Page 1 of 1
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 06/09/2012 at 10:22 #35436 | |
kbarber
1711 posts |
One to add "realism" (read frustration) to sims where a lot of things terminate. Would it be possible to add an option to "Next Working" (where a train simply terminates) and to "Detach" and "Divide", whereby more than one next can be specified? At present - say at Euston (in a loco-hauled TT) - a train (call it 1A08) arrives, detaches incoming loco which becomes (say) 0S25 and, when the train has left on its next working, the loco shunts to another platform to join outgoing 5S25. At present that would be the end of it. What I have in mind is, perhaps, a tick box in the Trip Activity Editor for "allow alternatives"; ticking it would bring up another instance of the Trip Activity Editor (but with a percentage that was a compulsory field). When creating the timetable, as well as creating 0S25, the writer can add an alternative - say 0A03 (or whatever the code is for Willesden TMD) with a low percentage (1% would be quite enough) and all times 00:00. Then, just occasionally, instead of 0S25, the bobby would be faced with a loco needing to go to Willesden (and having to find another for 1S25). Perhaps a useful adjunct would be an Incident Report warning that it was happening (exact wording would need to be thought about). Likewise for TTs where there's a "hot spare", some of the incoming trains might have an alternative next working that took them out of service (again 1% - or even less if it's available), requiring use of the hot spare but without being able to tell from the headcode of the incoming train that it'll be required. Incidentally, what is the lowest figure that can be set where a percentage is allowed? If every incoming class 1 train at Kings X or Euston had just a 1% probability on the variable next working, it would be too much (or a *very* bad day). Possible further enhancement (some of this can be done with rules, but not all): More than one "variable next" available. Loco off 1A08 should form 0S25, but there's a 1% chance it forms 0A03 and also a 1% chance it forms 0D17 (Control has decided it has enough miles to get to Crewe, but not to Glasgow, before needing maintenance.) Then (depending on the times of the various trains) there could be a good deal of stepping up locos before the "real" 0D17 becomes available. Or there might be a "request loco or stock" facility to trigger a loco from any of the holding locations, or a stock from Camden or Port Arthur (Down Side Shed) - but when the sim decides, and perhaps with a percentage as there might not be anything spare. If the "variable next" runs (a loco or train goes off to the depot) it triggers an incoming light engine or train. Just to be nasty, the rules could allow that additional working to enter before the variable next has left (or even before its inward working has arrived) - Willesden TMD, knowing that a loco was arriving at Euston that needed attention, might well send one or two spares up well in advance (and of course they'd need to be put somewhere until wanted). Used in association with the sim's knowledge of what left the sim in each siding, that could make life quite difficult (Back of the Box siding fills right up). Rules could also allow the additional working to come in very late. (Euston signalman has to step up locos (with attendant late departures) until the loco(s) arrive from Willesden.) And a suitable percentage (probably 80 or 90%) means it might never arrive at all. A specific "spare loco" facility, another tick box perhaps. (This might also be useful for bankers at Westbury & Bromsgrove, but I'll stick to the Euston example.) When 0A03 runs it triggers a generic 0Z00 (might even want to call it 0Z?? or somesuch - maybe the ?? number would be the "generic" label, in fact that might even replace the tick box) from one or other of the loco holding locations. 0Z?? TT has all times as 00:00, a generic destination (Euston) without a platform number and an activity of Couple (but train unspecified). When 0Z?? enters, signalman is presented with a dialogue box in which the description of the train to couple to (5S25 perhaps) is entered and the loco then behaves as if it was 0S25. (At peak times, this would be a lot easier to use than having to go in via F2 to alter the timetable of 0Z?? - ref my comments previously about the workload at Euston and the real-life requirement for 3 men in a 2-man box.) I'm sure some of the more creative (I won't call them sadistic  ) TT writers on here can find other uses for that sort of facility too.Any thoughts? Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Signalhunter, welshdragon |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 06/09/2012 at 14:54 #35437 | |
postal
5190 posts |
" said:I'm sure some of the more creative (I won't call them sadisticI'm sure some of the more creative (I won't call them sadistic ) TT writers on here won't thank you for suggestions like that given the huge amount of time and effort it takes to put a TT together in the first place and then sort out all of the linkages and diagrams to make sure that each train has a loco and that there are no orphan trains or locos!Starting a month before the Newcastle meet I have now spent the last 10 or 11 weeks working an average of 60 hours a week on helping the TT writers of 2 heritage TTs to tidy up their TTs towards a release standard (and I've got over 500 e-mails each month in my SimSig folder). Work out how much time they must have spent in putting their TT's together in the first place. Please have mercy on the knackered, old and retired amongst us! “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 |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 08/09/2012 at 13:38 #35491 | |
|
uboat
219 posts 
|
I agree some of SIAM's sims have this feature. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 08/09/2012 at 14:01 #35492 | |
Peter Bennet
5357 posts |
" said:Nightmare....... Seriously though, nice in theory but not sure how it's work programming wise - years ago the idea of random train failures was suggested. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 08/09/2012 at 14:26 #35494 | |
|
y10g9
895 posts |
Surely this be made by the tt creator using the percentage entry's and rules. So in your example the tt creator makes 2 1A08s, one that has an enter 99% of the time with the loco 0S25 being produced and the other entering 100% of the time with a rule stating it doesn't enter if the other one enters (so 1% chance of him entering) with 0A03 being the loco produced. Then a replacement loco can be made with a rule saying that it only enters if 0A03 is formed. Surely that's all that your asking for but just a way of doing it in a different way? Ok yes it will be slightly artificial because the tt creator has decided what could break, but having a few different locos that can break and the low percentages, the sim is still making the final decisions. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 08/09/2012 at 16:05 #35498 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5357 posts |
" said:Surely this be made by the tt creator using the percentage entry's and rules.That's how it's done at present. I think what's suggested here is that the Sim does it randomly. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 10/09/2012 at 10:30 #35535 | |
|
kbarber
1711 posts |
" said:" said:Yes, that's right Peter. At present, using y10g9's suggestion, every train that might seed a "broken" loco would need duplicating (or even triplicating if you add the mutiple nexts), not an insubstantial amount of extra work if you wanted a lot of possible randomness.Surely this be made by the tt creator using the percentage entry's and rules.That's how it's done at present. I think what's suggested here is that the Sim does it randomly. To be practicable, it would probably need the sim to accept percentages less than one; I have a nasty suspicion that's not possible at present. And to be fair, it's been pointed out to me that this kind of feature would make timetable testing even more hellish than it presently is. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 10/09/2012 at 10:54 #35536 | |
58050
2650 posts |
Maybe an easier way of dealing with loco failures & the need to replace a possible failed loco is on occasions you get a message telling you that 'train X is running y minutes late due to a loss of power' would it not be easier if a rule could be added whereby when the sim announces a train is running with 'a loss of power' a seed replacement loco appears when the said train arrives at the major station in the sim, such as Carlisle on the Carlisle sim, Gloucester on the Gloucester sim, Westbury on the Westbury sim. Because in reality whatever train we are talking about certainly wouldn't be allowed to continue the remainder of its journey subsequently delaying any other train behind it. Take for example Carlisle which I have been testing for the last couple of months, I had the other day a train from Glasgow Central - London Euston enter at Lockerbie 24 mins late due to loss of power. When the train departed Carlisle the train never went faster than 62mph between Carlisle & Carnforth. I dispatched a Cl.4 freightliner in front of it & the Cl.1 never caught the freightliner, if however the Cl.1 was running under normal conditions it would have been signal to signal from around Penrith. So if the rules govering each sim could be amended to say any train in the timetable which enters the sim with a loss of power a seed loco will appear from location 'X' when said train arrives at location 'Y'. Maybe on sims where AC electric locos are the norm the replacement loco could be either a diesel or electric. The timetable writer could add a few train types in the 'seed' locos section & the sim could if possible randomly dispatch any od the said 'seed' locos as a replacement. That would certainly put a different domension to the sim. Because as the signaler you would then be tasked to reduce delays by attaching the replacement loco onto the front of the train as quick as possible. Maybe as SimSigs evolution progresses this could become a reality in the function of the sim.
Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 09:14 #35555 | |
|
kbarber
1711 posts |
" said:Maybe an easier way of dealing with loco failures & the need to replace a possible failed loco is on occasions you get a message telling you that 'train X is running y minutes late due to a loss of power' would it not be easier if a rule could be added whereby when the sim announces a train is running with 'a loss of power' a seed replacement loco appears when the said train arrives at the major station in the sim, such as Carlisle on the Carlisle sim, Gloucester on the Gloucester sim, Westbury on the Westbury sim. This sounds absolutely perfect, probably a much better idea. Only things I'd suggest are: The seeding location(s) should be selected by the timetable writer and different locations should be possible according to different kinds of traction (so at Kings X a replacement HST and a replacement class 91 would seed at different locations, for example); Delayed seeding (requiring use of hot spare or stepping up of locos), again an option selected by TT writer. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 09:51 #35556 | |
|
58050
2650 posts |
I agree with your comment kbarber that the timetable writer selects the 'seed' location for the replacement loco, providing the timetable writers uses a bit of common sense in which location is used. Such as TMDs for locos & in the case of King's Cross Ferme Park CS or Bounds Green T&RSMD for replacement HSTs or Cl.91s with Mk.4 set & DVT. The problem comes with DMUs. For a DMU to be declared a failure it needs to lose half of its power. For example if you have a 2 car Cl.158 & it loses power from 1 engine, then the unit must be withdrawn from service. The train would then de-train its passengers at the 1st available station & then run ECS to a pre-designated maintenance facility. Likewise with 1st generation units depending on how many power cars(2 engines on each), if the train loses power on half of the total number of engines then the same rules as above apply. HSTs however tend to continue in service on 1 power car until a suitable replacement can step into the diagram. HSTs on running on one power car would normally be stepped into a diagram where the train terminated at a location where there was a maintenance facility to deal with HSTs such as Edinburgh(Craigentinny), Leeds(Neville Hill), Derby(Etches Park) or King's Cross/St. Pancras(Bounds Green T&RSMD). Loco/unit failures is something that occurs on a daily basis all over the network, yet in all railway simulations it is extremely difficult to replicate. I know PC-Rail ended up using a '%' scale whereby you select the '%' chance of a train failing on a slider. The 'loss of power' notification on SimSig is good as it is completely random, the next step now is to create a system whereby you as the signaler have to deal with a set of ad-hoc moves to facilitate a loco or set change with minimum delay & disruption.
Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 11:58 #35558 | |
|
AndyG
1834 posts |
Don't forget you will need an option, or unsullied TT, for those novices and others who don't want things oer-complicated.
I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 14:30 #35560 | |
GeoffM
6281 posts |
" said:For a DMU to be declared a failure it needs to lose half of its power. For example if you have a 2 car Cl.158 & it loses power from 1 engine, then the unit must be withdrawn from service.Nobody sent the memo to fGW about that one. I'm watching this thread, just don't have anything particularly useful or interesting to say at the moment. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 14:48 #35562 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
from an outside opinion, i see this a being difficult to implement. Pc rail has "units" of train running round, so its either a wagon, a coach or a loco.it also is not timetable based, ie the train doesnt need a TT to know where it is going, whereas SimSig does. it is therefore easy to create a loco with no timetable which enters and is manually routed to a train. it is also easy to fail the loco at the head of a train. SimSig trains are effectively lengths of information which travel along the track, which have a traction type, and can be split, reduced etc. it is therefore difficult to fail a specific portion of a train (how does the sim know what loco is on and what characteristics it has, how does it know if it is an MU, or if it has suitable couplings etc). i am in no way endorsing Pcrail or slating SimSig, i am making an honest straight comparison as for failures. it is dead easy for an experienced host to fail trains (eg use pause train in F11 menu). and to alter its timetable etc. hosts can also create 0z00 locos to appear and alter timetables as appropriate. the trouble with using rules and duplicate trains in the timetable editor is how messy and involved it gets. i have decided not to go down this route at euston (yet!) as there are so many dependant interlocked workings that rely on each other, that a a single change could require about 6 duplicates. one thing i think i might entertain on carlisle, will be the odd train producing Cripples at Shap, oxenholme, penrith etc, requiring shunting out across into the CE/cripple sidings on a variable basis. Joe "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Last edited: 11/09/2012 at 14:49 by jc92 Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 15:32 #35563 | |
|
58050
2650 posts |
You could always implement problems with wagons after trains pass over the 'HABD'. I remember when I was working at Stratford ROC for Trainload Freight South East, Urchfont HABD used to trigger off on a fairly regular basis. Westbury PSB then had to stop the train & advise the driver which axle of the train the 'hot axle box' registered the high temperature & then advise me in the control to call out the C&W examiner to examine the defective wagon. 'HAB' detections were fairly common place over the Berks & Hants route, probably a couple of times a week. Geoff are you looking at a 2nd generation unit or one of these new new units with each coach powered? I think if the timetable program was altered to take failures into account that would be easier to deal with instead of messing about manually with 'F11'. You maybe able to do it if you are hosting a multiplayer session, but running Carlisle single handed I can see users getting completely over-whelmed with the number of trains on the panel at certain times & that could very well apply with a lot of other timetables on nearly all of the sims. Rolling stock failures is something that happens regularly on the railways & in some eras of time more so (the introduction of Cl.56s & Cl.60s spring to mind). Yet it seems very difficult to make this happen in signalling sims. That said the system SimSig uses to replicate a train running with a loss of power seems to me to be the most accurate as it is completely random & quite accurate in the speed that the affected train runs whether it be passenger or freight. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 11/09/2012 at 16:11 #35569 | |
|
GeoffM
6281 posts |
" said:Geoff are you looking at a 2nd generation unit or one of these new new units with each coach powered?158s SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 17/09/2012 at 15:30 #35655 | |
|
Horgy
33 posts |
Why not just have a train failure page, in game, where the TT editor can set (or the sim itself) the likelihood of failure. Then just add an option on the phone menu to call the depot. I.e. Train 1A54 has failed with a defective loco. You then re route as required to keep the service going, and call Willesden in the interim and request assistance from a loco they have there. They can then let you know how long (another TT variable) it will take and the loco will then appear. These wouldn't even need to be accounted for in the TT, as the extra locos would be outside TT. The defective loco can then eventually be shunted back to Willesden or wherever it needs to be JGH Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 17/09/2012 at 15:46 #35656 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:" said:Nor ATW it seems. Quite normal for a 150 to be running around up here on one engine.For a DMU to be declared a failure it needs to lose half of its power. For example if you have a 2 car Cl.158 & it loses power from 1 engine, then the unit must be withdrawn from service.Nobody sent the memo to fGW about that one. "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 |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 17/09/2012 at 16:12 #35659 | |
|
Sam Tugwell
493 posts |
Or as we found Karl between Shotton and Wrexham Central, a 150 running on 1 engine with the other occasionally finding itself powering up from time to time 
"Signalman Exeter" Log in to reply The following user said thank you: headshot119 |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 17/09/2012 at 18:22 #35667 | |
|
58050
2650 posts |
All I can say is that that wouldn't happen in BR days. Looks like today's TOCs seem to be more interested in profit & less interested in maintaining there rolling stock properly.
Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 18/09/2012 at 09:18 #35687 | |
|
kbarber
1711 posts |
" said:Why not just have a train failure page, in game, where the TT editor can set (or the sim itself) the likelihood of failure. Then just add an option on the phone menu to call the depot. I don't know how it is today, but I doubt that even now a signalman would be involved in asking for a spare loco to cover a failure. In my day (which would cover most of the Euston eras and much of the history of Kings X too), a signalman might get a phone call from a driver reporting a problem and saying he'd fail the loco at destination; the bobby's role then would be to pass the information to Control. (More often the driver would pass the information through station staff at a booked stop.) At destination, the signalman would simply get a message from Control to the effect of "loco off (say) 1A54 will be a failure on arrival". It would be the job of the local Train Crew Supervisor, in consultation with Control, to allocate a spare loco that might be in the area and tell the Box where it would be coming from. Quite often (in the early '80s at least) there wouldn't be any spares and the signalman would, as you say, have to do what it took to keep the service running (re-allocate incoming locos to an earlier train than booked - robbing Peter to pay Paul, in effect - a process known as "stepping up"). That might well lead to some late departures as re-allocated locos would only get to their outgoing workings after they'd been released from the buffer stops, perhaps with insufficient time to hook on, brake test etc before departure time. Eventually, Willesden (or Hornsey or Bounds Green) would turn out a loco or two from maintenance; the TCS would promptly allocate one of them to a train and normal working would resume. The bobby would just do as he was told with the locos; unlike Simsig he wouldn't even need to F2 and assign a new timetable to a stepped-up loco (but overcoming that would be just-about impossible in solo play, although host could become Control & TCS and do all that sort of thing in a mp). Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 23/09/2012 at 15:13 #35798 | |
|
58050
2650 posts |
Further to the subject of enhancements regarding possible train failures, but on a slightly different topic. When you start a new game you have the option whether to select adverse weather conditions. Is there any way whereby as a timetable creator you can add trains involved with snow-plough movements. But with the difference in so much as they would only appear if the player had opted for the sim to run with the 'adverse weather conditions' turned on?
Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 23/09/2012 at 16:19 #35803 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
A "Snow Ploughs" addon (or separate TT version) that you select if you want bad weather? There's quite a few TTs with addons (diversions, ballast workings, etc). No way to link trains to a certain scenario, though, as far as I know. Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 24/09/2012 at 09:30 #35821 | |
|
kbarber
1711 posts |
I've been thinking. (Take cover!!) I got a certain amount of feedback regarding my initial proposal, as a result of which I'd like to suggest another enhancement. How about a "Timetable tester's suite" that would allow the user to select/force particular options in a timetable. Currently, if there's a series of 1% probabilities set, it could take tens - or even hundreds - of runs through the timetable to see them all and check that they work. If the tester can force each one either to not happen or to happen, it might only need two or three runs through (yeah right... well, you get the general drift anyway). I imagine two possibilities for how it would work. Either the user goes through all the possible alternatives at the point the timetable is started and decides which way each option is to be forced. Or, as the timetable runs, the sim asks which option should be chosen. Either way, a tester can systematically tick off all the possibilities. The chances are it would make even current testing an awful lot easier, which I suspect those testing some of the more complex timetables might well appreciate. That's quite apart from the myriad complications that variable next movements would introduce. Something that would need thinking about is whether this should be an option available to all users (or even included by default) or whether, like the sim development tool, it should be restricted to a group of recognised testers (presumably a rather larger group than the current developers). I can see a lot of arguments on both sides of that question. Any thoughts? Log in to reply |
| Variable "Next" (and consequent enhancements) 24/09/2012 at 10:26 #35822 | |
|
postal
5190 posts |
" said:Currently, if there's a series of 1% probabilities set, it could take tens - or even hundreds - of runs through the timetable to see them all and check that they work. If the tester can force each one either to not happen or to happen, it might only need two or three runs through (yeah right... well, you get the general drift anyway).That is already possible within the current structure. Start the sim, then go into F4 and set the relevant probabilities as 100% or 0% to force a train to enter or not as appropriate. That means you can check each option individually. However, the more difficult part is how the options interact. If you have two 1% chances then every 10000th run of the sim, they will both enter and it will only be then that you find out that you have put a conflict into the TT. Having said that, dealing with those conflicts is what the signaller is expected to do. It is more important that the testing identifies things like trains for which no loco appears, trains expecting a join where something else stops the join happening, rules that contradict each other and the like so that the sim will be able to run right through the TT without any showstoppers or impossible actions. Now if someone could find a quick way to test all of that . . . . “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: 24/09/2012 at 10:27 by postal Log in to reply |