Page 1 of 2
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 18:02 #55567 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
Can anyone explain the following behaviour, please? A Down train which is to take the Melksham Branch towards Westbury gets the Melksham slot requested when it is passing Chippenham (approximate location), but if (for some reason) the slot is not granted (e.g. a train about to come the other way), then instead of being held at signal SN72 (the signal in rear of SN74), it carries on towards Thingley Junction and stops at signal SN74. In real life, this would effectively block the Reversible bit of the Down Main which is used by trains coming off the Branch to access the Up Main. This blocking doesn't occur in the Westbury sim as trains coming from Melksham drop off the sim at Thingley Junction, even though there is a train sitting at the entry to the single line! I would have thought that the Down train would be held at signal SN72 until the slot was granted, which would make things more realistic. It just doesn't look right the way it works at the moment. Of course, a Swindon signaller would not dream of sending a train to SN74 if he had one coming off the Branch. Does anyone know if (in the real location) the Melksham slot controls just SN74 or SN74 and SN72? I don't know what happens if the Westbury sim is chained to Swindid, and Thingley Junction is being controlled by ARS. I must try it and see. I'd be interested in other people's views on this. Regards, Lyn Greenwood Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 18:49 #55568 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
Can't block SN72 as that would prevent trains heading towards Bathampton Junction!
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 18:53 #55569 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
Is this a Westbury or a Swindid question? Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 19:10 #55570 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
It's Westbury which is why I posted it under the Westbury section. Lyn Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 19:13 #55571 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
Must admit I'd read it as a SwinDid question despite being in the Westbury section! So what you're saying is, on the Westbury sim, a train from CHippenham should be held back at SN72 instead of SN74? However, my answer still stands - the slot wouldn't affect SN72 in real life as that would prevent main line moves towards Bathampton Junction. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 19:17 #55572 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:Can't block SN72 as that would prevent trains heading towards Bathampton Junction!I wondered if that would be the case once I'd sent off the original post. I suppose the 'system' won't know which route will be taken from SN74 when the SN72 to SN74 route is set by Swindon. I wonder what the agreement mechanism is between the Westbury and Swindon signallers regarding trains coming from Swindon which are destined for the Branch? Anyone out there know the procedures in place? Lyn Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 19:24 #55573 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:Must admit I'd read it as a SwinDid question despite being in the Westbury section! So what you're saying is, on the Westbury sim, a train from CHippenham should be held back at SN72 instead of SN74?I agree, Geoff. But in the Westbury sim, any train destined for the Melksham Branch should be held at SN72 (and not SN74) until the slot is granted by Westbury. I'm sure this what Swindon signallers will do in real life. It will be interesting to see what ARS (in Swindid) does when Westbury and Swindid are chained and the slot is not granted. Must try that ASAP. Lyn Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 19:25 #55574 | |
KymriskaDraken
![]() 963 posts |
I don't know if there are formal procedures, but common sense dictates that you hold a Bradford Jn-bound train back at SN72 if you have another train coming along the single line towards Chippenham.
Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 14/02/2014 at 19:32 #55577 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:I don't know if there are formal procedures, but common sense dictates that you hold a Bradford Jn-bound train back at SN72 if you have another train coming along the single line towards Chippenham.Exactly! And this is what the Westbury sim does not do for some reason. Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 09:04 #55593 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
The operation of Thingly Jn on Westbury was simplified a few iterations ago as people got Mexican's they had no control over hence the early fall-off which mitigated the point. I can revisit sometime. As for Swindid and ARS; this is mentioned in the manual. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 10:06 #55598 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:The operation of Thingly Jn on Westbury was simplified a few iterations ago as people got Mexican's they had no control over hence the early fall-off which mitigated the point. I can revisit sometime.I can understand why you simplified the working at Thingley Junction, Peter, but it just doesn't 'look right' to see a train travelling along the Melksham Branch towards Chippenham when there is a train sat at signal SN74 blocking its path. If it is fairly simple to implement, then making the 'holding point' SN72 instead of SN74 would be excellent. Thank you for your offer to revisit this scenario sometime. Regarding ARS at Thingley in the Swindid sim (when chained to Westbury), I was wondering whether the ARS system would move a train to signal SN74 if it was due to travel along the Branch but the slot had not been granted or hold it at SN72. I suspect the former, but you never know. Thanks to everyone who responded to my query, especially to Peter for hinting that he might change the fringe working at Thingley. Lyn Greenwood Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Airvan00 |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 13:36 #55607 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
Doing a bit of research; I think that in the previous iteration the hollow track started on the branch so what was happening was less obvious. Someone else had the data for a while and seems to have extended the active TCs across the Junction, which I'd not noticed till now, so that maybe why it looks odd. The operation of Swindid Sim itself should not be affected by whether there is a chain or not. I have found a discussion we had in 2009 on the matter and what you have now is what I settled on. At the moment I'm not minded to change that, though if anyone knows if the ARS at the new box (I assume it has ARS) is coded specially (and if so how) then I'd be happy to revisit. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 15:18 #55613 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:Doing a bit of research; I think that in the previous iteration the hollow track started on the branch so what was happening was less obvious. Someone else had the data for a while and seems to have extended the active TCs across the Junction, which I'd not noticed till now, so that maybe why it looks odd.I'm not asking for any changes to the Swindid Sim, Peter, because when I run that Sim I have complete control over what happens at Thingley Junction. If I send a train to SN74 (or allow ARS to send one) when I have a train due off the Branch, then the resulting mess would be totally my fault and I would have to sort it out. However, it would be nice to see the Westbury Sim updated as per the earlier discussions in this thread, but I realise it's not something that needs urgent attention as the current operation at Thingley does work - it just doesn't look right. By the way, can you point me in the direction of the Swindid discussion that took place in 2009 so I can have a look at the various suggestions made? Thanks, Lyn Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 20:06 #55628 | |
Stephen Fulcher
![]() 2055 posts |
Peter, I have been looking at this fringe as DJW and myself had a problem with the track circuiting on a multiplayer game. Unfortunately, I have been a bit busy at work so have not yet completed my research yet. Lyn, the real panel at Westbury looks nothing like the simulation, and some of the track circuit indications for the SN tracks are only shown in one direction. The issue with SN72 and Mexicans is probably one similar to Highley and two passenger trains in opposite directions at the same time - down to the Signalman not to be so stupid! Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 20:11 #55629 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
" said:It was on the developer/tester board. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 15/02/2014 at 23:30 #55636 | |
pedroathome
![]() 906 posts |
" said:Not sure how to read this, as in how it is in realiaty or in the sim, but in realiaty, neither Swindon or Wootton workstations contain ARS. James Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 16/02/2014 at 06:40 #55640 | |
Forest Pines
![]() 525 posts |
" said:The issue with SN72 and Mexicans is probably one similar to Highley and two passenger trains in opposite directions at the same time - down to the Signalman not to be so stupid!However at Highley the acceptance restrictions are clearly laid out in the Local Instructions - would the same apply here? Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 16/02/2014 at 12:30 #55647 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:" said:As the above wording 'in the Swindid sim' implies, I'm not referring to the real location but to the Swindid simulation, which does have ARS at Thingley.Not sure how to read this, as in how it is in realiaty or in the sim, but in realiaty, neither Swindon or Wootton workstations contain ARS. I did an experiment and was pleasantly surprised then disappointed. If a train is travelling along the Melksham Branch towards Thingley Junction and a train is approaching Chippenham bound for Bradford Junction, then the Swindid ARS does in fact hold the latter train at signal SN72 (even though the route SN72 to SN74 is available), but as soon as the former train clears the Down Main at Thingley East Junction, ARS sets the route SN72 to SN74 before it requests the slot from Westbury, thus creating a possible 'deadly embrace' if the slot is not granted, which could easily happen if Westbury and Swindid are chained, hence my reference to chaining in an earlier post. What the Swindid ARS should do is hold the train at SN72 until the slot has been granted. Looks like the Swindid ARS handling at Thingley Junction needs a little 'tweak'. Lyn Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 16/02/2014 at 12:33 #55648 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:Peter,Hello Stephen, long time no see. How's life treating you these days? Can you explain what the reference to 'Mexicans' in the above is all about? Lyn Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 16/02/2014 at 13:55 #55650 | |
KymriskaDraken
![]() 963 posts |
" said:In real life I would hope that the Swindon and Westbury Signalmen would talk to each other if they had a queue of trains for the single line. I certainly used to do that with the St Andrews man when I was on the Bath end of Bristol Panel and the Severn Beach line was disrupted. Although, in that case there was less chance of a Mexican Standoff (two trains wanting to go over the same stretch of line, but both being in each other's way). With a chained sim, both Signalmen can see what's coming and, again, should talk to each other to avoid the dreaded Mexican. Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 16/02/2014 at 16:47 #55658 | |
Hugh Jampton
![]() 69 posts |
Slightly off-topic, but " said: Can you explain what the reference to 'Mexicans' in the above is all about?See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Lyn-Greenwood |
Another Melksham slot query 16/02/2014 at 21:13 #55669 | |
Stephen Fulcher
![]() 2055 posts |
" said:" said:A "Mexican" is essentially a face-off where two trains cannot proceed because the other is blocking its path, so one or the other will have to reverse - such as accepting two passenger trains at Highley, which for the benefit of Forest Pines I never managed to do when I used to sign the box (probably thanks to the Inspector who passed me out!), but I have heard of it being done! Not sure of the local instructions for Swindon PSB, but I suspect the Signalmen are aware of this risk and regulate accordingly.Peter,Hello Stephen, long time no see. How's life treating you these days? Lyn, I now live and work in Cornwall, so a long way away from the SVR. How are you? Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Lyn-Greenwood |
Another Melksham slot query 04/10/2014 at 13:41 #64851 | |
Humorist
![]() 102 posts |
I have posted about the same issue, here: http://www.SimSig.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&view=topic&catid=37&id=38549&Itemid=0 Very disturbing to find two trains staring each other in the face at Thingley Junction, and then the train from the Melksham single just disappears, when, in real life, it obviously could not.. Last edited: 04/10/2014 at 13:44 by Humorist Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 04/10/2014 at 14:46 #64852 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
![]() 239 posts |
" said:I have posted about the same issue, here:I wouldn't have thought it very difficult to make the train from Chippenham stop in the correct place, but my posts earlier this year don't appear to have caused any action to be taken. If I were the developer of the sim, professional pride would encourage me to make the action at Thingley more realistic. Maybe your new post may galvanize some action, but I doubt it. Log in to reply |
Another Melksham slot query 04/10/2014 at 21:26 #64865 | |
bfcmik
![]() 99 posts |
" said:Maybe your new post may galvanize some action, but I doubt it.On the other thread Peter says this issue is fixed and is in a queue of fixes waiting to be released. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Lyn-Greenwood |