Page 1 of 1
| Worcester 04/12/2016 at 21:26 #89693 | |
GWR813
10 posts |
I think a sim of Worcester Shrub Hill, Norton Jn and Tunnel Junction and Henwick junction would be good fun
Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 08:20 #89696 | |
jem771
102 posts 
|
be good to include droitwich as well
Jezz Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 09:29 #89697 | |
|
WesternChampion
173 posts |
For me a Worcester sim would include the line towards Oxford, at least as far as Moreton-in-Marsh (and including the Long Marston branch), the line towards Hereford, as far as Malvern Wells / Ledbury, and the line from Droitwich towards Kidderminster.
Last edited: 05/12/2016 at 09:30 by WesternChampion Reason: Punctuation Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 16:23 #89701 | |
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
WesternChampion in post 89697 said:For me a Worcester sim would include the line towards Oxford, at least as far as Moreton-in-Marsh (and including the Long Marston branch), the line towards Hereford, as far as Malvern Wells / Ledbury, and the line from Droitwich towards Kidderminster. Agreed. Would be good also, in fact, to perhaps include the line up as far as Kidderminster / Churchill and Blakedown. That way if Stourbridge Junction was ever released it would potentially make for a very large chain if Gloucester was updated to chain to Saltley and enough players could be found. That said I also hope that Walsall will appear one day too. Dave Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 17:54 #89702 | |
Vortexhaha
47 posts |
We can also connect to Stafford once Walsall is complete.
Nathan ( Vortexhaha / VORX (In-game)). 2nd year uni student Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 18:20 #89703 | |
|
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
Vortexhaha in post 89702 said:We can also connect to Stafford once Walsall is complete. Yes that will be true due to the line up through Rugeley. Is Walsall under construction though? Not heard anything on that for a while. I wonder also if Stafford will be updated to allow chaining to Rugby North. Dave Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 20:58 #89705 | |
|
GWR813
10 posts |
I agree but perhaps we do it Worcester Area in the 90's so and do as Blakedown as that was always the fringe to Stourbridge. down as fare as Morten in Marsh in the East I would say Ledbury Would be best in the South West and add things like gas works at Blakedown you would have turn back services at Kidderminster the Worcester depot would be fun in the morning along with eth Hereford Sidings at Worcester that Hold FGW HST/166 I feel it could have 3 Eras so around the 50's then 80's-90's and then Present day as there were different features Through out them times
Log in to reply |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 21:02 #89708 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
GWR813 in post 89705 said:I agree but perhaps we do it Worcester Area in the 90's so and do as Blakedown as that was always the fringe to Stourbridge. down as fare as Morten in Marsh in the East I would say Ledbury Would be best in the South West and add things like gas works at Blakedown you would have turn back services at Kidderminster the Worcester depot would be fun in the morning along with eth Hereford Sidings at Worcester that Hold FGW HST/166 I feel it could have 3 Eras so around the 50's then 80's-90's and then Present day as there were different features Through out them timesCan you provide:- Accurate Track Circuits plans of the areas Accurate Locations of the signals Accurate aspect sequences Accurate control / locking tables? "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 |
| Worcester 05/12/2016 at 22:21 #89710 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
DaveHarries in post 89701 said:WesternChampion in post 89697 said:The number of SVR signalmen that are on this site, people will be asking for that nextFor me a Worcester sim would include the line towards Oxford, at least as far as Moreton-in-Marsh (and including the Long Marston branch), the line towards Hereford, as far as Malvern Wells / Ledbury, and the line from Droitwich towards Kidderminster. 
Log in to reply |
| Worcester 06/12/2016 at 13:29 #89719 | |
|
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
Forest Pines in post 89710 said:The number of SVR signalmen that are on this site, people will be asking for that next :) I don't know how many SVR signallers are on this site. The SVR is a nice line: I have done two of the signalling weekends that are organised in conjunction with the KRM. Dave Log in to reply |
| Worcester 06/12/2016 at 14:42 #89720 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
Forest Pines in post 89710 said:The number of SVR signalmen that are on this site, people will be asking for that next :)I dare say that most of us SVR people on here long since realised that the Wish List has little to no influence on what Simsig developers develop, no matter how nice we think it would be! Last edited: 06/12/2016 at 14:42 by Danny252 Reason: . Log in to reply |
| Worcester 06/12/2016 at 15:20 #89721 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts
|
The locations of the signals are well known, as are the identities of all the points and track circults, but the control and locking tables would still be needed. There are also some unusual operating practices to take into consideration. Headshot119 was able to develop Llangollen as he is a very active volunteer on that railway and was thus able to get the information required. The simulation in its various forms has been used to test out timetables proposed for events. The trouble with most preserved railways is that once you have played the timetable through once, or possibly even less, they will get very repetitive and potentially boring. For instance even the timetable D service on the SVR, assuming it's still called what it was when I was spending three days a week volunteering on the railway a few years ago, is very repetitive and would be fairly boring to operate on SimSig. Galas would be a bit better, but these also tended to follow relatively common patterns that you can learn fairly quickly. It would be interesting to see but would probably require a disproportionate amount of developer and tester time relative to the enjoyment players would get out of it. Last edited: 06/12/2016 at 15:26 by Stephen Fulcher Reason: More to add. Log in to reply |
| Worcester 06/12/2016 at 16:51 #89722 | |
GeoffM
6377 posts
|
Danny252 in post 89720 said:Forest Pines in post 89710 said:Not intentionally: we just need the right information and inclination to do the area. Of course we would slightly tend towards the bigger, busier areas as they're more likely to be of interest to more people.The number of SVR signalmen that are on this site, people will be asking for that next :)I dare say that most of us SVR people on here long since realised that the Wish List has little to no influence on what Simsig developers develop, no matter how nice we think it would be! We should have finished the UK by 2030, by which time it'll be time to start again! SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Worcester 06/12/2016 at 18:08 #89723 | |
Andrew G
552 posts |
DaveHarries in post 89703 said:Vortexhaha in post 89702 said:It is a shame that it has gone quiet on Walsall as I think it will make an excellent one person simulation with an interesting area of control including entrance and exit to Bescot Yard (Developer has previously advised it won't include Bescot Down Tower). While the box was double manned it was described to me on a visit as just a bit too much for single manning but not quite enough to fully justify double manning all of the time (degraded working excepted). It will also make a good addition to West Midland chained sessions.We can also connect to Stafford once Walsall is complete. Stafford will be an interesting one to upgrade as the new Stafford work station (in Rugby ROC) doesn't control Colwich Junction so in order to allow chaining to Rugby North then an upgraded Stafford will need to include part of Stoke which itself lost Norton Bridge to Stafford. Perhaps the answer is a Stoke simulation which also incorporates the Stafford work station. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Vortexhaha |
| Worcester 06/12/2016 at 23:07 #89729 | |
|
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
Andrew G in post 89723 said:Stafford will be an interesting one to upgrade as the new Stafford work station (in Rugby ROC) doesn't control Colwich Junction so in order to allow chaining to Rugby North then an upgraded Stafford will need to include part of Stoke which itself lost Norton Bridge to Stafford. Good point. I would think that an update to Stafford would include the new flyover at Norton Bridge. An update to Rugby North would also be a good idea though to include things up to the boundary point with Stoke SCC. The problem, I guess, would be getting hold of the required information to make the update. Dave Log in to reply |