Page 1 of 1
| Odd timetable validation 14/10/2018 at 02:45 #112614 | |
AlexRail575
136 posts |
Trying to create a timetable for Exeter based on the current WTT, there's an odd situation where, for a train headed from Newton Abbot to Paignton - 2T04 (I tried with other trains terminating at Paignton, but only this one seems to have it, trains running from Exeter or all the way from Exmouth do not have this problem), once I validate the timetable, the order of the last two stations (Torquay and Paignton) is reversed... Has this happened to anybody else?   Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 14/10/2018 at 06:16 #112615 | |
pedroathome
915 posts 
|
AlexRail575 in post 112614 said:Trying to create a timetable for Exeter based on the current WTT, there's an odd situation where, for a train headed from Newton Abbot to Paignton - 2T04 (I tried with other trains terminating at Paignton, but only this one seems to have it, trains running from Exeter or all the way from Exmouth do not have this problem), once I validate the timetable, the order of the last two stations (Torquay and Paignton) is reversed... Your Torquay departure time is 1720 not 0720 like I suspct you mean. Thiss is why it woulc have come out of order James Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 14/10/2018 at 23:16 #112633 | |
|
AlexRail575
136 posts |
Bad typo on my part - however, I ask: even with the departure times being later than the arrival, would it not be more convenient (easier to fix) if the validator simply pointed this out without changing the order of the involved stations?
Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 14/10/2018 at 23:33 #112634 | |
postal
5265 posts
|
AlexRail575 in post 112633 said:easier to fixFor the user or the coder? “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 |
| Odd timetable validation 15/10/2018 at 01:57 #112637 | |
|
AlexRail575
136 posts |
For the user, since, usually, messing station order up (in my example, selecting "Paignton" instead of "Torquay" ) isn't as easy as accidentally typing (again in my example) "17" instead of "07". Not that it seems like a major change...
Last edited: 15/10/2018 at 01:57 by AlexRail575 Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 15/10/2018 at 06:52 #112639 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
AlexRail575 in post 112633 said:Bad typo on my part - however, I ask: even with the departure times being later than the arrival, would it not be more convenient (easier to fix) if the validator simply pointed this out without changing the order of the involved stations?Good point, every location has a number (in the down direction), which is what keeps them in order (unless times dictate otherwise) so it might be possible to validate the number order between key locations (which are kept in rigid order). [Actually, I have a vague thought that it already did something along those lines in the TT analyser but I don't have time to test at the moment] Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Last edited: 15/10/2018 at 06:57 by Peter Bennet Reason: Additional thought. Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 15/10/2018 at 12:53 #112643 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
Okay, let me attempt to explain. A lot of this is historical - the code was designed a long time ago and much has changed since. There are two kinds of locations in simulations: "key" and "non-key". Very simply, a non-key location is one that trains can stop at or pass but nothing else, while key locations can have actions and other things. In the simulation data are lists of "paths" which are pairs of key locations that can come after one another; these may also carry information about path, line, and platform numbers. (They also do other things in ARS sims.) So when validation says that there is no path between two locations, that's because that pair aren't in the list. To do this - and I don't know why it was written this way - the core code strips out all the non-key locations before doing the validation. It then puts them back in afterwards and - and this is what's causing the issue - puts them in in time order. I have no idea why it was done like that, even though I've got a vague feeling that I wrote or rewrote some of the code. Yes, this could be fixed. No, it's not going to be at all simple. I've raised Mantis 21783 so it doesn't get lost. Peter mentions location numbers. These aren't required to be in the down direction and in fact they aren't checked at all (or weren't last time I looked at the code). They're only there for ordering the spreadsheets that one user facility produces. Before they could be used we'd have to update *every* sim to use them. Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 15/10/2018 at 19:28 #112654 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
Just checked and the analyser reports if locations are out of order. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 15/10/2018 at 19:37 #112655 | |
9pN1SEAp
1180 posts |
clive in post 112643 said:Not just a matter of adding a second pointer in a linked list to next Key Location? Jamie S (JAMS) Log in to reply |
| Odd timetable validation 15/10/2018 at 19:58 #112657 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
9pN1SEAp in post 112655 said:clive in post 112643 said:No because the next key location may not be a key location for all trains.Not just a matter of adding a second pointer in a linked list to next Key Location? "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |