Trains with duplicate train describers

Thank you for all of the information on train describers.
Carrying on with the train describer discussion I do note from this 1975 WTT that it also refers to the headcode at the front for various services. I am assuming that these were the two digit numbers that were displayed in the middle window of the driving cab. The headcode for the service from Victoria to Epsom according to the WTT would have displayed 02 as it's headcode in both directions and that further adds confusion I think.

Geoff

" said:

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.)

Thanks for the detailed information. I have a question that might seem obvious but I've looked and haven't found a clear answer - in (for example) mechanical signalboxes that don't have modern train describers (eg the far west end of the GWML to Cornwall, IIRC?), how do they know which train is which in those cases? Is it just that the areas are simple enough that it's easy to tell from the class and time alone, or do they have some other way of transmitting the destination/route using bell codes, or what?

The Southern was much more concerned with route than class so their standard bell codes (if I recall correctly) only distinguished between passenger, ecs and freight but in each case with a 'main' and a 'branch' variant (so 3-1 for main passenger, 1-3 for branch passenger).

Some areas made use of 'additional' (routing) codes. There were complete alternative sets - the A, B and C codes, which were shown on printed notices issued to the boxes where they were in use. I know for a fact that some boxes used at least two in addition to the standard range; the chances are some used all three. Each set was usually linked with a special Train Entering Section code that would be specified in the signalbox special instructions.

The Western made some use of routing codes and in some cases they distinguished between trains booked to call or not at certain stations (Taunton - Exeter - Newton Abbot was one stretch where they existed). The 'not booked to call' variants allowed signalmen to distinguish which trains they could accept under Regulation 5 (warning arrangement) at the major stations (not permitted for non-stops).

[quote="Muzer" post=61129][quote="kbarber" post=61122]

Going further back and looking at some of the busier areas, there were numerous ways of doing it. As I said, one way was the electro-clockwork train describer in conjunction with block bells; that would most often give you (in effect) the first two digits of a description (class and route/destination), leaving the signalman to work out exactly which train it was.

Quote:

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

It depends on the sim, but generally this should work. I would recommend, for the sake of consistency, to suffix both trains with -1, -2 etc.
Quote:

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.

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". The only "problem" suffixing can solve is people wrongly inscribing "2H01" in berths for "2H01-1" (and suffixing can't correct these). See this earlier post about duplicate headcodes.

That's strange, since it works for me perfectly on the Peterborough sim. Tried creating two timetables 1X00-1 and 1X00-2, they entered and ARS routed them, even honored the distinction between the two.

From what you describe about F2 I reckon you must have seriously confused the sim. F2 should always tell you the real thing and if it gave you two trains with the same ID where they should be different, it must have been confused by either the timetable or your action during the game.

If you want to investigate the problem further, please attach either a save or the timetable.

I guess some of it or probably all of it is my fault but it just shows how you have to concentrate on getting everything tickety boo when compiling a timetable.

Thanks for your help on this.
It is a question of when do I change them so that I do not any conflict. I think I will plod on inputting at this moment and when finished then have a look at how many conflicts I could possibly have and change those. I know I could change the second letter digit but the trouble with that is that some users memorise the code as to where and what the routing will be. Perhaps I should have laid it all out in something like an Excel spreadsheet before I started as I know some do that also. I blame those WTT writers who should have foreseen something like Sim Sig coming along one day.......

Geoff

Thank you for your help also Gareth.
In order to stop you spending a lot of time on this I can confirm to you that I was going back and changing the activity field for the associated train. If you use the analyse function in the timetable this helps to alert me to the fact that it needed to be done. As I have said previously, I admire anyone who has submitted a timetable for the enjoyment of others. With this project on Victoria I now know only too well how much time and effort is required......

Geoff