Page 1 of 1
| Channel Tunnel? 12/01/2025 at 19:29 #159901 | |
Mike_714
9 posts |
Would the Channel Tunnel be an option? Include both tunnels and both eurotunnel terminals. Traffic could include e300 & e320 services from Eurostar, Freight traffic, also the frequent shuttle services. I know a few people have raised concern with suggestions of HS1. Log in to reply |
| Channel Tunnel? 15/01/2025 at 16:57 #159936 | |
Future
14 posts |
I'm not entirely sure how the control of the TVM-430 system used on the Tunnel and HS1 would work but I suspect it would probably be outside the limitations of SimSig
83A Log in to reply |
| Channel Tunnel? 15/01/2025 at 17:21 #159938 | |
tynie123
236 posts |
I think it would be a big yawn..
Log in to reply The following users said thank you: TUT, KCRCRailway, jc92 |
| Channel Tunnel? 15/01/2025 at 18:38 #159940 | |
|
mjkerr
197 posts |
I like the sound of this, although it would be very repetitive and simplistic However with scenarios this could be challenging DELETED Log in to reply |
| Channel Tunnel? 16/01/2025 at 09:52 #159949 | |
|
kbarber
1768 posts |
Future in post 159936 said:I'm not entirely sure how the control of the TVM-430 system used on the Tunnel and HS1 would work but I suspect it would probably be outside the limitations of SimSigI think, from the signalman's point of view, it's effectively identical to any other signalling system. So Simsig would have no problem working it by NX control on controlled sections (although the repères on the lineside are simply notice boards, I'm quite certain an indication is shown on the control interface for controlled sections, possibly even for auto sections too). If I recall correctly from my reading, the only 'interesting' issue is that the overlap extends for the whole length of a signal section. (If I recall correctly from my reading - it's a long time ago now - signal sections are a standard 1km length, which might make some of the necessary research easier than usual.) The only thing Simsig is likely to splutter at is that TVM is a speed signalling system; I'm not sure whether the core code copes with that or not (or whether there's a hack that can be arranged. Whether it applies in the Tunnel I don't know, but on SNCF lines (and on HS1 if I read the signal plates correctly) auto signals may be passed at danger under 'stop and proceed' rules, with the driver proceeding under 'marche à vu' conditions (maximum speed 30kmh and prepared to stop short of any obstruction) after being stopped for one minute. Easily simulated by giving every auto signal a subsidiary (not represented on screen) with a suitable approach control. But as tynie123 says, a sim with rather limited interest. Log in to reply |
| Channel Tunnel? 16/01/2025 at 13:58 #159955 | |
|
Jan
918 posts |
kbarber in post 159949 said:(If I recall correctly from my reading - it's a long time ago now - signal sections are a standard 1km length, which might make some of the necessary research easier than usual.) TVM-300 had relatively mandatory fixed-length block sections (2 km on a level gradient I think?), TVM-430 is a bit more flexible in that regard. It's still subject to the effect though that nominal minimum block length are based on a level piece of track, and consequently must be lengthened in a falling gradient and may be shortened on a rising gradient. On the French LGVs the standard block length is 1500 m, but since speeds are slower in the tunnel, it's entirely possible that your value of 1000 m is correct (the tunnel definitely has its own custom speed-limit-code-to-actual-speed-limit decoding table). Another particularity is that the TVM installation in the tunnel prevents the shuttles from being signalled onto the domestic network and conversely regular trains from being signalled into the shuttle terminals (and domestic trains not cleared for the tunnel are locked out entirely), but that'd be easily replicated using Simsig's system of speed classes and some suitable wrong route coding. kbarber in post 159949 said: If I recall correctly from my reading, the only 'interesting' issue is that the overlap extends for the whole length of a signal section.On the plain line that's true, but around stations/junctions/crossovers additional speed control facilities allow the usage of more usual-length overlaps. kbarber in post 159949 said: The only thing Simsig is likely to splutter at is that TVM is a speed signalling system; I'm not sure whether the core code copes with that or not (or whether there's a hack that can be arranged. I think Simsig gained some support for speed signalling and custom signal aspects with the Australian sims, but I don't know how comprehensive that is in terms of attempting to model the TVM speed codes. 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: kbarber |
| Channel Tunnel? 18/01/2025 at 21:56 #159973 | |
|
clive
2804 posts |
As Jan says, we do speed signalling in SimSig, but I can't say much about it because Geoff did the code. Developers can see some stuff in the manuals, but I'm afraid there's nothing for anyone else. Yes, we could give each auto signal a hidden subsidiary to simulate Stop and Proceed. Or it's possible to specify conditions under which trains will ignore a signal entirely, which is how RSH7 stop-and-proceed works on Euston. Log in to reply |