Page 2 of 2
somewhere fictional 21/12/2014 at 17:52 #66915 | |
Cedric
43 posts |
Err, mental block (I claim old-age senility). Apologies. Sleeper-shunting IS included in the SIM, but not some of the trips. C Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 21/12/2014 at 18:48 #66917 | |
lazzer
611 posts |
I like to block platform 15 sometimes, and do the shunting in platform 1. The only problem is that the final portion to be attached to the train that forms 5A86 makes the entire train sit beyond signal 1, so to avoid that situation I stick the final portion in a vacant platform and create a new light loco to come and take it to Willesden. Great fun. :lol:
Last edited: 21/12/2014 at 18:49 by lazzer Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 22/12/2014 at 09:51 #66926 | |
kbarber
1723 posts |
" said:Indeed — it's funny when you realise the old layout made perfect sense when they built it. I do wonder why, later on (in the 80s and beyond) they didn't put any effort into making the "rat hole" a passenger line instead of building a flyover — would it just have been too hard? I'm not sure the Rat Hole would've been a lot of use for passenger working. It came off the up slow; most passenger traffic coming up there would be for the 'Wood' (8/9/10/11). And the Rat Hole led to the carriage lines through Park St Tunnel, they were at a lower level than the main lines and of course led in to Port Arthur and the Backing Out Roads, there was no sensible way to get a passenger connection from there into the high numbers without losing what (at the time) were still necessary light engine & carriage facilities. There would've been no room for a passenger-standard overlap at the London end of the Rat Hole, without making the working on the down side pretty much impossible. And finally there was the question of the gradient coming out. 94 signal had a banner repeater on the country side of the tunnel; it was equipped with an SPT because many drivers, on a wet day, would decline to draw up to 94 at danger for fear they wouldn't be able to restart their train. Given all those issues, I think it really would have been more trouble than it was worth. I'm not too sure what flyover you mean anyway... all the flyovers at Euston & Camden were created during the major remodellings of the early 20th century and all the alterations since have simply made use of what was already there. Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 22/12/2014 at 14:13 #66943 | |
Muzer
718 posts |
Another good point, I forgot it came off the slow. And yeah, I was wrong about the flyover too! I should really read up in more detail about exactly how the Euston remodelling was accomplished.
Last edited: 22/12/2014 at 14:15 by Muzer Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 22/12/2014 at 19:35 #66956 | |
LucasLCC
94 posts |
I can't help but think that this thread has left the original topic somewhat.. I personally think a fictional sim would be interesting. Perhaps an easier thing for developers, would be fictional extensions to existing lines.. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 03piggs |
somewhere fictional 22/12/2014 at 20:34 #66961 | |
Red For Danger
171 posts |
For somewhere fictional, how about a line that has been closed and no longer open. To simulate something like the old GCR Alyesbury to Leicester and Nottingham would be interesting in the modern era, or if something more compact is required, how about the old Isle of Wight railways.....? Various assumptions would need to be made, but using modern signalling and trains could lead to some interesting scenarios. Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 22/12/2014 at 20:43 #66962 | |
Stephen Fulcher
2055 posts |
The Isle of Wight could be interesting as a completely isolated system. I wonder how much of the information would be available? Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 23/12/2014 at 12:47 #66966 | |
03piggs
68 posts |
I mentioned something like this earlier in this thread on #9.
Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 23/12/2014 at 14:42 #66971 | |
kbarber
1723 posts |
One thought does cross my mind... what about a 'might-have-been'? For example, imagine the Eastern Region had found the money, following the Potters Bar widenings, to resignal the southern part of the GN Main Line. This was before reliable multiplexing allowed large control areas so there would have been a number of smaller power boxes, probably of the Metro-Vickers GRS NX type. I imagine there would have been boxes at Kings X itself, Finsbury Park, Ferme Park, Wood Green (now Alexandra Palace), New Barnet, Potters Bar, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage & Hitchin. I would then expect to have found 'hybrid' boxes (points mechanically worked by levers, signals worked from an IFS panel replacing the block shelf), probably re-using the central part of the existing frames, at Letchworth, Royston, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon, Connington and Fletton, then another NX panel at Peterborough (probably located, in fact, in the New England area). Probably the various level crossings would have been worked from 'crossing boxes' with controls on what would otherwise be auto signals. There might have been hybrids (possibly an NX panel at Hertford itself) to work the Hertford Loop. (Or it might be that the Loop was considered sufficiently unimportant to be left for later, of course.) All this would have had basically the steam-age layouts (perhaps a few rationalisations in the later schemes), so a lot more track & signals than the present Kings X and Peterborough and a number of interesting features - for instance the bottleneck at Sandy, the old junction layout at Hitchin, perhaps even provision for some of the branches later closed (and presumably connections to the LNWR line at Sandy, slotted from the LNWR box there). There might also be a hybrid box at Arlesey controlling the level crossing there and its associated bottleneck. This has the advantage that track layouts are either known or discoverable without too many problems. It also has known traffic patterns (with room for a degree of creativity in that department too, if desired - what would have happened if successive governments had been less enthusiastic about the motor car and the motor lorry, for example?). But there is no great issue with finding information about signal spacing, overlaps, etc. What would be needed - and this is what would make the difference between a real railway and a toy - would be sufficient awareness of contemporary signalling standards and regional practice to create a layout that was credible for location and era. Any offers? Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 23/12/2014 at 14:51 #66972 | |
Dick
387 posts |
" said:One thought does cross my mind... what about a 'might-have-been'? For example, imagine the Eastern Region had found the money, following the Potters Bar widenings, to resignal the southern part of the GN Main Line. This was before reliable multiplexing allowed large control areas so there would have been a number of smaller power boxes, probably of the Metro-Vickers GRS NX type. I imagine there would have been boxes at Kings X itself, Finsbury Park, Ferme Park, Wood Green (now Alexandra Palace), New Barnet, Potters Bar, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage & Hitchin. I would then expect to have found 'hybrid' boxes (points mechanically worked by levers, signals worked from an IFS panel replacing the block shelf), probably re-using the central part of the existing frames, at Letchworth, Royston, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon, Connington and Fletton, then another NX panel at Peterborough (probably located, in fact, in the New England area). Probably the various level crossings would have been worked from 'crossing boxes' with controls on what would otherwise be auto signals. There might have been hybrids (possibly an NX panel at Hertford itself) to work the Hertford Loop. (Or it might be that the Loop was considered sufficiently unimportant to be left for later, of course.)As somebody that lives about 3 miles from the village of Conington, I have never understood why the railway always insists on spelling the signalbox Connington Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 24/12/2014 at 08:54 #66981 | |
Haraubrad
103 posts |
if someone was interested in the Great Central I could help. I was a Passed Fireman at Woodford Halse. Aubrey Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 02/01/2015 at 21:52 #67308 | |
GeorgeUK
29 posts |
The twitter account @SIRTOPHAMNWR has posted a list of Tidmouth outbound and inbound workings from 05:00 to 23:00 for the 2014 timetable.
Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 02/01/2015 at 23:32 #67309 | |
Forest Pines
525 posts |
That one would need a new delay reason adding. "Train refuses to leave tunnel due to rain" Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 03/01/2015 at 05:13 #67311 | |
Muzer
718 posts |
I'd love a sim for some part of Sodor, I must say ;) But is there any part of the island detailed enough to make a sim? Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 03/01/2015 at 09:44 #67315 | |
GW43125
495 posts |
" said:That one would need a new delay reason adding.You don't need a fictional one for that! A 7 1/4in gauge one with open carriages is quite enough to trigger that! Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 03/01/2015 at 12:07 #67316 | |
AndyG
1842 posts |
" said:" said:Indeed, I've had that whilst working Everglades on the Gt Cockcrow Railway - sensible driver.That one would need a new delay reason adding.You don't need a fictional one for that! A 7 1/4in gauge one with open carriages is quite enough to trigger that! I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 03/01/2015 at 12:11 #67317 | |
GW43125
495 posts |
" said:" said:I remember the day it absolutely poured- I was on Hardwick station, we had to keep the passengers under the shelter, tip one out and hold one in the tunnel I was told!" said:Indeed, I've had that whilst working Everglades on the Gt Cockcrow Railway - sensible driver.That one would need a new delay reason adding.You don't need a fictional one for that! A 7 1/4in gauge one with open carriages is quite enough to trigger that! Log in to reply |
somewhere fictional 08/01/2015 at 12:58 #67531 | |
maxand
1637 posts |
Returning to the original topic, I came across this spectrum from strict prototypical accuracy to total fantasy in Publisher's Musings in the (free online) Modern Railroad Hobbyist's Magazine of January 2015: Quote: There are an infinite number of styles in between:Food for thought. I would rate SimSig as (2), with small variations to improve playability, not necessarily to add fun. The big difference of course is that SimSig's variations are usually optional as they are programmable, whereas in model railroads hardware variations need to be built in, although scheduling options allow a little more flexibility. There are many fantasy ("toy"railroad simulations out there but very few strictly prototypical ones, of which SimSig is the only one I know of which keeps its promises. Nevertheless, this scheme could be adapted to classify some of the more "fun" routes, e.g., Chicago Loop. Log in to reply |