Page 1 of 2
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 10:33 #55094 | |
maxand
1637 posts |
After madly clicking little signal icons (and missing a few by clicking outside the symbol), rushing from screen to screen and trying to remember which offscreen train needs attention the most when I return, I began to wonder whether the old NX panels might have been easier to work than the modern IECC console (screen) varieties. For a start, the switch buttons are big enough and far enough apart to be reached with a single finger - you don't need a mouse, let alone a trackerball (ugh!). For another thing, anyone modelling a NX panel (has anyone tried it?) would end up with a panel no bigger than a kitchen table with everything on it, slightly reduced in scale perhaps (unless one wanted to cover one wall of a room). These days LED displays are much less expensive than before, and anyone with a little electronics knowhow would be able to turn out one or a series of panels, maybe powered by a little microcomputer/microprocessor, or interfaced to an old PC. I'd be interested in comments from those who've made the transition from NX to IECC as to which is really easier to manage, and also from anyone else who's thought of modelling an NX panel. Of course there's DCC for model railroads, but I'm more interested in realistic signalling here. One could even include a phone handset with prerecorded messages. This could also be fun for sidings where the accent is on switching (shunting) rather than mainline action. Last edited: 06/02/2014 at 10:36 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 11:09 #55095 | |
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
I've worked two NX panels as a Signalman - one small one at Little Mill Jn, and one big one at Bristol. They were incredibly easy to work, and the Western style of panel meant that it was simple for the Signalman working Temple Meads station to see, at a glance, what was approaching from the West, as well as see what was in the Severn Tunnel or coming down from Gloucester. I know that can be done at an IECC, but the train describer at Bristol (LED characters over an inch high), made things very visible from a distance. The controls at Bristol were easy as well. It was fairly difficult to turn the wrong switch, or turn it the wrong way, although it was quite easy to hit the wrong exit button if your hand was in the wrong place. And yes, I did that more than once! Still, lever frames are the best way. Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 12:09 #55096 | |
jc92
3685 posts |
" said:After madly clicking little signal icons (and missing a few by clicking outside the symbol), rushing from screen to screen and trying to remember which offscreen train needs attention the most when I returndont forget on a number of Sim's you are operating an area that equates to several panels in real life, hence the increased workload. you also don't do it day to day which will account for you not being used to every excentricy for each area, nor a grasp of the timetable, which speeds things up. IECC's are normally a Higher grade than other boxes, although I'm sure there's plenty of exceptions to this " said: the Swindon Group are currently looking to preserve Swindon PSBs panel as a simulator. there will also eventually be one at York in the form of the ex Blackfriars SB panel controlling Holborn Viaduct. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 12:09 #55097 | |
pedroathome
915 posts |
" said:For another thing, anyone modelling a NX panel (has anyone tried it?) would end up with a panel no bigger than a kitchen table with everything on it, slightly reduced in scale perhaps (unless one wanted to cover one wall of a room).This is something which I have began to look into doing on my model railway. While the panel size doesn't need to be that large, probably get away with a thin but slightly longer panel, the minimum size is the size of the switches along the panel, ensuring that each switch can be accessed clearly, and any indications can also be added in to again be seen clearly. The bit that would take up the space however is the relays for controlling everything (Although no reason why a micro-controller or computer interface can't control the interlocking while an external panel is used to control the inputs and outputs James Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 13:53 #55103 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts 
|
" said:" said:The relays are definitely the space eater! If anyone can visualise a panel box operating relay interlockings (plenty to choose from), the relay room will generally be on the floor below the operating room and will be about the same size (in some cases rather larger). But that only houses the local interlocking and the remote control gear for the remote locations. Every remote location where there's a significant layout of points & controlled signals will have a relay room that houses the local interlocking plus the remote control gear from the main panel. Just to give a sense of the size, the relay room at Biggleswade (controlled from Kings Cross in real life but simulated as part of Peterborough by Simsig) is approximately the same size as the 60-lever mechanical box it replaced, albeit of one storey not two (and entirely windowless). Some others are substantially bigger, for instance the one on the east side of the lines just outside Victoria station (which, I suspect, houses both the South Eastern and Central side interlockings).For another thing, anyone modelling a NX panel (has anyone tried it?) would end up with a panel no bigger than a kitchen table with everything on it, slightly reduced in scale perhaps (unless one wanted to cover one wall of a room).This is something which I have began to look into doing on my model railway. While the panel size doesn't need to be that large, probably get away with a thin but slightly longer panel, the minimum size is the size of the switches along the panel, ensuring that each switch can be accessed clearly, and any indications can also be added in to again be seen clearly. Computer-based interlockings make a massive difference. There is a panel box at Wembley Yard, controlling the marshalling yard that was built for the Channel Tunnel traffic (that sadly never really materialised). I strongly suspect it was originally designed to house a relay interlocking; the panel room is along one side of a good-sized building. But in the end an SSI was installed, so behind the panel room is an area the size of a tennis court housing just a couple of computer cabinets! Of course a computer/program controlled logic module interfaced with a panel would be an ideal solution for a model railway - there's no need for the high integrity and failsafe design that the real railway demands, so it would be fairly easy to program and could use (cheap-ish) commercial kit. Only interesting bit is the interface itself, but that's by no means beyond the ability of a moderately competent electronics hobbyist. Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 13:59 #55104 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
Just to illustrate your point, this link will show youu Cardiff East Relay room, for a building of that size it controls a tiny area, the east half of the platforms at Cardiff Central, a very short stretch of track towards Queen Street, and a fairly short stretch of the mainline towards Newport.
"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 |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 15:31 #55108 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts
|
" said:After madly clicking little signal icons (and missing a few by clicking outside the symbol), rushing from screen to screen and trying to remember which offscreen train needs attention the most when I return, I began to wonder whether the old NX panels might have been easier to work than the modern IECC console (screen) varieties. I never actually got to sign a panel but as that never stopped me I do have some experience. Likewise I never worked a workstation but Simsig is more than good enough. So here's some (slightly inexpert) thoughts. If you want to build a typical UK panel you'll need a source of suitable buttons. The push-push style that became the UK standard had centre-biased buttons that pushed to make and, if I understand correctly, broke the circuit as soon as they were released back to the centre position. So the push contacts picked up a 'stick' relay circuit that was itself selected by another relay depending whether the button was acting as an entrance or whether another entrance button had been pushed, forcing it to act as an exit. I think there was another relay circuit worked by the 'pull' contacts forcing the stick circuit to unstick. The button also needs to be made of a transparent material so a light can shine through it. A turn-push panel might be easier, with no need for stick circuits, no flashing buttons and a push-only button for the exit. But more switches/buttons means more space. It's not likely to end up that much bigger than the layout though, unless you model in Z gauge  As for the panels themselves, there's numerous variations. The original NX panel was the MV-GRS offering. There's pictures here http://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/br_left_q60.jpg http://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/br_centre_q60.jpg http://www.lymmobservatory.net/railways/sbdiagrams/br_right_q60.jpg of the original that was installed at Brunswick Goods (a joint LMS/LNER setup); sadly it's not in very good condition but you can see the style of switches & buttons. Only 58 points have their indication complete (showing OOC in the picture). The design was quite large & unwieldy by modern standards. More to the point, it's not easy to see at a glance what routes are set - there's no white route lights in this design of panel. There were 3 large examples at Mile End, Bow Junction and Stratford (LNER/BR(E), 1949), some were installed in Scotland and one of the last was at Barking (BR(E), 1960). There were a few more t-p NX panels installed through the 1950s; the Temple Mills boxes and one or two on the Kent Coast schemes. I think route lights started to emerge in that period, design of the switches changed and point indications changed to small lamps but the method of working altered little. I think the first of the new push-push panels was at Liverpool Edge Hill at the end of the 1950s, closely followed by a number on the Eastern Region (Hackney, Broxbourne, Harlow, Tilbury, Pitsea, Southend Central) around 1960. They were relatively large panels for the size of layout they controlled and there was masses of room between the various buttons. They didn't have a lot of 'feel' when you worked the buttons (that was common to most versions, I found) so you just had to push/pull and hold until you were reasonably certain something was beginning to happen. The buttons also became quite smooth with the passage of time so they were quite slippery when pulling up. In the early - mid '60s came the panels on the southern West Coast Main Line. They were a little more compact, but I suspect that was because there was rather more railway to fit on to them. The one at Euston had all electropneumatic points, which were extremely quick acting; it also had several locations where several exit buttons were closely spaced one above t'other. That could make life exciting, as you would never have time to pull up your entrance button before the signal cleared if you selected the wrong exit. (Hint to Clive - that is the only aspect of Euston I can see that is other than exactly correct! But I wouldn't suggest changing it... there's enough little headaches in that sim as it is  )I never got my paws on any of the big 1970s/early 80s panels; not sure whether I regret that or not, this was the era signalmen finally stopped being able to see the trains they controlled. Smaller panels started to be installed all around the place, sometimes as stagework for bigger schemes (Engine Shed Junction 1978 as part of the West Hampstead scheme) and sometimes to stand alone (South Tottenham, part of the North London complex, still there albeit now on its second or even third panel). Then in the mid-80s came much larger buttons that gave a definite click as you pushed or pulled, shaped with a definite waist to aid pulling. The only ones of them I've seen were at Hackney (Reading Lane Junction) and Banbury South. They seemed reasonable to work with. Meanwhile the Western Region, still thinking it was the Gas Works Railway and therefore could & should do its own thing, used its own variation of the turn-push panel (illustrated in several peoples' signatures advertising the Swindon Project). The one time I worked one of those (Old Oak Common) I found them very pleasant to use, easy to turn yet positive in operation, with the exit buttons picking up instantly even though they had little feel - you just pushed them as far as they'd go. The lack of illuminated entrance button was never an issue, the switches were distinctive enough. Interestingly the working there (the arrow engraved on the button surface came in line with the track on the diagram when a route was called) was the opposite to the MV-GRS ones (where the white 'pip' on the switch was in line with the track when no route was called and turned up at 90 degrees to call a main route; for subsidiary routes the pip was turned down, so the Brunswick photos show all signals off with a main aspect). As for which is easier, I'm not sure there's an answer. People will always have their favourites which won't always have much to do with which are the easiest to operate, and what you've grown up with may have an impact as well. So I have a soft spot for mechanical frames. Although I like the Derby style (Midland Railway and its successors) I find the angle the levers work through is sometimes a little too much and the interlocking can be quite tight & difficult (all the more because it's a catch handle locking). They're always incredibly light to work but they sometimes feel rather flimsy. The Great Western's 5-bar vertical tappet frame, on the other hand, is a delightfully smooth and slick beast but sometimes there are some very heavy pulls. The LNWR stirrup frame, in any of its manifestations, is heavy, clumsy and extremely draughty (I need only say North Pole Junction) but it's made to last and it feels like it! Of the panels I've worked, Barking was probably the most interesting; the points indications never ceased to fascinate, and although the traffic was much less intense than Stratford it was much more varied. I love the Westinghouse Style L power frames, they are delightfully sweet to work provided you're not too ham-fisted and some of them could be extremely intense to work. Then, of course, there's the One Control Switch panels, a very different animal but great fun (if rather scary) to operate. Have a look at these photos http://www.whelan.me.uk/rail/York/SBPanelCentreLeft.html York and http://www.whelan.me.uk/rail/Northallerton/SBPanel.html Northallerton. Each switch operates a complete route, hence the large number at York; they are laid out logically (although it takes a while to work it out) but they are a lot easier than a mechanical frame to grab a wrong'un and end up with a wrong route set. Even more so if the points are electropneumatic rather than electric. I've often thought an OCS panel might be fun on a model railway. But who's ever going to produce such a thing? [/dinosaur's rambling] :lol: Log in to reply The following users said thank you: AndyG, maxand, Forest Pines, BarryM, john_s, Stephen Fulcher |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 19:04 #55118 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
On the matter of running SimSig as a NX panel, you can use touch screen monitors as was demonstrated at a meet a while back. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 23:07 #55138 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Thanks everyone, particularly Keith. I had no idea there was so much difference between early NX panels and later ones. I like Peter Bennet's suggestion of using a touch screen monitor - was it easy enough to touch exactly the right signal without having to magnify the screen? At the moment, designing and building my own NX panel remains a bit of a pipe dream. I must check to see whether any exist in Australian railways (UK is a bit far away). jc92 said Quote: dont forget on a number of Sim's you are operating an area that equates to several panels in real life, hence the increased workload.How very true. It makes me wonder why so many sims are like this, instead of consisting of single panels which can be chained together or unchained according to how busy one wants to be, for single-player use. Were the early sims designed for multiplayer use? Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 23:29 #55140 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
I worked as a software developer before becoming a signaller, but after working the NX panels at West Hampstead for four years I found the transition to the Westcad panel a little harder than I thought it would be. For a few days it felt quite odd not having fingers directly on buttons-I felt detached from the trains! I have worked both the NX panels 2,3 & 4 plus the Westcad workstation for the past 3 years and find neither to be easier than the other.
TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 23:39 #55141 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
" said:Thanks everyone, particularly Keith. I had no idea there was so much difference between early NX panels and later ones.To be more realistic using a sim without ars is to play multiplayer. At least you will then have a realistic workload. Panels 3 and 4 at West Hampstead are tough at many times during the average day. There is no signaller that could run up and down the panels and hope not to get a hell of a lot of delays! For a real challenge, try a multiplayer game and run it for 8 hours. Control a single panel and get zero delays this would be a fairer test of your skills than doing the whole box. My colleagues south of the Thames will no doubt agree!Oh, don't forget to take a 40 minute break :cheer: TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Last edited: 06/02/2014 at 23:41 by MrBitsy Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 06/02/2014 at 23:52 #55143 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:jc92 saidTo create a single panel for something like Victoria would be horribly complicated (you can see screenshots here if you click on the picture to enlarge it). To give adequate warning of approaching trains (as the real world signaller would have) means simulating at least a simplified fringe far enough back - and for timetabling a suitable entry point would have to be chosen. For example, panel 1 would have to go back at least as far as Balham - and plenty of trains either don't go to Victoria, or they switch lines, which has to be simulated on the fringe as well. ARS is a reasonable compromise in Victoria's case. You can scan around and ensure it's doing its job, stepping in where necessary. West Hampstead didn't lend itself to ARS so it didn't get it. So the solution is that we have a mixture of one-player simulations, and multi-player simulations. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 07/02/2014 at 00:47 #55145 | |
|
tbh183
24 posts |
Getting back to the original question - I've worked 5 NX panels at London Bridge [Charing Cross & Cannon Street to Lewisham, Kidbrooke and Woolwich) before moving to MCS on the 2 North Kent Workstations [Kidbrooke, Lee and Woolwich to Rochester Bridge Junction] (tiny tracker ball with left, right and centre buttons) and finally working 4 IECC Workstations at Ashford IECC [Elmstead Woods to Folkestone Central] on big clunky buttons with a massive roller ball. On the London Bridge NX Panels - the routes were called using a mimic panel which had all the signal buttons, IPS's and a simplified schematic of the Overview on it. This was placed some distance from the main overview panel to allow easy sighting of the panel's coverage and the trains in it. Also the telephone concentrator and the CSR terminal. The Train IDs, Track Circuit IDs, Point Numbers, Line Names and Signal Numbers were all on the overview panel which gave an overall picture of the Box's coverage and every train on it. Very simple to use - push buttons to set routes and pull buttons to cancel routes - but the use of a mimic required good hand-eye co-ordination and a high level of accuracy as the buttons were close together. Also needed quite a bit of ambi-dextrous working of the buttons - left hand working Charing Cross and right hand working Metropolitan Junction (for example). Each panel covering quite a small overall geographical area. The North Kent workstations using the tiny tracker ball arrangement condensed all the actions onto one hand and those actions using only 2 fingers and a thumb. Also required good hand-eye co-ordination and not very forgiving if you do things too fast. Can actually be slower than NX. Bigger geographical area covered by each workstation but no advance indication of what traffic was en route into the area. Additional computer screens required to show approach lines and trains. The IECC workstations using big clunky controls do the same as the MCS North Kent workstations the main difference being that you have to go more slowly still to set routes manually. Controls are very colourful - green for setting route, red for cancelling route, blue for point controls and a big yellow roller ball in the middle to control the cursor. All very "Fisher Price" in a way but again very condensed controls using only 2 fingers and a thumb. All three methods basically do the same thing. The main differences are when visual reminders are placed on the lines for various reasons. NX Panel reminders are magnetic red blocks for the overview panel and plastic button and IPS covers for the mimic. The MCS controls for placing reminders are very simple and requires 2 clicks of a mouse for both signals and track circuits. The IECC controls for placing reminders on signals are the same as MCS - 2 clicks of a mouse - but to place track circuit reminders requires having to type a whole string of track circuits ids - very time consuming and prone to error (one mistake and you have to start all over again!) Very unforgiving! So to answer the question - NX is definitely easier to use than both MCS and IECC but is very limited - also you have to complete every action. MCS has very easy controls but the tracker ball equipment is on the cheap side. IECC is relatively slow and certainly very clunky and requires very deliberate actions. Best just to let the ARS do everything and just monitor the service or risk developing RSI doing everything manually! If I could pick and choose, I'd choose MCS reminder controls with IECC Clunky buttons. And ARS! Log in to reply The following users said thank you: maxand, belly buster |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 07/02/2014 at 10:06 #55148 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts
|
One thing I forgot. There was one panel I had a go at where, if you wanted to cancel a route, you had to hold the button 'out' for the whole of the timeout until the approach locking cleared. Wish I could remember which one it was. I think it was an older, permanent panel because my grey cell seems to think it was a slippery, shiny button that had seen a lot of use, but I could be mixing things up. Also, the age of the remote control system (if you were working a larger panel with remote interlockings) had an influence. The oldest 'Westronic' time division multiplex systems (encountered at Hackney, working Clapton Junction) had quite a few limitations. When setting routes you had to press each button quite deliberately and hold it for a moment until you were sure something had started happening. If you wanted to cancel a route the approach locking would time out in the usual way, but if having started the timeout sequence you changed your mind, you weren't able to reset the route - you had to wait the full two minutes before you could set the route again. More modern systems (and local interlockings), by contrast, would respond to a very quick press or pull and allowed you to change your mind wheneever you liked (subject to the usual approach locking rules). Both of the above led you to be rather careful in setting routes, I recall. An SSI (Solid State Interlocking, the trademarked British Rail computer-based interlocking that still seems to be sweeping all before it) also required a quite slow and deliberate press or pull to operate it, if you were too quick nowt would happen. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 07/02/2014 at 16:52 #55166 | |
|
MrBitsy
121 posts |
" said:...but to place track circuit reminders requires having to type a whole string of track circuits ids - very time consuming and prone to error (one mistake and you have to start all over again!) Very unforgiving!West Hampstead Westcad used to be like that. As you say, very time consuming to put track circuit reminders on. It was updated about a year ago, so now we just click on the first track circuit then the second and reminders are put on all the track circuits between - far better! TVSC Link 4 signaller - Temple Meads, Bath & Stoke Gifford Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 01:19 #55194 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
This thread has been an eye-opener for me. Thanks again guys. Slightly off-topic, but harking back to IECC panels and SimSig, it now seems to me that sims containing more than one panel were originally developed to be multiplayer, not one-player, sims. Am I not correct? Unfortunately, a novice like me wandering into a multipanel sim could easily get discouraged by finding the double, triple or quadruple workload beyond his/her ability. Even after becoming familiar with a multipanel sim such as Westbury that is supposed to be manageable by a single player (the other signallers are presumably off on stress-related work leave) I find myself barely able to cope. Reading what others say of sims like South Humberside, I am dreading the thought of trying it. This shouldn't have to be yet another issue for the non-professional novice. So what are the solutions? 1) Join a multiplayer game. I would like to but currently find it difficult to spare the time required during work hours due to my location, not to mention the short notice. 2) Play a sim containing a lot of ARS and let the ARS handle it. Not that many sims contain ARS; ARS is occasionally unreliable. I tend to find ARS takes the fun out of manual operation, so my favourite sims don't have ARS. 3) Play at reduced speed. Not bad advice when finding one's way around, but it adds to the unrealism, as if everything is running in molasses. It takes longer to get rid of trains from the area. 4) Play a simplified timetable, which for me would mean removing trains until the sim becomes manageable. This would seem to be the optimal solution, except that it requires a knowledge of TT editing as well as the inclination to spend hours doing it. My advice to anyone who has developed or is developing a multipanel sim is: please take the trouble to produce at least one simplified timetable with less frequent trains, for those learning the sim, or who want stress-free play. We're not all macho signalmen. One day I'll sit down and study the art of creating a TT. 5) Put a BLOK across incoming lines. Not a realistic solution. 6) Play SimSig spread across multiple monitors. Needs a bit of extra cash. I keep reminding myself to do this. Last edited: 08/02/2014 at 01:26 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 02:57 #55195 | |
|
Aurora
183 posts |
It takes time to learn the sim and what the running patterns for freight and pax trains are. But after an attempt or two you get the hang of it and can keep delays minor. The key is staying alert and knowing where the trains are in your head. But that becomes hard when you reach 40 or 50 trains in the one sim where you then have to keep moving from place to place to make sure you aren't neglecting an area.
Nil. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 03:17 #55196 | |
|
John
884 posts |
Maxand, The reality is, the only way you're ever going to get to grips with Simsig is to put the hours in. Simsig is realistic in that it is authentic in it's representation of the actual area of control, but unrealistic because in real life one person would never be expected to run the whole area on their own. ARS is useful, but sadly cannot be 100% relied upon, just as in real life. I started with Kings Cross many years ago, and while it is a large area of control and at times busy, it is relatively straightforward to operate, in that it has no level crossings, slots, ground frames, phone-calls to make etc. It was tough going at first, certainly, but after a while I got better and better, and now I can keep the modern era rush-hour going without bringing the area to a standstill. The only thing I can suggest is, if possible, download a Saturday or Sunday timetable which are generally quieter and have a more predictable, clock-face service. This will help you to learn the service and which trains run on which lines etc. Once you've learnt the area and can route the majority of trains without having to consult the timetable constantly, you're half-way there. When I solo play, I always run the sim with failures and delays switched off as, for me, the challenge is trying to keep the trains to time. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful. It really is just a case of learning the area of control thoroughly and practice, practice, practice. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 03:48 #55198 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:This thread has been an eye-opener for me. Thanks again guys.As I said earlier, some are one-player sims, others ideally require multiple people in a multiplayer. Others still are manageable on their own with ARS provided. " said: Unfortunately, a novice like me wandering into a multipanel sim could easily get discouraged by finding the double, triple or quadruple workload beyond his/her ability. Even after becoming familiar with a multipanel sim such as Westbury that is supposed to be manageable by a single player (the other signallers are presumably off on stress-related work leave) I find myself barely able to cope. Reading what others say of sims like South Humberside, I am dreading the thought of trying it.Many of the simulations come with screenshots so you can see the kind of area covered and, more importantly, green lines showing boundaries between workstations (possibly not in the significantly older simulations). Some user manuals for simulations indicate the number of workstations but we do need to do better to make that more obvious. " said: 1) Join a multiplayer game. I would like to but currently find it difficult to spare the time required during work hours due to my location, not to mention the short notice.I'd be surprised if you didn't find at least one game to your suiting over the next few weeks. There are plenty of people in your timezone so it's just a case of watching out for a session. I think you can subscribe to the Session Details forum so it will email you if somebody posts there - somebody else can explain how to do that! Even - or perhaps especially - if you work odd shifts like nights, there must be someone awake who's prepared for a game! Failing that, post something in the Hosting General forum indicating your availability or suggested times and somebody may well offer to host for you. " said: 4) Play a simplified timetable, which for me would mean removing trains until the sim becomes manageable. This would seem to be the optimal solution, except that it requires a knowledge of TT editing as well as the inclination to spend hours doing it. My advice to anyone who has developed or is developing a multipanel sim is: please take the trouble to produce at least one simplified timetable with less frequent trains, for those learning the sim, or who want stress-free play. We're not all macho signalmen. One day I'll sit down and study the art of creating a TT.As John says, see if you can find a Sunday timetable. Ignore anybody suggesting a Christmas Day timetable :whistle:  ." said: 6) Play SimSig spread across multiple monitors. Needs a bit of extra cash. I keep reminding myself to do this.My video card supports dual output as standard, and it's just a bog standard pre-built Gateway PC. One monitor uses the HDMI port; the other the VGA port. Result: desktop spread across two monitors. Personally I don't find it easy to use but most people in my previous company liked it. SimSig Boss Last edited: 08/02/2014 at 04:04 by GeoffM Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 03:54 #55199 | |
|
JamesN
1607 posts |
1) Multiplayer Games are useful, and there is enough of a following now that if you asked nicely someone could probably host one at a more appropriate time for your location, even if it's just to watch to start with. Comparing my own playing style to how other, more seasoned players did it was the first step for me. 2) I'm not a fan of ARS myself. It's a tool, sometimes its very helpful - most of the time you spend more time worrying about what it's going to do next! Recently I was given a tour of a real IECC which (obviously) was fitted with ARS. The complex nature of the layout meant the signaller on the workstation was constantly putting reminders on signals to stop the ARS making mistakes. That said, when you have a large sim with a lot of movements (Like Victoria, or Waterloo) it can be a blessing. 3) Depends what you define as reduced speed. I tend to play at 1:1 - why? Because there's no speed-up (or pause) button in real life, and I like my SimSig to be as realistic as possible. Signalling is occasionally very boring, I wouldn't be getting the authentic experience if I didn't! Plus you'd be surprised how much additional thinking time that give you. Anything slower is a no-no to me, sometimes I'll run faster if demand from clients in a multiplayer game is high enough, or when I'm running various bits of testing to get to the point I need to be at to reproduce something. 4) It's not really the number of trains that is the problem though. It's how many decisions you have to make in a given time-frame. I could write a very 'simple' Westbury Timetable with Thousands of trains in that do the same thing. It'd be easy because every train would do the same thing. The difficulty is resolving the conflicts and deciding does A go before B or vv. If you start ripping trains out of the TT, or playing a dumbed-down TT then you're not learning, you're just setting the bar lower. 5) Nope, also doesn't work on all sims. 6) I think my record is 5... I had two (in testing) sims chained together, and was happily sat running them both over the 2 monitors for my desktop, 2 laptops and my TV. It does help, but as you say it's expensive! ---- I think if I were to add my own thoughts it would be to always be thinking ahead. Scan across the sim and don't spend too long focussing on one part. If a train wants to go A-B-C-D and you can't set A, still set B-C-D and you can see if A is free on your next 'pass'. Last edited: 08/02/2014 at 03:56 by JamesN Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 07:19 #55203 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:No, you are not correct. You are wrong. In general, sims are developed to simulate a given signal box or working area. Certainly Cambridge, Euston, Drain, and WembleySub were all done on the basis of real signal box boundaries. I did *not* think in terms of "let's make this multi-player" when writing them. I don't think any sim has had its boundaries set just to make it single- or multi-player. Cambridge is 6 panels with no ARS (except in the bits outside the real PSB), but it's perfectly possible to play it single-player. (Yes, Cambridge doesn't exactly match the PSB's boundaries, but there are good reasons for that.) Last edited: 08/02/2014 at 07:20 by clive Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 08:07 #55204 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Again, thanks for your helpful suggestions. When I said "reduced speed" I really meant slower than real time (1:1). Thanks GeoffM for advising me of the Session Details Forum - somehow I overlooked that one. Also the Sunday timetable. And of course there's the "small wee hours" on most timetables when traffic isn't as busy. After all this I think I'd better sit down and learn to edit/write a timetable to suit my level of ability. Not too many trains, a total time span of not more than two hours, say, with some gaps built in so that I can clear the area in case things get too hectic. Just like we have here in Melbourne when the weather gets too hot, the rails widen and the air conditioners blow up. Never mind about the public.
Last edited: 08/02/2014 at 08:10 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 08:27 #55205 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
My recommendation is that you try Worksop. It controls a reasonable-sized area (by about 6-7 people in real life but with fairly low workloads) but it doesn't have too many trains. It has a very regular pattern of passenger services, about 6 per hour in total, with enough additional freight services to keep you occupied but not enough to make it overly busy. The only downside is that one line uses a simulation of the "Absolute Block" signalling equipment and regulations that is unique to the Worksop sim, so you will definitely need to read the manual properly first. If you like you can even beta-test the timetable I'm writing for it ;-) (for my own amusement I tried working out how many people control the South Humberside area in real life - and got past 20. Some of those people just look after 2 signals and a level crossing though; several posts are only manned 16 hours out of 24 at present; and one of the signalboxes simulated, I would guess, is manned in real life for an average of less than one shift per year at present) Last edited: 08/02/2014 at 08:35 by Forest Pines Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 10:24 #55210 | |
|
Late Turn
699 posts |
A very quick count, but I make it 27 (is Scunthorpe single-manned?) including crossing keepers. Not bad going!
Log in to reply |
| Are NX panels easier to use than IECC? 08/02/2014 at 11:09 #55211 | |
Steamer
3984 posts |
Remember, SimSig simplifies some areas of real life- for example, a phone call in SimSig can be dealt with in seconds, whereas the real life conversation takes longer.
"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 |
