Page 1 of 1
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 04:04 #149860 | |
DonRiver
![]() 151 posts |
Wondering if it's possible to create valid timetables which don't specify a platform - particularly for District Line trains arriving in Wimbledon? Currently, if I make a timetable that omits platform numbers for Wimbledon LUL or Waterloo, the timetable is not considered valid and the train does not enter. And more generally, how was platform allocation done and recorded back in the day, given the Railtrack WTTs in the Network Rail archive don't specify platform numbers for Waterloo? I don't suppose the allocations from the 90s have survived… (90s WTT trivia. The Railtrack WTT for south-west London includes District Line trains to Richmond, each given a TRN starting 2U, but does not include Wimbledon District Line trains. Meanwhile the District Line WTT - a handsome hardback book - includes BR trains between East Putney and Wimbledon, consisting of a handful of ECS workings each way. So I imagine the Wimbledon signaller controlling between East Putney and Wimbledon LUL has the District Line WTT open in front of them, while the Richmond signaller only needs the BR/Railtrack/NR WTT?) (named for the one in Tasmania, not in Russia) Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 11:00 #149866 | |
bill_gensheet
![]() 1357 posts |
East Putney to Wimbledon (LUL) is LT infrastructure, not NR. NR signaller has no interest unless setting up the slots for the PSUL's or diversions. http://www.gensheet.co.uk/photo1/EastPutney/index.html Equally the LT signaller (machine) has no interest once the trains go onto the Richmond branch from Turnham Green. Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 11:06 #149867 | |
headshot119
![]() 4869 posts |
To answer the question, no it's not possible to create a valid schedule without a platform number in the simulation. Because it's fitted with ARS, the platform numbers are required for ARS to know how to route the train. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply The following user said thank you: DonRiver |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 12:17 #149872 | |
TUT
![]() 514 posts ![]() |
bill_gensheet in post 149866 said:East Putney to Wimbledon (LUL) is LT infrastructure, not NR.I'm not sure precisely what you mean by this. It's true that East Putney to Wimbledon was transferred to LT ownership, but the signalling remains Network Rail signalling controlled from Wimbledon ASC and I understand maintenance is also contracted out. Platform numbers still don't seem to be given in Network Rail timetables, nor does specific information on which train forms which or anything useful like that. Last edited: 01/01/2023 at 12:18 by TUT Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: bill_gensheet |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 12:52 #149874 | |
jc92
![]() 3649 posts |
Presumably it's the same now as back then, there's locations with no platform number given in the WTT, but it is recorded in TRUST so staff can check it as required. A lot of locations would also produce a station working book or a simplifier sheet for a station panel, made by the box staff.
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 12:59 #149875 | |
TUT
![]() 514 posts ![]() |
jc92 in post 149874 said:Presumably it's the same now as back then, there's locations with no platform number given in the WTT, but it is recorded in TRUST so staff can check it as required. A lot of locations would also produce a station working book or a simplifier sheet for a station panel, made by the box staff.Yes but you try making said simplifier sheet without this information there in the timetable. It's not a mistake I'll make again I can tell you. A TRJS enquiry will give you platform numbers on the day, but that's actually a bit of a new feature that and uh no use when you're trying to get the simplifier ready. You can turn platform numbers on in a TSID enquiry, but even that won't give you next workings and so on, so you have to kind of infer it. Which is fine at a simple location, but if you've got lots of complicated joins and divides and platform sharing it's not really...I mean they must have this information when they build the timetable, indeed you need it in order to build the timetable, so why not put it in the sodding timetable, it doesn't make sense! Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 13:28 #149877 | |
Ron_J
![]() 330 posts |
In my experience it is best to be wary if not downright skeptical of the platform information in TRUST. A lot of the NR Managed stations have dockers (‘A&D books’ I think they call them in England) produced and issued monthly/weekly by Milton Keynes, and most medium sized stations in Scotland have dockers drawn up by the ScotRail diagrams section, though confusingly these tend not to include other TOC trains. Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 13:30 #149878 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
TUT in post 149875 said:I mean they must have this information when they build the timetable, indeed you need it in order to build the timetable, so why not put it in the sodding timetable, it doesn't make sense!"To err is human, but to really mess up requires a timetable planner." Log in to reply The following users said thank you: DonRiver, TUT |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 16:31 #149883 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5376 posts ![]() |
The District line WTT has platform numbers for quite a few locations but not Wimbledon or Richmond. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 18:36 #149891 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 18:42 #149893 | |
mfcooper
![]() 707 posts |
I think the District Line trains to/from Wimbledon do not appear in TRUST any more. Signallers essentially have free reign to do what they want with Wimbledon station platforms 1-4. An arrival goes into a free platform. And whichever departing train TRTS's first gets the route out of the station. Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 19:16 #149897 | |
madaboutrains
![]() 313 posts ![]() |
GeoffM in post 149891 said:It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.From my timetable planning experience at SWR whilst looking at the District Timetable they plan trains: Arrive to Depart: ½ minute Depart to Arrive: 2 minutes Platforming according the the last csv timetable I looked at defaults to Platform 1 then 2 if P1 is occupied etc. RIP Feltham Panel 1 Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 19:22 #149898 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
madaboutrains in post 149897 said:GeoffM in post 149891 said:There should be easements too - the above covers an arriving train and departing train crossing each other's path, but simultaneous parallel moves should also be possible. Or do they always assume the worst case scenario?It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.From my timetable planning experience at SWR whilst looking at the District Timetable they plan trains: SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 23:01 #149907 | |
madaboutrains
![]() 313 posts ![]() |
GeoffM in post 149898 said:madaboutrains in post 149897 said:Vast majority are planned worst case as you say so platforms can be done first come.GeoffM in post 149891 said:There should be easements too - the above covers an arriving train and departing train crossing each other's path, but simultaneous parallel moves should also be possible. Or do they always assume the worst case scenario?It's odd when platform numbers aren't shown when they could be. Timetable planning has to consider platform numbers to avoid clashes which, on an intensive service like LUL, can have big impacts on timekeeping and headway if it's wrong. One assumes LUL have a planning tool that takes platform numbers into account, much like NR's ROTP (or whatever they're called this week) has in text form and (AIUI) in their software.From my timetable planning experience at SWR whilst looking at the District Timetable they plan trains: RIP Feltham Panel 1 Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 23:14 #149908 | |
madaboutrains
![]() 313 posts ![]() |
Here is a graph of the Wimbledon P1-4 workings from the District csv timetable available here: http://timetables.data.tfl.gov.uk/
Post has attachments. Log in to view them. RIP Feltham Panel 1 Log in to reply The following user said thank you: DonRiver |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 01/01/2023 at 23:51 #149909 | |
DonRiver
![]() 151 posts |
madaboutrains in post 149908 said:Here is a graph of the Wimbledon P1-4 workings from the District csv timetable available here: http://timetables.data.tfl.gov.uk/Nice! Fair bit busier than the 1994 WTT I'm transcribing… that one has 194 District Line workings (Putney Bridge > Wimbledon > Putney Bridge) vs about 250 in today's spreadsheet. I like the platform occupancy visualisation. (named for the one in Tasmania, not in Russia) Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 03/01/2023 at 04:24 #149932 | |
DonRiver
![]() 151 posts |
look what you made me go and do. gone and made a spreadsheet didn't I. for the maximum number of pleasing parallel moves![]() Post has attachments. Log in to view them. (named for the one in Tasmania, not in Russia) Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 03/01/2023 at 10:09 #149938 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
DonRiver in post 149932 said:look what you made me go and do. gone and made a spreadsheet didn't I. for the maximum number of pleasing parallel movesSomeone trying to recreate what the Great Eastern did with the Jazz at Liverpool Street back in 1920? Platforms 1 - 4 were the platforms they used, a 2.5 minute interval, filled and departed in order so you got potential parallel moves for 3 moves out of every 4. Of course they had to change engines as well (unlike today's layout each of those platforms had an associated engine dock at the country end to facilitate that). Platform 5, remarkably, was kept in reserve throughout the peaks so problems could be put out of the way without breaking up the flow. All done with mechanical signalling, Sykes Lock & Block and N7 class 0-6-2T locos working 10 coach non-corridor trains. Magnificent madness! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: TUT |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 03/01/2023 at 11:39 #149939 | |
TimTamToe
![]() 658 posts |
clive in post 149878 said:TUT in post 149875 said:Or using a "Truss" rather than TRUSTI mean they must have this information when they build the timetable, indeed you need it in order to build the timetable, so why not put it in the sodding timetable, it doesn't make sense!"To err is human, but to really mess up requires a timetable planner." ![]() Log in to reply The following user said thank you: DonRiver |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 03/01/2023 at 12:50 #149941 | |
DonRiver
![]() 151 posts |
kbarber in post 149938 said:Someone trying to apply the actual 1994 District Line WTT to SimSig ;) ![]() There's a number of times when one train is scheduled to arrive at the exact same moment as another is scheduled to depart, and a lot more where there's a short <=60sec interval between movement - so I tried to pick platforms 1 or 2 for those departures and a higher-numbered platform for the arrivals. I take back my mild irritation at being obliged to include extra information to satisfy Super-ARS - when I was done, I ran the WTT with full ARS on, and sim speed at maximum, and it was very gratifying to see the trains all shuttling in and out. Post has attachments. Log in to view them. (named for the one in Tasmania, not in Russia) Last edited: 03/01/2023 at 12:56 by DonRiver Reason: None given Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 03/01/2023 at 21:26 #149949 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
kbarber in post 149938 said:Possibly not the same period, but here's a signalling diagram. According to that there was one engine dock for platforms 1 & 2 and another for 3 to 5. Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 04/01/2023 at 09:33 #149957 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
clive in post 149949 said:kbarber in post 149938 said:I suspect that was indeed an older diagram Clive. The GERS published a reprint of - I think - a Railway Gazette article about the Jazz, which included details of the (relatively trivial) track & signalling alterations needed, and platforms 1 - 5 definitely each had their own engine dock. Interestingly the total track & signalling costs amounted to about £20k (at 1920 prices) whereas electrification (the alternative being pressed on the GER to compete with the tram system and cope with the amount of traffic offering) would have been £1 million.Possibly not the same period, but here's a signalling diagram. Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 04/01/2023 at 09:34 #149958 | |
kbarber
![]() 1723 posts |
DonRiver in post 149941 said:kbarber in post 149938 said:Quite an achievement!Someone trying to apply the actual 1994 District Line WTT to SimSig ;) Log in to reply |
Platform-agnostic timetabling? 04/01/2023 at 09:58 #149960 | |
MarkC
![]() 1099 posts |
kbarber in post 149957 said:clive in post 149949 said:The attached scan is taken from a book called Eastern Electric by John Glover, it talks about the steam operations and what was achived from 1920 for peak time operations.kbarber in post 149938 said:I suspect that was indeed an older diagram Clive. The GERS published a reprint of - I think - a Railway Gazette article about the Jazz, which included details of the (relatively trivial) track & signalling alterations needed, and platforms 1 - 5 definitely each had their own engine dock. Interestingly the total track & signalling costs amounted to about £20k (at 1920 prices) whereas electrification (the alternative being pressed on the GER to compete with the tram system and cope with the amount of traffic offering) would have been £1 million.Possibly not the same period, but here's a signalling diagram. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ofnsgrxlsdnsd3/IMG_20230104_0001.jpg?dl=0 Edit: Can only provide the link to the scan as it won't show otherwise and file is to large to upload to website. Last edited: 04/01/2023 at 09:59 by MarkC Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: kbarber |