Page 1 of 1
| Another possible bug in 2.202 02/02/2010 at 21:19 #646 | |
alan_s
152 posts |
Earlier I was running two trains between Bristol and Batheaston Junction, making use of the bidirectional signalling on that stretch. When the train that was running "up" the "down" line got past Bath, on the approach to sydney gardens (in other words, where there is a "break" in the diagram at line "C"  the headcode of this train appeared on the "up" line instead.Alan Log in to reply |
| Another possible bug in 2.202 02/02/2010 at 21:19 #6414 | |
|
alan_s
152 posts |
Earlier I was running two trains between Bristol and Batheaston Junction, making use of the bidirectional signalling on that stretch. When the train that was running "up" the "down" line got past Bath, on the approach to sydney gardens (in other words, where there is a "break" in the diagram at line "C" the headcode of this train appeared on the "up" line instead.Alan Log in to reply |
| Another possible bug in 2.202 08/02/2010 at 17:28 #6529 | |
|
IrishDave
51 posts |
Confirmed. In fact, the two routes from 175 seem to have been crossed: with 175->177 set (continuing wrong road on the down line), the TD steps from 175 to UM106A; with 175->UM106A set (crossing from down to up just west of Bath), the TD steps from 175 to 177. None of the other signals over those crossovers (75, 6, 206) have any problems. (Only present in Modern mode, since the bidirectional signalling didn't exist in the 1980s.) Hope that helps. Dave Log in to reply |
| Another possible bug in 2.202 08/02/2010 at 17:45 #6530 | |
|
alan_s
152 posts |
Thanks for confirming Dave. Incidentally I've gone back to version 2.125.0.686 (because the BHT bug makes it unusable) and this problem was present then - so its not a new thing after all! (Still needs fixing though!  )Alan Log in to reply |