Page 1 of 1
| Operating Incidents 12/02/2021 at 09:12 #137156 | |
alrispoli
15 posts |
If we’re looking at increasing realism perhaps trains being delayed away from stations could be something to look at? For example a TPWS on approach to a PSR or Red? Or even just a disturbance on route and not necessarily at a station. Again though as with my all my suggestions this may not be possible without a lot of work. Just an idea! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: haydenrobertson |
| Operating Incidents 12/02/2021 at 12:23 #137165 | |
NicholasN
40 posts |
As far as "safety of the line" incidents like TPWS activations and interventions, I would think they are in the same category as SPADs, something that is not thought very desirable to simulate in what is, after all, a game, partly because you can't simulate the paperwork and forms that need filling in when these things happen, and partly because it may be a bit uncomfortable for some, who work on the big railway, to have to deal with things that may have happened to them and cost them at the least some dented pride or at worst their job. But I certainly agree that a few "inter-station" disturbances randomly programmed in might be an idea, maybe Pass-Comm pulled or unexplained brake demand, driver investigating, ADD operated (pantograph dropped on electric train), stuff like that. Have to say that in real life it's fairly rare for delays like that, most delays are definitely caused at stations. And not usually by the wrong kind of food trolley... Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Trainfan344 |
| Operating Incidents 12/02/2021 at 13:38 #137169 | |
|
alrispoli
15 posts |
Yes i do take your point well and truly, as a driver myself it is that difficult line to draw between game/simulation/realism etc.. I do wonder whether the range of 'irregularities' could be expanded in one way or another. TPWS faults at signals, perhaps less controversial than SPAD or other 'big daddy' operating incidents a missed AWS/DSD or something of that nature could work as something occurring in-between stations. Perhaps another possibility would be a train reporting potential trespass meaning that other trains in the area are put on caution or diverted via other lines if available (slow vice fast etc)
Log in to reply |
| Operating Incidents 12/02/2021 at 13:56 #137171 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
I’m fairly sure, although I can’t find it at present; there was a very explicit “operational/safety incidents are not simulated” in the manual/wiki. That would rule out anything with TPWS/AWS, or anything like trespass and the ilk - although as with GSM-R thread SimSig isn’t just UK in 2021. A TPWS fault on a Chicago Loop train would not be appropriate. Log in to reply |
| Operating Incidents 12/02/2021 at 15:00 #137174 | |
jc92
3687 posts |
JamesN in post 137171 said:I’m fairly sure, although I can’t find it at present; there was a very explicit “operational/safety incidents are not simulated” in the manual/wiki.Geoff recently commented on a thread about putting back signals in a drivers face that he would be open to having the driver SPAD as a result if it could be implemented reliably. I dont see an issue with these operational incidents as they aren't going to cause anything morbid or dangerous, merely stopping the train out of course and delaying it. As far as I'm aware its things like SPADs causing collisions, suicides, head on collisions and derailments that are to be avoided. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Operating Incidents 12/02/2021 at 15:24 #137175 | |
|
alrispoli
15 posts |
Yes avoiding SPADs and what i think we would call 'big daddy' events are to be avoided. What we do have already is driver's calling up to report a signal reversion, so we could potentially have something tied in with that maybe? TPWS+ activation due to a SPAR maybe? (If i recall correctly we now refer to SPAR when driver not at fault and SPAD when they *allegedly* are) Last edited: 12/02/2021 at 15:24 by alrispoli Reason: None given Log in to reply |