Page 1 of 1
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 01:59 #103007 | |
whatlep
377 posts |
For timetables between 1989 and 2004 (at least), there were rush-hour workings to/from Irlam which ran as ECS Irlam-Glazebrook-Irlam. Neither location appears to permit creating a new train ID as a "next actvity". Please advise how these workings can be properly incorporated in a timetable.
Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 08:49 #103008 | |
DriverCurran
695 posts |
Whatlep It would appear that the developer has not marked Irlam or Glazebrook as key locations. Unfortunately I don't have access to the sim to check, nor do I have access to the bug board for Hunts Cross so am also unable to report the issue for further action by the developer. If you are unaware of what I mean by a key location the following link will explain... https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=usertrack:ssterms:key_location Cheers Paul You have to get a red before you can get any other colour Last edited: 18/11/2017 at 09:04 by headshot119 Reason: Deleted by moderator Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 09:07 #103009 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
DriverCurran in post 103008 said:WhatlepThey haven't been marked as Key Locations, as they erm, aren't key locations in any of NRs (Or railtracks) data. Certainly not in the 2001 ROTP I have. (A paper version at that isn't that novel) #18478 applies to the original issue. #18479 applies to Hunts Cross not being visible on Mantis. For now you can continue to timetable the moves in. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Last edited: 18/11/2017 at 09:08 by headshot119 Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: whatlep |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 12:27 #103016 | |
|
whatlep
377 posts |
headshot119 in post 103009 said:Thanks for that clarification. Could the developer also add a destination at Glazebrook for what is shown on the sim as MSC Sidings? In reality, these served British Tar Products facility until the early 2000s and received a daily freight from the Manchester direction, the only scheduled freight on the entire CLC Liverpool route IIRC. Last edited: 18/11/2017 at 17:41 by whatlep Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 14:40 #103019 | |
pedroathome
916 posts |
Just a quick one so I can get correct paths in from the MSC. What is their timing points heading towards the siding, and again away from the siding?
Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 17:40 #103030 | |
|
whatlep
377 posts |
pedroathome in post 103019 said:Just a quick one so I can get correct paths in from the MSC. What is their timing points heading towards the siding, and again away from the siding?Attached files show info for winter 1996-97. The 1989-90 WTT shows the same timing points to Piccadilly, then Ardwick Jn and Ashburys Sdgs (where the DMU depot now is IIRC) for the MX train. MO in 1989-90 the train ran to Piccadilly then timing points at Slade Lane, Mauldeth Road and Wilmslow.    Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 18/11/2017 at 19:07 #103033 | |
|
pedroathome
916 posts |
I have made changes to the sim. Once tested it will be pushed. If I have understood your post correctly, you're terminating a train at Irlam, running ECS to Glazebrook East Junction (Reverse on Signal 16?), and then back to Irlam. You'll need to play around a little with Glazebrook as the track layout has changed a fair bit, all be it, everything should still be possible. https://www.flickr.com/photos/87851292@N04/9704554348/in/pool-1536974@N24/ Secondly, I've added in a location for the MSC siding, and named, as per the WTT image. Finally, any other issues, feel free to post on here again. James Log in to reply The following user said thank you: whatlep |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 19/11/2017 at 15:08 #103076 | |
|
whatlep
377 posts |
pedroathome in post 103033 said:I have made changes to the sim. Once tested it will be pushed.That's correct James. In 1989, the ECS working from Irlam went very nearly into Glazebrook station before reversing as you suggest. The logical thing would have been to run passenger trains to/from Glazebrook, but that station is just over the PTE boundary and neither county council was willing to stump up the cash for the signalling changes required. A contrast to Warrington Central where the new colour light 29/31 replaced the original mechanical discs to cater for turnbacks in platform 2. Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 19/11/2017 at 16:58 #103079 | |
|
whatlep
377 posts |
James - I think another key location needs to be added to Hunts Cross. The DMU turnback siding at Hunts Cross.
Log in to reply |
| "Not safe to have activity" messages at Irlam & Glazebrook 19/11/2017 at 18:18 #103083 | |
|
pedroathome
916 posts |
whatlep in post 103079 said:James - I think another key location needs to be added to Hunts Cross. The DMU turnback siding at Hunts Cross.This is now fixed for the next release. In addition to this, I have also checked over other routes around Hunts Cross which you may want to make use of. James Log in to reply The following user said thank you: whatlep |