Extra timetable activities

I don’t tend to delve into timetable writing much, certainly not the deep intricacies of rules etc. Meld will confirm this by the number of questions I’ve asked him that a lot of people would think qualified as stupid ones.

However, I think we are entering into the realms of excesses now. SimSig is essentially a signalling simulation not a traffic control one, and all these options to add features to cover relatively niche scenarios take time away from Geoff primarily which he could do other things towards SimSig with.

Then we have other added complications:

1. Users will then begin to expect that every bundled timetable is updated to include these new features, which takes Meld, MarkC and others a lot of time, and testers a lot of time to rerun each timetable, often multiple times, before release.

2. Where do these things end? For instance, whilst trains can depart early and are doing so slightly more at the moment due to being less passenger traffic around with Covid, each instance will need to be authorised by both the TOC/FOC and NR control. Someone is sure to ask then for a feature to call the control for permission, which then leads to......... and so on, none of which enhances SimSig as a signalling simulation.

3. Some users will then start complaining the timetable doesn’t work because they’ve let something out early not understanding they still have to regulate it.

SimSig is essentially a signalling simulation not a traffic control one, and all these options to add features to cover relatively niche scenarios take time away from Geoff primarily which he could do other things towards SimSig with.

Stephen Fulcher in post 137933 said:

SimSig is essentially a signalling simulation not a traffic control one, and all these options to add features to cover relatively niche scenarios take time away from Geoff primarily which he could do other things towards SimSig with.

I think that perhaps things are a little more nuanced than that. As far as I am concerned one of the big plus points to SimSig is the way that it strives to create as technically accurate a simulation as possible as compared with the real world. But then most people spending money to buy the technically accurate simulations are buying them to try and experience something of the demands laid on the real world signaller in working a panel when faced with the day-to-day operation. Those demands will include some things which are not related to the technology of railway signalling but are related to the operational side of the house. While some of the operational information held within the likes of the WTTs may only be be of relevance comparatively infrequently it is perhaps devaluing them to call them niche scenarios.

Let us retain the core ethic of accuracy held by SimSig. However, Geoff has already indicated in this thread that the whole subject of stops and their conditions may be due for review. Hopefully that review will try and find some sort of ground which supports the core ethic but also satisfies those who spend their money in order to run an operational simulation,

However none of this, as I see it, precludes is having the option of something which guarantees a train will leave a location early. Having it as an option is an extra tool for timetable writers attempting to make something perform as realistically as we can get it. There would of course be no compulsion to use it.

Meld will confirm this by the number of questions I’ve asked him that a lot of people would think qualified as stupid ones.

My main thought is realism - getting closer to the actual WTT, which is after all what real signallers use.

I think generally SimSig gets the balance fairly spot on already. Anyone who really wants to play a proper "control" game simply needs to get themselves a copy of the crew diagrams which go with the relevant timetable, print it out and have it on the desk to inform their decisions!

However I agree with what you've said above - the suggestions made aren't really "control" stuff, they're (for me) more about getting the signalling experience more accurate, by ensuring the (SimSig) signaller has a slightly fuller suite of WTT information on hand to inform their regulating decisions, and perhaps being able to take the opportunity to build in a tweak to the sim behaviour again to slightly better reflect what happens in real life.

Each to their own about how they play a timetable, but a SimSig signaller should expect to have to hold trains to time pretty much the same way the professionals do.

Meld in post 137944 said:

Each to their own about how they play a timetable, but a SimSig signaller should expect to have to hold trains to time pretty much the same way the professionals do.

Maybe that is how the railway has to work now but it was not necessarily the way things worked in earlier days. I expect Keith Barber could write a book about that!

How can you guarantee a train will depart a location early? Theres absolutely none of that realism you strive for, you might as well just scrap the TT and save the TOC's £millions.

...

Each to their own about how they play a timetable, but a SimSig signaller should expect to have to hold trains to time pretty much the same way the professionals do.

DavidSplett in post 137932 said:

However none of this, as I see it, precludes is having the option of something which guarantees a train will leave a location early. Having it as an option is an extra tool for timetable writers attempting to make something perform as realistically as we can get it. There would of course be no compulsion to use it.

How can you guarantee a train will depart a location early? Theres absolutely none of that realism you strive for, you might as well just scrap the TT and save the TOC's £millions.

Quote:

Meld will confirm this by the number of questions I’ve asked him that a lot of people would think qualified as stupid ones.

Always willing to help Stephen

Quote:

My main thought is realism - getting closer to the actual WTT, which is after all what real signallers use.

Exactly, they cant guarantee an early departure and often have trains waiting time.

Quote:

I think generally SimSig gets the balance fairly spot on already. Anyone who really wants to play a proper "control" game simply needs to get themselves a copy of the crew diagrams which go with the relevant timetable, print it out and have it on the desk to inform their decisions!

However I agree with what you've said above - the suggestions made aren't really "control" stuff, they're (for me) more about getting the signalling experience more accurate, by ensuring the (SimSig) signaller has a slightly fuller suite of WTT information on hand to inform their regulating decisions, and perhaps being able to take the opportunity to build in a tweak to the sim behaviour again to slightly better reflect what happens in real life.

So if SimSig has got everything spot-on, why the need for any change ?

Simsig represents the WTT as professional signallers see on TRUST. On a single line there isnt the luxury of of having 2Z01 show as 12X34, they are expected to know that 2Z01 has another service crossing it

Each to their own about how they play a timetable, but a SimSig signaller should expect to have to hold trains to time pretty much the same way the professionals do.

Meld in post 137944 said:

How can you guarantee a train will depart a location early? Theres absolutely none of that realism you strive for, you might as well just scrap the TT and save the TOC's £millions.

...

Each to their own about how they play a timetable, but a SimSig signaller should expect to have to hold trains to time pretty much the same way the professionals do.

You can't guarantee that a train won't be delayed by technical difficulties, but that's not relevant here. You can guarantee that an early-running non-passenger train won't stubbornly and randomly wait for booked time at an inconvenient location unless there's a crew change or some other reason, e.g. a loco running round its train an hour earlier than planned isn't going to sit down in the station throat and refuse to move for an hour (which is a distinct possibility in Simsig?), or a freight train running two hours early isn't going to unexpectedly wait to time at a loop in the middle of nowhere.

I think the set down option is also important for reversals, for instance to propel freight trains into sidings. Early trains shouldn't await time if they are reversing on a main line, and a typical train driver will fully understand that signallers won't like that at all. TT editors use set down for this in the absence of a better option.

I have the impression that they never waited for scheduled time until something like last year - is this a recent change in the loader?

Albert in post 137959 said:

I think the set down option is also important for reversals, for instance to propel freight trains into sidings. Early trains shouldn't await time if they are reversing on a main line, and a typical train driver will fully understand that signallers won't like that at all. TT editors use set down for this in the absence of a better option.

I have the impression that they never waited for scheduled time until something like last year - is this a recent change in the loader?

Agreed Set down is important for run rounds and mainline propels, however there has to be a minimum dwell time for these to take place at the reversal location. Timetable planners normally allow 20 mins for a run round. Where I have to add a R/R I dont give them any times at all which removes any timing restrictions. The loco can then depart as soon as a route is available to the reversing point where theres a set 2 minute dwell to allow changing cabs, which is repeated at the next reversal point before rejoining the train. (In theory a run round can be completed in 10-12 minutes)

<snip>

I have the impression that they never waited for scheduled time until something like last year - is this a recent change in the loader?

Albert in post 137959 said:

I think the set down option is also important for reversals, for instance to propel freight trains into sidings. Early trains shouldn't await time if they are reversing on a main line, and a typical train driver will fully understand that signallers won't like that at all. TT editors use set down for this in the absence of a better option.

I have the impression that they never waited for scheduled time until something like last year - is this a recent change in the loader?

Agreed Set down is important for run rounds and mainline propels, however there has to be a minimum dwell time for these to take place at the reversal location. Timetable planners normally allow 20 mins for a run round. Where I have to add a R/R I dont give them any times at all which removes any timing restrictions. The loco can then depart as soon as a route is available to the reversing point where theres a set 2 minute dwell to allow changing cabs, which is repeated at the next reversal point before rejoining the train. (In theory a run round can be completed in 10-12 minutes)

If I have a timed departure for a mainline propelling move then that should have the 2 minutes set dwell as well as a set down instruction to cover for early running, allowing the main to be cleared. I think this can be achieved by the rule that X must not depart from Z until n Mins after Y arrives at Z. Its much quicker to just add the custom dwell and setdown to the schedule tho.

I can't say I noticed any difference with waiting for time over recent years I think its more about how the instructions are executed within the schedule.

So a train is scheduled to wait at point A, in a loop or bay or yard, reverse on the main line at signal S, then proceed towards point B, the timing point at signal S should be 00/00, and the train characteristics can determine the minimum dwell time for the driver to change ends, right?

00/00 will sometimes move the location out of sequence...