Page 1 of 1
| allocating locos 01/09/2012 at 16:09 #35339 | |
jc92
3631 posts |
just a post to find out peoples opinions on what level of stock allocation they prefer on sims. do you prefer: 1. a blanket timing load eg D245 or DMU(S) which can both be various different combos but its left to the imagination. 2. a general allocation, for instance (Cl.81-87) where an idea of the traction is given, but again could vary 3. a definite allocation, eg (Cl.142) (Cl.47/8) (Cl.25x2) 4. actual numbers eg (47580) (31162) (150101) etc also why is that your preference? Joe "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Last edited: 01/09/2012 at 17:52 by jc92 Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 01/09/2012 at 16:21 #35340 | |
broodje
180 posts |
I'd go for option 2, this gives me an idea of what to expect, but doesn't make timetable creation unnecessary hard.
Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 01/09/2012 at 16:46 #35342 | |
|
derbybest
274 posts |
Option 2 for me as freight on older timetables were as traffic required Chris Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 01/09/2012 at 17:20 #35343 | |
|
rodney30
158 posts |
hi option 2, 3, 4 for me Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 01/09/2012 at 18:12 #35344 | |
|
delticfan
476 posts |
Option 2 or 3 for me, just to be have an idea of a particular train.
Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 01/09/2012 at 18:23 #35345 | |
58050
2650 posts 
|
When I write a timetable I go for option 2 always. Option 1 is way too ambiguous. Option 4 would only be accurate if you had the relevant data for one day of the week(such as the 24 hour printout I did back in 1998 for Euston which Dibbs is currently writing a timetable for & lists all loco, unit numbers for that specific day & coaching stock diagrm bumbers) . When playing SimSig you are doing the work of the signaler & he or she wouldn't necessarily be interested in the actual loco number pulling the train unless an incident occurred with a specific train. During the 12 years I spent in loco control the only time we advised signalers on the types of traction was in the event of train failures. For example I remember one morning 6V68 2142 Lindsey Oil Refinery - Langley Oil Terminal failed in the Nottingham area. This train was a Loadhaul service & I was contacted by the Duty Manager in the Loadhaul Area Control at Doncaster to see if had any locos at Toton TMD to assist 6V68 forward. We had no Mainline Freight Cl.60s on hand to rescue 6V68 as only a Cl.60 was capable of hauling another loaded train with a Cl.60 on it due to the trailing tonnage. In the finish I dispatched 2 x Cl.58s in multiple from Toton TMD to Nottingham to work the train forward to destination. I rang Trent PSB to advise them what was assisting the train as they need to know in view of the extra length on the train so they would know where the train could be recessed & regulated en route. The only other time on the power control we used to advise signalers of traction was if a diesel was hauling the train vice an electric. When I worked on the loco control at Liverpool Street & a Cl.86+DBSO combination failed at Liverpool Street which then needed a Cl.47 to work the train to Harwich Parkeston Quay or Norwich we would advise the signalers upstairs on the signaling floor so they knew it was a diesel working the train vice an electric. The only other time signalers knew what type of traction & or by a specific loco number were those trains published in the special traffic notice. Even if you have the relevant information to put against each individual train doesn't always mean that is what is going to turn up. Thats why I tend to use a loco class as opposed to a timing load or a specific loco number. Even looking through freight train loads books you get the option of 3 or 4 different loco classes. Trip notices give loco classes for each individual Trip working, but the loco class shown is the minimum power type required to work that Trip.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: BarryM |
| allocating locos 02/09/2012 at 05:49 #35350 | |
|
Woodhead Signalman
64 posts |
Throwing my twopenneth in I'd opt for option three personally. 
Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 02/09/2012 at 12:54 #35359 | |
|
y10g9
895 posts |
My personal preference is option 2, as long as you know approximately what it is, you can route satisfactorily.
Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 02/09/2012 at 14:17 #35365 | |
ajax103
1106 posts |
" said:just a post to find out peoples opinions on what level of stock allocation they prefer on sims.Whereas I do like timetables where the care has been taken to provide actual numbers ie 317345, I do prefer timetables with definite allocations to be the best option available such as Cl.442x2 for example. I don't find Options 1 or 2 to be that helpful but it's the choice of the author which option they use. Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 02/09/2012 at 20:45 #35372 | |
|
58050
2650 posts
|
When all is said & done options 2 & 3 are the same. The example given in option 2 (Cl.81-Cl.87) is pretty much unique in the sense that most depots on the WCML which signed AC locos tended to sign all classes between Cl.81 - Cl.87, furthermore I used this in the Carlisle 79-80 tt as traction type because any of those classes could equally work any of the trains.
Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 03/09/2012 at 09:37 #35375 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
" said:When all is said & done options 2 & 3 are the same. The example given in option 2 (Cl.81-Cl.87) is pretty much unique in the sense that most depots on the WCML which signed AC locos tended to sign all classes between Cl.81 - Cl.87, furthermore I used this in the Carlisle 79-80 tt as traction type because any of those classes could equally work any of the trains. I think perhaps the exception would be the cl86/cl87 doubleheaders that worked the big freightliners (I don't know whether you have any of them in you TTs so this may be irrelevant anyway). Watching one of those accelerating from Willesden FLT past the Brent on nights was a lesson in what raw power looks like! Log in to reply |
| allocating locos 03/09/2012 at 09:54 #35376 | |
|
58050
2650 posts
|
All the freightliners in the Carlisle 79-80 timetable are worked by pairs of AC electric locos except those that are diesel hauled via the Newcastle line. I'm very well aware of the power of pairs of AC electric locos working in multiple on heavy freight services as I dealt with them between 1990 - 1994 whilst working at Liverpool Street Regional Control office with pairs of Cl.86s working between Willesden - Ipswich/Parkeston - Willesden. Also there are pairs working Ravenscraig - Dee Marsh steel trains. What people probably aren't aware of is the exceptional power drain in the 25Kv overhead traction current supply when you have a pair of AC locos working hard. You'd be lucky to get 80mph from a class 1 express worked by another AC loco in the same section as a pair of AC locos working hard on a freightliner or heavy freight train, such was the power drain on the overheads. Even EMUs also suffered the same low power performance if caught in the same section. Cl.87s having 5,000 horsepower, but they all tended to suffer from wheelslip due to their weight being light compared to heavier diesel locos. During the early 1990s any freightliners working through Colchester around midday the rear loco had to drop its pantograph between certain neutral sections either side of Colchester station as the national grid couldn't cope with the exceptional power drain from the overhead wires. If a freightliner worked by a pair of Cl.86s on full power went through the affected sections without dropping the 'pan' on the rear loco the whole of Colchester would get blacked out.
Log in to reply |