Page 1 of 1
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 11:12 #118208 | |
VInce
579 posts |
Hi all, Version 1.1 of the Exeter 5-day timetable has been uploaded and is currently waiting approval. This minor revision corrects:- 1) A couple of typos 2) One missing train loading 3) One incorrect train description 4) A minor issue which resulted in some DMU shunts - described as DMSHNT-x from Exeter Fuel Road to Exeter CS calling "wrong route" as Exeter CS is regarded as a goods line in the sim. Thanks to everyone for the interest shown in this timetable - its been most gratifying and made the work involved worthwhile. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 11/05/2019 at 11:13 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply The following users said thank you: simmybear, norman B, kpl455, Phil-jmw, vloris, bossman |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 11:24 #118209 | |
bugsy
1795 posts |
Great timetable Vince. I've had to slow it down a bit during the morning rush as it gets a bit busy almost everywhere. Was the incorrect train description to do with 2B84 by any chance? Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 13:08 #118210 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
Hi all, This revision has not been approved by mods because it has the Version number in the filename. The first version was approved with the version number in the file name. Makes me wonder why I bother really. Where is the consistency? In fact - the next time I feel like spending nearly a year developing a timetable (which has been downloaded nearly 150 times) I think I'll resist the temptation. I'll upload this again but don't expect any more uploads from me - I've done. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Log in to reply The following user said thank you: d233 |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 13:14 #118211 | |
norman B
111 posts |
Dont despair Vince we all support you. An evan handed approach is needed in all Sim Sig happenings. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: bugsy, ajax103 |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 18:11 #118218 | |
|
bugsy
1795 posts |
Vince. Don't resist the temptation to write another of your excellent timetables. You’ll disappoint a lot of SimSig members. Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 19:32 #118220 | |
Peter Bennet
5419 posts |
VInce in post 118210 said:Hi all,The reason for not including version numbers is that if the title is identical then the new one should automatically replace the previous one, otherwise you end up with both available. What's currently required on your part is a crystal ball. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: jc92 |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 19:45 #118221 | |
postal
5269 posts |
Vince Looks like your first attempt slipped through the net and you should have been asked to re-submit without the version number in the first place. Although I am not part of the decision making process for issues like this, I can see the justification for the policy. One or more TTs are pushed out as part of a sim release. Those TTs become part of the sim package and are locked into the update process. That means that any update or revisions will be automatically pushed out when made available by the TT writer. The update process relies on over-writing existing files so that the end user does not get lost in a plethora of similar looking file names. Without being involved in the technical issues around the update process, I would guess that you can't put a version number into the TT title as it would then add an additional file rather than over-writing. For the TT writer there is the facility in the front tab of the TT to set a version number with three drop-downsections (to give major, minor and incremental version numbers in the form v0.0.0) so that track can be kept without disrupting the file name. While there is not the same "automatic update" reason for not putting a version number into the timetable name for user-uploaded TTs there is the argument in favour of consistency of approach. I must confess that at the TT updating level I normally include a version number in the TT title on the front tab (which carries over to the file name if the TT pop-out is closed before saving) to make it easier to load the correct TT when testing. However, that needs to be removed before the TT is put forward for distribution. I do hope that you don't feel so aggravated that you have to walk away. Unfortunately there have been two gaps in the process which have led to your problem. Firstly I can't see any instruction in any of the documentation to advise that user-supplied TTs must not have a version number in the title. Secondly, your first version of the TT should not have been uploaded with the version number in the title. In the grand scheme of things, minor errors that should not have happened and hopefully not enough to make you pack your bags once the immediate irritation has passed. Edit: Peter posted while I was typing! “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 Last edited: 11/05/2019 at 19:47 by postal Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Airvan00 |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 19:49 #118222 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5419 posts |
I've since become aware of this page and I have suggested that a link is added on the upload page. Once I've worked out exactly what should go in each box of the upload page I'll add to the page. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 20:12 #118223 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5419 posts |
Peter Bennet in post 118222 said:I've since become aware of this page and I have suggested that a link is added on the upload page. Once I've worked out exactly what should go in each box of the upload page I'll add to the page.I've tweaked some of the wording in the page to better match the box names in the timetable editor. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 11/05/2019 at 20:56 #118224 | |
|
postal
5269 posts |
postal in post 118221 said:Firstly I can't see any instruction in any of the documentation to advise that user-supplied TTs must not have a version number in the title. I stand corrected after Peter's detective work. Apologies. However, agree that it would be helpful to have a link added to the Uploads page (perhaps with a little bit of explanatory text that it gives details about the format to be used for a user-submitted upload). “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 |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 13/05/2019 at 18:09 #118260 | |
GeoffM
6380 posts |
postal in post 118224 said:postal in post 118221 said:I sent Peter the link to the relevant part of the user manual. I agree it would be helpful to remind users of this on the upload page.Firstly I can't see any instruction in any of the documentation to advise that user-supplied TTs must not have a version number in the title. Nothing personal, Vince. We're just getting better at following through with procedures! SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 02/11/2020 at 10:06 #133472 | |
|
Slash
76 posts |
Thanks for the timetable, very interesting so far. I've got a lot of activity at Newton Abbott and i've just put a class 31 onto the front of a post train. What's that about, stock positioining? Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 02/11/2020 at 17:34 #133484 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
No, The detachment/attachments of locos to through trains at Newton Abbot are before/after banking the various trains over the Devon banks and are true to what happened at the time. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Devon_Banks Bank engines were rostered where the scheduled loading of the train exceeded the timing load for a single loco for the section of heavily graded line concerned. In the old WTTs applicable at the time these timing loads were shown at the head of the column in the form of D255 or E250 depending on the type of traction. In the explanation of references shown at the front of WTTs it says (taken from an old ER WTT but all WTTs were very similar).. "D280, D315 etc Diesel hauled. Figures indicate planned trailing load (tare weights with Class 1, 2 & 5) expressed in tonnes, used to calculate point to point timings" In steam days trains were mostly (but not always) banked in rear but on the WR when diesel locos took over the work most trains were banked from the front - but not always! If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone on the forum will be able to correct me. Special rules were in force for HSTs on one power car too - this timetable replicates this. Details are in the notes panel and also at the beginning of this thread. https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Forum/ThreadView/49758 Later in the timetable a couple of trains are banked up the incline from Exeter St Davids. See here for a rather unsuccessful attempt to get up the hill with a steam loco, or rather two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHF208pfsck&ab_channel=MarshSteamVideos%E2%84%A2 The P.Way lads would not have been too pleased after slipping of this magnitude. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 02/11/2020 at 17:57 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 02/11/2020 at 17:47 #133485 | |
jc92
3701 posts |
The 1981 loco diagrams show a OC 31/4 bookee to bank 1A07 and 1B02, although this sometimes produced a pair of 50s. A number of diagrams do show the train loco being assisted, however I havent read them all fully for the full week yet. Doubtless some are paired 50s. The line from Aller junction to Stoneycombe used to have bankers attached to assist heavy trains and the same applied at Totnes as well. If its a postal train its probably load 11 or 13 ish and therefore it doesn't suprise me it was assisted. The sleepers were of a similar loading. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 02/11/2020 at 18:05 #133486 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
jc92 in post 133485 said:The 1981 loco diagrams show a OC 31/4 bookee to bank 1A07 and 1B02, although this sometimes produced a pair of 50s.Thanks - 1A07 loaded 15 according to the MLO and stock workings (2135 Penzance -> Paddington (PASS/MAIL/SLEEPER/MOTORAIL) (LA Cl 50 DB + OOC Cl 31 DB/EH detached at NA) +2NDV+2SLC+NDV+SLS+3SLC+2TSO+NDV+TSO+CK+NXV(motor-cars) 1B02 MX loaded 14 (0005 MX Paddington -> Penzance PASS/SLEEPER/MAIL(LA Class 50 DB + OOC Cl 31 EH/DB attached at NA) +NDV+2SLC+NDV+3SLC+SLS+CK+TSO+NDV+3TSO). The MO formation was very similar (0005 MO Paddington -> Penzance PASS/SLEEPER/MAIL(LA Class 50 DB + OOC Cl 31 EH/DB attached at NA) +NDV+2SLC+NDV+3SLC+SLS+CK+TSO+NDV+3TSO) 58050 supplied me with the loco workings which I took into account and the Stock Workings and MLOs were available from the BRCS group, so everything should be as it was rostered at the time, although as we all know there were bound to be day-to-day peturbations to the plan. Freight loading and banking were much more susceptible to day to day alterations. The loadings I've shown in the timetable were gleaned from a number of sources, principally RMWEB but there were many others. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 02/11/2020 at 18:09 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 05/11/2020 at 16:50 #133583 | |
|
Slash
76 posts |
Vince The Exmouth - Barnestaple trains are running around with the same headcode, 2B84 etc. Right pain in the arse! Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 05/11/2020 at 17:23 #133586 | |
|
geswedey
207 posts 
|
As per real life at the time, a lot of branch line trains all over the country ran with the same branch specific headcodes, in small signalling control areas this really wouldn't have been a big problem especially as track circuits in a lot of areas typically only showed track occupancy anyway. Glyn Glyn Calvert ACIRO Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 05/11/2020 at 22:58 #133610 | |
|
Phil-jmw
675 posts |
geswedey in post 133586 said:As per real life at the time, a lot of branch line trains all over the country ran with the same branch specific headcodes, in small signalling control areas this really wouldn't have been a big problem especially as track circuits in a lot of areas typically only showed track occupancy anyway.There was also much less in the way of automatic train reporting, where arrival/departure/passing times in TRUST are derived from the signal box train describers. If two trains in the same area at a similar time (shouldn't happen) have the same reporting number TRUST has difficulty knowing which to report on. For instance, before the Merseyrail resignalling trains were assigned a headcode by line served, eg Southport line trains were all 2F88, with Ormskirk, Kirkby, New Brighton, Rock Ferry and West Kirby also each having their own numbers, so a glance at the train description on James St PSB panel was all the signalman needed to route trains correctly at Sandhills Jn (or Hamilton Square Jn on the Wirral Line). I'm pretty sure there wasn't any auto reporting associated with James St PSB, and I don't think Merseyrail trains were even in TRUST back then. Imagine TRUST/ATR trying to interpret maybe 3 or 4 trains on the panel all with the same headcode. Phil. Last edited: 05/11/2020 at 23:24 by Phil-jmw Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 06/11/2020 at 14:20 #133620 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
Phil-jmw in post 133610 said:geswedey in post 133586 said:...and you and I both remember when Derby - Matlock and vv trains were all 2P59, Crewe - Lincolns were all 2E84, Crewe - Nottingham were all 2D84 and Crewe - Derby were all 2P84.As per real life at the time, a lot of branch line trains all over the country ran with the same branch specific headcodes, in small signalling control areas this really wouldn't have been a big problem especially as track circuits in a lot of areas typically only showed track occupancy anyway.There was also much less in the way of automatic train reporting, where arrival/departure/passing times in TRUST are derived from the signal box train describers. If two trains in the same area at a similar time (shouldn't happen) have the same reporting number TRUST has difficulty knowing which to report on. For instance, before the Merseyrail resignalling trains were assigned a headcode by line served, eg Southport line trains were all 2F88, with Ormskirk, Kirkby, New Brighton, Rock Ferry and West Kirby also each having their own numbers, so a glance at the train description on James St PSB panel was all the signalman needed to route trains correctly at Sandhills Jn (or Hamilton Square Jn on the Wirral Line). I'm pretty sure there wasn't any auto reporting associated with James St PSB, and I don't think Merseyrail trains were even in TRUST back then. Imagine TRUST/ATR trying to interpret maybe 3 or 4 trains on the panel all with the same headcode. All Nottingham - Lincolns were 2E73 with returns as 2M73, Lincoln - Crewe were all 2M84, Nottingham - Crewe were all 2K84 and all Derby - Crewe were 2K59. Then there was Nottingham - Grantham as 2E76, Grantham - Nottingham as 2M76, Leicester Peterborough as 2E59 and return as 2M59. Birmingham - Leicester was 2F76 (I think?) and Leicester - Birmingham was 2G76 (or was it 2G81?) I could go on but since its already the most tedious post I've ever made, I'll not bother... Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 06/11/2020 at 16:42 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 06/11/2020 at 14:33 #133621 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
Slash in post 133583 said:VinceBefore I published Version 1 of this timetable I put it to the forum asked whether they wanted me to invent different reporting numbers for each train, or go with the reality of how it was and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of historical accuracy. I agree its not easy but, well you are free to amend the timetable as you wish and give all of the trains different numbers.... Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 06/11/2020 at 14:34 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 06/11/2020 at 15:37 #133623 | |
|
jc92
3701 posts |
one trick with the duplicate headcodes is use of the simplifier (F8 key). If you want to check the time, for instance, lets say 2B84 crosses Cowley bridge Jcn so you can regulate it around another train, do a report for Cowley bridge Jcn and the simplifier will show the next due version of 2B84 and its booked passing time. The same applies at Exeter if you need to check the booked platform and times (the real boxes had simplifiers or station working books - I have one for 1981 but 1980.) "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 07/11/2020 at 00:05 #133662 | |
|
Phil-jmw
675 posts |
VInce in post 133620 said:Phil-jmw in post 133610 said:I remember the Derby - Crewe's were 2K59 Vince (why that one should stick I don't know) but all the other numbers were lost to me in the mists of time. They were of course bread and butter to you on the DMU desk so I can see why your powers of recall are much better than mine. Apart from reporting arrivals and departures into TRUST the local services were of less importance to us in the TOPS office, our main focus being on the HST's, loco-hauls and the freight, anything requiring consisting in TOPS/POIS, and is why their headcodes stick more in my memory.geswedey in post 133586 said:...and you and I both remember when Derby - Matlock and vv trains were all 2P59, Crewe - Lincolns were all 2E84, Crewe - Nottingham were all 2D84 and Crewe - Derby were all 2P84.As per real life at the time, a lot of branch line trains all over the country ran with the same branch specific headcodes, in small signalling control areas this really wouldn't have been a big problem especially as track circuits in a lot of areas typically only showed track occupancy anyway.There was also much less in the way of automatic train reporting, where arrival/departure/passing times in TRUST are derived from the signal box train describers. If two trains in the same area at a similar time (shouldn't happen) have the same reporting number TRUST has difficulty knowing which to report on. For instance, before the Merseyrail resignalling trains were assigned a headcode by line served, eg Southport line trains were all 2F88, with Ormskirk, Kirkby, New Brighton, Rock Ferry and West Kirby also each having their own numbers, so a glance at the train description on James St PSB panel was all the signalman needed to route trains correctly at Sandhills Jn (or Hamilton Square Jn on the Wirral Line). I'm pretty sure there wasn't any auto reporting associated with James St PSB, and I don't think Merseyrail trains were even in TRUST back then. Imagine TRUST/ATR trying to interpret maybe 3 or 4 trains on the panel all with the same headcode. Phil. Log in to reply |
| Exeter Summer 5-day - early 1980s Version 1.1 07/11/2020 at 13:54 #133668 | |
58050
2660 posts |
Personally I don't change the train TD in timetables as there isn't any point to it. If each train has a unique UID that's what differenciates each individual train in the TT. I tend to use the same TD if a certain service to a certain destination{Just like local Cl.2 trains had in the 1970s & early 1980s], but then I add in the days of the week it runs & the last thing I add into the UID is the actual booked departure time. So if you have 30+ trains in the TT with the TD of 2K59)using Phil's example) then I'd add MX or MO{for Mondays excepted or Mondays Only) & finally I'd add in the time it departs the orinating station if its on the sim or the booked time it enters the sim for example 1210. So if that train runs every day of the week the UID would be 2K591210, but if it's a Monday Only train then the UID would be 2K59MO1210. If the first train seeds on the sim then I'd call it 2K59SMX or 2K59sMO or just 2K59S. All of those trains Vince refers to having the same TD I'd leave them as they should be & the unique number would be referenced by the unique UID as they'd all have different departure times. At then end of the day Vince it just depends n how accurate you want the TT to be.
Log in to reply |