Upcoming Events

No events to display

We are not planning any more in-person events until the COVID-19 situation has improved.

Rule evaluation

You are here: Home > Forum > General > General questions, comments, and issues > Loader V5 > Rule evaluation

Page 1 of 1

Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 12:13 #138313
9pN1SEAp
Avatar
487 posts
Hi,

I started Lancing (paused) with a non-default time of 0830 on Phil's 2018 timetable. This has many rules.

Unfortunately the evaluator has decided that all the trains ahead of 0830 have already entered, so about 1/2 the services wouldn't appear.

Please could this be investigated?

Thanks
Jamie

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Jamie S (JAMS)
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 12:24 #138314
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4944 posts
What were you expecting to happen?

Peter

I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs!
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 12:53 #138316
Dionysusnu
Avatar
210 posts
In this case, if trains are marked entered, rules depending on them leaving should also be marked active.
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 14:02 #138317
Stephen Fulcher
Avatar
1705 posts
9pN1SEAp in post 138313 said:
Hi,

I started Lancing (paused) with a non-default time of 0830 on Phil's 2018 timetable. This has many rules.

Unfortunately the evaluator has decided that all the trains ahead of 0830 have already entered, so about 1/2 the services wouldn't appear.

Please could this be investigated?

Thanks
Jamie
I think the best advice anyone could give, is not to start a timetable at a non-standard time.

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 14:31 #138320
postal
Avatar
4616 posts
9pN1SEAp in post 138313 said:
Hi,

I started Lancing (paused) with a non-default time of 0830 on Phil's 2018 timetable. This has many rules.

Unfortunately the evaluator has decided that all the trains ahead of 0830 have already entered, so about 1/2 the services wouldn't appear.

Please could this be investigated?

Thanks
Jamie
If you didn't force that to happen, none of the TTs which have multiple seed times would work as selecting say a defined 04:45 seed time would cause all trains booked to enter the sim (rather than be formed as an N working) pre-04:45 to try and enter at 04:45 which is not a desirable outcome. If you look at the multi-seeded TTs you will see that at a seed time after the initial opening time of the TT there will normally be two trains in the TT with the same TD, one shown with timings from entry and one shown with a seed location and then only times downstream of that.

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Last edited: 03/04/2021 at 14:32 by postal
Reason: None given

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 14:52 #138323
Dionysusnu
Avatar
210 posts
postal in post 138320 said:
9pN1SEAp in post 138313 said:
Hi,

I started Lancing (paused) with a non-default time of 0830 on Phil's 2018 timetable. This has many rules.

Unfortunately the evaluator has decided that all the trains ahead of 0830 have already entered, so about 1/2 the services wouldn't appear.

Please could this be investigated?

Thanks
Jamie
If you didn't force that to happen, none of the TTs which have multiple seed times would work as selecting say a defined 04:45 seed time would cause all trains booked to enter the sim (rather than be formed as an N working) pre-04:45 to try and enter at 04:45 which is not a desirable outcome. If you look at the multi-seeded TTs you will see that at a seed time after the initial opening time of the TT there will normally be two trains in the TT with the same TD, one shown with timings from entry and one shown with a seed location and then only times downstream of that.

I believe the question is worded confusingly, and that the issue is that the re-entry rules don't trigger because the trains don't seed.

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 14:55 #138324
9pN1SEAp
Avatar
487 posts
Stephen Fulcher in post 138317 said:
I think the best advice anyone could give, is not to start a timetable at a non-standard time.
Then it's a useless option and should be disabled, or warn at least if the rules are going to go wrong.

In this case, being a non-terminal sim, trains that would have entered (and left) in the past were correctly marked entered, but that then triggered return workings in the future to have entered, which then cascaded 16 hours into the future. That's just not right.

The TT here is not furnished with multiple start times (which should be mostly irrelevant as custom times are never seeded).

Jamie S (JAMS)
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 15:28 #138327
Meld
Avatar
862 posts
There is really nothing to be investigated, as a train as exited the sim before 0830 controls the other trains entry, on a small sim like Lancing this will have a serious knock effect through the day.

If you want to start a sim at a non standard time to the timetable's provided start times, you will need to add seeds to ensure everything works no matter what the sim. The facility is available for everyone to use.

Two Tips

1) I would recommend if you do add any seed group to any bundled with the loader timetable, is that you save it under a different filename, as updates will overwrite any work you've done.

2) Save your new seeds into a separate timetable, then you can just merge them back in to any updated TT.

HTH

Passed the age to be doing 'Spoon Feeding' !!!
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 16:59 #138330
postal
Avatar
4616 posts
Dionysusnu in post 138323 said:
postal in post 138320 said:
9pN1SEAp in post 138313 said:
Hi,

I started Lancing (paused) with a non-default time of 0830 on Phil's 2018 timetable. This has many rules.

Unfortunately the evaluator has decided that all the trains ahead of 0830 have already entered, so about 1/2 the services wouldn't appear.

Please could this be investigated?

Thanks
Jamie
If you didn't force that to happen, none of the TTs which have multiple seed times would work as selecting say a defined 04:45 seed time would cause all trains booked to enter the sim (rather than be formed as an N working) pre-04:45 to try and enter at 04:45 which is not a desirable outcome. If you look at the multi-seeded TTs you will see that at a seed time after the initial opening time of the TT there will normally be two trains in the TT with the same TD, one shown with timings from entry and one shown with a seed location and then only times downstream of that.

I believe the question is worded confusingly, and that the issue is that the re-entry rules don't trigger because the trains don't seed.
For clarification then:

If you didn't force that to happen, none of the TTs which have multiple seed times would work as selecting say a defined 04:45 seed time would cause all trains booked to enter the sim (rather than be formed as an N working) pre-04:45 to try and enter at 04:45 which is not a desirable outcome. If you look at the multi-seeded TTs you will see that at a seed time after the initial opening time of the TT there will normally be two trains in the TT with the same TD, one shown with timings from entry and one shown with a seed location and then only times downstream of that. The natural follow on from that is that trains governed by rule from a train that has not entered the sim, then cannot enter themselves as the rule governing their entry has not been met. Again if you did not have that strict adherence to rule in place (i.e. you allowed trains governed to enter by rule even though the rule had not been met) you have an unworkable timetable.

If the argument is that there should be some black magic which can pick any start time within the TT and then interpose seeds as appropriate and also decide which rules to apply and which to mark as already actioned then that is something which would be a new capability within the core code rather than a matter for investigation.

“In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe
Log in to reply
The following users said thank you: Meld, Stephen Fulcher
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 18:53 #138332
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4944 posts
I think I understand the question more now and I caveat my comments by saying the timetabling is a mystery to me, so I'm hypothesising.

There's a slight difference between seeding and rules not being triggered by earlier trains not running.
If you start a timetable at a random time of (say) 09.00 then every train due to enter prior to 09.00 (I think there used to be a 15min backtrack; anyway, that's not material to the point). The point is that train prior to a defined time will never enter and trains timed to seed will never seed. Thus there is a deficiency of trains at start-up.
That seems to be problem 1 and appears to be the harder to resolve.

Trains that should have entered prior to that time don't but there may be rules linked to that entry that affect later trains. If it were assumed that any train that is denied entry due to the start time actually ran and thus the rule was triggered then I think that would free later events to continue to happen. Would that work or cause problems? Call that problem 2.

Then, and I think this is the main problem (problem 3), if later trains that are due to enter are subject to rules that are dependant on earlier trains, which never ran, exiting the sim.
If there were some way to deem rules related to trains due to exit prior to the starting time would that work?

Leaving aside whether it was possible to implement such things in core-code I suggest the first question to address, is whether, if either Problem 2 or 3 were solvable, would it work or would it cause problems for (say) day of the week running?

Peter

I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs!
Last edited: 03/04/2021 at 18:55 by Peter Bennet
Reason: Grammar

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 03/04/2021 at 19:10 #138333
bill_gensheet
Avatar
694 posts
Online
9pN1SEAp in post 138324 said:

Then it's a useless option and should be disabled, or warn at least if the rules are going to go wrong.
It has its' uses for testing and writing timetables.

It is also likely that some (less rule heavy) timetables do have 'safe' start times through the day, which would be in the notes. Without a seed group the sim would start out empty of course, but soon fill up to normal.

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 04/04/2021 at 08:09 #138355
Meld
Avatar
862 posts
Peter, as someone that has got a few TT's under his belt

Quote:
The point is that train prior to a defined time will never enter and trains timed to seed will never seed. Thus there is a deficiency of trains at start-up.
A seed must have a seed time be it either start of sim 00:00 or any specified time and will always seed (unless it tied to a decision) if you select the seed start time. The seed replaces the missing service that would have entered pre start time.

Quote:
Trains that should have entered prior to that time don't but there may be rules linked to that entry that affect later trains. If it were assumed that any train that is denied entry due to the start time actually ran and thus the rule was triggered then I think that would free later events to continue to happen. Would that work or cause problems?
As long as the seed has the same TID/UID as in the rules it will pick up on them = problem solved

Quote:
if later trains that are due to enter are subject to rules that are dependant on earlier trains, which never ran, exiting the sim.
If there were some way to deem rules related to trains due to exit prior to the starting time would that work?
As said above the seed, if correctly set up replaces any pre start time train that is in sim. So if you sort out new seeds for your chosen start problems 2&3 don't exist

In effect it all comes down to seeding for a start time other than provided times. TT has 0000 0400 & 1400 starting seeds, if you start a sim at 1000 your gonna have problems, TT writers can't and shouldnt be expected to plan for this, as I said in my previous post above, the tools are there so anyone can do it.

Personally I wouldn't like to go down the route that a certain ATC sim does, with a full 24 hour schedule with 2 hour windows split off every hour.

It took approximately 20 hours per TT to seed up the 3 Three Bridges timetables, creating, validating, rule checking and ensuring they seed as ARS (which is totally different to schedule validation).

Passed the age to be doing 'Spoon Feeding' !!!
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 04/04/2021 at 09:35 #138357
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4944 posts
John,

Yes I get the bit about seeding, if you don't have a seed then captive trains will never run, neither will entering >next>exit trains - there seems no solution for that other than to seed.
However, if the entrance of a subsequent train is dependent on a rule that is dependant on that non-running train it will never enter either. My pondering was, if the rule was deemed triggered as a general rule then would it cause problems elsewhere? I guess one example might be variable/alternative trains. E.g. optional trains that would never have entered in the first place being deemed to have run and thus satisfying a rule for a subsequent train that should not run. So 6A02 and 7B02 are mutually exclusive trains and entry of 6A04 and 7B04 are dependant on the respective earlier train having run, then if both rules are deemed to have been met then both xx04s would probably then enter.

I think I've answered my own thoughts there.

Peter

I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs!
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 04/04/2021 at 11:32 #138367
bill_gensheet
Avatar
694 posts
Online
Peter Bennet in post 138357 said:
John,
I guess one example might be variable/alternative trains. E.g. optional trains that would never have entered in the first place being deemed to have run and thus satisfying a rule for a subsequent train that should not run. So 6A02 and 7B02 are mutually exclusive trains and entry of 6A04 and 7B04 are dependant on the respective earlier train having run, then if both rules are deemed to have been met then both xx04s would probably then enter.

I think I've answered my own thoughts there.

Peter
Agreed, and to cover that I believe that the author would need to double up on the constraints.

So you'd have an A/B decision (not a MUTEX) between 6A02 and 7B02, apply the same A/B decision between 6A04 and 7B04, AND have a 'enters after leaves' to set up knock-on delay / turnback timings for 6A04 from 6A02, and 7B04 from 7B02 if running the timetable through.

A bit of faff, but authors' choice if they wish to offer 'pick your start time' and the sim is suitable (eg no captive trains).

Raises a wider question, how many users use/want/like the fully seeded start time options, how many is 'enough' given the work involved, would a couple of saves be as useful ?

Bill

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 04/04/2021 at 11:52 #138368
DonRiver
Avatar
107 posts
Ideally, given a full timetable and an arbitrary start time, it'd run through the whole timetable up to that point, applying "runs as required" dice-rolls where necessary and marking earlier trains as entered. And positioning en-route trains at the most appropriate timing point or location without the need to create seed groups manually.

It might be possible to make a tool which does this external to SimSig - given a WTT and an arbitrary start time, it'd do all that and set up a seed group automatically.

Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 05/04/2021 at 08:56 #138379
Peter Bennet
Avatar
4944 posts
DonRiver in post 138368 said:

It might be possible to make a tool which does this external to SimSig - given a WTT and an arbitrary start time, it'd do all that and set up a seed group automatically.
If it's external to Simsig then the clever computery people out there could put their minds to it.

Peter

I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs!
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 05/04/2021 at 09:20 #138385
9pN1SEAp
Avatar
487 posts
The funnies with rules also made all the 1G/2G trains completely disappear at some point, in the attached East Coastway sim that HAD been started at seed time, and chained to Brighton throughout. So that's some more grist to the mill.
Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Jamie S (JAMS)
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 05/04/2021 at 18:12 #138408
GeoffM
Avatar
5537 posts
9pN1SEAp in post 138385 said:
The funnies with rules also made all the 1G/2G trains completely disappear at some point, in the attached East Coastway sim that HAD been started at seed time, and chained to Brighton throughout. So that's some more grist to the mill.
It looks like 2G02 never entered from Brighton. For some reason some IDs are missing from the Performance Data (Mantis 33430) but even without that I can see nothing that ran was scheduled at Lewes at 05:13 (2G02's scheduled arrival).

SimSig Boss
Log in to reply
Rule evaluation 05/04/2021 at 19:02 #138409
9pN1SEAp
Avatar
487 posts
GeoffM in post 138408 said:

It looks like 2G02 never entered from Brighton. For some reason some IDs are missing from the Performance Data (Mantis 33430) but even without that I can see nothing that ran was scheduled at Lewes at 05:13 (2G02's scheduled arrival).
I checked from saves, it definitely did run but for some reason it's not been recorded on F5.

The effect of whatever's happened has then caused all subsequent 1G/2G's to be marked as already entered, which compounded with the "enter N after Y has left" left me having to re-instate all the services AND delete the rules.

Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Jamie S (JAMS)
Log in to reply