Page 1 of 1
| Westbury-SwinDid Chaining. Signalling Failure Melksham 14/06/2013 at 16:45 #45708 | |
Colourlight
117 posts |
This has been mentioned before, I only wish to highlight it and sugest a work round. There is a fault in the Chaining Code that causes a serious signalling failure on the Single line between Bradford Jn, Trowbridge and Thingley Jn, Chippenham. The first train over the single Line can be signalled normally. Once it has passed clear of the single line it becomes "Route Locked" preventing the protecting signals being cleared in either direction. In real life Pilot Working would be introduced but in the two Sims a different method is needed. I sugest that when a Panel Operator wishes to send a train over the Single Line permission should be obtained from the Host of that Sim who would confer with the other Host. Once permission has been obtained the route onto the single Line can be set manually. In the real world this would be done by a Route setting Agent (but not James Bond). But in the Sim the Host could either do it him/herself or instruct the Panel Operator to do so. Then the Driver of the train passing over the single line can be instructed to pass the protecting signal at danger either by the Host or the Panel operator. Trains that have not had permission to pass over the Single line could be held at Trowbridge and Chippenham Stations but that would be up to the Host to decide where they should be held. Credit should also be given to Barry aka Bazz, who hosted SwinDid doing the testing this morning and Tim aka uktrainman who helped both of us as well as Hosting himself. Log in to reply |
| Westbury-SwinDid Chaining. Signalling Failure Melksham 14/06/2013 at 17:23 #45710 | |
|
Late Turn
696 posts |
Assuming that it's only the single line itself that's not route locked, and not the route over the junctions at either end, why would one require the services of a route setting agent? Surely unnecessary if the points can be operated by individual points switches or their Simsig equivalent?
Log in to reply |