Page 1 of 1
Simulation errors at Speke Junction and Allerton Junction 25/07/2017 at 22:33 #96614 | |
Mikehax
32 posts |
As a SimSig user and also a resident signaller at Speke Junction I would like to highlight the following errors in the simulation, not to be awkward but to help make the sim even more realistic. The following routes should be approach controlled (whilst at present in the sim they are not): SE21 - SE10 SE10 - DN118 AN53 - AN101 AN22 - AN101 AN7 - AN33 AN7 - AN5 *AN5 - SE305 *AN8 - SE305 *These routes are actually not available as the Up Allerton Goods and the Up & Down Allerton Goods are OOU and the points at the junction with the Up Slow and the Down Slow are clipped and scotched. There is no requirement for slots in Speke yard - routes marked *3, *4 and *5 Stop board SE308 has been removed for some time, trains enter at SE306 signal. The points protected by GPL's SE60 and SE46 have been removed and plain lined (although both signals remain in situ - clearly SE46 does not get used!) On a timetabling note for anyone considering developing a tt for this sim, Trains for the Garston Freighliner terminal do not run round on the arrival line and then propel into the FLT. Once accepted by telephone they proceed directly in from SE307 signal or SE403 GPL Hope this is of assistance. Last edited: 25/07/2017 at 22:34 by Mikehax Reason: None given Log in to reply The following users said thank you: GeoffM, JamesN, kaiwhara |
Simulation errors ar Speke Junction and Allerton Junction 26/07/2017 at 08:55 #96618 | |
kaiwhara
587 posts |
Good Evening sir. Thank you for the feedback - it's this sort of information that is needed to ensure continuous improvement. I'm sure Noel will find this useful. For the items raised above, tickets have been raised on Mantis. Mantis 17678, 17679, 17680, 17681 and 17682 apply. Thanks, Andrew Sorry guys, I am in the business of making people wait! Log in to reply |
Simulation errors ar Speke Junction and Allerton Junction 26/07/2017 at 10:01 #96619 | |
Noisynoel
989 posts |
Mikehax in post 96614 said:As a SimSig user and also a resident signaller at Speke Junction I would like to highlight the following errors in the simulation, not to be awkward but to help make the sim even more realistic. Noisynoel Log in to reply |
Simulation errors ar Speke Junction and Allerton Junction 26/07/2017 at 10:08 #96620 | |
Noisynoel
989 posts |
Thank you for that info, unfortunately it doesn't matter how detailed the scheme plans and control tables and other documentation is, there is always difference between the paperwork and reality, so info from the man on the ground is always a big help. Noel Noisynoel Log in to reply |
Simulation errors ar Speke Junction and Allerton Junction 26/07/2017 at 11:04 #96622 | |
Andrew G
552 posts |
I've commented on the slot control point in another thread as I think there needs to be a consistent position. In terms of this simulation I am not aware of any slot controls between Allerton Junction and the Depot. https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Forum/ThreadView/43830?postId=96621 Log in to reply |
Simulation errors ar Speke Junction and Allerton Junction 26/07/2017 at 12:19 #96623 | |
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
The problem with slots is there is a distinct difference between a courtesy phone call, which are effectively what the SBSI refers to, and an actual slot. If you take Laira Depot in Plymouth as an example, the Mount Gould Jn end has a physical slot that the shunter has to operate before the signals will clear, so the sim is coded as such. The Laira Jn end has a courtesy call in the SBSI but the signal will clear even if the Signaller and Shunter do not communicate beforehand, and the sim is therefore coded so that the signals will actually clear even without phoning up, as this is what will happen in reality. The best solution for the one at Allerton would undoubtedly be to allow the signal to clear irrespective of any call as that is what would happen in real life, but to have the sim issue a hefty penalty for failing to comply with the SBSI requirement to phone up. Log in to reply |