Page 1 of 1
| Micro-sims 13/04/2011 at 10:54 #2825 | |
kbarber
1712 posts |
Going back to my musings about historic sims (and now we have a practical implementation of Absolute Block), I wonder if there's any mileage in a series of very small sims, each of a single mechanical box and built to be chained but also capable of working standalone. I suppose each would need to be coded with timetable locations relating to the others (and beyond) but my thinking is that a single timetable might cover the whole series (which would also overcome Geoff (Northroad)'s issue of identifying trains crossing & recrossing sim boundaries. I fear that isn't very clear, so perhaps I should give an example of what I've got in mind. Midland Main Line pre-1976 or thereabouts. Working north to south, separate sims for Silkstream Junction, Hendon, Brent (might even have separate Brent 1 and Brent 2), Cricklewood Junction, Watling Street, West Hampstead and Finchley Road. Silkstream works to Elstree (we assume Scratchwood Sidings is already abolished) and Elstree works to Radlett. Finchley Road works to Carlton Road Junction, from where there was automatic signalling to St Pancras from 1957 on. All AB - MR Rotary Block on the passenger lines and through Belsize Tunnel on the goods lines, standard AB West Hampstead - Finchley Rd on the goods lines (section was deemed too short for permissive) and Permissive Block on all other goods lines. Timetable locations would need to start with Radlett and Elstree then include all timing points from Silkstream to Finchley and finish with Carlton Road and St Pancras. There would also need to be locations for Kings X Met, Engine Shed, Junction Road and Mortimer Street as well as Neasden Midland & Dudding Hill, to cover the various branches. Reason for including Radlett is that Elstree would ask Is Line Clear on the up when the train passed Radlett. Silkstream would then ask ILC on receiving Train Entering Section from Elstree and each box would immediately ask ILC as far as Finchley, who would refuse from West Hampstead. Likewise on the down, a train leaving Pancras would be described to Carlton Road who would immediately ask ILC to Finchley; ILC would then be asked to all boxes as far as Elstree (for a through train - many, of course, would go in at Cricklewood). So the only "superfluous" main line location for most sims would be Radlett, which would only concern Silkstream. The working was fascinating. At Silkstream there is still a flyover junction that takes the goods lines from the slow lines (on the eastern side) across to the west side of the layout, where they remain all the way to Pancras (with resignalling they became the fast lines from Pancras as far as Finchley). From Silkstream the eastern pair of lines were known as the local lines. At Finchley the local and fast lines combined with a flat junction to become the passenger lines through Belsize Tunnel. On the down, Finchley would forward ILC as soon as it was received from Carlton Road, but if it was running to the down local wouldn't necessarily set the road - often the junction would be in use, or perhaps a train would have been offered up the fast. It would be a matter of judgement when to pull off to avoid delays, but as that was the low-speed route it was common to leave it until the train was in section. On the up, Finchley would refuse trains offered up the fast (the junction was well within the clearing point) - remember ILC would come just after the train passed Elstree. That would leave the junction clear for moves on & off the locals. There was a separate bell circuit from Hendon (possibly - I'm not sure - Silkstream, before it was abolished) that sounded a bell in every box as far as Finchley. When a train up the fast passed Silkstream/Hendon, the signalman there (as well as giving TES) would ring the description of the train on this "overland" bell; Finchley would then accept as soon as he was in a position to do so and forward ILC to Carlton Road, thus it was possible to give clear distants 2 boxes back to trains approaching at some 80mph without tying up the junction at Finchley (Finchley's outer distants were also West Hampstead's distants and located under Watling Street's home & starter). I imagine the presence of timing points not actually used by a sim wouldn't give too many problems? That would mean a single timetable could cover the whole set rather than each needing a separate TT with all the need for consistency and validation across sim boundaries. There would need to be some coding for sending TES and TOS when a sim was being used standalone; I guess that can be done? (There were special TES signals on the up as well, for trains running to the goods lines and to Dudding Hill respectively.) Although such sims would cover a small area, they could be very busy; Cricklewood had over 120 levers and was double manned while Finchley, passing a train every 90sec in the peak, was the busiest single-manned box in the country (and I can testify that there were very few moments when the blocks were clear). Brent, Hendon & Silkstream would be quieter but far from boring. Of course there were busier and more complex areas than that, most resignalled before 1980 (and probably offering even more of a challenge than keeping things going at Finchley). Finsbury Park anyone, as a comparison to the modern KX layout? Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 13/04/2011 at 10:54 #15061 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
Going back to my musings about historic sims (and now we have a practical implementation of Absolute Block), I wonder if there's any mileage in a series of very small sims, each of a single mechanical box and built to be chained but also capable of working standalone. I suppose each would need to be coded with timetable locations relating to the others (and beyond) but my thinking is that a single timetable might cover the whole series (which would also overcome Geoff (Northroad)'s issue of identifying trains crossing & recrossing sim boundaries. I fear that isn't very clear, so perhaps I should give an example of what I've got in mind. Midland Main Line pre-1976 or thereabouts. Working north to south, separate sims for Silkstream Junction, Hendon, Brent (might even have separate Brent 1 and Brent 2), Cricklewood Junction, Watling Street, West Hampstead and Finchley Road. Silkstream works to Elstree (we assume Scratchwood Sidings is already abolished) and Elstree works to Radlett. Finchley Road works to Carlton Road Junction, from where there was automatic signalling to St Pancras from 1957 on. All AB - MR Rotary Block on the passenger lines and through Belsize Tunnel on the goods lines, standard AB West Hampstead - Finchley Rd on the goods lines (section was deemed too short for permissive) and Permissive Block on all other goods lines. Timetable locations would need to start with Radlett and Elstree then include all timing points from Silkstream to Finchley and finish with Carlton Road and St Pancras. There would also need to be locations for Kings X Met, Engine Shed, Junction Road and Mortimer Street as well as Neasden Midland & Dudding Hill, to cover the various branches. Reason for including Radlett is that Elstree would ask Is Line Clear on the up when the train passed Radlett. Silkstream would then ask ILC on receiving Train Entering Section from Elstree and each box would immediately ask ILC as far as Finchley, who would refuse from West Hampstead. Likewise on the down, a train leaving Pancras would be described to Carlton Road who would immediately ask ILC to Finchley; ILC would then be asked to all boxes as far as Elstree (for a through train - many, of course, would go in at Cricklewood). So the only "superfluous" main line location for most sims would be Radlett, which would only concern Silkstream. The working was fascinating. At Silkstream there is still a flyover junction that takes the goods lines from the slow lines (on the eastern side) across to the west side of the layout, where they remain all the way to Pancras (with resignalling they became the fast lines from Pancras as far as Finchley). From Silkstream the eastern pair of lines were known as the local lines. At Finchley the local and fast lines combined with a flat junction to become the passenger lines through Belsize Tunnel. On the down, Finchley would forward ILC as soon as it was received from Carlton Road, but if it was running to the down local wouldn't necessarily set the road - often the junction would be in use, or perhaps a train would have been offered up the fast. It would be a matter of judgement when to pull off to avoid delays, but as that was the low-speed route it was common to leave it until the train was in section. On the up, Finchley would refuse trains offered up the fast (the junction was well within the clearing point) - remember ILC would come just after the train passed Elstree. That would leave the junction clear for moves on & off the locals. There was a separate bell circuit from Hendon (possibly - I'm not sure - Silkstream, before it was abolished) that sounded a bell in every box as far as Finchley. When a train up the fast passed Silkstream/Hendon, the signalman there (as well as giving TES) would ring the description of the train on this "overland" bell; Finchley would then accept as soon as he was in a position to do so and forward ILC to Carlton Road, thus it was possible to give clear distants 2 boxes back to trains approaching at some 80mph without tying up the junction at Finchley (Finchley's outer distants were also West Hampstead's distants and located under Watling Street's home & starter). I imagine the presence of timing points not actually used by a sim wouldn't give too many problems? That would mean a single timetable could cover the whole set rather than each needing a separate TT with all the need for consistency and validation across sim boundaries. There would need to be some coding for sending TES and TOS when a sim was being used standalone; I guess that can be done? (There were special TES signals on the up as well, for trains running to the goods lines and to Dudding Hill respectively.) Although such sims would cover a small area, they could be very busy; Cricklewood had over 120 levers and was double manned while Finchley, passing a train every 90sec in the peak, was the busiest single-manned box in the country (and I can testify that there were very few moments when the blocks were clear). Brent, Hendon & Silkstream would be quieter but far from boring. Of course there were busier and more complex areas than that, most resignalled before 1980 (and probably offering even more of a challenge than keeping things going at Finchley). Finsbury Park anyone, as a comparison to the modern KX layout? Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 14/04/2011 at 15:52 #15081 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
Interesting idea but there are a several possible reasons why it's unlikely to happen (these are just my opinions and other are free to disagree but here goes).... 1) SimSig is designed to replicate an IECC system and whilst there have been attempts to include some form of AB working to replicate that style of signaling in some of the sims to cover areas where its used, its not the main aim of SimSig to do so. 2) Simulating an AB section correctly would require simulating the box fully including all the levers,block instruments, bell codes and so on. A sim such as that would be best done in a different format. There would need to be a lot of work done to make SimSig capable of creating a sim like that. 3) There are simulations that replicate AB working exactly like you describe already, far more accurately than SimSig does currently. 4) Timetable issues. Assuming TT's are written as they are now, TT's would be difficult to write as the timing points don't necessarily line up with the signal box locations. Compound that with you'd have to write multiple TT's, one for each box and the task of writing a compatible TT becomes very, very difficult. 5) There are still plenty of areas SimSig has yet to be cover and a developer can only do one thing at a time. Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 14/04/2011 at 21:40 #15104 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
Lardybiker said:Interesting idea but there are a several possible reasons why it's unlikely to happen (these are just my opinions and other are free to disagree but here goes).... 5 is probably the killer Chris, so I accept it's unlikely to happen soon. Avoiding multiple TTs was the main "innovation" I was proposing. The idea is that one timetable is produced that has all the necessary timings for all the sims in the group. If one of the sims is downloaded individually, it has that TT which contains quite a few times that are out of the sim area. (This is perhaps where it wouldn't work - would the sim demand a within-sim location for each timing point in the TT?) Assuming it can be done that way, one TT covers all sims in the group (and TT writers automatically create a TT for all, not just for one). So far as 3 is concerned, those sims aren't capable of being chained & run as multiplayer (unless you know a supplier I don't). Both possibilities are available in Simsig & add enormously to the experience - in fact playing an AB sim against a computer not a human being is a pretty boring experience IMO. That relates to 2 - I accept it wouldn't have real levers like PC Rail, but maybe that's an acceptable compromise. (It occurs that if you remove the routesetting element so that all points have to be manually called before calling the signal using the usual NX commands, you effectively have an IFS which is functionally identical to a frame anyway. Of course you'd keep the locking functions. I'm assuming calling and locking points are separate functions in Simsig, as they are in SSI?) And I know I'm a bit out on my own with these ideas, but it seems a pity to confine something as good as Simsig to its IECC origins when it's obviously capable of doing much more & is steadily extending its reach to do so, witness NEScot and Worksop. Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 14/04/2011 at 22:40 #15106 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
kbarber said:I'm afraid that is not possibe in SimSig owingas entry locations require differentiating from 'in-sim' locations Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 15/04/2011 at 10:59 #15118 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
Noisynoel said:kbarber said:I'm afraid that is not possibe in SimSig owingas entry locations require differentiating from 'in-sim' locations Drat!!!!! Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted... Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 15/04/2011 at 12:34 #15125 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1318 posts |
That said partial sims might work and be more appealing to single players. As an example (one I'm not involved in, so I can speculate freely) ... South Humberside, a good multiplayer, a bit daunting as a new single player. If split it into Scunthorpe, Gainsborough/Barnetby and Immingham you have readily manageable 'one person' sims. There's no new research, not too much reprogramming, and not too much doctoring of the existing timetable to give a compatible set, known to be compatible as it works on the 'big brother' sim. Clearly up to the dev team whather they wish to go that way on any of their sims, but does anyone else thinks it is a good one ? Bill Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 15/04/2011 at 13:48 #15130 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
Bill, Splitting a sim is not an easy proposition as you make out. There is quite a bit of effort involved. 1) Screen elements. You have to remove all the elements not used (including signals, Berths, ground frames etc ) and redraw some sections as well as move the elements into a new location. 2) Track circuits. The TC's have to be revamped to tell the sim where the new entry points are. If you want the sims to chain, then more data is needed to pass the data required between the chained sims. 3) Locations. Entry points and locations are different entities. Each micro sim would need to have it's locations overhauled to deal with the new entry points, wherever they be. 4) Paths. As the locations/Entry have changed, the paths have to be updated to match the new setup. 5) Removal of all workstation data so the calls all go to the person controlling the sim. Add to that the fact you'd need to massage the main TT three times as you'd need 3 different TT's, one for each mini-sim. And then you have to test the whole lot.... Having said all that, doing Scunthorpe PSB as a stand-alone sim was considered way back in the development cycle but it was decided to include it in one sim. If there is enough people who would like it, I might be persuaded to split that out as a single player only sim. It wouldn't be chainable to anything else. Of course, I could also spend the time working on my other projects too....which you might like.... Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 16/04/2011 at 14:58 #15153 | |
NCC1701
129 posts |
kbarber said:Going back to my musings about historic sims (and now we have a practical implementation of Absolute Block), I wonder if there's any mileage in a series of very small sims, each of a single mechanical box and built to be chained but also capable of working standalone. I suppose each would need to be coded with timetable locations relating to the others (and beyond) but my thinking is that a single timetable might cover the whole series (which would also overcome Geoff (Northroad)'s issue of identifying trains crossing & recrossing sim boundaries.Perhaps, rather than having "micro-sims" all chainable and the inherent issues that creates, one big standard sim containing all the AB boxes and the player can choose which he wants to play. All the others would then be blanked out on the screen - rather like the era options we currently see - allowing the player to play his / her selected box while the SimSig code would handle the other boxes. You'd only need one timetable as it's all one sim. Others could play in a multiplay online by selecting a different box and do away with the complexities of chaining a number of micro-sims. For example, using Central Scotland's AB areas in this context, if you selected to play Stirling Middle, then that is all you'd see.The other boxes would be hidden, and may be operated by other players in an online multiplay. Better than trying to chain Stirling Middle to Plean Junction and Stirling North then chaining that to Dunblane and so on. Hope that made sense! Signalman Exeter West & Llangollen Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 16/04/2011 at 21:06 #15154 | |
|
clive
2738 posts |
Lardybiker: with a little care, it's possible to make a simulation splittable or joinable. It isn't necessary to rewrite everything. For example, the Royston section of Cambridge mostly uses the data files from the Royston simulation; it doesn't copy everything. It does require a little extra effort, but far less than you might think. If you want more details, contact me.
Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 16/04/2011 at 21:11 #15155 | |
|
clive
2738 posts |
I should add that some of the issues made would need work to address them - for example, making timetable locations become entry points.
Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 25/04/2011 at 09:48 #15345 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
My brain has been at it again and I wonder if the problem Noel flagged is in fact a problem at all? In the example I postulated, some of the signalboxes wouldn't even be timing points - Watling Street, for example, and the Brent boxes for anything running through; IIRC West Hampstead was only a timing point for stopping passenger trains. Moreover, every sim in the group would need to know where every train was pretty much from the time it entered the area. So what would be to stop each microsim having the full set of timing points but only having lines & signals simulated for its own little area? Log in to reply |
| Micro-sims 31/05/2011 at 20:41 #16206 | |
Chrisrail
384 posts |
In Theory it might be possible I am working on a series of timetables all using the same data file(s) for a series of sims using LORs. This will filter out the data required for the relevant Sims. Each TT for a Sim will have to be edited individually but in theory it is all singing from the same base. Micro Sims - Interesting. I am looking at a sim that is in development but in real life has been severed by "Network Rail " progress. It is possible to do separate timetables for the 2 halves that the area is now in so you could play one or the other or play the whole lot Log in to reply |