Page 1 of 1
| Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 11:33 #21944 | |
ralphjwchadkirk
275 posts |
When a line side failure occurs (I'm thinking more TCF here as that requires a lot of walking about), depending on the location, a block will be sought of both one or more running lines. Rather like with Level Crossings, where you get a penalty if a train goes over it when it should be blocked, is there any reason why that can't occur with failures as well? Say a TCF on a two line mainline, the tech rings up requesting a block to fix the fault, you block both lines and remove it when the tech rings up to say it is fixed. If a train passes between those two calls, then a penalty is applied (and perhaps an angry call from the tech?). Good idea? Yay or nay? Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 15:18 #21957 | |
|
Sam Tugwell
493 posts |
This sounds like a cool idea. Gets a + 1 from me. Tugz "Signalman Exeter" Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 18:22 #21961 | |
|
birchy74
151 posts |
Defo yes from me
Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 20:41 #21966 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
" said:When a line side failure occurs (I'm thinking more TCF here as that requires a lot of walking about)What has "walking about" got to do with a TCF? You get a TCF and you probably ask the next suitable train to pass the signal they're at at caution and proceed with caution examining the line stopping short of any obstruction , depending on the location, a block will be sought of both one or more running lines. Rather like with Level Crossings, where you get a penalty if a train goes over it when it should be blocked, is there any reason why that can't occur with failures as well? Say a TCF on a two line mainline, the tech rings up requesting a block to fix the fault, you block both lines and remove it when the tech rings up to say it is fixed. If a train passes between those two calls, then a penalty is applied (and perhaps an angry call from the tech?). Good idea? Yay or nay?[/quote] Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 20:52 #21967 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
If this were to be implemented then care would need to be taken as to where the penalty occurs at. I say this because for some locations the lines may appear right next to each other but in actual fact they are separated by perhaps a fence, a different height, etc. Examples of this are perhaps between Long Buckby and Rugby where there is a fence between the Up Northampton and Daventry Railfreight Terminal and Wood Green tunnels where the slow lines are slightly higher up than the fast lines. At such locations (particularly Wood Green tunnels) I'd expect it is allowed/permitted to continue running trains on the other line in the case of a TCF due to the height difference between the two lines. But then would a penalty really occur in real life for signallers/signalmen?.... Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 21:26 #21969 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
also might be a bit difficult to use a SPRS if the TC in advance has failed ( no way of proving it for protection purposes). as UKTM states it would need to be coded for the PICOP to state exactly which lines need blocking between which signals (possible im sure). also in many cases to keep trains moving, the line can remain open and lookouts will be appointed. that said, im fully behind an extension to the failures system, might also be nice for techs to occasionally request random emergency possessions. also how about bridges strikes (where possible) ? "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 21:52 #21972 | |
|
Tristan
60 posts |
Personal I am in favour of extending the failure system to include emergency possessions eg the T12, as i feel this would add a further degree of realism to the simulations.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 22/10/2011 at 22:07 #21973 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Adding other failures/problems/etc could be good. On the Cambridge simulation, bridge strikes can and indeed have already occur(ed) near, I believe, Newport (VW1) on one of/some scenarios. The amount of times I hear about things like safety checks of the line being made of the line in real life could justify adding that as a possible 'problem' to face. An addition to be added could also perhaps be calls from the S&T when they arrive on site (one assumes they do this(?)) perhaps mentioning the reason for the TCF, signal/points failure (if/when they know). I'm aware that person(s) hit by trains/fatalities/one unders/etc are not simulated (completely understandable) but I'd wonder if it may be possible to add trespassers in (perhaps trespassing to 'half inch' (pinch/nick/steal) some cable or [unnecessarily :angry: ] trespassing to take a photo of a charter). Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Last edited: 23/10/2011 at 20:47 by UKTrainMan Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 23/10/2011 at 09:38 #21976 | |
|
daza7789
59 posts |
As stated, with many TCFs the tex will look at taking a line blockage (old T12/T2) in order to rectify the fault, this will only be needed for staff protection normally though, and thus they will agree protection limits with the signaller, and will take the block between trains. I normally give the tex as long as I can before the next train is due, then request they give up the block to pass the train, and take it again after. If the tex have lookouts and a possition of saftey then a block may not be needed, and it is rare that they would want more than the affected line blocked. (maybe other lines breifly just to access the fault if on a multi line railway. And a signaller sending a train into any kind of line block/possession would find themselfs weeing in a pot, suspended, and possibly recieveing a P45!!! Last edited: 23/10/2011 at 09:39 by daza7789 Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 24/10/2011 at 11:27 #21999 | |
|
button_pusher
56 posts |
The procedure for dealing with a TC fault: 1). Turn up on site and give the siggie a quick bell to inform you have arrived and to check that the TC is clear/failed. (Helps with identifying if it is a TC fault or track indication fault). 2). Depending on the location, the COSS sets up a suitable SSOW. At night, a Line Blockage with Signaller Protection will be taken (old T2-X) with the COSS giving blocking points (between a Signal/Point End and another Signal Point End). If enough sighting is available then the COSS could opt for using a lookout. 3). If the fault is IDd as a track fault then the indications links should be slipped to prevent the TC clearing on the signallers panel intermittantly. 4). The tech then starts to fault find using his experience and applying it to the type of track fault. 5). The line blockage is given up/taken as when the signaller needs to run trains. If the cause of the fault is found but the will take longer than the time between trains then the signaller may opt (in collusion with control) to hold trains to get the job running. 6). The line blockage is then given up and the fault booked up with the signaller with a brief description of what was found i.e. swarf in the IBJ. Unless the fault was at night and several roads had to be crossed to get to equipment cupboards then it would be unusual to block more than one line. What a COSS can do though is block an unaffected road i.e. goods lines/slow lines where the train service frequency is lower and use that as a position of safety and implement look out working as well. Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 24/10/2011 at 13:40 #22007 | |
GeoffM
6282 posts 
|
A single line blockage is more feasible than a multi-line blockage because there is no geographical relationship between parallel lines on a screen (not drawn to scale, remember). So going back to the OP, yes it's possible to improve things to a certain degree. In some ways I'd prefer the more detailed scenarios to be set up by the host in a multiplayer game. This can be done in the form of a script that the host uses to present phone calls and failures realistically to the clients (signallers). Those scripts - like Button_Pusher describes - ought to be in the Wiki, but it requires somebody with the right signalling knowledge to put them in. I don't have that procedural knowledge as I'm not in that industry so any volunteers are welcomed to put it in. In fact, anybody ought to be able to cobble together something from this thread, and just let somebody experienced cast their eye over it. Volunteers? SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 24/10/2011 at 16:48 #22015 | |
|
button_pusher
56 posts |
If you need help from the procedural point of view of what happens on the railway then I'm willing. Could also give advice on the type/scope of failures that occur. button_pusher Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 24/10/2011 at 21:19 #22020 | |
|
jc92
3629 posts |
this is going reallly out there in terms of effort to make it happen, but regards "scripting" why not allow a feature in F11 menu for a host to write out a telephone call with a list of responses (or else select from a drop down list of preset phonecalls) and send it to a client. this makes multiplayer failures limitless, for instance if i host sim X and want a bridge strike i can send the controlling player (client if you want) a phonecall along the lines of "confused bus driver reporting a strike on bridge Y" reply - ok the client can then tell me the host to request a bridge inspector to assess the structure, meanwhile placing a block on the line. i can then send him a phonecall authorising trains to pass over the bridge - reply ok. thats only one slightly poor example but theres loads a host could create in theyre minds. edit: as an afterthought- why not make is nessesary for a player to place a call to control to request a techy to fix things? without this itll stay there all day (who would ever know it had failed?) "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Last edited: 24/10/2011 at 21:24 by jc92 Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 24/10/2011 at 21:30 #22021 | |
|
button_pusher
56 posts |
In reality, at a signal box the size of the ones simulated, the back desk manager would report the fault. The above phone call scenario is alright however, how would it work on single player games? Log in to reply |
| Re: Extending the failures system 24/10/2011 at 21:34 #22022 | |
|
jc92
3629 posts |
honest answer - unless coded in by the dev- it wouldnt i guess
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |