Force join

I didn't think it was possible to create an entirely new train (with a specific length and other attributes) while playing a TT. Is this what you meant, or did you simply mean adjust the length of an existing train?

Steamer wrote:
Quote:

It's possible by creating a train of length x metres (where x is the length you want to add) and editing the timetable of the existing train such that they join.

I didn't think it was possible to create an entirely new train (with a specific length and other attributes) while playing a TT. Is this what you meant, or did you simply mean adjust the length of an existing train?

Train A is signalled into platform, scheduled to join train B. You then signal train C into the platform, preventing train A from ever being able to see train B. Then to compound the situation instead of holding train B outside the station to allow C to depart, you go and shove that into the platform as well?

Right.

If you're unwilling to shunt the trains around to correct your mistake, then I propose editing the timetable of train C and train B (this is how to Force join).

Fortunately, both Up and Down lines at Newton Abbot are signalled sufficiently in both directions, permitting me to shunt 0Z45 onto the Down line temporarily without requiring any further prestidigitation, though I abandoned the timetable while doing this (don't know if it's always necessary but it removes another source of interference).

Agreed, if I'd studied the timetables of each train ahead more carefully in the first place this might not have happened

I am usually in too much of a hurry

if I'd studied the timetables of each train ahead more carefully in the first place this might not have happened.

Why? Where's the need to be hurrying? I'd suggest you're probably trying to do too much and/or too fast. Running before you can walk?

Also, while your original suggestion of a 'force join' feature may be plausible, despite the logistics of it, I don't see how it would actually have helped you here. Forcing two trains to join together which shouldn't actually be joined together will only cause you more issues!

Quote:

Also, while your original suggestion of a 'force join' feature may be plausible, despite the logistics of it, I don't see how it would actually have helped you here. Forcing two trains to join together which shouldn't actually be joined together will only cause you more issues!

You obviously didn't read my earlier posts well enough. I was trying to join 0Z45 and 0Z91-3, as intended by their timetables.

peterb said:

Also, while your original suggestion of a 'force join' feature may be plausible, despite the logistics of it, I don't see how it would actually have helped you here. Forcing two trains to join together which shouldn't actually be joined together will only cause you more issues!

You obviously didn't read my earlier posts well enough. I was trying to join 0Z45 and 0Z91-3, as intended by their timetables.

Peter's right. You had 0Z74 trapped in between 0Z45 and 0ZZ93-1. Force-joining would result in all three locos being joined together, which isn't supposed to happen.

Besides which, 0ZZ93-1 isn't a loco, it's a loco-less consist waiting to be joined by 0Z45.

The window should also make clear what the sequence of joining is, e.g., if loco B joins consist A, will the product, train C, have the loco at the Up end or the Down end?

You can't join two trains that aren't next to each other!

the other is to force two non-contiguous trains, such as 0Z45 and 0ZZ93-1, to join, even if there happens to be a third train between them. Admittedly this is introducing the Hand of God yet again, but She's always been ready and willing in the past..

Doesn't really matter as SimSig doesn't recognise locos and coaches as discrete items, just 'lengths' of train

" said:

Doesn't really matter as SimSig doesn't recognise locos and coaches as discrete items, just 'lengths' of train

Semantically correct but may give the wrong impression. If you use the Drop Coaches or Detach Engine activities that splits the train into one powered section and one unpowered section. Admittedly not recognising locos and coaches as discrete items, but recognising a proxy for this by having one section with power and one without.

I think there is merit to these suggestions. I've raised them in our bug-tracking system (number 10948). The details of the UI can be worked out if and when we implement them.

Since force-joining hasn't even been accepted by the developers

" said:

Doesn't really matter as SimSig doesn't recognise locos and coaches as discrete items, just 'lengths' of train

Semantically correct but may give the wrong impression. If you use the Drop Coaches or Detach Engine activities that splits the train into one powered section and one unpowered section. Admittedly not recognising locos and coaches as discrete items, but recognising a proxy for this by having one section with power and one without.

" said:

" said:

Doesn't really matter as SimSig doesn't recognise locos and coaches as discrete items, just 'lengths' of train

Semantically correct but may give the wrong impression. If you use the Drop Coaches or Detach Engine activities that splits the train into one powered section and one unpowered section. Admittedly not recognising locos and coaches as discrete items, but recognising a proxy for this by having one section with power and one without.

Actually, the original statement is as correct as you can get and your hand-wringing makes the impression it makes even wronger. Basically, Simsig does recognise trains having distinct power types. But it always gets the power type from the timetable, and never recognises "sections" of whatever type as being on the train. So in effect, DCR/DCF are only syntactic sugar that could be as well represented as DR/DF with correct setting of the (initial) power types of the respective trains (DEF/DER too, but these are trickier as they apply changes to the current train).

To conclude, SimSig doesn't recognise locos and coaches as discrete items, just 'lengths' of train. It doesn't matter what type of carriages are there on the train, which direction the loco is facing or whether the length is in fact sensible.

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one

I've just run a small test TT for Exeter ... Using the Drop Coaches at Rear activity, even though the second train is shown as diesel-powered in the TT, F2 shows the status as No Engine

Quote:

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one

This would be a sad outcome of a discussion over such easy topic.
Quote:

I've just run a small test TT for Exeter ... Using the Drop Coaches at Rear activity, even though the second train is shown as diesel-powered in the TT, F2 shows the status as No Engine

Yes, but isn't the DCR part of a timetable?

This is actually what I was saying - the power type was determined from the timetable. Simsig didn't have any clue about what actually was on the back of the train; it just looks to the timetable and acts accordingly. It will happily let you detach a loco from the other end of the train (even if in fact there isn't any) - this will happen if you mange to send a train into a platform the wrong way. It will let you create two powered trains from a train that had only one loco. However, I have to admit it won't let you eg. conjure a pantograph on a diesel only train, as it is checking the available power types. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to drop just some of the power types on the train, the new train always gets all or nothing (in case of the "carriages part" when dropping carriages/detaching loco).

The attached timetables show how you can achieve similar effect to yours just with DF and power type adjustments.

Quote:

You can't join two trains that aren't next to each other!

Anything's possible in software!

• The new part is set as follows:
  [ul]
  [li]For a "drop", the available and current traction are set to "none".


• For a "detach" or a simple divide, the available traction is set to that of the original train and the current traction is set to those values found in both the original train's available traction and the new timetable's initial traction.
  

" said:

Quote:

You can't join two trains that aren't next to each other!

Anything's possible in software!

To make it clear, I would not expect Geoff or I to implement anything other than joining adjacent trains.