Page 1 of 1
| TT Analyser suggestions 13/02/2015 at 20:48 #69168 | |
Steamer
3923 posts |
Would it be possible to add the following to the TT Analyser? 1. 'Check Compatibility with adjacent simulation'. This feature would check trains entering/leaving the simulation at a given entry point and ensure that there was a train with the same headcode/UID in a selected timetable for an adjacent simulation. So, for example, in the Wolverhampton simulation with timetable 'Wolverhampton Test', you could select the entry point 'Down Stour', timetable 'New Street Test' and it would check to see if every train entering on the Down Stour had a corresponding train in the New Street TT. A further enhancement would be to check that train length, power etc. was identical. Ideally, it would also check that times at given intermediate points (Wolverhampton, Dudley Port, Galton Jn etc.) were identical, but I realise that this would probably require bespoke data for each fringe. 2. 'Ignore Platform Suffix'. At present, an error is returned when associated trains are at different platforms. However, sometimes this can simply be that one is booked to arrive at P.1A, and the other at P.1B, or even P1 and P1A. This feature would treat '1', '1A', '1B' etc. as the same platform and not return an error. I realise that there would have to be exceptions for platforms like Birmingham New Street P.4C, where the platform is completely separate to P.4A etc. Any thoughts? "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) Last edited: 13/02/2015 at 20:49 by Steamer Log in to reply |
| TT Analyser suggestions 14/02/2015 at 01:47 #69179 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
Raised as a suggestion: Mantis 12487 "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 following user said thank you: Steamer |
| TT Analyser suggestions 14/02/2015 at 22:57 #69209 | |
clive
2738 posts |
Number 1 is not really practical for the core code. It would be better for someone to write a dedicated tool for this sort of thing (it could also perhaps be more intelligent than the inbuilt analyser, checking for circular rules or things like that). Number 2 would require a core code change and then sim data to be updated. "Suffix" isn't well defined, so I'd want equivalences to be explicit in the sim data. That is, rather than New Street saying that 4C isn't part of the same platform as 4B, it should say that 4A and 4B are interchangeable for next train purposes. Doing it that way also allows this when half-platforms have different numbers, not just different suffices. I'll leave the Mantis entry open for that one. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Steamer |