Page 4 of 4
| Re: Macros to make it easier 17/01/2012 at 15:45 #27552 | |
Stephen Fulcher
2025 posts |
" said:These signals would all have been designed in without an Auto function for a reason - the most likely in the case you have described above being the one jc92 has described with the position of the station. In the case of Tiverton Junction it is probable that the designers and operations guys at the time considered that an auto function on those signals would have posed a disproportionate risk of the signalman leaving the routes on auto and overlooking one which was booked to call at the station, thereby having a wrong-route. We have all done it on SimSig at various times, left a signal on auto through a similar location, not noticed that the next freight is booked inside there for a while, signal was still on auto so we have failed to loop the freight and it then stops on the mainline with a green in front of it, and nothing we can do without causing an ACOA before it is booked to leave there - everything therefore stacks up behind it. There are a couple of "cheats" to get round it (skip TT to next location etc.) but these are not ideal ways. Signalling alterations in the UK, even relatively simple ones like adding an auto button, are not cheap or quick to accomplish. There are various reasons for this which I will not go into here, and in any case Firefly would be far more in touch with this sort of job than I am, however suffice to say it would not be worth the effort required in this case. After all, it is only two signals, and we have to remember that in the real Exeter PSB, the Panel 3 Signalman will have all his panel in view most of the time, and only has to observe that panel - he is unlikely to stop a train there. In fact, I cannot recall having the trouble myself here, but in an older version of Exeter where there were "A" buttons on the main lines at Dawlish Warren, I regularly used to overlook the stoppers and send them through the middle - hence in the end got to the point of setting the routes manually anyway, Piling Loops on Bristol being another similar example. To me, maxand, you seem to be in danger of "macroing" your way into trouble for negligible gain, and also seem to have slightly missed the point that SimSig is a simulation of British IECC signalling practice, and not a game. There are some macros relating to the display and options functions that do not interfere with the signalling functions, and although I do not use them myself, I see no problem with the principle. Once you start tinkering with the signalling functions, for example having a macro to cheat the sim into thinking a signal has been clicked twice, then you are turning it into a game rather than a simulation, and that is not for me. If I wanted to play a game, I could waste some money and buy PC Rail's powerbox offering. Last edited: 17/01/2012 at 15:45 by Stephen Fulcher Log in to reply The following user said thank you: BarryM |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 17/01/2012 at 23:41 #27592 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Thanks again all for your interesting comments. I should have added in my original post on Poor Man's ARS that I am playing the 2006 Exeter TT, not the 1985. Now I think about it, the original positions of the platforms (then known as Tiverton Junction) would have made it essential to choose the appropriate track here (main or passing loop). But it's irrelevant in 2006, and just adds a needless chore to the signaller unless some TT I haven't encountered makes use of these passing loops. So, really, these signals should have an Auto function. Stephen Fulcher: Quote: Signalling alterations in the UK, even relatively simple ones like adding an auto button, are not cheap or quick to accomplish. I'm sure you're right, same here in Australia, but software upgrades are cheaper than hardware upgrades. Think of my macros as software "upgrades" to make it easier for the signalman to get his work done. After all, this is SimSigland, where a solo player may have to play four (or more) workstations at a time! Stephen also wrote: Quote: To me, maxand, you seem to be in danger of "macroing" your way into trouble for negligible gain, and also seem to have slightly missed the point that SimSig is a simulation of British IECC signalling practice, and not a game. I appreciate what you're saying, and indeed I do regard SimSig as a serious sim, although I often refer to it as a game. The macros are there just to increase my comfort and give my mouse a rest. Since using them just adds a customizable layer to the game, this is perfect for me; no pressure on the developers to change the actual panel in any way which might detract from realism, and any macro user has complete liberty to mould his SimSig interface with them till it fits like a glove. AndyG wrote: Quote: ...and if the signal before a level crossing was to be fully automated, the route wouldn't cancel, so the barriers won't raise, so you'll get the LC delays penalty. But if the level crossing buttons plus its approach signal were somewhat more automated using macros (relatively easy to do), this problem wouldn't arise in the first place. Coding a macro has to take all these factors into account. That's part of the fun of using them. postal asked: Quote: Maxand, If that is happening, are you taking the many times repeated advice to scroll along the whole sim every one to two minutes? Yes, believe me I do. Remember I can choose whether or not to call a macro to speed up a certain chore, or do it myself. If I am really on top of the sim, I don't mind doing these tasks manually, to get closer to reality and stave off boredom. I find that by using macros to reduce chores, my scanning rate actually speeds up as I can concentrate on more important issues. Since this thread is about macros, I don't mind extolling their virtues here. However, I am reluctant to discuss them elsewhere in the forum as this would mean going off-topic. jc92 asked: Quote: what do you mean TORR steps in and trains grind to a halt? TORR just automatically disengages a signal after a train has passed its overlap, TORR or not, the signal will not clear again (couple of exceptions on exeter of course) Apologies for not making myself clear here. I meant that after TORR releases a route, the next approaching train will encounter a red signal if the signalman forgot to re-set the route for it. Last edited: 17/01/2012 at 23:43 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 17/01/2012 at 23:45 #27594 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
" said:when LNE were wishing to close woolley coal sidings and replace it with an IBH each way, the quoted cost was in the range of £6 million....for four signals...just to put things in perspective "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 00:38 #27600 | |
postal
5190 posts |
" said:So, really, these signals should have an Auto function.Maxand You've still missed the point, haven't you. Maybe in the real world it would be better if the signals had an auto function, but for the signaller in the Exeter box or the user of SimSig, the signals on the panel should not have an auto function because the real ones don't. Nobody objects to you wanting to make your own way of using the sims easier. What people find difficult is your insistence that your ideas are fact rather than opinion. If you could step back and think about what you are writing from a wider perspective than your own perceived view of how things should be, I am sure we would all get on a lot better. PS for jc92, when I was involved with the changes leading up to the opening of the Royal Mail terminals at Willesden, Shieldmuir, Warrington, Low Fell and Bristol, the rule of thumb we used in 1994(ish) was that Railtrack would charge £1m. for each set of points and associated works (i.e. £2m. for a crossover). “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 Last edited: 18/01/2012 at 00:51 by postal Log in to reply The following user said thank you: BarryM |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 00:51 #27602 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Quote:Signalling alterations in the UK, even relatively simple ones like adding an auto button, are not cheap or quick to accomplish. There are various reasons for this which I will not go into here, and in any case Firefly would be far more in touch with this sort of job than I am, however suffice to say it would not be worth the effort required in this case. After all, it is only two signals, and we have to remember that in the real Exeter PSB, the Panel 3 Signalman will have all his panel in view most of the time, and only has to observe that panel - he is unlikely to stop a train there.Yep it's an expensive game with very little benefit. Western Region is different to BR standard interlocking, however to provide auto working facility at each end of the loops this is a rough guide as to what would be involved. (4 signals total) There would firstly be numerous meeting to decide upon the scope of the project. These meetings would involve NR Engineers, design, testing and installation. The designer would then produce a scheme plan which would have to be signed off by NR. (yes even though it's only auto buttons, the process must take place) Designers would need to obtain source records for the all the equipment they plan on working on. If they're lucky they'll all be available, if they are unluckily the source records will already be with another designer in which case meetings will need to be held and agreements will need to be reached on a parallel design process. Next Correlation will need to take place of all affected racks, and terminal strips in Exeter Relay Room, Exeter Control Desk, Exeter Mimic Panel and Tiverton Relay Room. (This is to ascertain that the source records correctly match the actual installation, and contacts, TDM channels and cable cores shown to be spare are actually spare in reality.) These correlation diagrams have to be produced by the designer and sent to the people carrying out correlation (usually installation staff). You'd need 8 spare channels on the TDM Controls system and 4 spare channels on the TDM indications system. If you didn't have these channels spare you'd have to expand the system utilising some very expensive equipment. The correlation would probably only take 1 day, however there will be overheads associated with the correlation. Once the correlation is complete the diagrams are sent back to the designer for record update and then the designer can produce the alterations. These have to then be independently checked. The designer must produce mimic panel and control desk design plus all wiring and analysis. (probably about 4 days work for 1 person). This designers work must be independently checked,(at least another day.) You'd need to provide the new buttons at Exeter panel, wire them to the relay room. (you can probably pick up spare cable cores between control desk and relay room) You'd need to provide Auto Indications on the mimic panel (Not sure if Exeter indicates Auto Working on their mimic panel?) Once again wiring relay room to panel. In the remote relay room at Tiverton there'd be a few new relays and probably about 100 new wires with a number of old wires being recovered. It would probably take a team of installers 2 day to install the equipment and wiring in Tiverton and 1 day to install in Exeter. There would be all of the installation costs involved in planning the job, ordering the relays and equipment plus all of the other overheads transport, tool, management etc. I'd allow one night shift to install the new buttons and indications in Exeter panel prior to the commissioning. (1 install team and 1 test team) Testing Management would need probably 5 days to review design, produce test plans,method statements, test certification and obtain test plan sign off. The testers would need 2 to 3 days to prep test the new wiring assuming there were no errors made. Because there's no trackside work involved you could commission this work without the need for a possession, you'd simply need to disconnect the signalling using an RT3187. (this saves a lot of money in staff protection arrangements) On the commissioning you'd need 2 test teams, 1 principles, tester, 1 tester in charge and 2 installation teams so that changeover work is taking place in both Exeter and Tiverton simultaneously. Once the work is complete the test diagrams will be sent back to the design office for the master records to be updated, maintenance copies will have to be sent out to site and the master records returned to the records centre. (at least another 2 days of design time) I don't honestly know the costs involved however I'd bet design cost is over £2000 per day and test cost is about £3000 for a team. An installation team is probably about £1500 with overheads. (all these figures are my best guess) I'll let you do the maths in terms of man hours. I've not even taken into consideration the fact that Network Rail will have their own layer of people to manage the whole affair. I'm sure I've missed out lots of costs and stages, however this should help give some idea of the process and costs involved. FF Last edited: 18/01/2012 at 00:52 by Firefly Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Stephen Fulcher, maxand |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 05:09 #27619 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Firefly wrote: Quote: Yep it's an expensive game with very little benefit.Wow! It only took me about 30 minutes and a cup of coffee to write a macro, which theoretically could be overlaid onto any IECC panel since it does not actually change any of the underlying software or hardware. But thanks for taking the trouble to reveal how they actually go about it. postal said in post #79, replying to me: Quote: What people find difficult is your insistence that your ideas are fact rather than opinion. Even if I'd said "Ideally, these signals should have an Auto function", how can this possibly be fact? This is only my opinion - and probably that of many other players too. Log in to reply |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 08:11 #27634 | |
|
Hooverman
306 posts |
I'm I reading this right, you want to give us real life signallers the ability to to download and install our owm macro programs onto our Control desks whether it is IECC, MCS or Westcad. Now I only work panels in a big ASC (although there are Westcad control desks coming our way in the not to distant future) but as far as I'm aware that signalling control desks no matter what type are all self contained and sealed from outside world media inputs, as in no FireWire, USBs, CD/DVD, or wifi inputs. So how we get this third party program on is anybodies guess. But I'm in favour of allowing Ethernet or wifi so we get the chance to download our own choice of macro program (as well as surfing the net at quite times). Just hope that no viruses, trojons or worms get into the control or vital interlocking programs. Now at my ASC we have about 65 signallers each would have their own idea on how to run a macro set up to suit their own needs. I can just see it now at the change of shift in the heat of a failure the off going signaller forgets to cancel their macros and the on coming one uses the hot keys forgetting that the work staion is not set up for them and what they expect to happen doesn't. But let's be honest, we will never get Internet on our conrol desks, or third party macro programs as will import risk, which at least would probably impact on performance and at worse could impact on safety. A wrong route given to a driver that is taken and if the driver doesn't have the route knowledge is counted as a safety of the line incident, with probably both driver and signaller having to do a D&A test. I would hate that to happen coz we were using macros in real life and we forgot to change them over at shift change over time. Last edited: 18/01/2012 at 09:00 by Hooverman Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Prof Jolly |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 08:21 #27636 | |
|
clive
2738 posts |
" said:" said:Um, I think you're falling into the same trap you accuse Max of.So, really, these signals should have an Auto function.You've still missed the point, haven't you. Maybe in the real world it would be better if the signals had an auto function, but for the signaller in the Exeter box or the user of SimSig, the signals on the panel should not have an auto function because the real ones don't. Nobody objects to you wanting to make your own way of using the sims easier. What people find difficult is your insistence that your ideas are fact rather than opinion. Really, those signals should have an auto function. They don't, for historical reasons, and they aren't going to get one, because of the reasons Firefly has explained in more detail than I've ever seen before, and they won't get one on the sim either for the same reason. But they ought to. I'll bet even the signallers think that. There's nothing wrong with Max pointing that out, and I don't see his wording as anything more than his opinion. I know he got off to a bit of a bad start, but Max is now making sensible suggestions, not insisting that he's right and the rest of the world are wrong. Please don't let his past history blinker your reading of what he's saying now. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 08:43 #27640 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Darren wrote: Quote: I'm I reading this right, you want to give us real life signallers the ability to to download and install our owm macro programs onto our Control desks whether it is IECC, MCS or Westcad. Whoa, I didn't say that at all. All I said was Quote: a macro, which theoretically could be overlaid onto any IECC panel since it does not actually change any of the underlying software or hardware.. The theory is sound. However, I agree with you that implementing this is rather unlikely, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But I said it to send the message that no one should accept that the interface one uses at work is necessarily the most efficient. It's almost heretical to propose that you guys might be able to deviate from the interface you have put up with all your working lives. I can see you do understand how macros can improve efficiency, despite not allowing third party programs, and are also aware of potential problems such as inconsistency between sets of macros. There is also the problem of education; how can you train someone on a non-standard interface? These are problems of scaling-up a good idea. But here in SimSigland, where collisions never occur and drivers are always even-tempered and polite, I like to think of macros as embryonic good ideas that can be tested, refined, with some eventually adopted by the developers and - who knows - maybe finding their way into TreSim or an equivalent product. Last edited: 18/01/2012 at 08:44 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Re: Macros to make it easier 18/01/2012 at 08:48 #27641 | |
GeoffM
6282 posts 
|
" said:Firefly wrote:Changes to a workstation would be to SIL2 (or at least SIL1) processes, even if it were "just" a macro. As it would be a new way of working, introducing risk as well as potential benefits, Human Factors would have to be involved - it might be the wrong shade of pink. It doesn't actually matter that it wouldn't change underlying hardware or software: it's changing the method of operation, with "change" including withdrawing, altering, or introducing features. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |