Page 1 of 1
| Summer 2006 WTT? 18/09/2010 at 18:59 #1787 | |
Underwood
748 posts |
Hello all, Had a discussion with someone about this and was wondering, is the summer 2006 timetable supplied from a WTT? If so I could not really understand Silverlink's common sense in train movements. Why send a ECS from Watford to Willesden to form a North London Line service to North Woolwich is beyond me, especially when the TMD is next door. Did they actually hold class 313s in the depot or were they basically all from Euston and Watford? So far I have hardly seen a single 313 come off the depot. I think nowadays 378s are held in the depot with some overflowing at Euston, is this right? This is not a complaint, it gives me more things to do at least, just was curious that if this was from a WTT, I couldn't understand why ECS moves were sent from all the way up there that's all. Cheers, James. Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 18/09/2010 at 18:59 #11590 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
Hello all, Had a discussion with someone about this and was wondering, is the summer 2006 timetable supplied from a WTT? If so I could not really understand Silverlink's common sense in train movements. Why send a ECS from Watford to Willesden to form a North London Line service to North Woolwich is beyond me, especially when the TMD is next door. Did they actually hold class 313s in the depot or were they basically all from Euston and Watford? So far I have hardly seen a single 313 come off the depot. I think nowadays 378s are held in the depot with some overflowing at Euston, is this right? This is not a complaint, it gives me more things to do at least, just was curious that if this was from a WTT, I couldn't understand why ECS moves were sent from all the way up there that's all. Cheers, James. Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 18/09/2010 at 19:37 #11591 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
I think that, back then, at least some work on 313s was being done at Bletchley or somewhere else 'oop north' :-). So this could be a move for stuff coming back from maintenance. I didn't think Willesden did anything with 313s; it was all Hornsey and Bletchley. Someone else may know better, though. [Remember the 313 that started accelerating out of control when it switched to DC at Camden Road? Wasn't that because Bletchley didn't have any third rail test arrangements?] Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 18/09/2010 at 21:36 #11595 | |
|
Underwood
748 posts |
Hello Clive, Hornsey would have had FCC 313s correct, Silverlink units however are showing as WN (Willesden) as their allocation in my 2006 fleet list book. I decided to take a hunt on fotopic to see if it is the case: http://thechief.fotopic.net/p56343394.html http://thechief.fotopic.net/p56343398.html Class 150s are also under WN but do appear in the sim as coming out the depot, but unsure if they use the same shed. Looking at the size of it, it's no wonder 313s/508s and 150s stabled at Euston! Also slightly off topic but I found this odd destination when searching for 313s at Willesden TMD! http://keithsrailwaypictures.fotopic.net/p43666844.html Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 19/09/2010 at 12:19 #11616 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
Having done a 2009 WembleySub timetable with 313s, they all stable at Watford Junction or Euston, the only thing that comes out of Willesdon TMD is the 150s for the Gospel Oak/Barking service.
Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 26/09/2010 at 19:21 #11735 | |
northroad
872 posts |
Small point but in the timetable It appears that unit 313 075 is used for at least three or four of the first duties that are booked to arrive at Watford.........
Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 26/09/2010 at 19:24 #11736 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
northroad said:Small point but in the timetable It appears that unit 313 075 is used for at least three or four of the first duties that are booked to arrive at Watford........."(313 075)" means the train is a Class 313 and it's maximum speed is 75mph. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Summer 2006 WTT? 27/09/2010 at 13:38 #11749 | |
|
northroad
872 posts |
Simple really........ooopppsssss sorry Geoff Log in to reply |
| Re: Summer 2006 WTT? 06/03/2012 at 11:43 #30390 | |
|
Aurora
183 posts |
I'll take this thread to be the general thread for the Summer 2006 timetable. Played this sim through over the past week and must compliment the developer and testers on getting it running so smoothly. I had no real problems and the trains ran as they should have. Granted many of the other sims are much larger and probably much more complicated but well done anyway. I've found a problem with stickies in that the Train Descriptions of Tube trains don't link with their respective timetable (no link). This was posted the earlier simulation-forum thread: trouble with sticky notes and LU TDs. Probably one to look at if the sim is ever re-released. I'm only writing it in here because I noticed it, which is what this post is about. When I played, S204-F did not run as it is put in as only running 50% of the time. When this train doesn't run, the following runs (K204-G, J204-H, K204-J, K204-K, J204-L, K204-M, K204-P, J204-Q, K204-R and K204-S) from the train do not run. Is this intentional? If so, would anyone know of a reason why the learn-ed ones (WTT developers) did it with this train specifically? Could a rule be written (or what it is that is done to make them disappear from the TT list) whereby if S204-F doesn't run, then the following '204' runs automatically don't run? The trains themselves don't run which is what should be happening but this isn't noticed as 'entered' by the TT list. The TT list continues to list them as coming up through the end of the simulation. S247-D also did not run. Of course this is due to it's earlier run (W247-C) only being scheduled to run 50% of the time. Could there be a rule written that states if W247-C doesn't run, then S247-D automatically won't run? Train doesn't run but it isn't recognised as no longer 'coming up' by the TT list (i.e. as per 204 runs listed in the above paragraph). All of my trains depart the Harrow & Wealdstone Siding one minute late. Would anyone have a potential reason for this? Thanks. Also with timings, I ended up with roughly 7124 minutes lost (with a few hundred recovered (for anyone wanting to know)), has anyone been able to do significantly better in the 'minutes lost' when they've played or is it maybe just a timing and sim-operation thing? I may try an abridged-time version with delays over the next few days. 
Nil. Last edited: 06/03/2012 at 11:51 by Aurora Reason: The H&W siding and timing things just came to mind Log in to reply |
| Re: Summer 2006 WTT? 07/03/2012 at 06:20 #30426 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Thank you. Quote: I've found a problem with stickies in that the Train Descriptions of Tube trains don't link with their respective timetable (no link).The problem is that the core code detects train descriptions by looking for the 1A23 pattern. If this is expanded to accept A123 as well, there's more chance of false positives. It's not practical to make this sim-specific. Quote: Yes. Now I think about it, that's a bit odd. LU WTTs sometimes have trains standing spare for certain situations (e.g. football matches) but I've never before seen one that is conditional over part of its schedule. Quote: When this train doesn't run, the following runs (K204-G, J204-H, K204-J, K204-K, J204-L, K204-M, K204-P, J204-Q, K204-R and K204-S) from the train do not run. Is this intentional?Yes. These are the successive parts of 204's run up and down the line. If it never enters, it won't do the rest of the runs. Quote: Could a rule be written (or what it is that is done to make them disappear from the TT list) whereby if S204-F doesn't run, then the following '204' runs automatically don't run? The trains themselves don't run which is what should be happening but this isn't noticed as 'entered' by the TT list. The TT list continues to list them as coming up through the end of the simulation.Not easily. It's not a rule issue, but a core code one. It needs to look through the timetable and "tick off" the next working, then repeat as necessary. However, it's not that easy, because you have to take account of joins and splits as well. The player may also want to know about the train so that they can assign it to another timetable. Requires more thought. Quote: All of my trains depart the Harrow & Wealdstone Siding one minute late. Would anyone have a potential reason for this? Thanks.The time it takes the driver to walk to the other end? Quote: Also with timings, I ended up with roughly 7124 minutes lost (with a few hundred recovered (for anyone wanting to know)), has anyone been able to do significantly better in the 'minutes lost' when they've played or is it maybe just a timing and sim-operation thing?There's a comment in the manual you may want to look at, concerning the real-world situation. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Aurora |
| Re: Summer 2006 WTT? 09/03/2012 at 08:22 #30481 | |
|
Aurora
183 posts |
" said:When I played, S204-F did not run as it is put in as only running 50% of the time. " said: " said:When this train doesn't run, the following runs (K204-G, J204-H, K204-J, K204-K, J204-L, K204-M, K204-P, J204-Q, K204-R and K204-S) from the train do not run. Is this intentional? Absolutely. I was asking whether 'S204-F not running 100% of the time' was intentional. " said: " said:Could a rule be written (or what it is that is done to make them disappear from the TT list) whereby if S204-F doesn't run, then the following '204' runs automatically don't run? The trains themselves don't run which is what should be happening but this isn't noticed as 'entered' by the TT list. The TT list continues to list them as coming up through the end of the simulation. I don't believe there are any divides or attaches in this timetable, from what I recall. " said: " said:All of my trains depart the Harrow & Wealdstone Siding one minute late. Would anyone have a potential reason for this? Thanks. Well it doesn't matter whether the train left H&W for the siding on-time, 1 min late or 3 mins late, it always departs the siding 1 min late (obviously if you arrive at the siding after you were due to depart said siding, you'd be late regardless). " said: " said:Was this it:Also with timings, I ended up with roughly 7124 minutes lost (with a few hundred recovered (for anyone wanting to know)), has anyone been able to do significantly better in the 'minutes lost' when they've played or is it maybe just a timing and sim-operation thing? Quote: I am advised that not even the real signallers can make this timetable run to time. If so, then it makes you wonder who the hell is doing the WTTs when such fundamentals as timings from A to B (with the consideration of dwell times) can be so impractical in practice! But thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions and for going through it bit by bit. Not only do I appreciate it but I hope it helps with any further development of the sim and/or the timetable.
Nil. Last edited: 09/03/2012 at 08:25 by Aurora Log in to reply |
| Re: Summer 2006 WTT? 09/03/2012 at 13:40 #30489 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Absolutely. I was asking whether 'S204-F not running 100% of the time' was intentional.Ah. Yes, it is. It's shown as conditional in the WTT - I don't know why. Quote: " said:Maybe not, but a core code feature has to handle everything." said:Could a rule be written (or what it is that is done to make them disappear from the TT list) whereby if S204-F doesn't run, then the following '204' runs automatically don't run? The trains themselves don't run which is what should be happening but this isn't noticed as 'entered' by the TT list. The TT list continues to list them as coming up through the end of the simulation. Quote: Hmm. I'll have to look into that. Quote: Quote:Indeed.I am advised that not even the real signallers can make this timetable run to time. Someone I know once wrote "To err is human, but to really mess things up requires a timetable planner." Log in to reply |