Page 1 of 2
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 00:21 #67825 | |
peterb
451 posts 
|
What (if anything) is being done to ensure that SimSig will still exist in its active form in the future? We all know that there are a number of areas which can't be simulated. As technology spreads and signalling nationwide is renewed, that list has grown: as too has the number of current simulations which are, in effect, now obsolete. There is a second list of simulations which can no longer be not only produced from scratch but more importantly, updated. As a result, it is now either very challenging or impossible to write modern WTTs for an increasing number of simulations, in many cases because of infrastructure remodelling. As a WTT developer this is of course a worry. My greater fear is that as the above process continues we could well reach a point in a few years when it will be almost impossible to update or create modern simulations in this country. Therefore I must ask, is it the intention of SimSig to remain an active simulation software in, for example ten years time? If so, should it remain modern and up-to-date? Or is there contentment in allowing SimSig to become a simulation of only how it was in the 2000s. If the former then I (and others) would appreciate to know what is being done to ensure this - first and foremost I'm sure, how to break down the 'conflict of interest' barrier. If that isn't being done then I'll be the first to be concerned that SimSig in its current state is not sustainable and will not be around for as long as I'm sure many of us would like. Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 05:38 #67831 | |
GeoffM
6287 posts |
First of all, the "cannot do" list is only a guide, can change in a flash, is out of date for the previous reason, and for commercial reasons cannot be entirely accurate. That said, I have noticed people reading a bit more in to it than is necessary recently. Secondly, if we look at Loader sims only then barring any minor/insignificant differences, the following sims are "current": - Aston - Birmingham NS - Chicago - Feltham - Marylebone - Motherwell - Victoria Central - Wembley ML (ignoring last week's changes) - Wimbledon - Wolverhampton These are mostly current except for <25% of the area changing: - Fenchurch - Paisley - Victoria SE - West Hampstead Which leaves these as non-current, >=25%: - Coventry - Portsmouth - Stafford I have missed the Scottish and North Wales area simulations because as I type this I simply don't recall. Somebody can fill me in and correct me on any errors above I'm sure. Please also bear in mind that many people want older simulations. It's important for us to get data for these older locations before the details get lost or forgotten. I recall people saying they prefer the Euston sim to Wembley ML because it's far more challenging and interesting with loco changes than the bland Pendolino era. Horses for courses. But in summary let me just say this: we are producing current era simulations, as well as bygone eras, and will continue to do both. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 06:26 #67833 | |
|
Cedric
42 posts |
Geoff is certainly right that many of us enjoy some of the older SIMs - Euston remains my favourite, partly because I worked there in the late '70s and partly because the older timetables with their very high number of light engine movements, trip workings and so on make it an extremely lively SIM in a compact area. But that said, SIMSIG's greatest selling point has always been that it is very realistic and the nearest it can be to operating the real thing. I, too, have been concerned that commercial conflicts of interest could, over the next few years, significantly reduce the areas that can be simulated. Geoff highlights a number of published SIMs that are current, but surely this is going to reduce as signalling systems are replaced and upgraded. I for one find it very frustrating that, when playing Victoria SE (a largely current SIM) the moment one enters the Elephant & Castle/Blackfriars areas I am moving onto a layout that does not represent reality but yesteryear. This is not a whinge and I think that what Geoff and his colleagues have achieved over the last few years is both fantastic and incredible, but I am concerned for the long term future of the product (if that's the right term), and I do hope that a way can be found round the commercial blockages in due course. Meanwhile, we have much to be getting on with and much to enjoy on what is available currently. Best wishes Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 07:25 #67836 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:First of all, the "cannot do" list is only a guide, can change in a flash, is out of date for the previous reason, and for commercial reasons cannot be entirely accurate. That said, I have noticed people reading a bit more in to it than is necessary recently.Add to the "current" list - North Wales Coast - North East Wales - Llangollen. "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 |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 09:47 #67841 | |
Steamer
3923 posts |
" said:CScot: Springburn- Cumbernauld wiring (don't think there were any track changes though, so you could work around it) Stirling Middle remodelling- this is more significant, as an Up passenger loop has been provided and the southbound bays brought back into use. All semaphores have gone south of Stirling, but I don't think this would affect the operation of a modern timetable. Edinburgh: Bathgate line since re-opened- that's a showstopper for a modern TT. The re-opening of the northern section of the Waverley route will also become a problem in a year or two. NEScot: A few box closures, but nothing significant has changed. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 09:51 #67843 | |
|
Colourlight
117 posts |
I am not unduly concerned that Simsig will come to an untimely end any day soon amd GeoffM,s comment that bygone era,s will not be forgotten is music to my old ears. I am a freight man at heart, due mainly to my upbringing in the town of March, and consequently two of my favourite sims are the old paged versions of Cambridge and Sheffield. That is because they can support the intensive level of freight operations that are contained in timetables from the 70,s & 80,s. Whilst it would be nice to have a modern Cambridge station for instance, It would be brilliant to have an even older Whitemoor Junction/March to accommodate the the level of service that existed.way back in the 60,s and early 70,s. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CABOOSEMAN |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 10:02 #67844 | |
|
Ron_J
329 posts |
" said:
Sighthill East Junction was relaid allowing parallel moves. An new crossover was added at Barnhill station. " said:
Borders opens in September this year (on workstation 2 at Edinburgh). The new EGIP EMU depot at Millerhill will also prsent a change to the signalling arrangements. In fact, does the Edinburgh sim take into account the closure of Millerhill and Polmont boxes and conseqent changes? " said:
The SANOS resignalling/recontrol will sweep away everything West/South of Dundee on 26th March 2017. It'll all planned to go onto two new workstations at Edinburgh. There's also the Motherwell North and South schemes (recontrol to WSSC) which will bring lots of little changes and improvments. Then Yoker is recontrolled, then Kilmarnock and the West mechanical boxes.... Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Steamer |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 10:29 #67845 | |
58050
2650 posts |
As a long term SimSig user I spend most of my time these days writing timetables covering the period 1970s through to 1990s. Personally I've got no interest in the modern era at all. Despite purchasing a licence for Wembley Mainline & the Victoria sims can't say I've ever played them because the modern era doesn't appeal to me. Glad to see the older eras now included in these sims. I've always said that at the end of the day when the day comes that the whole country has been covered in one way or another it will be up to the timetable writers to produce different things for these sims in the respect of different era timetables. As Geoff says the data is getting harder * harder all the time to get hold of. Despite having a lartge collection of WTTs, station working books, Trip notices, Special traffic Notices(STNs) & signalling notices I'm still collecting them mainly from ex railwaymen I know & of course off e-bay. I'm glad to hear that older eras are still in demand by developers & users. The variety of traffic & the locations trains go to in the older eras make them more challenging & enjoyable compared to today. That said is there anything out there better? I'd say the answer to that is no, so for me the sustainability of SimSig isn't an issue.
Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 11:55 #67852 | |
|
woodruff
204 posts |
I believe that to sustain SimSig that like the Euston sim different eras should be incorporated. This would give tt writers possibly two to three different eras to write for. It would also help tt writers that prefer and have info for that era.
Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 13:35 #67861 | |
|
peterb
451 posts
|
Don't get me wrong I appreciate the nostalgia and bygone nature of older eras and I know a lot of people do. However, I'm sure I'm also not the only one who also enjoys the current era; but I wouldn't be as interested in SimSig if only the 1980s era was available, for example. Already however there is a list of simulations including Stafford, Trent (including Chesterfield area), Edinburgh, C Scotland, and soon I think at least a couple of others which are already only a simulation of what these areas were like ten years ago, but not an accurate depiction of what they are currently. Over time I can see this list growing so that in the future there could be very few sims which can claim to be "current era", only historic; And it will surely become very difficult to produce new 'current era' simulations. I'd like to make it plain that I'm not having a selfish rant; I am concerned about how long the SimSig I love and appreciate will realistically be able to continue as active. I believe this is a fair issue which needs to be addressed if SimSig is to remain the market leader in producing accurate modern simulations. Therefore I'd like to ask, Are these concerns being echoed by yourself Geoff and other developers? If so, what is physically being done to ensure that SimSig will in the future be able to simulate areas in the "current era?" Specifically, simulate new areas currently or soon 'OOB' (eg, York IECC) and update other current simulations such as those listed above? Log in to reply The following user said thank you: AndyB |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 13:55 #67865 | |
Peter Bennet
5362 posts |
From my perspective the major hurdle is the scheme plans, I need them before I can even think about whether I'm allowed to do any updates. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 14:08 #67868 | |
|
BoxBoyKit
166 posts |
May be worth remembering that the VERY beginning of the end is coming for the IECC type signalling that SimSig simulates, so that may then allow more options for potential sims, etc.
Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 22:04 #67897 | |
|
Trainfan344
262 posts |
I have seen many people say Heritage line sims could be good, this info could be quite easy to come by and so could be another solution...
Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 15/01/2015 at 23:48 #67901 | |
|
clive
2738 posts |
" said:When Cambridge gets to the front of the queue, my intention is to have two eras, 2000 and 2014. Quote: The March bit of Cambridge is just how I made it chain to Peterborough. But if you have full data .... Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 16/01/2015 at 03:23 #67907 | |
ajax103
1106 posts |
" said:From my perspective the major hurdle is the scheme plans, I need them before I can even think about whether I'm allowed to do any updates.Question fella if you had access to the scheme plans for any of the sims you did, could you easily do a update time pending of course? I can appreciate even considering doing a update is time consuming, just wondered if you had access to the info you needed if you would be willing to consider it? feel free to PM me on this though as I might be able to be of assistance. Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 16/01/2015 at 07:42 #67915 | |
|
clive
2738 posts |
" said:" said:Almost no update is easy, but having access to the scheme plans certainly makes it a lot easier. I think every developer would always love to get hold of plans.From my perspective the major hurdle is the scheme plans, I need them before I can even think about whether I'm allowed to do any updates.Question fella if you had access to the scheme plans for any of the sims you did, could you easily do a update time pending of course? Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 16/01/2015 at 16:04 #67934 | |
|
peterb
451 posts
|
" said:" said:Is there anything you can think of that would make obtaining plans easier?" said:Almost no update is easy, but having access to the scheme plans certainly makes it a lot easier. I think every developer would always love to get hold of plans.From my perspective the major hurdle is the scheme plans, I need them before I can even think about whether I'm allowed to do any updates.Question fella if you had access to the scheme plans for any of the sims you did, could you easily do a update time pending of course? Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 16/01/2015 at 16:20 #67935 | |
lazzer
605 posts |
Out of interest, how useful would a Yellow Peril be in the context of "plans"? I've always wondered about that.
Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 16/01/2015 at 16:44 #67938 | |
|
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:Out of interest, how useful would a Yellow Peril be in the context of "plans"? I've always wondered about that.There use is variable, I've got a collection of them that grows now and again when I come across one. Some are useful, let's says a signal has had some routes added to it, it will usually show you where this route runs from and to. Sometimes they're not as useful, for instance they don't match up with the signalling plans or they show some parts incorrectly. One example I have had some UWCs in totally the wrong places. "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 |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 16/01/2015 at 17:08 #67941 | |
|
ajax103
1106 posts |
I did have the plans for the resignalling of a area of one of his sims last year, now to me they make no sense at all but to a developer they would.
Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 17/01/2015 at 15:22 #68017 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5362 posts |
Have given the McSims some thought and these are as far as I'm aware the changes that have occurred since the release representation. Happy to be disabused, receive additional info. NESCOT: Usan to Montrose N resignalling - only material change is the ability to bi-di the up platform. Edinburgh: Extensive remodelling of Waverley (2006/7), Haymarket P0, AtoB. Current plans for electrification of E&G - any material PW changes involved in that or is it simply add OH? CSCOT: Plean-Larbert Jn resignalling (2006/7) no material changes to layout. Stirling remodelled - sounds a material change - was not aware of this. Polmont: any material change other than being absorbed into EDB box? Cowlairs: some PW changes near Springburn, any other material changes other than absorption into Edinburgh box Currently OH being added to E&G, Shotts, lines to Motherwell, line to Stirling and via Grangmouth Jn - is it as simple as adding OH? Cowlairs: As above. Paisley: Paisley to Shields triple tacking Motherwell: Newton Jn remodelled (again) OH added to Carmylie lines and lines to Cowlairs - is it just adding OH? Any assistance in identifying the full extent of the changes will enable me to evaluate the amount of work involved and what I can and can't do in the short term and what information I need to find. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 19/01/2015 at 19:35 #68091 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1318 posts |
Edinburgh: May be worth holding fire until the EMU depot and Borders is done, or you'd be behind again. I suspect Millerhill area would then benefit from being added, and might invalidate any older timetables. CSCOT Yes, Stirling is a major change of interlocking and tracks. There's more auto's to Larbert than in the sim I think. The others are indeed wiring extant routes, except for the Springburn change noted. regards Bill Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 19/01/2015 at 19:50 #68093 | |
|
peterb
451 posts
|
Have you seen the EGIP website Peter: http://www.egip.info/ C Scot - Platform extensions at Falkirk H, Croy, Polmont, Linlithgow, Cumbernauld A loop at Cowlairs Southern bays at Stirlng are/will be in public use With regard to Millerhill and the current scenario on Edinburgh sim, I read in the sectional appendix recently that "he use of Millerhill Yard for the diversion of passenger trains is prohibited." Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 20/01/2015 at 22:33 #68197 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1318 posts |
However the Compass Tours Saltburn - Aberdeen to Dundee special went through on Saturday 13 December. Perhaps OK with advance notice ? Bill Log in to reply |
| The Sustainability of SimSig. 20/01/2015 at 22:57 #68203 | |
|
peterb
451 posts
|
Yes looks like it was pre-arranged. Also Peter while I remember - whenever I see Clayhills Depot, HSTs and beds are always stabled next to the South College St wall, yet on the sim it's marked in reverse. Thanks to those who have contributed to my questions thus far, I am sure it would be only appropriate and appreciated for other developers at least to also respond. Log in to reply |