Page 1 of 1
| simulation phone calls 13/01/2012 at 21:00 #27242 | |
mask44
31 posts |
Having played SimSig for a number of years , and having worked on the railway for 26 years , i wondering would it be possible to have a random call from p way staff wishing to take line blockages (T2) or having road blocked for incidents (broken rails) included in simulations or timetables. This could be an interesting feature Last edited: 14/01/2012 at 13:41 by mask44 Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone callsand 13/01/2012 at 21:19 #27246 | |
|
mask44
31 posts |
And have there calls voice taped , lol . Just a random call though the day for a fault , i know we have point failures and track cuircut failures on the S and T side but nothing for the P Way side. Last edited: 14/01/2012 at 13:46 by mask44 Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 13/01/2012 at 21:46 #27253 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
yes it is. i am sick of people having to make such an irrelevant point in postings on topic, there have been several discussion threads on the point of phone calls, these most likely will be found in the features wish list section "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 13/01/2012 at 21:54 #27254 | |
|
mask44
31 posts |
thank you jc , will have a look and find them
Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 14/01/2012 at 13:44 #27281 | |
|
mask44
31 posts |
Having gone back to my original post , i must apologise for my spelling. So would it be possible for a random phonecall from , say , P Way staff ; we have crossing phonecalls for a flock of sheep to cross in the middle of the night. Last edited: 14/01/2012 at 13:45 by mask44 Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 14/01/2012 at 15:02 #27289 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Comments about spelling moved to a separate thread: here.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 14/01/2012 at 15:28 #27293 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
Another possible idea (already listed on developer's wishlist): Request from maintenance gang for a set of points to be swung reverse for 10 mins, as agreed/available. Idea was from a box visit, a real incoming call asking for points to be swung reverse for say 10 mins, but at sigger's discretion within service. Actual response was you can have 5 mins now, or for 20 mins in 10 mins time after next train passes. I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 14/01/2012 at 15:42 #27294 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
" said:Having gone back to my original post , i must apologise for my spelling.It's not just as simple as adding a call unfortunately. A lot more specific details would be needed. What options do the calls contain? What happens when each option is selected? What is the affect on the sim and finally how does that affect the signaler (in terms of giving penalties if the signaler doesn't do something they should or do something they shouldn't)? Then there is also the question of scope. Is this a generic request where the affects on the sim and the signalers consequent actions will be the same, no matter which sim or the location on the sim, or not? If they are then that that makes it easier. An example of that is the crossing calls you mention. It doesn't matter what the sim is, the calls and the reaction by the signaler is always the same no matter the location, even if some of the requests are a little odd!!! Situations like these are handled by the core code and require little or no additional input from the developer. If this has to be carefully programmed because it's location specific then it becomes a lot bigger task. It would mean either specific data would have to be entered for each sim to add the feature to that sim which in turn means that some sort of structure would need to be included in development tools to support the feature by Geoff and/or Clive, or alternately, the sim developer would have to program the data by hand which is something we are trying to get away from. I think if this is something the developer has to do by hand on a per sim basis, then it's not likely to get included. Otherwise, we can add this to the feature list and its then up to Clive and Geoff to decide if they implement it or not and any more specific details on what it does can only help. Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 14/01/2012 at 18:31 #27317 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
If Point and Track Circuit Identities were available in the F3 options menu then you could easily have calls asking to work on a set of points or a particular track circuit or signal as that could be handled through the core code. (It's the same request and action whatever set of points you're talking about). Taking possession of a line however would be harder to achieve. The difficulty comes from the penalty system. It would be unfair to penalise the signaller if the tech phones up and wants to work on a crucial set of points mid rush hour and the signaller says no. FF Log in to reply |
| Re: simulation phone calls 14/01/2012 at 19:29 #27325 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
The ironic thing, and I am an NR S&T Team Leader, is that I know of at least one person who would turn up in the rush hour and try and work on the busiest crossover on the patch, and almost take offence when the Signaller sends him on his way! Back to more relevant matters, and slightly connected with the above, is that it would be nice for the S&T to test before handing back a failure, but at the same time I appreciate how difficult it would be to achieve that without significant work on the core code from Geoff and Clive. Intermittent failures would also be nice - ie to see how people could get themselves totally stitched up by a minor track circuit failure because of being unable to resist the urge to set a route over it when it clears, only to find themselves route-locked. Again, and this has been discussed before on the forum, I believe this would be disproportionately difficult. Would it be possible, in a similar vane to the level crossing calls issue, to code in an incident whereby a track worker, whether P-Way, S&T or a Mobile Operations Manager (or anyone else for that matter) decided in a similar vane to the random nature in which the level crossing reasons (Cows, Geese, Slow Vehicle etc.) are, to request say a "Line Blockage from SY108" using only controlled signals and then the Signaller either saying "Yes" or "Call Back in x Minutes" with x being decided by whoever wrote the code, and then give them a short block of say 5 minutes from that signal with the signalman receiving a penalty if he either clears the signal or talks a train into the section, and a suitable rebuke on the phone in the same manner as level crossing users say "Oi, you told me it was safe"? Log in to reply |