Upcoming Games

Upcoming Events

Strange invalid traction problem

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Released > Rugby > Strange invalid traction problem

Page 1 of 1

Strange invalid traction problem 15/12/2019 at 23:40 #122289
trolleybus
Avatar
78 posts
I'm running a Watford - Rugby North chain which is working well, apart from minor sim and TT problems reported on this forum. However I have a problem with a VT 57+Pendolino which is insisting that it can't run towards Whitacre Junction for traction reasons. The train type is described as being powered by diesel (only). I've tried changing the train to a Voyager but it hasn't helped.

Save attached.

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Log in to reply
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 00:10 #122291
MarkC
Avatar
898 posts
Online
I have just had a look at your save and while the TT does say it should be a 57+390 running on diesel it is infact running on AC only. As you are running as part of a chain I can see that 1G49 was seeded into Watford Jn as just a CL 390 (AC only) and whist it moved from sim to sim as the train started as AC only it will transfer between sims as AC only.

Reported Mantis #0028687

It's not my fault! I was left unsupervised.
Log in to reply
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 07:52 #122294
trolleybus
Avatar
78 posts
That would explain it. I can see why a TT writer wouldn't remember to drag a 390 when writing for Watford, possible not realising that there was a gap in the knitting later in the journey.
Log in to reply
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 10:48 #122296
Meld
Avatar
633 posts
Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.

It was very rare for a drag to be done throughout, often only in the case of a failure, When Pendolinos went to Holyhead the drag was only between Crewe & Holyhead

Log in to reply
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:00 #122297
postal
Avatar
3977 posts
Meld in post 122296 said:
Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.

It was very rare for a drag to be done throughout, often only in the case of a failure, When Pendolinos went to Holyhead the drag was only between Crewe & Holyhead
So to make sure I've got it clear in my own head about how a TT should be written to cover this situation. Let us take the case of a 9/390 appearing in the various chained TTs and which then has Cl. 57 attached at Nuneaton to take the train forward. In all of the TTs as far as Nuneaton then the train type will show as the normal 9/390 and power AC electric. The train TT will terminate at Nuneaton and will have an action at Nuneaton of J 0Z00 to allow for the Cl. 57 to join and then an N working. This will be a new TT will be created forward from Nuneaton with a train type of Cl. 57 + 9/390 and power diesel plus AC electric. Although the train is not running under AC electric power, that power type will be needed to avoid the problem when the hauling loco is dropped off of a train appearing to be an unpowered consist. Then at the point where the Cl. 57 is detached, that TT will terminate with an action of DEF 0Z00 and an N working. The N working will pick up the TT for the train with a train type of 9/390 and power AC electric.

Thinking forward from that, it would seem sensible for TT writers creating timetables based on the current situation to check both power types when setting up the train type for the various bi-modal units which are appearing around the network. This will handle the situation where even if the unit only runs on one power type in the sim for which the TT has been created, there is a chained TT where the unit changes power mode. If both power types are checked as a matter of course, it will be able to switch to the other power mode in a chained sim without the rigmarole of having to create new TTs, train types or whatever.

"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
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:21 #122298
MarkC
Avatar
898 posts
Online
A DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.
It's not my fault! I was left unsupervised.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:38 #122299
Meld
Avatar
633 posts
postal in post 122297 said:
Meld in post 122296 said:
Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.

It was very rare for a drag to be done throughout, often only in the case of a failure, When Pendolinos went to Holyhead the drag was only between Crewe & Holyhead
So to make sure I've got it clear in my own head about how a TT should be written to cover this situation. Let us take the case of a 9/390 appearing in the various chained TTs and which then has Cl. 57 attached at Nuneaton to take the train forward. In all of the TTs as far as Nuneaton then the train type will show as the normal 9/390 and power AC electric. The train TT will terminate at Nuneaton and will have an action at Nuneaton of J 0Z00 to allow for the Cl. 57 to join and then an N working. This will be a new TT will be created forward from Nuneaton with a train type of Cl. 57 + 9/390 and power diesel plus AC electric. Although the train is not running under AC electric power, that power type will be needed to avoid the problem when the hauling loco is dropped off of a train appearing to be an unpowered consist. Then at the point where the Cl. 57 is detached, that TT will terminate with an action of DEF 0Z00 and an N working. The N working will pick up the TT for the train with a train type of 9/390 and power AC electric.


In theory John 1Z00 joins 0Z00 @ Nuneaton then the sim should change the traintype to 57+390 amending length train and power types, there should be no reason for terminating the train and creating a new schedule Saltley/BNS & Wolves should be given the traintype 57+390

Quote:
Thinking forward from that, it would seem sensible for TT writers creating timetables based on the current situation to check both power types when setting up the train type for the various bi-modal units which are appearing around the network. This will handle the situation where even if the unit only runs on one power type in the sim for which the TT has been created, there is a chained TT where the unit changes power mode. If both power types are checked as a matter of course, it will be able to switch to the other power mode in a chained sim without the rigmarole of having to create new TTs, train types or whatever.
Maybe there should be a new traintype added for Bi-modals at source which would effectively allow the trains to seemlessly switch between the 2 as required.

I can foresee there being an issue with for example Severn Tunnel where the Bi-modals have to switch to diesel go through then back to electric on the other side, you can't really allow for that in a schedule at the moment.

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:43 #122300
Meld
Avatar
633 posts
MarkC in post 122298 said:
A DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.
DEF would but DF should just remove the diesel portion I would have thought

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 14:17 #122301
MarkC
Avatar
898 posts
Online
Meld in post 122300 said:
MarkC in post 122298 said:
A DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.
DEF would but DF should just remove the diesel portion I would have thought
That would be the case

It's not my fault! I was left unsupervised.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 15:15 #122302
jc92
Avatar
2758 posts
Meld in post 122299 said:
postal in post 122297 said:
Meld in post 122296 said:
Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.

It was very rare for a drag to be done throughout, often only in the case of a failure, When Pendolinos went to Holyhead the drag was only between Crewe & Holyhead
So to make sure I've got it clear in my own head about how a TT should be written to cover this situation. Let us take the case of a 9/390 appearing in the various chained TTs and which then has Cl. 57 attached at Nuneaton to take the train forward. In all of the TTs as far as Nuneaton then the train type will show as the normal 9/390 and power AC electric. The train TT will terminate at Nuneaton and will have an action at Nuneaton of J 0Z00 to allow for the Cl. 57 to join and then an N working. This will be a new TT will be created forward from Nuneaton with a train type of Cl. 57 + 9/390 and power diesel plus AC electric. Although the train is not running under AC electric power, that power type will be needed to avoid the problem when the hauling loco is dropped off of a train appearing to be an unpowered consist. Then at the point where the Cl. 57 is detached, that TT will terminate with an action of DEF 0Z00 and an N working. The N working will pick up the TT for the train with a train type of 9/390 and power AC electric.


In theory John 1Z00 joins 0Z00 @ Nuneaton then the sim should change the traintype to 57+390 amending length train and power types, there should be no reason for terminating the train and creating a new schedule Saltley/BNS & Wolves should be given the traintype 57+390

Quote:
Thinking forward from that, it would seem sensible for TT writers creating timetables based on the current situation to check both power types when setting up the train type for the various bi-modal units which are appearing around the network. This will handle the situation where even if the unit only runs on one power type in the sim for which the TT has been created, there is a chained TT where the unit changes power mode. If both power types are checked as a matter of course, it will be able to switch to the other power mode in a chained sim without the rigmarole of having to create new TTs, train types or whatever.
Maybe there should be a new traintype added for Bi-modals at source which would effectively allow the trains to seemlessly switch between the 2 as required.

I can foresee there being an issue with for example Severn Tunnel where the Bi-modals have to switch to diesel go through then back to electric on the other side, you can't really allow for that in a schedule at the moment.
Id argue for the tunnel being wired in sim as well but not being marked on the panel. Not 100% accurate but I doubt performance will be that much different.

Log in to reply
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:07 #122305
postal
Avatar
3977 posts
jc92 in post 122302 said:
Id argue for the tunnel being wired in sim as well but not being marked on the panel. Not 100% accurate but I doubt performance will be that much different.
But if the unit has been set up from the start as both AC electric and diesel, then will the sim code not just accept the train running onto an unwired section and assume it is on diesel?

"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
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:21 #122307
GeoffM
Avatar
4706 posts
MarkC in post 122301 said:
Meld in post 122300 said:
MarkC in post 122298 said:
A DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.
DEF would but DF should just remove the diesel portion I would have thought
That would be the case
No, because SimSig doesn't have a concept of individual vehicles and their traction. Logically yes, if you put a 23m diesel on the front of an AC train, then take a 23m diesel off the front, then the remainder would be AC. But that's not how it works in SimSig. I don't think N:<withoutDiesel> would work either as current power is carried over to the N, not re-initialised from the new timetable.

jc92 in post 122302 said:
Id argue for the tunnel being wired in sim as well but not being marked on the panel. Not 100% accurate but I doubt performance will be that much different.
That's not true. There is a difference, both in real life (typically) and in the core code. I also don't understand why you would wire something that's not IRL.

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:31 #122310
clive
Avatar
2004 posts
Meld in post 122299 said:

In theory John 1Z00 joins 0Z00 @ Nuneaton then the sim should change the traintype to 57+390 amending length train and power types, there should be no reason for terminating the train and creating a new schedule Saltley/BNS & Wolves should be given the traintype 57+390
Yes: at a join the core code just adds all the power types together.

But at a divide (except DEF/DER) it just gives all the power types to both trains.

One day we'll have a vehicle-based model instead of a train-based one, but at the moment it's some vague ideas in my head and a large dragon labelled "backwards compatibility".

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: WesternChampion
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:57 #122311
MarkC
Avatar
898 posts
Online
clive in post 122310 said:
Meld in post 122299 said:

In theory John 1Z00 joins 0Z00 @ Nuneaton then the sim should change the traintype to 57+390 amending length train and power types, there should be no reason for terminating the train and creating a new schedule Saltley/BNS & Wolves should be given the traintype 57+390
Yes: at a join the core code just adds all the power types together.

But at a divide (except DEF/DER) it just gives all the power types to both trains.

One day we'll have a vehicle-based model instead of a train-based one, but at the moment it's some vague ideas in my head and a large dragon labelled "backwards compatibility".
From testing I have done It is possible to seperate power types on a train with a divide, you just use DF/DR and Next, and 3 stock types, you would have 66+365 (power of diesel and AC) LD66 (diesel) EMU365 (AC) you can have train 5A01 (the 66+365) with activeities of DF:0A01 (LD66) N:5A02 (EMU365), 0A01 and 5A02 now has its own power type Diesel and AC respectivly.

Additional
The TT Attached was created on Aston

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
It's not my fault! I was left unsupervised.
Last edited: 16/12/2019 at 17:09 by MarkC
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: postal