Run Time Error 13, Type Mismatch Options

[loqtes]

I am very new to AG. In fact I am trying to complete my first one so this could be operator error. Here is what I have determined.

I have the Cascade Crossings Route and I have downloaded the template. When I start the AG I tell it I want the WB file. It loads that fine and I get to the screen where all the choices are made. Some of the decisions work just fine when I click OK to generate the activity I get a screen to give it a name. At other times when I click generate I get a Run Time Error 13 Type Mismatch. I have been playing with this and here is what I have found.

The path I choose is Crescent Lake to Klamath.

On the top right I choose the Crescent Lake, Mowich, Gilchrest locations for pick ups.
In the middle right I choose Chemult, Diamond Lake and Lenz as working locations.
On the bottom right I can choose anything else except Chiloquin or Wocus. The minute I do I either get the run time error immediately or when I click the OK to generate button?

I don't know if this has anything to do with it but I ran Activity Master on the template and it stated I was short 4 cars. I had Activity Master replace those four cars.

Anyway, this has me puzzled...thanks

[loqtes]

Steve, Thanks very much for this, that answered alot of questions. Just out of curriosity, whey would there not be any workable sidings there. For example, at Chiloquin there is the forward facing siding and also another siding that goes to two local industries. Is this a template thing? or is it in the programming of the Cascades Crossings route? As I said I am new to this but have been having great fun with your programs...dave

[sgdavis]

Steve, Thanks very much for this, that answered alot of questions. Just out of curriosity, whey would there not be any workable sidings there. For example, at Chiloquin there is the forward facing siding and also another siding that goes to two local industries. Is this a template thing? or is it in the programming of the Cascades Crossings route? As I said I am new to this but have been having great fun with your programs...dave

It is a "template thing". Norm decided not to have work at those sidings in the WB template. Maybe because it is forward facing -- perhaps you can work it using the EB template, I'm not sure. That would be a question for Norm.

Thanks,

Steve

[nbeveridge]

It is a "template thing". Norm decided not to have work at those sidings in the WB template. Maybe because it is forward facing -- perhaps you can work it using the EB template, I'm not sure. That would be a question for Norm.

Thanks,

Steve

Yes, it is a template thing.

The template designer must choose whether to include facing point switching in the template or not. To some extent, this is influenced by whether the track switches are manual and whether signals are involved. AG has a provision to convert signals to permissive and track switches to manual, of course, but this can wreak havoc with AI traffic. I personally like the challenge of facing point work. Some users do not. The argument could be made that if all tracks are included, then the user can choose to NOT work the facing point tracks, and that is certainly true.