unable to set route

Looks okay to me.

I experianced this earlier myself. the circamstances in it happening is if a train is at sig 173 the route setting indication for the overlap stays lit (even if the train has been at a stand for sometime) therefore it creates a situation where a route from sig 529 to 177 is impossible to set.

I have noticed whilst having a play around.
I cannot set a route from Signal 529 to Signal 177 at Upney Junction. Signal 529 is located on the up line at Upney J. Signal 177 is on Down main just after Upney J.

Rodney 30.

" said:

I have noticed whilst having a play around.
I cannot set a route from Signal 529 to Signal 177 at Upney Junction. Signal 529 is located on the up line at Upney J. Signal 177 is on Down main just after Upney J.

Rodney 30.

I had the exact same problem today. Unable to clear this route for 5C06. Will send a save file if needed.

It's on Steamers to do list

I found the cause - a route cannot be set from UR529 at the same time a route is set from UR170. I would imagine this is an interlocking design, therefore the signalling is working correctly. After restoring 170, I was able to clear 529. Once it cleared, I was unable to call a route from 170 so they are obviously designed to operate mutually exclusively of each other.

I took the liberty of editing the user manual to include this.

Right, so it's nothing to do with the route at all, it's the overlap not dropping (incorrectly) that is preventing the route from being set (correctly). Fixed for the next release.

I found the cause - a route cannot be set from UR529 at the same time a route is set from UR170. I would imagine this is an interlocking design, therefore the signalling is working correctly. After restoring 170, I was able to clear 529. Once it cleared, I was unable to call a route from 170 so they are obviously designed to operate mutually exclusively of each other.

I took the liberty of editing the user manual to include this.

" said:

It's on Steamers to do list

Sorry, guys, it'a rare for me to ask a question without me first researching the website for a pre-existing answer.

So, when will it be ready?....... JUST KIDDING!!!!!! :evil: :silly:

" said:

I found the cause - a route cannot be set from UR529 at the same time a route is set from UR170. I would imagine this is an interlocking design, therefore the signalling is working correctly. After restoring 170, I was able to clear 529. Once it cleared, I was unable to call a route from 170 so they are obviously designed to operate mutually exclusively of each other.

I took the liberty of editing the user manual to include this.

You have missed the acctual error, sig 170 is NOT the issue, the issue is sig 173 not dropping the signal overlap,

Sig 170 is the up signal on a bidirectional line so trying to set ANY signal to run in the oppsite direction is not allowed.

The issue that was reported is sig 173 on the DOWN line, the overlap does not drop if a train is waiting at it.

Now, I don't know how standard interlocking principles are applied in the UK, but, in my experience (Australian railways, most of which use UK-based interlocking principles), it is possible to clear opposing direction signals on a bi-di line when those signals face AWAY from each other and do not cause a conflicting route or other problem such as read-through etc.

" said:

" said:

I found the cause - a route cannot be set from UR529 at the same time a route is set from UR170. I would imagine this is an interlocking design, therefore the signalling is working correctly. After restoring 170, I was able to clear 529. Once it cleared, I was unable to call a route from 170 so they are obviously designed to operate mutually exclusively of each other.

I took the liberty of editing the user manual to include this.

You have missed the acctual error, sig 170 is NOT the issue, the issue is sig 173 not dropping the signal overlap,

Sig 170 is the up signal on a bidirectional line so trying to set ANY signal to run in the oppsite direction is not allowed.

The issue that was reported is sig 173 on the DOWN line, the overlap does not drop if a train is waiting at it.

If you refer to this screenshot,





you'll see that no route is set anywhere near 173, nor is there a train near it, nor any overlap involved. The overlap on 173 may be AN error, however, it is still not possible to clear 529 when 170 is clear (or vv) in this scenario. Now, I don't know how standard interlocking principles are applied in the UK, but, in my experience (Australian railways, most of which use UK-based interlocking principles), it is possible to clear opposing direction signals on a bi-di line when those signals face AWAY from each other and do not cause a conflicting route or other problem such as read-through etc.

I think it is unreasonable to EXPECT all Simsig users, especially non-UK ones, to automatically know how UK signalling principles are applied (EG: signalling of bidirectional lines). Furthermore, it has been flagged as an issue because I have not encountered this before. If my editing of the user manual has stepped on some toes, then I apologise and am happy to remove it, however, for the uninitiated, I think the reference is valid.

" said:

" said:

I found the cause - a route cannot be set from UR529 at the same time a route is set from UR170. I would imagine this is an interlocking design, therefore the signalling is working correctly. After restoring 170, I was able to clear 529. Once it cleared, I was unable to call a route from 170 so they are obviously designed to operate mutually exclusively of each other.

I took the liberty of editing the user manual to include this.

You have missed the acctual error, sig 170 is NOT the issue, the issue is sig 173 not dropping the signal overlap,

Sig 170 is the up signal on a bidirectional line so trying to set ANY signal to run in the oppsite direction is not allowed.

The issue that was reported is sig 173 on the DOWN line, the overlap does not drop if a train is waiting at it.

If you refer to this screenshot,





you'll see that no route is set anywhere near 173, nor is there a train near it, nor any overlap involved. The overlap on 173 may be AN error, however, it is still not possible to clear 529 when 170 is clear (or vv) in this scenario. Now, I don't know how standard interlocking principles are applied in the UK, but, in my experience (Australian railways, most of which use UK-based interlocking principles), it is possible to clear opposing direction signals on a bi-di line when those signals face AWAY from each other and do not cause a conflicting route or other problem such as read-through etc.

I think it is unreasonable to EXPECT all Simsig users, especially non-UK ones, to automatically know how UK signalling principles are applied (EG: signalling of bidirectional lines). Furthermore, it has been flagged as an issue because I have not encountered this before. If my editing of the user manual has stepped on some toes, then I apologise and am happy to remove it, however, for the uninitiated, I think the reference is valid.