Platform-agnostic timetabling?

East Putney to Wimbledon (LUL) is LT infrastructure, not NR.
NR signaller has no interest unless setting up the slots for the PSUL's or diversions.

http://www.gensheet.co.uk/photo1/EastPutney/index.html

Equally the LT signaller (machine) has no interest once the trains go onto the Richmond branch from Turnham Green.

Presumably it's the same now as back then, there's locations with no platform number given in the WTT, but it is recorded in TRUST so staff can check it as required. A lot of locations would also produce a station working book or a simplifier sheet for a station panel, made by the box staff.

I mean they must have this information when they build the timetable, indeed you need it in order to build the timetable, so why not put it in the sodding timetable, it doesn't make sense!

It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.

GeoffM in post 149891 said:

It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.

From my timetable planning experience at SWR whilst looking at the District Timetable they plan trains:
Arrive to Depart: ½ minute
Depart to Arrive: 2 minutes

Platforming according the the last csv timetable I looked at defaults to Platform 1 then 2 if P1 is occupied etc.

madaboutrains in post 149897 said:

GeoffM in post 149891 said:

It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.

From my timetable planning experience at SWR whilst looking at the District Timetable they plan trains:
Arrive to Depart: ½ minute
Depart to Arrive: 2 minutes

Platforming according the the last csv timetable I looked at defaults to Platform 1 then 2 if P1 is occupied etc.

There should be easements too - the above covers an arriving train and departing train crossing each other's path, but simultaneous parallel moves should also be possible. Or do they always assume the worst case scenario?

Here is a graph of the Wimbledon P1-4 workings from the District csv timetable available here: http://timetables.data.tfl.gov.uk/

look what you made me go and do. gone and made a spreadsheet didn't I. for the maximum number of pleasing parallel moves

TUT in post 149875 said:

I mean they must have this information when they build the timetable, indeed you need it in order to build the timetable, so why not put it in the sodding timetable, it doesn't make sense!

"To err is human, but to really mess up requires a timetable planner."

Someone trying to recreate what the Great Eastern did with the Jazz at Liverpool Street back in 1920?

Someone trying to recreate what the Great Eastern did with the Jazz at Liverpool Street back in 1920?

Platforms 1 - 4 were the platforms they used, a 2.5 minute interval, filled and departed in order so you got potential parallel moves for 3 moves out of every 4. Of course they had to change engines as well (unlike today's layout each of those platforms had an associated engine dock at the country end to facilitate that). Platform 5, remarkably, was kept in reserve throughout the peaks so problems could be put out of the way without breaking up the flow. All done with mechanical signalling, Sykes Lock & Block and N7 class 0-6-2T locos working 10 coach non-corridor trains. Magnificent madness!

kbarber in post 149938 said:

Someone trying to recreate what the Great Eastern did with the Jazz at Liverpool Street back in 1920?

Platforms 1 - 4 were the platforms they used, a 2.5 minute interval, filled and departed in order so you got potential parallel moves for 3 moves out of every 4. Of course they had to change engines as well (unlike today's layout each of those platforms had an associated engine dock at the country end to facilitate that). Platform 5, remarkably, was kept in reserve throughout the peaks so problems could be put out of the way without breaking up the flow. All done with mechanical signalling, Sykes Lock & Block and N7 class 0-6-2T locos working 10 coach non-corridor trains. Magnificent madness!

Possibly not the same period, but here's a signalling diagram.

According to that there was one engine dock for platforms 1 & 2 and another for 3 to 5.

kbarber in post 149938 said:

Someone trying to recreate what the Great Eastern did with the Jazz at Liverpool Street back in 1920?

Someone trying to apply the actual 1994 District Line WTT to SimSig ;)



There's a number of times when one train is scheduled to arrive at the exact same moment as another is scheduled to depart, and a lot more where there's a short <=60sec interval between movement - so I tried to pick platforms 1 or 2 for those departures and a higher-numbered platform for the arrivals.

I take back my mild irritation at being obliged to include extra information to satisfy Super-ARS - when I was done, I ran the WTT with full ARS on, and sim speed at maximum, and it was very gratifying to see the trains all shuttling in and out.

clive in post 149949 said:

kbarber in post 149938 said:

Someone trying to recreate what the Great Eastern did with the Jazz at Liverpool Street back in 1920?

Platforms 1 - 4 were the platforms they used, a 2.5 minute interval, filled and departed in order so you got potential parallel moves for 3 moves out of every 4. Of course they had to change engines as well (unlike today's layout each of those platforms had an associated engine dock at the country end to facilitate that). Platform 5, remarkably, was kept in reserve throughout the peaks so problems could be put out of the way without breaking up the flow. All done with mechanical signalling, Sykes Lock & Block and N7 class 0-6-2T locos working 10 coach non-corridor trains. Magnificent madness!

Possibly not the same period, but here's a signalling diagram.

According to that there was one engine dock for platforms 1 & 2 and another for 3 to 5.

I suspect that was indeed an older diagram Clive. The GERS published a reprint of - I think - a Railway Gazette article about the Jazz, which included details of the (relatively trivial) track & signalling alterations needed, and platforms 1 - 5 definitely each had their own engine dock. Interestingly the total track & signalling costs amounted to about £20k (at 1920 prices) whereas electrification (the alternative being pressed on the GER to compete with the tram system and cope with the amount of traffic offering) would have been £1 million.