Page 1 of 1
| Euston - questioning of routes 02/07/2022 at 09:13 #147100 | |
Bonan
55 posts |
I'm thoroughly enjoying the recently re-released Euston simulation. It was the sim that got me into Simsig in the first place, many years ago. One annoying thing that I've found, is that drivers seems to be a little too fussy about which line they are being routed onto. The two main ones that I've found is that you can't route anything timetabled past the Park Street tunnels via the main lines. It's useful for arriving trains for the DCS via the Up Empty Carriage line, but in other cases just annoying, particularly as you have to go into the timetable editor to route anything via the Down Departure line or vice versa. Same goes for empty stock moves between the Park Street Tunnels/DCS and Euston station, which question the route via the Up Engine Line 1 if they are booked via the Backing Out Roads. Also, arriving parcel's trains are questioning the route into the Parcels dock as it's considered a goods line in Simsig. I'm not sure what is correct here, whether parcels trains were allowed on goods lines in BR days and the timetables should be edited, or if the simulation should be changed? Swedish driver and part-time signaller Log in to reply |
| Euston - questioning of routes 02/07/2022 at 12:15 #147102 | |
jc92
3685 posts |
A class 1 parcels train will question the route unless "can use goods lines" is ticked on the train types. If you're using a preloader timetable it's unlikely this will have been done. As for the others, it would be useful for a train booked via the down departure to accept the mains. The only way to do that currently as an author is to ignore the park street tunnels/camden south location, however it doesn't make it very clear that the train is booked that way "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Euston - questioning of routes 03/07/2022 at 08:38 #147114 | |
flabberdacks
636 posts |
Ah yes, I remember the Down Departure line being a classic annoyance in the old one too. I guess the question is, would drivers booked by the DD in real life have questioned the road if given the fast? One would assume not, meaning perhaps it should not be so in Simsig Log in to reply |
| Euston - questioning of routes 03/07/2022 at 21:11 #147120 | |
clive
2789 posts |
Okay, I think I can see four points here. (1) Up trains booked via Park Street complain about taking the Up Slow at 146. (2) Up trains booked via the Backing Out Roads complain about taking the UEL2 at 94 or 103 or the UEL1 at 81. (3) Down trains booked via Park Street complain about taking the Down Fast or Down Slow. (4) Class 1 parcels trains complain about going into the Parcels dock. Have I got those right? Changing (1) and (2) makes sense provided that the train isn't booked to stop at Park Street, the DCS, or the Backing Out Roads. Changing (3) similarly makes sense provided that the train isn't booked to somewhere like Camden CS or to stop at Park Street. I'll make those changes when I get a moment. I'm not sure about (4); I'll have to ask around. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: flabberdacks, Bonan |
| Euston - questioning of routes 03/07/2022 at 22:12 #147121 | |
|
jc92
3685 posts |
Clive 4 is correct. The parcels dock isn't suitable for passenger use. The issue is the relevant train type won't have its class of service set or "can use goods lines" ticked. The sim is correct. Its a TT issue. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply The following user said thank you: flabberdacks |
| Euston - questioning of routes 04/07/2022 at 09:06 #147125 | |
|
Albert
1315 posts |
I see some locos and empty stock movements in the default timetable that don't have Park St in their TT but nevertheless have rather generous timings, which suggests that they should be routed through the Park Street tunnels to avoid conflicts in the station throat. It would be helpful if these can have Park Street or a line code for the UECL (up) or DD (down) in their TT, but without generating a wrong route call if the train is routed on the main lines because of delays/failures. AJP in games Log in to reply |
| Euston - questioning of routes 04/07/2022 at 13:31 #147128 | |
|
Bonan
55 posts |
clive in post 147120 said:Okay, I think I can see four points here.I'm away from home right now and can't find a signal number plan anywhere in the manual, but that sounds pretty much spot on. Thanks for the reply. Swedish driver and part-time signaller Log in to reply |
| Euston - questioning of routes 04/07/2022 at 16:02 #147133 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
clive in post 147120 said:Okay, I think I can see four points here.Mantis 36399. clive in post 147120 said: Mantis 36400. clive in post 147120 said: Based on other comments, I'm not going to touch this; it's a timetable issue. Log in to reply |
| Euston - questioning of routes 04/07/2022 at 16:04 #147134 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
Albert in post 147125 said:I see some locos and empty stock movements in the default timetable that don't have Park St in their TT but nevertheless have rather generous timings, which suggests that they should be routed through the Park Street tunnels to avoid conflicts in the station throat.If they don't have Park Street in their timetable then the real WTT didn't have it either. That timetable tries to reproduce the original one as far as possible. Log in to reply |