Upcoming Games


Full list
Add a game

Upcoming Events

Default TT: 1D45/5D45

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Timetables > Leeds City > Default TT: 1D45/5D45

Page 1 of 1

Default TT: 1D45/5D45 15/03/2016 at 02:17 #81190
sloppyjag
Avatar
445 posts
Online
Found a couple of minor issues with these trains. 1D45 is described as "1803 London Kings Cross - Leeds (GR Cl91+9+DVT)" but actually continues to Apperley Jn and presumably onwards to Skipton.

5D45 returns ECS from Skipton to Neville Hill and has transformed into an HST.

I'm guessing 1D45 should have been set as an HST (it's currently booked an HST but have no idea what it was in 2009.) Probably just a slip of the fingers but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 15/03/2016 at 12:04 #81202
nnr
Avatar
129 posts
I found a few "wrong 'uns" in the TT and manually edited them.

I did find your Skipton train quiet early on when I first started playing the Sim, but felt it was not a major issue and edited as stated above.

One has to think how much work/hours and how many trains need to be pathed/described accurately in any TT and I think the compilers are allowed the odd mistake!!

You will find a couple or three platforming errors later on in the day, which again can be manually edited (don't forget also to edit the following service if the train terminates and/or changes headcode prior to continuing)

Hope this helps.

Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 15/03/2016 at 15:29 #81208
sloppyjag
Avatar
445 posts
Online
" said:
I found a few "wrong 'uns" in the TT and manually edited them.

I did find your Skipton train quiet early on when I first started playing the Sim, but felt it was not a major issue and edited as stated above.

One has to think how much work/hours and how many trains need to be pathed/described accurately in any TT and I think the compilers are allowed the odd mistake!!

You will find a couple or three platforming errors later on in the day, which again can be manually edited (don't forget also to edit the following service if the train terminates and/or changes headcode prior to continuing)

Hope this helps.
Hence why I described the issues as minor. The platforming issues you mention have been discussed in other threads and I have noted them for when I come across them during play. These ones, as far as I'm aware have not. I am merely highlighting possible errors so other users are aware or the timetable writer is collecting issues for any update of the timetable.

Not everyone is as confident as you or I at editing timetables on the fly so any information provided in this forum about possible problems can help customers get the full value from a product they have paid good money for.

Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 15/03/2016 at 17:18 #81216
JamesN
Avatar
1135 posts
Online
The way the Leeds, and indeed most of the 15th Oct 2009 TTs are written, involves using the Import function to pull the necessary data from a large database-like Timetable. This puts the schedule verbatim as it appeared in NR's systems into the simulation.

There's then a tidying up process, which involves writing out full train descriptions, assigning train types and so on.

As such "schedule" errors such as platform conflicts, are most likely imported from the real-life data. The only things that are changed are tweaks where the NR data isn't compatible with the sim, or the errors make the sim physically unplayable.

Text and allocation errors are likely errors/typos on the author's part. Your 1D45/5D45 issue falls into that category...

Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 17/03/2016 at 08:03 #81234
postal
Avatar
3971 posts
" said:
I'm guessing 1D45 should have been set as an HST (it's currently booked an HST but have no idea what it was in 2009.)
I can't speak for 2009, but when I was a frequent ECML traveller up to the mid-1990s it was always a Cl.91 set.

"No question is too stupid, there are just some stupid answers" - Dr. Michael Reece, 12/08/1927 - 03/06/2019. Electrical engineer and inventor
Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 17/03/2016 at 12:26 #81236
Ianno
Avatar
28 posts
It was a booked HST for many years up until May 2011. This was because there was believed to be a limitation to the power supply at Skipton that prevented use of a Class 91 (possibly more of an issue when the Class 333s were introduced on local services, compared to the relatively low-tech Class 308s). Were the Class 91s you recall dragged from Leeds, given Skipton was only wired in around 1995?

Just prior to May 2011, a Cl. 91 + Mk 4 set was run up to Skipton on test, and the power supply was found to be adequate after all. Since the May 2011 change, it has been diagrammed as a Class 91 + Mk 4. It is entirely possible that the return ECS to Neville Hill is still timed as an HST as it's never been changed (and changing it is not required to make the timetable work, as it would be on the ECML proper).

Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 17/03/2016 at 14:06 #81237
jc92
Avatar
2758 posts
A quick google search reveals mk4 sets being worked by a 47/4 into Skipton and Bradford F.S. I doubt that continued into provatisation though.
Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 17/03/2016 at 15:54 #81238
postal
Avatar
3971 posts
The website at http://www.prar.fsnet.co.uk/Class_43_Diagrams_1H07_v1.html gives it as an HST set in 2007. My memory may indeed have played me false. However, I had an input to the loading of Royal Mail traffic to passenger trains in the North East of England up to 1995 so had to keep a close eye on the ECML workings. I've got it fixed in my head for some reason that it was a Cl.91 after the electrification up to 1995 when I shifted jobs. Apologies if I've put anyone on a wrong steer.

EDIT: It looks lke my memory may well be failing. The rail.co.uk's web page referring to the Cl.91's includes " . . . and one evening diagram to Skipton, a location that had never seen one diagrammed until May 2011".

"No question is too stupid, there are just some stupid answers" - Dr. Michael Reece, 12/08/1927 - 03/06/2019. Electrical engineer and inventor
Last edited: 17/03/2016 at 17:49 by postal
Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 18/03/2016 at 09:44 #81246
GoochyB
Avatar
222 posts
For what it's worth, I had in the back of my mind that in the early years of electrification a 91 set ran through beyond Leeds, either to Skipton or Bradford FSq
Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 18/03/2016 at 13:29 #81258
clive
Avatar
1995 posts
" said:
For what it's worth, I had in the back of my mind that in the early years of electrification a 91 set ran through beyond Leeds, either to Skipton or Bradford FSq
There were definitely ones to Bradford; I can remember using them to get there at least twice, once in 1995 and I forget the other.

Log in to reply
Default TT: 1D45/5D45 20/03/2016 at 15:39 #81274
GMac
Avatar
71 posts
It always used to be an HST, as the power supply on the Airedale Line north of Shipley originally wasn't up to job of supplying a 91 (was done somewhat "on the cheap" - there is only one neutral section between Crossflatts & Bingley and one supply feed at Steeton). This was proved back in 1998, when a Sunday test run up to Skipton using a 91 + Mk4 (prior to the start of public services) caused a line voltage drop sufficient to cause all the other units in the neighbourhood to fail! (2 * 333s in tandem were not allowed to run with pans up on both units for the same reason). The high voltage feeds at Shipley & Steeton were subsequently upgraded to allow the use of 91s and other electric locos, so since the May 2011 timetable the evening northbound service from Kings Cross has been diagrammed for a 91 (the morning one also turns out a 91 more often than not, though HSTs do appear regularly - I can usually hear it coming into Skipton as I'm getting up for work in a morning!) The Bradford turns meanwhile have nearly always been electric since the line was wired in 1993, as the supply was more robustly constructed (3 separate neutral sections between Armley Jcn & Shipley).
Last edited: 20/03/2016 at 15:40 by GMac
Reason: Date adjusted

Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: postal, GoochyB