Page 1 of 1
| Operator-enforced delays 01/12/2022 at 11:30 #149076 | |
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
About 3 weeks ago I overheard between a passenger and the guard of a train I was on between Yate and Bristol TM. The GWR train from Yate to Bristol TM ran late and the passenger behind me wanted to get XC's 10:45 Bristol TM to Plymouth: she asked the guard of the train from Yate (which is not served by XC) if it would be possible for the Plymouth train to be held. The guard said he would ask but couldn't promise: in the end it didn't happen because the train didn't get held for what would have been a cross-platform connection thanks to the platform for the train from Yate being changed. Anyway it game me this idea. At the major interchange stations, such as Bristol TM, Leeds, Exeter SD, etc. might it be possible for signallers controlling the relevant panels to receive calls from operator control advising that a decision has been made to hold train [Y] due to a number (or high volume?) of passengers on train [X] wishing to connect to train [Y] at the station in question? The delay could perhaps be limited to be no more than a certain number of minutes. Just a thought. Dave Log in to reply |
| Operator-enforced delays 01/12/2022 at 12:10 #149078 | |
JamesN
1607 posts |
I can’t think of an easy internal mechanism to trigger this - how will SimSig know train X is a logical hold for train Y; or that Bristol TM is a major station but Yate is not (they’d be broadly identical in the simulation data). After all we don’t want it to randomly decide to hold the Severn Beach at Clifton for a light engine route learner from Portbury. As with all “control” functions they’re usually better left to the player’s imagination using tools such as pause train or similar. Log in to reply |
| Operator-enforced delays 01/12/2022 at 12:55 #149079 | |
|
Jan
906 posts |
Probably the next closes thing would be timetable rules. The manual entry for the DepAfterArr rule actually even gives "A guaranteed connection - a short delay between the arrival of both trains to ensure passengers have sufficient time to transfer between the two" as a possible example application for that kind of rule. I suppose for any more serious use for modelling connections within a timetable you'd need some additional features beyond the current rule system, though: - a random X % chance that the rule actually gets applied - a maximum wait time for the train being held – if it's held for longer than that, the train will depart anyway - the ability to directly skip the rule if the incoming train is currently more than X mins late at the time that the rule starts preventing the departure of the dependent train (to cover the case where the incoming train is so late that it's very likely that the maximum hold time would be exceeded anyway) - the ability to trigger a message/phone call (optionally with customised message text) when the rule prevents the departure of a train All in all that'd probably be quite a bit of programming effort and subsequently also additional data entry work (and actually possibly working out the connection data in the first place) for timetable creators. Whether the result would be worth the effort, I can't say… 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: Trainzy |