Upcoming Games

(UTC times)


Full list
Add a game

Upcoming Events

No events to display

Who's Online

Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue

You are here: Home > Forum > General > Timetabling > Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue

Page 1 of 1

Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 03/05/2019 at 07:11 #118036
Giantray
Avatar
347 posts
Morning all,
Using the Tyneside IECC SimSig, I have a loco in the UGL at Darlington, signalled from 896 signal to 940 signal on the down Saltburn to reverse and run from 911 shut to 895 signal.

I can get the move to happen if I give arrival and departure times at 'Darlington T911/T917/T919'. This is okay, but if the shunt move is signalled early, the loco will wait at 911 shunt until departure time. I have tried using an arrival time/ departure passing time and the loco does not reverse at 911, instead carries on past 940 signal to Eaglescliffe.

Does anyone have a way of reversing the loco so that if it has been give the shunt signal early to return it moves and does not wait until departure time?

Professionalism mean nothing around a bunch of Amateur wannabees!
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 03/05/2019 at 08:18 #118037
Steamer
Avatar
3978 posts
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
"Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q)
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: Giantray
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 03/05/2019 at 09:18 #118039
postal
Avatar
5257 posts
Online
Steamer in post 118037 said:
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
That does have the disadvantage if the reverse is taking place at a location monitored by the F8 simplifier that things get out of sequence and you don't get a clear picture of the occupation. It would be really nice if there was an option at the location in the TT to check a box instructing the loco/train to move as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as any actions/dwell times/reverses etc. had taken place).

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 03/05/2019 at 10:59 #118041
WesternChampion
Avatar
173 posts
Does ticking "set down only" at the reversal point achieve what is required?

Chris

Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 03/05/2019 at 11:48 #118043
jc92
Avatar
3682 posts
WesternChampion in post 118041 said:
Does ticking "set down only" at the reversal point achieve what is required?

Chris
Partially. It allows it to depart early but doesn't guarantee it.

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: WesternChampion
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 04/05/2019 at 07:54 #118073
Giantray
Avatar
347 posts
postal in post 118039 said:
Steamer in post 118037 said:
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
That does have the disadvantage if the reverse is taking place at a location monitored by the F8 simplifier that things get out of sequence and you don't get a clear picture of the occupation. It would be really nice if there was an option at the location in the TT to check a box instructing the loco/train to move as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as any actions/dwell times/reverses etc. had taken place).
I didn't think of using 00:00. I actually use this for Test Trains/Track Recorders. As I do not us Simplifiers for anything other than Platform Occupation, I think the 00:00 is my best option.

Thanks everyone.

Professionalism mean nothing around a bunch of Amateur wannabees!
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 14:08 #118124
Lyn-Greenwood
Avatar
240 posts
postal in post 118039 said:
Steamer in post 118037 said:
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
That does have the disadvantage if the reverse is taking place at a location monitored by the F8 simplifier that things get out of sequence and you don't get a clear picture of the occupation. It would be really nice if there was an option at the location in the TT to check a box instructing the loco/train to move as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as any actions/dwell times/reverses etc. had taken place).
I agree with what Postal says. It's very annoying when a loco or freight train "insists" on waiting for the booked departure time when there is a path available for it to depart early. Using Set Down Only works most times, but not when you want it to! Arriving early at the location makes matters even worse, especially if the train is scheduled to wait on a main line. I also don't like the use of a passing time as the departure time (which some timetable writers seem to have started doing) as this causes ARS (if enabled) to immediately set a route for the train.

Please add Postal's proposal to the Wish List.

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: VInce, postal
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 15:09 #118125
VInce
Avatar
579 posts
Lyn-Greenwood in post 118124 said:
postal in post 118039 said:
Steamer in post 118037 said:
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
That does have the disadvantage if the reverse is taking place at a location monitored by the F8 simplifier that things get out of sequence and you don't get a clear picture of the occupation. It would be really nice if there was an option at the location in the TT to check a box instructing the loco/train to move as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as any actions/dwell times/reverses etc. had taken place).
I agree with what Postal says. It's very annoying when a loco or freight train "insists" on waiting for the booked departure time when there is a path available for it to depart early. Using Set Down Only works most times, but not when you want it to! Arriving early at the location makes matters even worse, especially if the train is scheduled to wait on a main line. I also don't like the use of a passing time as the departure time (which some timetable writers seem to have started doing) as this causes ARS (if enabled) to immediately set a route for the train.

Please add Postal's proposal to the Wish List.
Lyn,

I think we'll be very lucky to see any change here. I've raised this point countless times since I joined the group and we're still in the same place.

As both you and I are aware the modern way is for trains to run exactly to WTT due to performance regimes but in historical times tables this is ridiculous. In timetables built around the 70s 80s and 90s only about 40% of trains that ran were in the WTT.

The rest were untimed, on trip notices, control specials, station shunts, LD movements and all the rest so that's the way I do it. Anything that isn't in the WTT is untimed save for an entry time where this is necessary.

Its time to make the "d", the "set down only" into "will leave when ready" 100% of the time not when the core code thinks it should.

I just don't understand why there is a view on here that the "set down only" thing should have any restriction on it at all. Its very unlikely to be used in a modern timetable anyway, and in an historical one a light engine shunt isn't going to leave a point early, get to a timed reversal point over a busy junction and sit there with the signal off waiting for right time.

Just not realistic.

Vince

I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me
Last edited: 06/05/2019 at 15:29 by VInce
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 15:49 #118126
jc92
Avatar
3682 posts
VInce in post 118125 said:
Lyn-Greenwood in post 118124 said:
postal in post 118039 said:
Steamer in post 118037 said:
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
That does have the disadvantage if the reverse is taking place at a location monitored by the F8 simplifier that things get out of sequence and you don't get a clear picture of the occupation. It would be really nice if there was an option at the location in the TT to check a box instructing the loco/train to move as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as any actions/dwell times/reverses etc. had taken place).
I agree with what Postal says. It's very annoying when a loco or freight train "insists" on waiting for the booked departure time when there is a path available for it to depart early. Using Set Down Only works most times, but not when you want it to! Arriving early at the location makes matters even worse, especially if the train is scheduled to wait on a main line. I also don't like the use of a passing time as the departure time (which some timetable writers seem to have started doing) as this causes ARS (if enabled) to immediately set a route for the train.

Please add Postal's proposal to the Wish List.
Lyn,

I think we'll be very lucky to see any change here. I've raised this point countless times since I joined the group and we're still in the same place.

As both you and I are aware the modern way is for trains to run exactly to WTT due to performance regimes but in historical times tables this is ridiculous. In timetables built around the 70s 80s and 90s only about 40% of trains that ran were in the WTT.

The rest were untimed, on trip notices, control specials, station shunts, LD movements and all the rest so that's the way I do it. Anything that isn't in the WTT is untimed save for an entry time where this is necessary.

Its time to make the "d", the "set down only" into "will leave when ready" 100% of the time not when the core code thinks it should.

I just don't understand why there is a view on here that the "set down only" thing should have any restriction on it at all. Its very unlikely to be used in a modern timetable anyway, and in an historical one a light engine shunt isn't going to leave a point early, get to a timed reversal point over a busy junction and sit there with the signal off waiting for right time.

Just not realistic.

Vince
Vince.

I've always thought set down only works correctly to give a bit of unpredictability to services. Eg sometimes it'll drop passengers in seconds and be off, another time there's more parcels than usual to unload so it doesn't depart until booked time.

I think the real issue is the lack of "always depart early" whilst there is a "wait until booked time" option.

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: VInce, postal, Lyn-Greenwood
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 16:10 #118127
VInce
Avatar
579 posts
jc92 in post 118126 said:
VInce in post 118125 said:
Lyn-Greenwood in post 118124 said:
postal in post 118039 said:
Steamer in post 118037 said:
Set the departure time at the reversing point to 00:00, this will allow the loco to depart as soon as it's ready.
That does have the disadvantage if the reverse is taking place at a location monitored by the F8 simplifier that things get out of sequence and you don't get a clear picture of the occupation. It would be really nice if there was an option at the location in the TT to check a box instructing the loco/train to move as soon as possible (i.e. as soon as any actions/dwell times/reverses etc. had taken place).
I agree with what Postal says. It's very annoying when a loco or freight train "insists" on waiting for the booked departure time when there is a path available for it to depart early. Using Set Down Only works most times, but not when you want it to! Arriving early at the location makes matters even worse, especially if the train is scheduled to wait on a main line. I also don't like the use of a passing time as the departure time (which some timetable writers seem to have started doing) as this causes ARS (if enabled) to immediately set a route for the train.

Please add Postal's proposal to the Wish List.
Lyn,

I think we'll be very lucky to see any change here. I've raised this point countless times since I joined the group and we're still in the same place.

As both you and I are aware the modern way is for trains to run exactly to WTT due to performance regimes but in historical times tables this is ridiculous. In timetables built around the 70s 80s and 90s only about 40% of trains that ran were in the WTT.

The rest were untimed, on trip notices, control specials, station shunts, LD movements and all the rest so that's the way I do it. Anything that isn't in the WTT is untimed save for an entry time where this is necessary.

Its time to make the "d", the "set down only" into "will leave when ready" 100% of the time not when the core code thinks it should.

I just don't understand why there is a view on here that the "set down only" thing should have any restriction on it at all. Its very unlikely to be used in a modern timetable anyway, and in an historical one a light engine shunt isn't going to leave a point early, get to a timed reversal point over a busy junction and sit there with the signal off waiting for right time.

Just not realistic.

Vince
Vince.

I've always thought set down only works correctly to give a bit of unpredictability to services. Eg sometimes it'll drop passengers in seconds and be off, another time there's more parcels than usual to unload so it doesn't depart until booked time.

I think the real issue is the lack of "always depart early" whilst there is a "wait until booked time" option.
Agreed!

Vince

I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 22:38 #118138
postal
Avatar
5257 posts
Online
Been doing some housekeeping on my reports on the bug tracker. I actually raised the request for a "must move" option as a "Proposal (request for comments)" on 11/09/2017 (#0017852). There have been no comments to date!

I have added a link to this thread as evidence that some other users would see it as a valuable enhancement.

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 22:45 #118139
headshot119
Avatar
4869 posts
Throwing the idea out there.

How about, any of class 3-9 + 0, with a set down only time, are ready to move as soon as all custom dwell times + rules are met. UNLESS the must wait to time flag is checked.

Class 1-2 continue to work as now?

"Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 06/05/2019 at 23:30 #118141
GeoffM
Avatar
6367 posts
VInce in post 118125 said:
I just don't understand why there is a view on here that the "set down only" thing should have any restriction on it at all. Its very unlikely to be used in a modern timetable anyway
It's actually very common.

The idea of rolling "set down only", "must depart on time" etc into a couple of drop-downs has been discussed and while some complain that "ooh it's been on Mantis but nothing's been done", it is very much there and in the queue along with a large number of other feature requests.

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: VInce
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 07/05/2019 at 09:37 #118143
jc92
Avatar
3682 posts
headshot119 in post 118139 said:
Throwing the idea out there.

How about, any of class 3-9 + 0, with a set down only time, are ready to move as soon as all custom dwell times + rules are met. UNLESS the must wait to time flag is checked.

Class 1-2 continue to work as now?
The only issue that doesn't resolve is class 1 postal/parcels/newspaper trains and any class 1 or 2 booked to sit in a loop or at a junction which gets the road early.

"We don't stop camborne wednesdays"
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 07/05/2019 at 10:43 #118144
postal
Avatar
5257 posts
Online
jc92 in post 118143 said:
headshot119 in post 118139 said:
Throwing the idea out there.

How about, any of class 3-9 + 0, with a set down only time, are ready to move as soon as all custom dwell times + rules are met. UNLESS the must wait to time flag is checked.

Class 1-2 continue to work as now?
The only issue that doesn't resolve is class 1 postal/parcels/newspaper trains and any class 1 or 2 booked to sit in a loop or at a junction which gets the road early.
Or freights that are stopped for scheduled examination (e.g. hazardous cargo) so will require a dwell time but maybe not the full TT'd allowance. The postal/parcels/newspaper trains can have a dwell time set in the TT or by a "must not depart" rule whereby they will normally depart whenever their platform duties are completed but which will be randomly held on a few occasions just as may happen in real life when the driver needs a PNB or there is a minor technical problem (or in the heritage TT eras when I used to travel on the Royal Mail TPOs from time to time and there were certain stations where you never left early as the station bar was still open).

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Log in to reply
Using Tyneside IECC with a Timetable issue 07/05/2019 at 15:37 #118145
Lyn-Greenwood
Avatar
240 posts
postal in post 118144 said:
jc92 in post 118143 said:
headshot119 in post 118139 said:
Throwing the idea out there.

How about, any of class 3-9 + 0, with a set down only time, are ready to move as soon as all custom dwell times + rules are met. UNLESS the must wait to time flag is checked.

Class 1-2 continue to work as now?
The only issue that doesn't resolve is class 1 postal/parcels/newspaper trains and any class 1 or 2 booked to sit in a loop or at a junction which gets the road early.
Or freights that are stopped for scheduled examination (e.g. hazardous cargo) so will require a dwell time but maybe not the full TT'd allowance. The postal/parcels/newspaper trains can have a dwell time set in the TT or by a "must not depart" rule whereby they will normally depart whenever their platform duties are completed but which will be randomly held on a few occasions just as may happen in real life when the driver needs a PNB or there is a minor technical problem (or in the heritage TT eras when I used to travel on the Royal Mail TPOs from time to time and there were certain stations where you never left early as the station bar was still open).
And so it gets more complicated and probably needs the drop-down menu approach mentioned by Geoff earlier.

I'd like to propose a simple interim solution which should be easy to implement, requires no timetable changes and which will probably deal with the majority of situations that have been cited by various users.

The current situation is that a non-passenger train usually requests an early departure via a phone call from the driver. The signaller can then tell the driver to call back in 2/5/15 minutes, or to wait until the scheduled departure time before ringing again or he can simply clear the signal for the train to depart. If the "usually" became "always", then I believe this would satisfy most users' needs, but only as an interim solution until a more sophisticated approach is agreed and implemented. I'm assuming that all activities, dwell times, Rules, etc. are satisfied before the driver makes his phone call. What I don't know is how long after arrival the decision is made to request an early departure. Is it based on the scheduled layover time, a fixed interval or just a random time?

Please comment on what I've proposed as this is an issue that has niggled me for a long time and I would hope that a simple fix had a good chance of being implemented quickly if many users agree with what I've proposed.

Log in to reply