Page 1 of 1
| Default Timetable 19/06/2016 at 03:03 #83113 | |
BarryM
2158 posts |
Danny, I note OH20 is tabled at 05:19/05:32 to reverse at Engine Shed Jn REV L3858. Is this possible on the UMD? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 19/06/2016 at 03:11 #83114 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
Correction Danny, Sorry, It is not your error. The reversing location is incorrectly defined. One for Geoff. Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 19/06/2016 at 03:42 #83115 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
Notice 6S84 clashes with 4S63 at Whitehall JN at 05:27/05:28. Should Decisions be involved in these entry? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 19/06/2016 at 04:48 #83117 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
5V02 is tabled to reverse at L3613 DSM 05:25. It does not do so! Why? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 19/06/2016 at 06:00 #83118 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
3M04 and 5C02 have the same times (05:38) departing Neville Hill TMD. Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 29/06/2016 at 01:06 #83280 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
Problems with 2Hxx? Train forming 2H12 Leeds dep 05:55 is not in TT. 2H65 arrives Leeds at 19:28½ to form 2V10. 2V10 is tabled to dep at 07:35? There is no tt for 2H14? Should this train form 2V10? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 29/06/2016 at 12:38 #83290 | |
Jan
906 posts |
Both problems have already been reported and marked as fixed, so we just have to wait for the updated timetable to be released.
Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: BarryM |
| Default Timetable 30/06/2016 at 00:40 #83301 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
Noted 1P58's 19:49½ arrival at Leeds P16B clashes with 2J61's 21:13 departure from same platform. Barry Edit: 1F73 is blocked to P16A by 2J61! Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Last edited: 30/06/2016 at 00:56 by BarryM Reason: Edt Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 29/03/2018 at 20:48 #107096 | |
Gwasanaethau
509 posts |
I’ve just had the amusing situation whereby a late 4E51 left Hunslett FLT minutes after one-and-the-same (but on-time running) 4E51 flew past Church Fenton on its way to York!  There appears to be a rule in the timetable, but I am not sure it was applied the right way around…The only save I have is from when the late train is leaving Hunslett FLT (sorry!) so I don’t know how much help that would be! Mark (Gwasanaethau) Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 30/03/2018 at 00:46 #107100 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
Gwasanaethau in post 107096 said:I’ve just had the amusing situation whereby a late 4E51 left Hunslett FLT minutes after one-and-the-same (but on-time running) 4E51 flew past Church Fenton on its way to York!If 4E51 was running ontime leaving Hunslet Freight Terminal, the rule is correct. The train is heading towards York. However the rule needs to be adjusted for late running conditions. Referred to Mantis: #20047 Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Last edited: 30/03/2018 at 01:15 by BarryM Reason: add Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 24/10/2019 at 20:15 #121303 | |
|
Jan
906 posts |
What is the current state of the update for the timetable? An intermediate update was released at some point, but if I remember correctly that was only about chaining compatibility or some other localised issue, and fixes for most (all?) of the other issues reported shortly after the original release of Leeds were not included at that time, i.e. they're still present in the current timetable version.
Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 24/10/2019 at 21:57 #121306 | |
VInce
579 posts |
Wouldn't it be good if this timetable had actually been tested? All of the errors in the timetable commented on above would either been found by the timetable analyser or found during run throughs. Sorry to be critical but its just not good enough and gets Simsig a bad name. Some seem to think that timetables can just be imported from the NR feed and used. It doesn't work like that and never will. I spend months and months on the timetables that I produce to ensure that they are as error free as possible. Is there perhaps a need for an independent person to run through a timetable before it is released on the users? There shouldn't be a need for it really, but apparently there is. 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: 24/10/2019 at 22:10 by headshot119 Reason: Moderator had fat fingers Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 24/10/2019 at 22:03 #121307 | |
DriverCurran
688 posts |
So out of interest who does the run through of the timetable on day 1 for the signallers in real life, who in effect are getting the timetable direct from the planning department at Milton Keynes. I would have thought that the feed from NR is exactly the same data that the signallers have to work with on day, or do they get the benefit of having a timetable analysis or having done numerous run throughs prior to 0000 on the first day of the timetable? Paul You have to get a red before you can get any other colour Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 24/10/2019 at 22:13 #121308 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
DriverCurran in post 121307 said:So out of interest who does the run through of the timetable on day 1 for the signallers in real life, who in effect are getting the timetable direct from the planning department at Milton Keynes. I would have thought that the feed from NR is exactly the same data that the signallers have to work with on day, or do they get the benefit of having a timetable analysis or having done numerous run throughs prior to 0000 on the first day of the timetable?I'm not sure what you're suggesting Paul but would you advocate producing timetables littered with errors in the interests of realism? I have no idea what is done these days, but in the past many operational staff (controllers/signalmen etc..) were "detached" from normal duties prior to a timetable change and spend hours poring over driver, guard, loco and unit diagrams to ensure everything was covered and platforming actually worked. Then simplifiers would be produced which would be the final test of whether everything fitted together as it should. Correspondingly, area mangers would release staff to write A&D (arrival and departure) booklets for use by everyone concerned with train running. That's how it used to be done. I guess its all done electronically these days but the NR feed appears to be a first draft and does not appear to be updated when errors are found. It was a signallers job to signal trains, not sort out discrepancies in the train working diagrams and working timetables on the hoof.... 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: 24/10/2019 at 22:30 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 24/10/2019 at 23:47 #121311 | |
postal
5263 posts |
DriverCurran in post 121307 said:So out of interest who does the run through of the timetable on day 1 for the signallers in real life, who in effect are getting the timetable direct from the planning department at Milton Keynes. I would have thought that the feed from NR is exactly the same data that the signallers have to work with on day, or do they get the benefit of having a timetable analysis or having done numerous run throughs prior to 0000 on the first day of the timetable?Just for clarification, is the CIF data used to produce the SimSig TT a representation of the actual running on the day or the plan on which that day would run? Going on from that, if it is "the plan" is that basically a repeat of the previous days plan with alterations due to STP, VSTP etc. or is it an update with any errors from the previous day corrected. What I am driving at is whether the base data in the download is to an extent historic (warts and all) rather than new for the day. If it is a warts and all job then the local changes will already be in place so that the operation works. That then leads to the next stage of whether we want to produce a SimSig TT that is the one that works because it has already been refined as a result of what in the real world would be the on-the-ground day-to-day operation or face the SimSig operator with all of the difficult Day 1 decisions landing on one desk instead of shared around the whole area of the sim. Of course the first production option is far more labour intensive and time consuming during the preparation of the TT. Lots of arguments on both sides of that discussion but particularly in the more complex sims I suspect most users would find it less frustrating if they only had to face operational turbulence rather than systematic errors as well. “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 The following user said thank you: VInce |
| Default Timetable 25/10/2019 at 00:50 #121313 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
postal in post 121311 said:Just for clarification, is the CIF data used to produce the SimSig TT a representation of the actual running on the day or the plan on which that day would run?Usually a mix of both. postal in post 121311 said: Going on from that, if it is "the plan" is that basically a repeat of the previous days plan with alterations due to STP, VSTP etc. or is it an update with any errors from the previous day corrected.VSTPs don't make it into the CIF; not sure what the cut-off for STP is, but it's possible late alterations doesn't make it to the nightly CIF distribution. postal in post 121311 said: What I am driving at is whether the base data in the download is to an extent historic (warts and all) rather than new for the day. If it is a warts and all job then the local changes will already be in place so that the operation works.On Day 1 of a new timetable there are inevitably a lot of issues to sort out and yes, the signallers have to deal with it. As time goes by, some of the data gets fixed. In the case of IECCs the local people can do it on the TTP (Timetable Processor) - local edits - though they don't get uploaded so a CIF update could wipe out their changes. Ideally Milton Keynes would fix them (and they do) but obviously they're going to be busy at the start of a new timetable period. Non-computerised boxes probably just amend their simplifiers, if they have them (and you can see plenty of simplifiers with hand written notes). Side note: each signalbox, or interested party, can get a full CIF extract, or nightly updates (amendments). The one we use from 2009 is a full extract and would have had all amendments up to that point - but clearly still contains issues, as our TT authors know all too well. Same applies to the Network Rail Open Data - it's just delivered in a different form. postal in post 121311 said: That then leads to the next stage of whether we want to produce a SimSig TT that is the one that works because it has already been refined as a result of what in the real world would be the on-the-ground day-to-day operation or face the SimSig operator with all of the difficult Day 1 decisions landing on one desk instead of shared around the whole area of the sim. Of course the first production option is far more labour intensive and time consuming during the preparation of the TT.Pretty sure we've been through this before. Left Twix or Right Twix. It's up to the TT author: leave it as-is for more interest, or provide a perfect timetable that may never exist in reality. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Meld |
| Default Timetable 25/10/2019 at 08:43 #121316 | |
jc92
3685 posts |
VInce in post 121306 said:Wouldn't it be good if this timetable had actually been tested? All of the errors in the timetable commented on above would either been found by the timetable analyser or found during run throughs.I'm currently testing a 2009 GHD timetable for an in development sim (I can assure you they do get tested!) and I've found one panel/box has tons of clashes with ECS shunts and platform clashes. None are job stoppers as the shunts can be held and its a fairly easy job to replatform the clashed trains and therefore these aren't being amended in anyway. That said I've found several trains which are job stoppers where the train can't use the booked platform and continue it's journey or where a train is booked to recess at a station and let others pass but has been booked a mainline platform. These are logged and amended in the same way as other bugs and this is at the authors request. This will ultimately produce a timetable that's fully workable albeit with some thought required to work the clashes on a tight layout. That said Vince I see your point that the GHD is set in October and therefore isn't day 1 of the timetable period. I suspect like Geoff says as the box in question is manual the data hasn't been updated but the simplifier has. As for someone independent running through the timetable, that already happens when the sim and tt are beta tested. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 25/10/2019 at 08:43 #121317 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
VInce in post 121308 said:DriverCurran in post 121307 said:My recollection is that, certainly in the smaller boxes on secondary lines, such things as simplifiers never came our way. The only simplifier for Marylebone in 1979/81 was a 'minute by minute' book I produced by 'redeploying' a train register, with the platforming colour coded (easy when you've only 4). Who worked out the platforming, I don't know... it would have been done many years before, with only incremental changes for a new timetable, so there was no need to do a lot of planning for that.So out of interest who does the run through of the timetable on day 1 for the signallers in real life, who in effect are getting the timetable direct from the planning department at Milton Keynes. I would have thought that the feed from NR is exactly the same data that the signallers have to work with on day, or do they get the benefit of having a timetable analysis or having done numerous run throughs prior to 0000 on the first day of the timetable?I'm not sure what you're suggesting Paul but would you advocate producing timetables littered with errors in the interests of realism? Admittedly, in those days, we never touched diagrams; that's what 'Control' was for (and in Simsig land the bobby also has to be the Brains at times, which I suspect is what Vince is alluding to). I never saw a major recast of a timetable so I can't really say what that was like on day 1; I rather suspect it wasn't pretty. And some timetables were, quite simply, inoperable. There was a stage (early 1980s) in what's now the West Anglia sim when the Stortfords ran via Southbury, with only the all-stations Hertfords and the expresses running Lea Valley. Punctuality was abysmal, recovery from perturbations well-nigh impossible, and were I to repeat a subsequent area manager's description of it here I would be banned for bad language! And I heard tell of a total shambles of a timetable on the South Eastern Division sometime in the 1970s (before Dartford Powerbox was built); it included such delights as changing traincrews at New Cross... in the middle of the peak??!!!! The person who told the story had been a pretty senior manager there during the debacle and told of station supervisors at Dartford, good blokes doing their best to offer some kind of a service, in such despair that he would take them for a pint when the evening peak was over. So I suspect there is a case - and I would say provided a timetable comes with a health warning that this was what the blokes on the ground had to cope with - for including some realistic total cock-ups as well as the fully-corrected and tested versions we're privileged to get. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Jan |
| Default Timetable 25/10/2019 at 09:07 #121318 | |
|
Jan
906 posts |
Simsig is also hobbled a bit by the fact that its "drivers" follow the timetable more blindly than their real-life counterparts normally do, so any timetable errors may get amplified that way, too. However regardless of the general discussion that has evolved (interesting as it is, though, not to mention getting to hear another one of Keith's anecdotes), I'm still interested specifically in the state of the 2009 timetable for Leeds East/West. Seeing that all issues on Mantis bar one are marked as having been fixed for a long time, is the timetable in a state where an update could be released (respectively fed into the testing pipeline) immediately with little extra work, or is there anything major still outstanding? Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Log in to reply |
| Default Timetable 25/10/2019 at 21:01 #121333 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
kbarber in post 121317 said:I happened to be in Cambridge PSB (by invitation) one day. The ECML was closed at somewhere like Sandy, so electric services were terminating from the north at Peterborough while HSTs were running via March, Cambridge (not stopping), and Royston. At one point the signaller on the Ely end said "which one should I put through first?". The timetable for the day had trains from all three routes booked through Ely North Junction at exactly the same time. Log in to reply |