do the crossing fast enough. In other words: I won’t place a crossing in a section with chain signals, because the train could not wait AFTER the crossing, because if you make parts with chain signals long, it takes a long time for a train to pass through.

[<NO_NAME>]

Sorry but I have to disagree with pretty much everything you've just written. Honestly, it looks like you looking for excuse for why this feature shouldn't be implemented.

Yes that would be a useful example. But your solution is too straight forward: you can imitate the chain signal here with a circuit. Take the red signal from the former chain signal and OR that with the red signal from the gate. Put that into the block signal and remove the chain signal in front of the gate. Voila! That’s all you need here...

Unless you know about this secret hidden feature of chain signals, sometimes described with the code word "blue".

As I said: part of the game to find a solution.

That urge should be achieved by adding clever mechanics that interact with each other and even if they aren't that powerful alone, they can be chained into some great designs.
On the other hand, an incorrect approach would be to create crippled base mechanics that generate annoying obstacles to player's designs, especially if these obstacles cannot be fully bypassed by use of the remaining mechanics.

Besides that I wouldn’t built a train crossing (I like the moment when I’m nearly driven over), I wouldn’t built it in a place, where there isn’t space for the train to do the crossing fast enough. In other words: I won’t place a crossing in a section with chain signals, because the train could not wait AFTER the crossing, because if you make parts with chain signals long, it takes a long time for a train to pass through.

You've made a lot of assumptions about how people build their factories. In truth, you have wrote "part of the game to find a solution" (singular) but I would argue that being streamlined into a single right solution doesn't encourage creativity.
For example, I like to create networks of single-lane two-way rails if I have a group of trains that are mostly sitting on stations and rarely moving. Am I not allowed to have safe crossing there?

[JasonC]

Yes that would be a useful example. But your solution is too straight forward: you can imitate the chain signal here with a circuit. Take the red signal from the former chain signal and OR that with the red signal from the gate. Put that into the block signal and remove the chain signal in front of the gate. Voila! That’s all you need here...

As I said: part of the game to find a solution.

Unfortunately, this would not work. You can never imitate a blue chain signal with a regular signal, no matter how hard you try. Regular signals just can't convey that kind of information. The information that some trains can pass and some can't, depending on their path, will always be lost by a regular signal.

A regular signal can convey all-trains-can-pass or no-trains-can-pass, but it can't handle some-trains-can-pass, and since there is nothing that lets circuit networks understand a waiting train's desired destination, you're out of luck for circuit network emulation, too.

The blue light on the chain signal will always throw a wrench in any of your plans.

On the other hand, if you could close chain signals with the circuit network, then all of this discussion becomes completely moot, and you open up a whole new set of interesting possibilities for train control that don't exist right now.

Besides that I wouldn’t built a train crossing (I like the moment when I’m nearly driven over), I wouldn’t built it in a place, where there isn’t space for the train to do the crossing fast enough. In other words: I won’t place a crossing in a section with chain signals, because the train could not wait AFTER the crossing, because if you make parts with chain signals long, it takes a long time for a train to pass through.

You keep saying things like this and, I don't know about anybody else, but I don't build my factories exactly like yours because I'm probably not you, and this is something you are going to have to come to terms with. I don't like being snappy but at some point it's kind of like... come on, man, lol...

[Sad_Brother]

Unfortunately, this would not work. You can never imitate a blue chain signal with a regular signal, no matter how hard you try. Regular signals just can't convey that kind of information. The information that some trains can pass and some can't, depending on their path, will always be lost by a regular signal.

If I remember right blue signal need fork to appear and you did not show it in your example.

But your solution is too straight forward: you can imitate the chain signal here with a circuit.

If you close block signal when next chain signal is not open, chain signal would not search for available way.

As I said: part of the game to find a solution.

I do not like "press to win" button, but also do not like iron and copper hammers for iron and copper nails.

Besides that I wouldn’t built a train crossing (I like the moment when I’m nearly driven over),

Some people like to ba alive.

Abilities to chain and to be closed by external logic should be in single signal.

[JasonC]

Unfortunately, this would not work. You can never imitate a blue chain signal with a regular signal, no matter how hard you try. Regular signals just can't convey that kind of information. The information that some trains can pass and some can't, depending on their path, will always be lost by a regular signal.

If I remember right blue signal need fork to appear and you did not show it in your example.

Well yeah... I mean, I didn't even show trains in my example either...

[steinio]

Be aware that reserved signals (yellow) can't be switched to red anymore no matter if chain or rail signal.
Hope this doesn't strike through your planned use case.

Overall i'm also in favour of at least be able to switch a chain signal to red.
So we could not only lock an exit path but also an entering path to crossings or stations.

[Sad_Brother]

Be aware that reserved signals (yellow) can't be switched to red anymore no matter if chain or rail signal.
Hope this doesn't strike through your planned use case.

Thanks for info, but where you get it?
What happens if condition to close become true then?
Wiki does not say it. But it also describe orange state so need correction.