Page 1 of 1
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 12/06/2015 at 20:48 #73212 | |
Danny252
1461 posts |
There's a few problems with the default LTS timetable: 1. Despite the note saying to ignore all warnings, there are several fatal warnings that will prevent trains running. It appears that the path Dagenham Dock-Dag Ford Signal UR826-Dag Ford Down Yard (or reverse) is not validating, and 0L23, 0M22, 6L33 and 6V32 have invalid timetables. Removing Dag Ford Signal UR826 fixes these. 2. The following pairs are alternates, but lack rules/decisions to prevent both running: 4L43/4L72, 4L57/4L59, 6V22/6V24 3. No trains are seeded, despite the fact that 17 (!) should start in sim, plus associated next workings. I've attached a list of the relevant trains. One query - the included alternates are done as "Mutually Exclusive", rather than "Are Alternatives". Will that work correctly, or does it mean that (assuming no delays) one train will always run due to being first in the internal TT list? I've also attached a modified TT that includes the corrects/workarounds above. Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Last edited: 13/06/2015 at 17:30 by Danny252 Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Tempest Malice, wigley62, arabianights, Gwasanaethau, Kage, Temple Meads |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 13/06/2015 at 17:28 #73294 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
3Q62 and 3S40 have incorrect descriptions. 3Q62 is D 075, not D 030, whilst 3S40 is D 045, rather than D 090 - quite important for regulating decisions! I've updated the WTT with these corrected.
Last edited: 13/06/2015 at 17:32 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 14/06/2015 at 15:26 #73339 | |
|
Phil-jmw
671 posts |
" said:3Q62 and 3S40 have incorrect descriptions. 3Q62 is D 075, not D 030, whilst 3S40 is D 045, rather than D 090 - quite important for regulating decisions! I've updated the WTT with these corrected.Re 3Q62, while D 075 is correct for its transit speed, when testing it does only run at 30mph (because of the time of day I'm assuming it's a Network Rail UTU) so for regulating purposes D 030 would be more appropriate. As this train has a 'Q' headcode though, once it has commenced testing it should be kept to it's booked line and not regulated away from it. I say 'should' because in practice occasions do arise when it may be necessary to route a UTU away from the line it is testing. Phil. Last edited: 14/06/2015 at 15:28 by Phil-jmw Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 14/06/2015 at 18:09 #73349 | |
GeoffM
6280 posts |
As per Phil, 3Q62 is timetabled in NR data at 30mph, and if you look at the running times (1h20 Fench-Shoe) it is clearly not 75mph+. Will check the others mentioned and update the source data accordingly. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 14/06/2015 at 18:20 #73352 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
In which case, it's 3Q62's train type that needs alteration to match what the train should be doing (unless they were just going for a midnight staff jolly to Shoeburyness!). I did think it was a rather strange mistake to make, given how unusual 30mph speeds are.
Last edited: 14/06/2015 at 18:21 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 14/06/2015 at 18:33 #73356 | |
|
GeoffM
6280 posts |
" said:In which case, it's 3Q62's train type that needs alteration to match what the train should be doing (unless they were just going for a midnight staff jolly to Shoeburyness!). I did think it was a rather strange mistake to make, given how unusual 30mph speeds are.OIC. I think it was the later train type added and forgot to amend for the specific working. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 19/06/2015 at 17:49 #73528 | |
|
GeoffM
6280 posts |
" said:3. No trains are seeded, despite the fact that 17 (!) should start in sim, plus associated next workings.I think I've fixed all the issues, but I deliberately did not do seeding because, as you say, there would be quite a few trains in the area which is quite a lot for a newbie to start with. I left it so that the user gets to build up trains slowly. I have added a note to the timetable to this effect, which should have been there before. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 11/07/2015 at 17:10 #74136 | |
|
Jan
889 posts |
I've noticed that a number of Class 7 trains (e.g. 7L29 amongst others) have a maximum speed of 60 mph. Is that a timetable bug, or a real-life oddity?
Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 11/07/2015 at 17:32 #74138 | |
|
GeoffM
6280 posts |
" said:I've noticed that a number of Class 7 trains (e.g. 7L29 amongst others) have a maximum speed of 60 mph. Is that a timetable bug, or a real-life oddity?Thanks - looks like I need to check a few trains. :blush: SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 15/07/2015 at 18:49 #74261 | |
|
lawrm
45 posts |
I think there is another issue in the default timetable which seems to have been carried over to the update recently issued. 3S70-2, after its reversal at Gas Factory Loop at 13:04/13:20, then routed through Barking Plat 8 at 13:32 This causes major delays to up trains from Tilbury Loop. I'm certain the route should be Plat 7 not 8 at Barking. Also, how does the ARS decide which sidings freights should use at Ripple Lane Sorting, when nothing is indicated in TT. I keep getting "routed off planned route" notices. Thanks Lawrm Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 15/07/2015 at 19:59 #74263 | |
|
GeoffM
6280 posts |
" said:I think there is another issue in the default timetable which seems to have been carried over to the update recently issued.If you write to timetable planning at Network Rail, I'm sure they'd love to know!  But in seriousness, I only changed the platform numbers from the electronic NR data to match inbound/outbound workings at, for example, Fenchurch Street where they were clearly wrong (eg 5R99 arrives in P3 to form 2R99 from P4)." said: Also, how does the ARS decide which sidings freights should use at Ripple Lane Sorting, when nothing is indicated in TT. I keep getting "routed off planned route" notices.Just as in real life, ARS won't arbitrarily decide which siding to use. If no code is specified then it'll always want siding 1 in this particular case, so you routing to anything other than 1 would result in off planned path. There used to be a case where trains on Slough New would be ARS-routed according to traffic demand on the lines out of Paddington but the signallers reportedly hated it because "we don't know what it's going to do next". Even if there was only one train in the area late at night, ARS would wiggle it across the lines. I believe that facility was taken out a long time ago. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: lawrm |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 17/07/2015 at 16:08 #74335 | |
|
Jan
889 posts |
I've just had the second half of 4M71 appear from Ripple Lane FLT before its original working from Purfleet had even entered the area, so having two trains with identical headcodes and UIDs and a rule ("4M71/H31594 must appear 45 minutes after 4M71/H31594 leaves the area" linking them doesn't seem to be working.See also this topic. Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |
| LTS Default Timetable Issues 10/08/2015 at 19:57 #74978 | |
|
Jan
889 posts |
Upon further investigation, rules referencing the same train twice do work, at least sort of, but they break down when delays cause the trains to run out of course. If the first part of the train has entered first, the rule will correctly prevent the second half from entering until the rule condition has been satisfied. If however the first train is very late and/or the second train very early, and the second instance of the train enters first, the rule will now prevent the first instance of the train from running until XX minutes after the second half has left area. So in the above example, without further intervention, 4M71 would have entered from Purfleet 45 minutes after 4M71 entering from Ripple Lane FLT had left the area at Woodgrange Park. After deleting the rule, it entered at Purfleet immediately. Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |