Page 1 of 1
| Burngullow PR206 09/04/2024 at 00:29 #155999 | |
Robyn
74 posts |
PR206 (Burngullow sdg UP starting) shows off on the sim (route to BDMLOS) but the driver doesn't take the aspect, and calls asking to pass the signal at danger. Context: 7D00 stops for regulating at Burngullow sdg to allow 3D00 to pass. Before rejoining the main for it's DN freight. Save inc. Era: 2019 LC: on AB: on TOOR: off Problems: nowt Post has attachments. Log in to view them. 7-5-5, closing of comment Log in to reply |
| Burngullow PR206 10/04/2024 at 18:08 #156003 | |
rfw
177 posts |
Fault replicated in all eras with and without AB, it's related to stopping at and then leaving Burngullow clay sidings, but not exiting the sim. There is no bug for entering at Burngullow East and heading to the LOS. Missing route in the back end? Post has attachments. Log in to view them. The train now standing on platform 2, should be on the rails Log in to reply |
| Burngullow PR206 10/04/2024 at 18:20 #156004 | |
|
rfw
177 posts |
Also tested in the 2019 era with AB, the train won't see/accept any route from PR206. Not the LOS, nor the Methrose, nor PR106.
The train now standing on platform 2, should be on the rails Log in to reply |
| Burngullow PR206 10/04/2024 at 20:55 #156005 | |
MarkC
1105 posts |
Reported Mantis 40702 From looking route off-screen not setting correctly, sent for investigating Log in to reply |
| Burngullow PR206 12/04/2024 at 15:29 #156023 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
This appears to be a timetable issue. If you split the schedule 7D00 in two, exiting at Burngullow Clay Sidings and then a separate 7D00 to enter at the departure time the signal works correctly. Log in to reply |
| Burngullow PR206 12/04/2024 at 18:40 #156025 | |
|
rfw
177 posts |
Given that #40702 is not a bug, is it possible for the route to not validate in the timetable editor?
The train now standing on platform 2, should be on the rails Log in to reply |
| Burngullow PR206 15/04/2024 at 23:02 #156069 | |
|
eps125
145 posts |
rfw in post 156025 said:Given that #40702 is not a bug, is it possible for the route to not validate in the timetable editor?It is not going to be possible to prevent the timetable from validating in this case as the required fix would likely break already released timetables. Cheers Log in to reply |