Trains with duplicate train describers

For example train one I have given the TD as 2H01 and the second as 2H01-1.

If it's likely that both will be in sim at the same time, it would be better to give both a unique suffix to avoid any gremlins, eg 2H01-0 and 2H01-1, should stop TD of 2H01 picking up 2H01-1.

I completely agree with Finger: life would be easier for all of us if trains used different headcodes rather than different suffixes, e.g., 6T01, 6T02, etc. That would give you 10 x 10 = 100 headcodes possible for all 6Txx trains - surely that would be enough.

I completely agree with Finger: life would be easier for all of us if trains used different headcodes rather than different suffixes, e.g., 6T01, 6T02, etc. That would give you 10 x 10 = 100 headcodes possible for all 6Txx trains - surely that would be enough.

58050, how are Trip Services translated to headcodes? From my reading of your post it would seem that xTxx becomes xT.01, therefore xT01, xT02, etc., keeping the T in the same position within the headcode.

But I appreciate your point about older timetables needing to be authentic. I wonder whether this caused early IECC panel operators the same headaches. Maybe I should scan the headcodes in any new TT I'm consider playing and reconsider whether to go ahead with it.

One of the reasons I enjoy playing Wembley Suburban is that (from memory), no trains use suffixes, i.e., no identical TD berth headcodes.

However, if trains in a particular area in real life use headcodes with suffixes rather than differing headcodes, this would make a TT with no suffixes less realistic. I'd like someone who knows real timetables to comment on which is more common.

Furthermore, do any IECC or other computer screen panels use 5-digit headcodes to accommodate this problem? If so, maybe SimSig's developers could give some thought to upgrading TD berths, e.g., 6T01-1 would be displayed as 6T011.

One of the reasons I enjoy playing Wembley Suburban is that (from memory), no trains use suffixes, i.e., no identical TD berth headcodes.

However, if trains in a particular area in real life use headcodes with suffixes rather than differing headcodes, this would make a TT with no suffixes less realistic. I'd like someone who knows real timetables to comment on which is more common.

I"m not sure what sim your writting for, but i"ll try and explain why we try to avoid having duplicate WTT ID within the same Signalling Centre area in my part of the world.

If you take from the old NSE era and in particular the Southern ASCs, then you couldn't have two trains with same WTT IDs within the same signalling centre control area at the same time because the CSR will flag up a duplicate description. Take my location TBASC which has 9 panels (the main 8 panels at TBASC plus Oxted) all sharing the same CSR database, (TBASC panel 7, Dorking and Reigate share a different database).

If you had a 1G02 Ashford to Brighton on panel 6 at the same time as 1G02 Tattenham Corner to London Bridge on either panel 2, 1B or 1A this would cause the CSR to throw up a duplicate discription and any attempt to communicate either way between Driver and Signaller would stand the chance of either becoming a failed call as it attempts th call the wrong train/panel and sometimes it will even put you through to the wrong train/panel with very bad reception. It is for this reason that even if we have to re-use the same WTT IDs like the Gatwick Expresses do, that the same code is used at different times of the day roughly 12hrs apart, or in the case of the 1Gs, the ones to and from Ashford would start the day as low 1Gs and the Tattenhams would start the day as High 1Gs.

Even if you try and sort this timetable clash out and say you changed the London Bridge bound 1G to a 1Z, the CSR computer was not smart enough to work out which of the two 1Gs got changed to a 1Z and you stood a 50/50 chance that the Brighton bound unit"s CSR would to 1Z even though the signaller on panel 2 changed the WTT ID for the London Bridge bound train.

Over the years we have had plenty of arguments with both timetable planning and route control at every timetable change to get these clashes worked out of the timetable as so to stop CSR problems.

" said:

I"m not sure what sim your writting for, but i"ll try and explain why we try to avoid having duplicate WTT ID within the same Signalling Centre area in my part of the world.

If you take from the old NSE era and in particular the Southern ASCs, then you couldn't have two trains with same WTT IDs within the same signalling centre control area at the same time because the CSR will flag up a duplicate description. Take my location TBASC which has 9 panels (the main 8 panels at TBASC plus Oxted) all sharing the same CSR database, (TBASC panel 7, Dorking and Reigate share a different database).

If you had a 1G02 Ashford to Brighton on panel 6 at the same time as 1G02 Tattenham Corner to London Bridge on either panel 2, 1B or 1A this would cause the CSR to throw up a duplicate discription and any attempt to communicate either way between Driver and Signaller would stand the chance of either becoming a failed call as it attempts th call the wrong train/panel and sometimes it will even put you through to the wrong train/panel with very bad reception. It is for this reason that even if we have to re-use the same WTT IDs like the Gatwick Expresses do, that the same code is used at different times of the day roughly 12hrs apart, or in the case of the 1Gs, the ones to and from Ashford would start the day as low 1Gs and the Tattenhams would start the day as High 1Gs.

Even if you try and sort this timetable clash out and say you changed the London Bridge bound 1G to a 1Z, the CSR computer was not smart enough to work out which of the two 1Gs got changed to a 1Z and you stood a 50/50 chance that the Brighton bound unit"s CSR would to 1Z even though the signaller on panel 2 changed the WTT ID for the London Bridge bound train.

Over the years we have had plenty of arguments with both timetable planning and route control at every timetable change to get these clashes worked out of the timetable as so to stop CSR problems.

The WTT in question is May 1975 through to May 1976 for London Victoria Central division and I am also using the Carriage Working book for the same period.
As an example I have 2K04 the 06:16 Epsom to London Victoria and also 2K04 06:18 London Victoria to Epsom. True both services are routed via Mitcham and Carshalton so it would make sense for that, but if you take the shuttle services from West Croydon to Wimbledon, both are 2A** with odd numbers from West Croydon to Wimbledon and 2A** evens from Wimbledon to West Croydon. Likewise if you look at the services from London Bridge to London Victoria then you have the same, odds in one direction and evens in the other but no apparent duplicates. I have only entered the services up to about 07:00 a.m. at the moment but at a quick glance it only appears that it is the early morning services that are duplicated. No doubt I will be proved wrong when I get past midday..... but that is a long way off at the moment. :(

Not so, when "2H01" is not in the sim and "2H01-1" is, "2H01" will pick "2H01-1";
just as when "2H01-0" is not in the sim and "2H01-1" is, "2H01" will pick "2H01-1".

Of course, none of these systems were capable of identifying individual trains. So you can imagine what an incredible advance it was when the 4-digit description came on the scene in the early 1960s. The signalman could now tell exactly which train he was dealing with, rather than having to know all the trains a particular description might refer to and use his knowledge of the timetable to work out which was which. In those far-off days, even the largest powerboxes covered areas we would now consider trivial. (Controlling the southern West Coast Main Line from just five boxes - Euston, Willesden, Watford, Bletchley and Rugby was considered a magnificent achievement at the time.) The idea that there might be duplicate headcodes within a box area simultaneously was considered pretty far-fetched and, as signalmen were expected to know the traffic (and were used to having nothing more than the first digit - the class the bell code spelt out) it was never imagined it might cause a problem. The big exception, of course, was Euston where (as jc92 says) the same codes kept repeating for the DC lines. This was to allow a high degree of automation of description sending with the primitive relay technology then on offer. (For the same reason, DC lines ECS ran as class 3 rather than class 5 until the new Willesden Suburban - later Wembley Suburban - box was opened in 1988.)