Carlisle 1979-1980 Timetable

Couple of final minor bugs from me....

Activity for 1P46 should be DER 5M07 not DR
Similarly, activity for 4S17 should be DER 5S06 not DR

The train description for an iteration of Trip 01 (UID 5T01L) states that it is formed of Cl08 + 3xCarFlats when it is Cl08+1xBG - yeah I know its minor, but it threw me when trying to keep track of the trip workings/destinations.

Once again many thanks to Pascal and Postal for all your efforts.

One probably for TomOF, but have had problems with 4S38 leaving Citadel. Due to disruption, have had to re-platform this train - through F2+Edit - and every time (3x) it has reversed its direction of travel after the crew change so has caused a blockage at the North end of the station as the driver 'changes ends' back to the correct end - I do have a coupe of saves if needed.

Have also had 5P03 complain of wrong route at CE274, trying to route via Rome St but TT'd via Penrith-CarlisleP3-Caldew.

TIA

To reduce the length of 6S73 isn't a big deal. Remember the majority of freight trains in this timetable have been created to represent the maximum length limit of each service according to the 1979-/1980 LMR freight train loads book. 448m = 70SLUs which is the length limit for Kingmoor Yard. 384m = 60SLUs, so if 6S73 was amended with a length of 60SLUs then that would fit. To be 100% accurate we'd really need an eye witness account of some BR publication which defined the actual length limit of each train that ran during this time & the chances of getting that is about the same as finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The majority of the freights between Newcastle - Carlisle - Newcastle are loaded to the maxc as if there were space available then wagons off diverted trains that would normally run via the ECML would be marshalled on the rear as the trains left Carlisle, although no loops to worry about on Carlisle going that way. Will amend the timetable for the next version update.

58050 in post 111973 said:

To reduce the length of 6S73 isn't a big deal. Remember the majority of freight trains in this timetable have been created to represent the maximum length limit of each service according to the 1979-/1980 LMR freight train loads book. 448m = 70SLUs which is the length limit for Kingmoor Yard. 384m = 60SLUs, so if 6S73 was amended with a length of 60SLUs then that would fit. To be 100% accurate we'd really need an eye witness account of some BR publication which defined the actual length limit of each train that ran during this time & the chances of getting that is about the same as finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The majority of the freights between Newcastle - Carlisle - Newcastle are loaded to the maxc as if there were space available then wagons off diverted trains that would normally run via the ECML would be marshalled on the rear as the trains left Carlisle, although no loops to worry about on Carlisle going that way. Will amend the timetable for the next version update.

When I was in the Brent, I'm pretty certain 6S73 was booked to be 60SLU, as were virtually all the other class 6s. The only exception, if memory serves, was 6P85 (the Workington), which loaded to 70SLU

Just spotted another thing with 6S73, although this is the one that enters at Carnforth at 23.42.

You can't use the the loop at Oxenholme because that's even shorter, so the only option is to run 6S73 to Tebay, and get it out of the way there, but not until it's held up 1S03 anyway. 6S73 will, of course, call in a wrong route if you signal it to continue through on the Down Main if you don't edit the TT to ignore Grayrigg.
.

I've somewhat overlooked this, but basically I could give consideration to not have trains call in when signalled past a loop at which they are booked to stop (but are then to rejoin the main line) and automatically delete the loop location. It's then up to the signaller to deal with the consequences, although I'm sure there will be various arguments for and against.

Some WTT writers have put passing rather than departure time for looped services - personally I am not a fan of this approach.

Andrew G in post 112020 said:

Some WTT writers have put passing rather than departure time for looped services - personally I am not a fan of this approach.

+1

If you want the train to run, all you need to do is go into F2 > Timetable Options > Edit Timetable and set the current/next location as the first location after the loop you want to pass. Leaves the TT as intended for when there is no perturbation but allows the signaller to control what is actually happening on the day.

The only thing I was wondering was regarding the traction on some of the Adexes. 5Z09 is given 14 minutes from Morecambe to Carnforth Down main with electric traction. Whilst the LM region are mercifully quick with detaching / attaching locos it seems far to little time to get to Lancaster (presumably) change from diesel to electric and then back to Carnforth in the time allowed?

I just wanted to drop a quick post to say thank you to everybody involved with the update sim and this marvelous timetable. I've just finished the Monday timetable (and somehow managed to clock up 94%) and it kept me on my toes for the full 24 hours. I probably got lucky with the game throwing out the Monday as it started relatively gently and then built up quite nice during the day. In the end I had to resort to an alarm on phone to stop engines moving in and out of the fuel points getting forgotten whilst I kept spinning other plates and I can easily see how not keeping on top of the local trip movements can come back to haunt you...

The only thing I was wondering was regarding the traction on some of the Adexes. 5Z09 is given 14 minutes from Morecambe to Carnforth Down main with electric traction. Whilst the LM region are mercifully quick with detaching / attaching locos it seems far to little time to get to Lancaster (presumably) change from diesel to electric and then back to Carnforth in the time allowed?

Please don't think I'm being pedantic as the timetable completely fascinates me and it was something that stuck in my mind as I fought my way through the day which I'm curious about.

Once again - many thanks for all your efforts. Now onward to Tuesday...

For the Train Type 'Cl.40+8BG/GUV' (ref 4S19DMX), the Class 40 in question appears to have been fitted with a pantograph (Brecknell Willis or Stone Faiveley?) rather than the more usual EE 16SVT to deliver power to the traction motors...

This unfortunately caused confusion for the crew of 4S19 at Carlisle who report that the 'New timetable has unsuitable electrification' after the power source had been corrected both in F4 (editing Train Type Tab) and F2 (editing 4S19EMX) and then the train asked to run to 4S19DMX's timetable - see save (before corrections) attached.

An EE powered Cl.40 (0S19D) had previously joined the unpowered 8 BGs from 4S19EMX.

The crew confusion is likely a code matter rather than anything TT related? - I appreciate it does not occur if the TT train type is corrected.