Page 1 of 2
| Sim Sig Editor 13/12/2013 at 16:58 #52717 | |
duncan89
9 posts |
Ok, I shall say it :-) Sim Sig continues to go from strength to strength and is easily the most realistic and best all round signalling simulation software in existence. And this is compared to inferior and more expensive simulations - so well done to the whole team. The obvious add on for me would be an editor so that users can create their own layouts. Of course user created simulations would need to be submitted and moderated for the right quality. And I know this is big technical ask. But I think this would really open up the simulator to a mass audience! Thanks again for a great and valuable product. Duncan. Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 13/12/2013 at 17:29 #52718 | |
|
TimTamToe
664 posts |
" said:Ok, I shall say it :-)This is unlikely to ever happen; quoting the wiki regarding people making their own SimSig "New developers are very rare, and thus it is unlikely that you become a developer. You need strong signalling knowledge and experience to be able to create schemes. Also the SimSig source code, required for the compilation of simulations, is strictly controlled in its distribution. New developers do come on-board occasionally. We pick these based on their evident knowledge of the subject, as noted in their forum postings. The time taken to train new developers takes time away from developing new simulations, so new developers are rare." As you point out SimSig is the most realistic and therefore to keep this the people who develop sims need knowledge, skills and data (eg signal and point locations, track circuit lengths etc). If everyone had access to the code it would result in more unrealistic and less accurate sims which would cause a watering down of the high quality SimSig prides itself on. I'm sure someone from the development team can explain more fully...but of course that would take them away from developing... Gareth Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 13/12/2013 at 18:25 #52722 | |
dmaze
88 posts 
|
" said:user created simulations would need to be [...] moderated for the right quality.From what I've seen here, "the right quality" means "reflects exactly the real-world rail network, including to-the-inch locations of signals, points, platforms, etc." Getting good source data seems to be a very hard problem (and the UK is more open with its infrastructure than the US is!), and then there's a large data-entry-and-validation problem, and then you need to build a good timetable for it, and so on. In practice building something SimSig-quality means months or years of research, data input, and testing. That is: we get very very good quality, but it's a lot of work to get there! I certainly wouldn't mind having a build-your-own tool to play with, but I'd probably use it to do a rough sketchup of some of my local rail network (Google Maps plus the picture of the recently-closed Waltham Tower in last month's Trains magazine isn't actually enough data to build a SimSig-quality version of the MBTA/PAR/PAS Fitchburg line), play with it a little while, and then let it languish. It's not going to be something I'm going to refine for months on end. I sort of suspect most people who want a build-your-own tool are in the same camp. Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 13/12/2013 at 20:01 #52724 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
Building a sim isn't like laying track in Railworks/Trainz it's a hugely complex process. I'm the newest developer to the team, and I've spent the overwhelming majority of my free time for the last 2 years learning how sim data is constructed, its syntax, the wealth of information required to get a sim up to scratch. Before that I was a tester for 4 years. That's hundreds of hours of just learning the "how to" without even getting near to developing a whole new sim. In answer to the OP's question: In the simplest terms there is already a SimSig Editor - it's the tool the developers use (well, most of the developers) to build the sims. But there is more to building sims than simply having the editor. There is a whole language to learn, There are stringent standards to adhere to. As such, save a radical policy shift by Geoff and the other senior developers I can't forsee it ever being made publically available. I do take the point that it could improve the experience for the user, but the flip side of the coin is SimSig's image. Ultimately SimSig has a reputation to maintain. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: duncan89, CTCThiago |
| Sim Sig Editor 14/12/2013 at 11:38 #52733 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
I've asked the same question before, got the same answer before and in my opinion the real reason that there's no publicly available SDK (software developer's kit or equivalent) is NOT that realistic sims are too difficult to model without all the data necessary but that the software is proprietary (being a scaled down version of a professional product), and will remain so until it eventually fossilises. Consider the analogy of model railways. I enjoy reading Model Railroad Hobbyist Magazine, a free US monthly publication available online, and never cease to be amazed at the attention to detail put in by modellers who have been doing this for years. Techniques such as weathering rolling stock are openly shared, layouts made as authentic as possible given space constraints, team operating sessions are customary, and the magazine is funded by the many advertisers who support this hobby. On the other hand, they all had to begin somewhere, whether it was a simple loop around the Christmas tree or a modest HO layout with no extra effort put into being prototypical. These kids could still have fun with imaginary layouts that became larger and more realistic with time. Most importantly, at all times they remained in control of their layout and were thus able to stay in their own comfort zones until developing into adults with a lifelong passion. Historical accuracy and realistic scenery and rolling stock came much later, with time. Get it? When I see layouts and train orders as historically accurate as the creator intended, it takes my breath away. Experience is usually required before one is allowed to join such an operating session team. Obviously there are thousands of layouts that come nowhere near being as photo-worthy, but that doesn't stop these guys from having fun and exhibiting locally. Thankfully there's no law there that states you have to prove your expertise in historical research before being allowed to purchase one foot of track. Of course, there's another possible reason for not making SimSig software available - it might turn out to be so flaky for others to use that releasing it in its present state might be a disaster for developers and their customers. Hate to be uncharitable, but the impression is there. I see nothing wrong with having several tiers of customer involvement. For those who want licences to develop their own routes, let there be licences just for this. It shouldn't cost any more than other professional software such as Trainz and Rail Simulator - we don't want to make it too exclusive and frighten them off. Also let there be at least two categories of sims available - those professionally accurate (as now), where a great deal of research to ensure this could command a higher price, and those less realistic but no less enjoyable, created by SimSig members for simplicity and pleasure. I firmly believe that SimSig developers should stop erecting these barriers in the name of realism, and throw the game open for all to profit. Quote: I do take the point that it could improve the experience for the user, but the flip side of the coin is SimSig's image. Ultimately SimSig has a reputation to maintain. Something about this reminds me of the story of the emperor's new clothes. Last edited: 14/12/2013 at 11:51 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 14/12/2013 at 13:26 #52738 | |
Steamer
3986 posts |
I'm not sure if I should post this here, Mods feel free to remove it if you see fit. PC-Rail have their development tools free to use. I've had a play with them, and it's hard. Learning the syntax is tricky, then getting the data. You can't just make it up as you go along- even a fictional layout has to be planned and approached as if it were real, otherwise you'll tie yourself up in knots. Also if you make stuff up, you can't reference facts- real data will (hopefully!) add up and be self consistent, whereas made up data isn't. This is all on a simulator which is much less advanced than SimSig. If you want an example, take Overlaps (which PC-Rail can't do). Where do you put them? Too short and the simulation lacks challenge, too long and the timetable becomes unworkable. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 14/12/2013 at 14:01 #52739 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
" said:I've asked the same question before, got the same answer before and in my opinion the real reason that there's no publicly available SDK (software developer's kit or equivalent) is NOT that realistic sims are too difficult to model without all the data necessary but that the software is proprietary (being a scaled down version of a professional product), and will remain so until it eventually fossilisesI could be wrong here - never having been a SimSig developer - so someone please correct me if I am - but according to my own memory of "the early days" you have this completely the wrong way round. SimSig came first and was scaled up to a professional product when people within the industry saw what Geoff had written and was selling for a few pounds, and were impressed by just how accurate it was. This is why Liverpool St and Didcot are "odd sims out" regarding the commercial confidentiality rules, because they already existed when those rules were set. I have sometimes looked into producing my own similar simulation engine. It really is a lot of work, which is presumably why the SimSig products have grown somewhat over time since the "one-man band" days. However if you want to do your own thing, there was at one time an open source clone of Train Dispatcher out there. It wasn't particularly good, but it was open source, so if you want to take that baton and run with it, you can! It was written in C using the GTK+ library from what I remember. Incidentally the only signalling simulations I've come across that come close to SimSig are from a company called Signalsoft, and by comparison they are eye-wateringly expensive. And they also do not offer any sort of editor, not even a timetable editor! Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 14/12/2013 at 14:08 #52740 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
" said:I'm not sure if I should post this here, Mods feel free to remove it if you see fit.This is in fact another good parallel with model railways! If you model a real location all you have to do is enough research. If you invent a location, you have to fake being a vaguely competent engineer! To design a fictional SimSig you have to be almost as good as a real life signalling engineer; and even then you'll produce something that is a fantasy: it won't have the starting constraints (geography; commercial requirements; money) that a real signal engineer faces. A friend of mine has just started down the path of training to be a signalling engineer (so she can follow in her dad's footsteps!) It really is an awful lot to learn. Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 15/12/2013 at 06:53 #52749 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Quote:If you want an example, take Overlaps (which PC-Rail can't do). Where do you put them? Too short and the simulation lacks challenge, too long and the timetable becomes unworkable.Quote: If you invent a location, you have to fake being a vaguely competent engineer!Exactly. The missing link here is example/tutorial sims which can be taken apart, tweaked, reassembled and played with until they feel right, in the process of which one gains tremendous experience. Release the software available to do this and a new generation of happy customers will emerge, not just those who are constrained to do nothing more than write timetables for existing sims. (added) The missing link is the documentation. It's always documentation, lack of which steepens the learning curve and causes infinite confusion. I can't see why a large fictitious sim can't be created in small modules which are finally connected. Wouldn't take long. As far as overlaps go, the obvious answer is to begin with ones of minimal length and lengthen as required. Let there be a set of simplified guide rules based on the actual but rather verbose and impenetrable regulations. Remember, we're talking fiction here, not slavishly following actual conditions which are often riddled with outdated "solutions". If a manual level crossing at the extreme end of a sim gets up your nose, get rid of it or replace it with a fully automatic one. If you want extra challenge, insert one where it's most annoying. Currently, the level of "challenge" is determined by the sim's creator (and those writing timetables for it). Since these sims need to be as prototypical as possible, the creator's view of "challenging" may not be shared by all players who approach the sim. I propose that prototypical sims be labelled as such and their data used as a starting point by others who might want to create their own, perhaps less demanding, versions. Quote: PC-Rail have their development tools free to use. I've had a play with them, and it's hard. Learning the syntax is tricky, then getting the data. You can't just make it up as you go along- even a fictional layout has to be planned and approached as if it were real, otherwise you'll tie yourself up in knots. Also if you make stuff up, you can't reference facts- real data will (hopefully!) add up and be self consistent, whereas made up data isn't. This is all on a simulator which is much less advanced than SimSig. Learning new syntax is always tricky without a multitude of tutorials to walk you through it. I've never seen a tutorial on how to make data self-consistent and would welcome a few, but who's going to share their hard-won experience without recompense? Here's where fictitious sims have a big advantage, a bit like writing a novel - the writer, starting from scratch should be able to visualize the grand, self-consistent plan in his head, down to the kinds of timetables that are most appropriate. Quote: Also if you make stuff up, you can't reference facts- real data will (hopefully!) add up and be self consistent, whereas made up data isn't. IMO the problem arises when one tries to fill in gaps in real data with made up data, sometimes inevitable. If all data is made up, it can be tweaked without having authenticity tapping you on the shoulder. It must be very satisfying to some to point out after a sim has been released that its creator got reality wrong in one way or another. Last edited: 15/12/2013 at 08:33 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 15/12/2013 at 09:16 #52750 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
" said:The missing link here is example/tutorial sims which can be taken apart, tweaked, reassembled and played with until they feel right, in the process of which one gains tremendous experience.But this won't give you experience - it will give you something deceptively close, but is not genuine or useful information. Remember the old adage: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. To use the model railway analogy again - which is a good analogy because in a sense that's what the developers are doing - there's a longstanding piece of advice there that if you want to produce a good model you should go back to the prototype rather than tweak something you've seen in a modelling magazine or at a show. If you do that, you produce "a model of a model" - in general, you're much more likely to add inaccuracy than to remove it. "It feels right" is for most people a very bad rule of thumb - in my experience if you try go by it you will always end up being surprised by the real world, in any field. Moreover in the scenario you're describing how would quality be maintained? How would putative New Free-World Developers find out whether or not they had produced anything of quality without circulating a pile of first attempts which would, we can assume, generally be quite bad to begin with. Quote: I can't see why a large fictitious sim can't be created in small modules which are finally connected. Wouldn't take long.Why do you think it wouldn't take long? A fictional sim will always take longer to write than a prototypical one of comparable size and quality for which data is available, purely because in the latter case a design team has already spent many man-hours of work producing the data for you. For your fictional sim, you have to do all that design work yourself, and then you still have just the same amount of work to do to implement it in SimSig. Quote: As far as overlaps go, the obvious answer is to begin with ones of minimal length and lengthen as required.But that's a good example of an answer that's obvious (to you) but wrong. The obvious answer to me (not a signalling designer either) would be "the existence of overlaps is mandated by primary legislation, so research that as your starting point". I have an advantage here: I am aware of this because of a long-running low-level grumbling sort of argument elsewhere to which "the existence of overlaps is mandated by primary legislation" is the official answer from the people being grumbled to, and I assume it's right. There's no reason of course why you'd be expected to know that, though - I would wager 99% of enthusiasts don't, and 99.9% of lawyers would say "what the hell is an overlap"! The point is that you can't easily simplify the design standards, which themselves have changed a lot over the years. You can't remove outdated solutions, because the rulebook and design standards are in essence a palimpsest of solutions to past problems - or being less charitable, a succession of bolts on empty stables. Quote: If a manual level crossing at the extreme end of a sim gets up your nose, get rid of it or replace it with a fully automatic one. If you want extra challenge, insert one where it's most annoying.So what changes would you have to make to the track and signalling around the level crossing in either case for it to be realistic? I know it's hypothetical, but nonetheless, where would you start? Again, this all comes down to the same point that you need an awful lot of knowledge to create something plausible. Quote: Currently, the level of "challenge" is determined by the sim's creator (and those writing timetables for it). Since these sims need to be as prototypical as possible, the creator's view of "challenging" may not be shared by all players who approach the sim. I propose that prototypical sims be labelled as such and their data used as a starting point by others who might want to create their own, perhaps less demanding, versions.Surely there's already a wide range of difficulty in the sims available? If you can't cope with Trent or Edinburgh, you can always try Worksop, Royston, Oxted or Lancing, or all the other sims in between. It is true that maybe there needs to be more guidance to beginners on the relative difficulty of different sims, although I suspect we would never be able to agree entirely - like you say, we're all going to have different views of what makes things challenging! Where do you think the gaps are, though, that we need fictional sims to fill? Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 15/12/2013 at 10:22 #52752 | |
|
Steamer
3986 posts |
" said:I can't see why a large fictitious sim can't be created in small modules which are finally connected. Wouldn't take long.I'm currently trying to write a simulation of Warrington PSB using the PC-Rail tools. So far, I've spent many hours with paper and pencil sketching out each area, working out where all the nodes need to be, and naming them. This is before I've so much as opened the development package! I'm now going through a similar process researching distances. Because I don't have access to NR data, I'm basing everything off these maps. All before we consider train describers, routes etc. etc. Then remember PC-Rail is less complex than SimSig. Quote: As far as overlaps go, the obvious answer is to begin with ones of minimal length and lengthen as required.No, the obvious answer is that overlaps are (200m?) long. However: Are there geographical factors that will influence overlap length and signal position? This is what makes simulations varied and interesting. Quote: Learning new syntax is always tricky without a multitude of tutorials to walk you through it. I've never seen a tutorial on how to make data self-consistent and would welcome a few, but who's going to share their hard-won experience without recompense?Data is made self consistent by spending hours with pencil and paper making it work. If you're modelling real life, you have the 'truth' to reference to, to make sure you're going in the right direction. I'd encourage you to have a go with the PC-Rail tools, and see how you find them. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Sim Sig Editor 15/12/2013 at 12:00 #52754 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Thanks Steamer for suggesting PC-rail tools - will try them out. They seem the best substitute for now (though Railway Operation Simulator is a fun tool without being too prototypical!). Also thanks for the Signalling Notices website. I'll add that to the links Wiki if no one has done this already. I've studied your thoughtful comments as well as those of Forest Pines and take them on board till I can devote some more time to creating my own sims, working up from there and test my hypotheses. There are areas where we obviously disagree at present but I understand your points of view. It's a pity that SimSig disallows fictitious routes. As Henry Van Dyke observed, the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best. Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 16/12/2013 at 05:41 #52798 | |
|
Jezalenko
25 posts |
I seem to remember there was an un-offical SimSig layout designer put out by a third party a little while ago - does anybody sill have that floating around they could re-distribute?
Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 16/12/2013 at 11:51 #52808 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
I wonder if people are thinking to start at the wrong end of the process? In real life, railways came into being for commercial (or sometimes strategic) reasons. The facilities provided were a response to the needs, often modified by other constraints (geography, law, available finance to name the three I can think of). The earliest railways had - in effect - no signalling whatsoever. Starting in the 1840s but not becoming fuly effective until the 1870s or '80s (in the UK, at any rate) the law caught up with this new industry and signalling systems were mandated to keep the companies from killing too many passengers in their efforts to carry more of them more quickly. Hence we got the basic principle of a space interval enforced by fixed signals, closely followed by the idea of a 'clearing point' (predecessor of the overlap) that came out of the 1876 Abbots Ripton accident. Technological advances starting a decade or so later led through a series of approaches to the modern signalling system. In the process, any number of standards have emerged and been superseded, but signalling systems tend to have a long life and it has been common for equipment installed to older standards to remain in use alongside newer ones. For instance, I believe the standards for overlaps when Kings Cross was planned/built required 400yd for a 2-aspect signal (R/G preceded by a Y/G repeater at braking distance), 300yd for a 3-aspect signal and 200yd for a 4-aspect signal. I have a suspicion that where there have been substantial relockings (a new SSI interlocking was installed for Finsbury Park several years ago, and another around a year ago covering Hitchin - Langley Junction, in anticipation of the Hitchin Flyover among other things) the modern standards (183m for all signals except where line speed is 100mph or above, in which case it rises to 200m) have been applied so far as it was practicable to do so. (I don't imagine they went around moving block joints in long welded rail for auto sections.) If you read up on the history of the Great Northern Railway (and in particular of Kings Cross station) you will see that just about signal and every set of points was provided for a reason. A new siding somewhere would be the subject of debate by the Board of Directors (even if it was entirely within an existing yard) and a new signalbox would need their approval for every detail of the plans. At Kings X the station went through several phases of development on a site that was enormously constrained. So, for instance, although it would have been a good idea to open out Gas Works Tunnel (and I suspect a fictitious sim or model would do precisely that), the Directors of the Regents Canal Company would have had rather a lot to say about such an idea! (And don't suggest moving the canal. The levels are such that there is already a short downhill stretch on leaving KX, to get low enough to go under the canal. Moving the canal northward would bring it even closer to the level of the rails. And you can't raise the canal either, without creating a massive embankment from the site of Kentish Town Lock to somewhere in the region of Battlebridge Basin. Which, in turn, would have been impossible through a part of London that was already getting very built up.) When the time came to resignal, that meant a lot of things weren't where the designers would've liked them to be. But those were the constraints they had to live with. But the starting point for the designs wasn't those constraints, it was the commercial requirement (passenger and freight flows) as filtered through the operators' thoughts on how to service them (use the Northern City Line to access Moorgate, as opposed to the Widened Lines, for example, or eliminate many conflicting moves in the Kings Cross throat by rebuilding the existing goods line flyover at Holloway and diverting the up slow across it - oh, and reversible working on all roads through Gas Works Tunnels would add a useful bit of flexibility too). That led to a track layout, which was then signalled (I suspect in an iterative process where the track layout was adjusted once signal positions had been worked out, leading to further adjustments of signal positions). Having the possibility of major remodelling gave those engineers a freedom their predecessors would've killed for... So if you want a fictitious layout that feels 'right', it seems to me that this is the process: 1 Imagine the geography of the area your railway will run; 2 Imagine the traffic generators (natural resources for outward traffic, settlements for inward and passenger traffic); 3 Imagine the transport history of the area (including flows to and from other areas); 4 Create a historic railway system. This is where that detailed geography of hills/valleys/rivers/etc becomes important for placing tunnels, bridges, etc. There's also the little matter of historic estates of influential landowners, that could force companies into massively sub-optimal routes and layouts! You can be as detailed as you like in imagining what facilities would've been provided, what the track layouts would have been, etc. If you're planning a Worksop-like sim incoprporating older boxes you will need to do this in quite a lot of detail, but even for a KX-like sim where everything was remodelled you need to know what was where and how much space it took up. That will give you an idea where the main nodes were, how large the terminal facilities, what railway facilities (such things as loco sheds) were needed... 5 Do the same for other companies' connecting and competing lines. 6 Imagine the development of built up areas that will further constrain your track layouts, station sites etc. 7 Develop the history of the railway, including how commercial drivers changed. (e.g. did a heavy commuter traffic develop? Did natural resources become exhausted, leading to large inward traffics from elsewhere to feed local processing plants?) An idea of political developments would help too; that will give an idea of wartime connections between competing lines, Beeching closures leading to odd-looking branches in strange places and such. 8 Now bring the commercial specification up to date to the time your signalling was planned. (Remember Kings X was planned over 40 years ago... the world was very different then!) From that develop an operating spec, leading to track layouts. Now signal it in accordance with the signalling principles of the time. 9 There have probably been changes since the signalling was built. Some traffics that had been thought to be a permanent feature have disappeared (domestic coal, for example, for which facilities existed when Kings X was commissioned). Others have developed, sometimes without proper provision being made (hence the overloaded pinch points that exist in some places) and sometimes the provision that has been made will be piecemeal. Again, develop track and signalling layouts in accordance with the signalling principles of the time. Once you've done this, you'll be able to derive the data you need to be able to develop a sim. Anything less, unless it's a real-life layout, will lead to a sim (or a model, for that matter) that's never quite right. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Sim Sig Editor 16/12/2013 at 14:50 #52810 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
I'm fairly sure when west hampstead was commissioned, the engineers would have much preferred to widen the lines from cricklewood- Kentish town to alleviate the awkward bottleneck it causes. instead we ended up with a slightly awkward but workable situation which makes it far more fun than any "fantasy what if" layout.
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 16/12/2013 at 17:03 #52813 | |
|
Steamer
3986 posts |
" said:I seem to remember there was an un-offical SimSig layout designer put out by a third party a little while ago - does anybody sill have that floating around they could re-distribute?The Unoffical Layout Designer enabled you to use the Fonts distributed in the System Files to make track plans. These were purely cosmetic and couldn't be used to make an actual simulation. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 16/12/2013 at 21:07 #52819 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
" said:I'm fairly sure when west hampstead was commissioned, the engineers would have much preferred to widen the lines from cricklewood- Kentish town to alleviate the awkward bottleneck it causes. instead we ended up with a slightly awkward but workable situation which makes it far more fun than any "fantasy what if" layout. In fact I think there wasn't any great problem by the end of the 1970s. The goods lines had been pretty much out of use for over 5 years before the resignalling started (St Pauls Road Goods signalbox closed in 1975 while St Pancras Goods Station and Somerstown had been out of use for some years before that, I believe) so it was a no-brainer to convert them to be the fast lines. They used the original Belsize Tunnel, which was where the real bottleneck had started. The new tunnel, which had become the Passenger Lines tunnel, became the Slow Lines and the 4 - 2 track convergence at Finchley Road was eliminated. For a year or so before the remodelling, the Goods Lines through Belsize Tunnel were taken completely out of use so they could be upgraded. All the passenger traffic continued to be worked through the bottleneck - so far as I can tell the only change needed was to authorise 'engine assisting in rear' as a way of reducing (certainly not eliminating) light engine moves between Cricklewood and St Pancras. Freight traffic on day turns was limited (so far as I can recall) to the Nottingham Freightliner that ran after the evening peak was over (if it left Tilbury early, Carlton Road would hold it on the North Curve). I can safely say from personal (albeit highly unofficial) experience that the layout was a very great deal more awkward than the present setup but nonetheless worked perfectly. After Finchley Road was remodelled, it became a very easy box to work; I visited one evening peak and, quite frankly, it was downright boring! Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 16/12/2013 at 21:37 #52821 | |
58050
2659 posts |
Keith I remember those days very well. I used to catch the 0839 from Bedford most Saturday mornings in 1976 - 1978 on a cheap day return from Bedford which was £1 & go train spotting at Kings Cross, Paddington & Liverpool Street which were easy from St. Pancras via the Circle line or Met & change at Baker Street. I used to lean out of the window on the 1st coach behind the loco(always a Peak with steam heat Mk.1s) as we crossed over from the Up Fast Line onto what is today the Up Slow Line & go through Belsize tunnel. You are right in what you say about the Goods lines which today are the Up & Down Fast lines as I never saw anything travelling on them ever when I went to London or came back from London. The nearest thing I ever saw on that side was a Cl.25 shunting in the Goods yard or sidings which were at the back of West Hampstead station & ran towards Belsize tunnel. Nothing remains of them today. With regards to the Nottingham freightliner train, that was worked by Cricklewood men from Cricklewood as some ex-Cricklewood men at Bedford told me & that was a train I never saw running through Bedford as you say it would have gone through Bedford during the hours of darkness. The sections were very short between boxes between St. Pancras & Hendon/Silkstream junction(slow lines only). St. Pancras - Dock Junction(which controlled Cambridge Street servicing depot) - Engine Shed Jn - Carlton Road Jn - Finchley Road - West Hampstead - Watling Street - Cricklewood Jn - Brent 1 & 2(virtually opposite one another) & Hendon. Good old days.
Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 14:38 #52861 | |
|
welshdragon
315 posts |
Those of you who want to build a basic simulation can so so already.. FWIW the standard of SimSig simulations is high, I for one would like to see this standard continue, I'm aware of how much time a Sim takes so asking when it's ready also cheeses me off - Quality over quantity, something these young'uns don't understand. Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 14:42 #52864 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
" said:<snip> When I used to visit the sidings behind Finchley Road were still there. Nowadays it's all a car park for Finchley Road Sainsburys.  " said: With regards to the Nottingham freightliner train, that was worked by Cricklewood men from Cricklewood as some ex-Cricklewood men at Bedford told me & that was a train I never saw running through Bedford as you say it would have gone through Bedford during the hours of darkness. One of the best 'wrong described' incidents I saw concerned that train. I was 'visiting' Finchley Road (yet again) one evening, when Carlton Road knocked in a series of bells (remember we used to work 'loose' an awful lot in those days). We just-about managed to count ten beats. The signalman & I looked at each other completely mystified, he shrugged his shoulders and eventually said 'Cricklewood Cars' so I rattled back 2-2-1-5 at high speed, pegged line clear, offered on and pulled off down the Local. But it was the Notts that came out of the tunnel... I've never seen anyone move so fast, dropping the starter at West Hampstead with one hand and banging 3-5 in to Cricklewood with t'other, then offering the correct 3-2-5 and pulling off all before the train came upon the red. " said: The sections were very short between boxes between St. Pancras & Hendon/Silkstream junction(slow lines only). St. Pancras - Dock Junction(which controlled Cambridge Street servicing depot) - Engine Shed Jn - Carlton Road Jn - Finchley Road - West Hampstead - Watling Street - Cricklewood Jn - Brent 1 & 2(virtually opposite one another) & Hendon. Good old days. Short sections indeed. The working from Hendon to Finchley was the old Reg 1(e), with the special 'Overland' bell circuit to advise Finchley when a train passed Hendon on the up fast. Needed real signalmen to run the railway in those days. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 58050 |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 14:53 #52866 | |
|
58050
2659 posts |
Another regular train I used to catch from Bedford in the pre-electrification period was the 1210 SX Bedford - St. Pancras which called at all stations to Elstree & Borehamwood then fast to St. Pancras. Always a 4 car Cl.127 Rolls-Royce unit with 1 BG on the back as tail traffic. AFAIK that was the only service which had tail traffic from Bedford(well the only one I ever saw). I'd love to travel on one of those units again. In the 1990s I went to the Midland Railway Centre to ride on the Cl.127 DMU, pity the guy driving it didn't really know how to work it. I said to the wife I wish he'd get out of the seat & I'd show him how to drive it. :cheer:
Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 14:58 #52868 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:Another regular train I used to catch from Bedford in the pre-electrification period was the 1210 SX Bedford - St. Pancras which called at all stations to Elstree & Borehamwood then fast to St. Pancras. Always a 4 car Cl.127 Rolls-Royce unit with 1 BG on the back as tail traffic. AFAIK that was the only service which had tail traffic from Bedford(well the only one I ever saw). I'd love to travel on one of those units again. In the 1990s I went to the Midland Railway Centre to ride on the Cl.127 DMU, pity the guy driving it didn't really know how to work it. I said to the wife I wish he'd get out of the seat & I'd show him how to drive it. :cheer:Feel free to pop along to Llangollen where one of our DMU sets has a 127 DMBS car (51618). "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 |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 15:07 #52869 | |
|
58050
2659 posts |
That would be good. There's a Cl.127 set at Loughborough on the Great Central Railway & I was told that it belonged to a set of Bedford men. I'm trying to find out who. Trouble with having a gear change power car at the other end is that you need to drive the Rolls-Royce Cl.127 with gear as well & not just leave it in the 'D' position. Pity no one actually has a 4 car set running with 2 Cl.127 power cars. Best DMUs in the country & certainly with the highest horsepower (238hp each engine).Much rather travel on a Cl.127 than a Cl.319 anyday.
Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 15:10 #52870 | |
|
TimTamToe
664 posts |
" said:" said:Went past Llangollen and Carrog when I was visiting relatives a few weekends ago...Have to make sure I have time to stop next time, has been many years since I've been along the line.Another regular train I used to catch from Bedford in the pre-electrification period was the 1210 SX Bedford - St. Pancras which called at all stations to Elstree & Borehamwood then fast to St. Pancras. Always a 4 car Cl.127 Rolls-Royce unit with 1 BG on the back as tail traffic. AFAIK that was the only service which had tail traffic from Bedford(well the only one I ever saw). I'd love to travel on one of those units again. In the 1990s I went to the Midland Railway Centre to ride on the Cl.127 DMU, pity the guy driving it didn't really know how to work it. I said to the wife I wish he'd get out of the seat & I'd show him how to drive it. :cheer:Feel free to pop along to Llangollen where one of our DMU sets has a 127 DMBS car (51618). Gareth Log in to reply |
| Sim Sig Editor 17/12/2013 at 15:12 #52871 | |
|
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:That would be good. There's a Cl.127 set at Loughborough on the Great Central Railway & I was told that it belonged to a set of Bedford men. I'm trying to find out who. Trouble with having a gear change power car at the other end is that you need to drive the Rolls-Royce Cl.127 with gear as well & not just leave it in the 'D' position. Pity no one actually has a 4 car set running with 2 Cl.127 power cars. Best DMUs in the country & certainly with the highest horsepower (238hp each engine).Much rather travel on a Cl.127 than a Cl.319 anyday.Is the one at the GCR not a 127 at either end with a 120 center car? As long as we don't have in multi at Llan you can just leave ours in 'D'. "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 |