Page 1 of 1
| Sheffield obsolete 17/01/2023 at 02:09 #150170 | |
zak bevington
3 posts |
Hi all, I’ve been playing SimSig for just over a year now and it’s a really good game. However it would be a dream come true if we could see Sheffield and the surrounding areas as they were in the 1980’s. I would love to signal trains in and out of Tinsley yard for instance. I do understand that it’s no longer available for download so I am curious as to why it isn’t available anymore and also curious if anybody knows anything about a possible redevelopment/remaking of Sheffield obsolete. Yours faithfully Zak.
Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 17/01/2023 at 04:51 #150171 | |
GeoffM
6282 posts |
There aren't any plans for an older era Sheffield I'm afraid. The obsolete version needed major work to bring it up to standard. Keep an eye out for other areas that do have 1980s coverage though! Also look for timetables by @58050 and others who enjoy that era as well.
SimSig Boss Last edited: 17/01/2023 at 04:51 by GeoffM Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: zak bevington |
| Sheffield obsolete 18/01/2023 at 00:05 #150177 | |
|
304033
53 posts |
Hello. Just realised I still have this installed... See screenshots attached (1980's mode) To me, Sheffield ROC (scrolly) is a MUCH improvement over the old sim...   
Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Last edited: 18/01/2023 at 00:06 by 304033 Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 18/01/2023 at 00:06 #150178 | |
|
304033
53 posts |
And the other 3 screens.   Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 18/01/2023 at 12:47 #150181 | |
58050
2650 posts |
304033 in post 150177 said:Hello.What you've said regarding the new Sheffield scrolly sim maybe true, but you're missing the point that the sim ONLY covers the modern era whereas the user who started this thread was specifically talking about the 1980s era. Although the old sim wasn't perfect & needed some more work on it to make the timetabling of a BR era timetable work properly. If Geoff decides to do a BR era specific sim to cover the missing era then he can contact me as I have some signalling plans dating back to the late 1970s & earlier of some of that old sims area of control. Last edited: 18/01/2023 at 12:56 by 58050 Reason: None given Log in to reply The following users said thank you: DonRiver, TUT, Jan, Banners88 |
| Sheffield obsolete 18/01/2023 at 15:52 #150182 | |
bugsy
1696 posts |
I've also got this sim and really enjoy playing it. So, if Geoff did decide to do a BR specific era sim, it would go on my 'got to buy it' list 
Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Banners88 |
| Sheffield obsolete 18/01/2023 at 16:10 #150183 | |
|
58050
2650 posts |
bugsy in post 150182 said:I've also got this sim and really enjoy playing it.No doubt you along with alot of other users too, I include myself in that also. Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 12:29 #150192 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1317 posts |
304033 in post 150177 said:Hello.Attached is the paged Sheffield screenshots posted above joined up into a single view to show (roughly) how a scrolly version would look. Managed to get it down to 900 pixel high, and at 9800 wide it is about the same screen area as say Motherwell. Even then a fair number of cramped sidings that would ideally want spacing out more. The paged sim looks a nightmare of lines going all over to make them fit - or was the real one that crazy ? Maybe OK if only trying to run one page at a time. Also found this recently on YouTube, about Sheffield modernisation c 1966 https://youtu.be/iJx6MdesrY4 Bill  Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: 304033, Fendahl |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 12:37 #150193 | |
|
58050
2650 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 150192 said:304033 in post 150177 said:That image still has the major flaws to it as the original SimSig paged sim which was never corrected. The 2 missing tracks at Aldwarke Jn. & also the missing carriage sdgs at Nunnery. Even the scrolly Sheffield sim which I had on another PC didn't have thoseitem fixed in it either.Hello.Attached is the paged Sheffield screenshots posted above joined up into a single view to show (roughly) how a scrolly version would look. Managed to get it down to 900 pixel high, and at 9800 wide it is about the same screen area as say Motherwell. Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 13:43 #150194 | |
|
clive
2738 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 150192 said:The original Cambridge was 6 pages, of which one was bits that went above or below other bits. So it should easily fit in 5x128 = 640 wide, right? So far it's 1250 wide and I haven't started on making it look pretty. bill_gensheet in post 150192 said: Look at Quail. Yes, it was. Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 15:38 #150195 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
58050 in post 150193 said:bill_gensheet in post 150192 said:broadly missing from the old sim is:304033 in post 150177 said:That image still has the major flaws to it as the original SimSig paged sim which was never corrected. The 2 missing tracks at Aldwarke Jn. & also the missing carriage sdgs at Nunnery. Even the scrolly Sheffield sim which I had on another PC didn't have thoseitem fixed in it either.Hello.Attached is the paged Sheffield screenshots posted above joined up into a single view to show (roughly) how a scrolly version would look. Managed to get it down to 900 pixel high, and at 9800 wide it is about the same screen area as say Motherwell. - no double track on dore station curve (up to 1984) - no scrap sidings at tapton junction - no sidings, down goods or wicker branch on the down side at Brightside serving various sidings - no Sheffield freight terminal - 4 track arrangement missing from Masborough north Jcn through to Swinton Junction - Arnott and Young sidings missing at parkgate - no goods loops on the barrow hill lines at Masborough south. - no line from Swinton Junction to Cudworth - no Dearne Jcn or Dearne curve at bolton on dearne - Aldwarke Junction had 6 lines, 4 midland, 2 GC - Missing triangle and lines to Wath at Mexborough - Cadeby Colliery not available. - the whole of the GC routes from Aldwarke to Woodburn and woodburn to woodhouse is wrong. missing yards at Rotherham road, ickles, Rotherham main. no Shepcote lane PSB layout from there. no branch to Smithywood coking plant etc. no 4 track layout to woodhouse and no Darnall - Attercliffe curve. - no branch to Annesley colliery provided at Beighton or at Hall lane I've probably missed some out somewhere doubtless! should it ever be done properly, it would be a monumental undertaking, but would probably be the busiest timetable ever produced. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 15:48 #150196 | |
Meld
1098 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 150192 said:This is more a 90's mode than any 80's mode Wath Road Jn to Holmes crossing and Masbrough Station Sidings was quad track Woodbourn Jn to Aldwarke Jn was double track with access from Darnall West Jn joining at Attercliffe Jn. The single track was a by product of the Supertram network opened for the '92 World Student Games. I know of at least one railtour using Darnall West to Attercliffe Jn late '85. Woodhouse Jn to Sheffield No4/Victoria Quad Track Orgreave Colliery Sidings and Rotherwood Exchange Sidings Nunnery CS - Darnall Sheds along with flyover line from Woodburn Jn and access from Darnall station at the east end Tinsley Jn to Aldwarke double as already mentioned, plus the various steel foundry connections & Ickles Yard. Treeton North Jn - Beighton Jn Quad track My own backyard as a child and spent many happy hours cycling round the area visiting various locations. Passed the age to be doing 'Spoon Feeding' !!! Last edited: 19/01/2023 at 15:51 by Meld Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 16:08 #150197 | |
MrSuttonmann
265 posts |
[Removed by author]
(Formerly known as manadude2) Last edited: 20/01/2023 at 11:47 by MrSuttonmann Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 16:42 #150200 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1317 posts |
clive in post 150194 said:bill_gensheet in post 150192 said:I meant was the real signalling panel as messy as the paged sim.The original Cambridge was 6 pages, of which one was bits that went above or below other bits. So it should easily fit in 5x128 = 640 wide, right? I know that Sheffield late 1980's was like that, but as noted above a lot changed in that decade. The paged sim did not call itself '1980'. Looks more like 1988 After Wath shut After Cudworth shut After Aldwarke rebuild Before Swinton curve (1990) Indeed the paged sim may have been a bit date flexible for timetabling by having both Rotherham Central AND Masborough Last edited: 19/01/2023 at 16:45 by bill_gensheet Reason: add date Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 19/01/2023 at 18:32 #150201 | |
|
GeoffM
6282 posts |
I can't say I'm keen on all these comments of things being "wrong". There are multiple time periods being thrown around and whatever the sim purported to cover (late 1980s it appears) may have either been correct for the time, or done to the best knowledge and research material available at the time. Over the years I've found that looking for old information goes both ways simultaneously: "official" records disappear quickly; while people upload old photos, plans, timetables, sketches more and more (and/or searching algorithms are improving). I'm currently researching material for a closed signalbox and, with thanks to others, have managed to collate quite a trove of information, some of it dating back to its original opening in the 1960s. It's not very often we're able to get such detail for something 60 years ago. Yet its neighbour, a similar time period and design... not so much. tl;dr we do the best we can with the information we can find. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 20/01/2023 at 06:59 #150205 | |
|
jc92
3629 posts |
Fair comment, however I'd question if you would produce the same sim today without the "correct" information available, which you've already answered in this post. Simsig has moved on in terms of its quality and standards to the point where things are either right or they don't happen (with the exception of the odd minor siding that was in place for a short period for instance. Given the sim is considered obsolete anyway and no longer available because it doesn't meet those exacting standards, I think its perfectly fine to say there are things wrong with it. my original point was less about picking fault anyway, and more about pointing out what's missing from an already maze like layout for anyone who isn't local or doesn't know, but is interested. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 20/01/2023 at 07:04 #150206 | |
|
jc92
3629 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 150200 said:clive in post 150194 said:Aldwarke wasn't remodelled until 1990/91 in connection with the Roundwood chord and the removal of the Thrybergh jcn - Rotherham central part of the junction. incidentally Aldwarke Jcn reopened with a temporary panel during that time.bill_gensheet in post 150192 said:I meant was the real signalling panel as messy as the paged sim.The original Cambridge was 6 pages, of which one was bits that went above or below other bits. So it should easily fit in 5x128 = 640 wide, right? Otherwise, yes its more accurate for 1988, although screen 6 is miles off. The real panel was much cleaner and clearer, even with the additional lines mentioned, as all of panel 6 was in fact split over multiple boxes and nothing to do with the PSB. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 20/01/2023 at 20:09 #150211 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1317 posts |
jc92 in post 150206 said:bill_gensheet in post 150200 said:Thanks for clarifying Aldwarke, was there not an interim stage after Cudworth/ Wath closed and the MML down to two (active) tracks ? The rails of the other two seemed to be there several years - a bit like north of Trowell was.Aldwarke wasn't remodelled until 1990/91 in connection with the Roundwood chord and the removal of the Thrybergh jcn - Rotherham central part of the junction. incidentally Aldwarke Jcn reopened with a temporary panel during that time. I have a lot of notes 'correcting' 1988 Quail, but not dated so likely after 1990. Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 22/01/2023 at 13:50 #150240 | |
DonRiver
151 posts |
Generally, I'd rather have a best-effort sim era with some informed guesswork than only have sims/eras which can be exactly precise - like, if a route shut in 1992 and there's no record of exactly where its signals, track circuits, even pointwork was positioned, there's nothing to contradict the sim author's creative interpretation of the location, right?
(named for the one in Tasmania, not in Russia) Log in to reply |
| Sheffield obsolete 22/01/2023 at 14:17 #150241 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
DonRiver in post 150240 said:Generally, I'd rather have a best-effort sim era with some informed guesswork than only have sims/eras which can be exactly precise - like, if a route shut in 1992 and there's no record of exactly where its signals, track circuits, even pointwork was positioned, there's nothing to contradict the sim author's creative interpretation of the location, right?There will always be exact records though. If nothing else the OS 1:2500 and 1:5000 series show exact locations of signal posts, points, signalboxes, etc way back into the Victorian era. There are records of most signalling layouts - those currently available at https://signalbox.org/track-layouts/ are a fraction of one person's collection, to point to one of the more accessible sets. Lever leads have been recorded for many mechanical boxes; control tables will be in someone's archive for pretty much every panel box ever opened (that's back to 1934). And there are likely to be photos that will pretty quickly show up the creative interpretations. In fact for a line that closed in 1992 there will be memories of people who worked the boxes and worked trains over it just to confirm or deny the little wrinkles that are universal in railway signalling. It's actually rather surprising just how little one can get away with. Log in to reply |