Upcoming Games

Upcoming Events

17/11/2018 12:00:00
01/06/2019 12:00:00

Delays after TRTS

You are here: Home > Forum > General > Features wish list > Delays after TRTS

Page 2 of 2

Delays after TRTS 22/05/2018 at 12:15 #108139
Sacro
Avatar
987 posts
Online
Jan in post 108126 said:
Chromatix in post 108105 said:
But when I *do* watch the Train List, I see things like trains slowing to 15mph on approach to the signal following one they passed at Yellow (a new Defensive Driving rule, apparently), and even if that signal cleared to Green minutes ago with a banner repeater on the way, the train only speeds up once it's actually passed the signal, not when it should be able to see that it's cleared. That makes a much bigger difference to timings, which are what *should* be visible to the player.
Good find - it looks like unlike the default built-in rules, custom defensive driving rules don't properly account for a signal's sighting distance. Reported it as #20507 on Mantis.
I think that on sims where ATP is in use (Marylebone, GWML out to Bristol) this would be correct behaviour.

Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 22/05/2018 at 13:44 #108142
Jan
Avatar
595 posts
GW ATP can use additional infill beacons or loops, though, and with Chiltern ATP, which uses loops anyway, albeit in a discontinuous fashion, you can simply fit a longer loop length in rear of the signal - up to 300 m according to this informative thread on the Signalbox forum.
Granted, not every signal will be fitted thus, but the upshot is that ATP behaviour can be variable as well, you in theory you'd have include some form of separate ATP simulation to fully model its effects.

Plus in some way the defensive driving rules can be even more restrictive than ATP - if a train was expecting to stop and e.g. subject to a "reduce speed to 33% on Y" rule and then finds the next signal at yellow as well, it will continue crawling along at 33 % of the line speed all the way to the next signal (which is particularly annoying on LTS, because due to a core code bug MU speeds and suchlike are ignored when calculating the target speed), whereas ATP would simply calculate a new braking curve, so the train could accelerate somewhat again before having to brake again for the next signal.

And of course the defensive driving rules implementation affects all sims, the majority of which doesn't cover lines with ATP...

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
Delays after TRTS 22/05/2018 at 17:17 #108159
GeoffM
Avatar
4010 posts
Online
jem771 in post 108135 said:
Are there plans to put in features like coasting? I have noticed geoff's point.
slightly unrealistic for a train to acccelerate right up to its permissive speed only to slam on the anchors again.
approach control sigs are an example there.
Perhaps my point wasn't clear but that feature is already there.

SimSig Boss. Website issues: Check here first: https://www.simsig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=newwebsite
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 22/05/2018 at 21:13 #108166
Chromatix
Avatar
79 posts
I see your point about HSTs on MML, but as you point out MML has gradients which will of course modify performance (and have a greater effect with a power car out). Given level track, I think I'm correct in saying a HST should (eventually) be able to make 100mph. In SimSig the LOP flag hard-limits it to 83mph, which is definitely wrong.
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 22/05/2018 at 22:09 #108168
GeoffM
Avatar
4010 posts
Online
Chromatix in post 108166 said:
I see your point about HSTs on MML, but as you point out MML has gradients which will of course modify performance (and have a greater effect with a power car out). Given level track, I think I'm correct in saying a HST should (eventually) be able to make 100mph. In SimSig the LOP flag hard-limits it to 83mph, which is definitely wrong.
No.

It is described as "loss of power" for a reason. It does not mean "one power car failure". It's generic. As 58050 alludes to, there are a whole number of failures which can occur which affect the train in different ways.

SimSig Boss. Website issues: Check here first: https://www.simsig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=newwebsite
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 22/05/2018 at 23:39 #108169
Chromatix
Avatar
79 posts
Well, exactly. A HST might have one power car completely failed. It might have one power car *partly* failed, with for example a blown turbocharger (reducing available power) or a failed pair of traction motors (halving peak tractive effort *for that power car*).

But none of these relatively-common situations match SimSig's behaviour at all, and that's a bit irritating. What SimSig imposes is a *more severe* failure than is actually common or reasonable for that type of train.

Same goes for a typical 66-hauled freight. The traction motors are in full parallel, so losing one gives a 17% reduction in available tractive effort and adhesive weight - but no difference in available power, so acceleration and hill-climbing ability is slightly affected but top speed is not. An engine fault would reduce power, but not in such a way as to make a Class 6 service hard-capped at 40mph.

These characteristics are much more important than coasting.

Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 00:31 #108172
GeoffM
Avatar
4010 posts
Online
Chromatix in post 108169 said:
Well, exactly. A HST might have one power car completely failed. It might have one power car *partly* failed, with for example a blown turbocharger (reducing available power) or a failed pair of traction motors (halving peak tractive effort *for that power car*).
Ok.

Chromatix in post 108169 said:
But none of these relatively-common situations match SimSig's behaviour at all, and that's a bit irritating. What SimSig imposes is a *more severe* failure than is actually common or reasonable for that type of train.
You're now contradicting your own point by saying it (what is 'it' ) is more severe for that (what is 'that' ) type of train. It's like saying "X does not equal Y" when you have no idea what X is.

Chromatix in post 108169 said:
Same goes for a typical 66-hauled freight. The traction motors are in full parallel, so losing one gives a 17% reduction in available tractive effort and adhesive weight - but no difference in available power, so acceleration and hill-climbing ability is slightly affected but top speed is not. An engine fault would reduce power, but not in such a way as to make a Class 6 service hard-capped at 40mph.
It is not "hard capped". It's a mathematical calculation based on the chosen power class and gradient.

Chromatix in post 108169 said:
These characteristics are much more important than coasting.
I am unclear on your thought here.

SimSig Boss. Website issues: Check here first: https://www.simsig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=newwebsite
Last edited: 23/05/2018 at 00:32 by GeoffM
Reason: Formatting

Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 06:37 #108174
jem771
Avatar
76 posts
when did you introduce that? I noticed it happen before but may be on older cersions.
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 09:28 #108175
postal
Avatar
3425 posts
Online
jem771 in post 108174 said:
when did you introduce that? I noticed it happen before but may be on older cersions.
As Steamer has already pointed out, recent posts seem to assume that everyone else is privy to your thought processes and knows exactly what you mean when you put up cryptic threads or posts which contain little if any information about the item that has caused you to raise the question.

For those of us without second sight, when did you introduce what?

"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm" - Vince Lombardi, 11/06/1913 – 03/09/1970, American Football Player and Coach.
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 10:26 #108177
Splodge
Avatar
323 posts
Going back to the original point - can signallers cancel TRTS without setting a route?
There's the right way, the wrong way and the railway.
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 10:31 #108178
JamesN
Avatar
983 posts
Online
Splodge in post 108177 said:
Going back to the original point - can signallers cancel TRTS without setting a route?
I’ve seen it on some panels, but not widespread.

Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 12:53 #108181
58050
Avatar
2262 posts
What people need to understand is that failure rates on traction units were much more widespread durting the BR era as there were far much different lcoo types running on the railways & some designs ended up being withdrawn early du to not being as reliable as other. Now when sectprisation came in & the freight railway was sold off & Loadhaul, Mainline Freight & Transrail were created locomotive failures started reducing quite significantly. By this alot of the issues that came about from when the class of loco had been introduced had been rectified by the M&EE staff at depots were locos were completely refurbished. In 1996 I was Resouces Manager at Nottingham ROC for Mainline Freight & it was my job to allocate all the locos between Eastleigh in WEssex & Worksop in North Notts. We received on a regular basis every week a breakdown of all the loco types in the country with there planned performance figure & there actual performance figure. Now the Cl.58 locos based at Toton TMD out-stripped everything. For the 50 locos the planned availability was at 92% & the actual wasbetween 95 - 98%. I don't recall ever seeing it below 90%.
When the Cl.66 locos arrived I had the first in the country in 1997 at Toton TMD which was 66004. Now these lcos peoved to be far more reliable & failure free & for the rest of my railway career that was certainly the case & I suspect that that is still the case similarly with the Cl.70 locos as well as some of the older BR locos running on Network Rail. So for me as a timetable writer I'd say locmotive failures on modern era timetables are far less likely than on an older BR era timetable. From 1997-2001 before I moved to Bescot my job was allocating power to trais on the Yorkshire/Humberside & East Midlands area. I don't recall once during that time a Cl.66 failing whilst on the mainline working a train& bear in mind out of the 5 power desks in the CSDC at Doncaster the desk I was on was the buisiest with all the coal traffic to & from the collieries to the power station.
Wilst we all bang on about having loco failures in timetables bear in mind for each FOC/TOC & Network Rail the aim of the game is to run the network with zero faults & failures, so in reality they wouldn't necessarily be as common as you might like to think. I know we can alter the slide rule & make severerly awkward for users to run a tt with upteen failures all at once, but even if that was made available for traction types then all I'd say is that is completely unrealistic. When I write a tt I used as much of the paper documentation I've got to make it as accurate as possible, id I don't have the paperwork then I use a best guess from my 20+ years of railway service or I may ask a colleague I worked with who might know. For example last weekend I rang a mate of mine who was a driver at Bescot for over 40 years(now retired) & asked him when Cl.86 locos were fitted with multiple work as the lco diagrams I had for the Carlisle 1979-1980 timetable only showed Cl.87 loco in multiple, but all the Cl.86 diagrams showeds them in tandem. I looked on the internet & couldn't find the answer. I even looked through my copy of Locomotives Illustrated on the Cl.86 & couldn't anything in that were it said what year they were fitted. I know in 1990 they were as I started work in Liverpool Street RCO & we allocated the eletric locos on freightliners from Ipswich & they were running then in multiple. So it was probably during the mid to late 1980s I suspect.
I've sent Geoff copies of the BR M&EE Technical drawing books for all mainline diesel, electric, shunting locos, DMU, DEMU(incl. HST) & EMU(incl. APT) these books give the power output at various speeds of each class of loco & there continuous power output as he said he couldn't get hold of this data. Now he maybe able to do something with it or not so we shall have to wait & see. But for me train failures is probably the single biggest thing that makes any timetable on any sim unrealistic certainly in BR era timetables as this happened fairly regularly.

Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 23/05/2018 at 13:17 #108182
Splodge
Avatar
323 posts
JamesN in post 108178 said:
Splodge in post 108177 said:
Going back to the original point - can signallers cancel TRTS without setting a route?
I’ve seen it on some panels, but not widespread.
Mmm, I ask as the signaller on Piccadilly-Heald Green was unimpressed when my guard TRTS'd yesterday - unfortunately, no-one had told us we'd been cancelled!

There's the right way, the wrong way and the railway.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal
Delays after TRTS 24/05/2018 at 17:18 #108195
GeoffM
Avatar
4010 posts
Online
Splodge in post 108182 said:
JamesN in post 108178 said:
Splodge in post 108177 said:
Going back to the original point - can signallers cancel TRTS without setting a route?
I’ve seen it on some panels, but not widespread.
Mmm, I ask as the signaller on Piccadilly-Heald Green was unimpressed when my guard TRTS'd yesterday - unfortunately, no-one had told us we'd been cancelled!
It's certainly not standard to be able to cancel TRTS without giving a proceed aspect on the signal. Annoying to the signallers, of course. If the platform track circuit(s) are clear, that should also cancel TRTS, though this is not widespread.

SimSig Boss. Website issues: Check here first: https://www.simsig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=newwebsite
Log in to reply
Delays after TRTS 25/05/2018 at 09:41 #108211
Giantray
Avatar
178 posts
Online
GeoffM in post 108195 said:
Splodge in post 108182 said:
JamesN in post 108178 said:
Splodge in post 108177 said:
Going back to the original point - can signallers cancel TRTS without setting a route?
I’ve seen it on some panels, but not widespread.
Mmm, I ask as the signaller on Piccadilly-Heald Green was unimpressed when my guard TRTS'd yesterday - unfortunately, no-one had told us we'd been cancelled!
It's certainly not standard to be able to cancel TRTS without giving a proceed aspect on the signal. Annoying to the signallers, of course. If the platform track circuit(s) are clear, that should also cancel TRTS, though this is not widespread.
If a Signaller knows that there is definitely no Driver in the cab, they would set the route, get a proceed and quickly cancel it allowing it to time out, thus cancelling the TRTS. But in locations like Cannon Street and Charing Cross it is not practical to always to do this as it may cause delays to other services waiting to depart/arrive. In this case the Signaller would ask the stations Control Point to telephone them when the train is Ready To Start.

Professional Railwayman since 1981. Railway Historian (SER, LCDR)
Log in to reply