Page 1 of 1
| Provision of slot controls within a simulation when they don't exist in real life 26/07/2017 at 11:03 #96621 | |
Andrew G
552 posts |
The text in italics is from a thread in Edge Hill. I have posted it hear as I interested in views of the community on this topic. My own view follows the quote. https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Forum/ThreadView/43829 There is no requirement for slots in Speke yard - routes marked *3, *4 and *5 The SBSI's state (or the copy I have) "You must obtain the permission of the Person in Charge at Speke Up Sidings before you allow a movement to enter the Up Sidings, Neck or Up Loop." which, going by the signalling scheme plans is the Through & Up sdgs (*3 & 4). Has that changed? My personal view on this issue, across all simulations - not just Edge Hill, is that slot controls should only be provided where these exist in real life. There is a subtle difference between requiring to request and wait for a slot release (which electrically locks the signal granting access to the yard or siding) and a procedural requirement in the Signal Box Special Instructions which requires a Signaller to telephone the person in charge of the yard or siding for permission. If a Signaller can set a route without permission in real life then I think this should be the position in simulations - with an appropriate penalty if permission is not sought. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: KymriskaDraken, Stephen Fulcher, Steamer |
| Provision of slot controls within a simulation when they don't exist in real life 26/07/2017 at 12:28 #96624 | |
kaiwhara
587 posts |
I am in complete agreement. The SBSI instruction that set this debate off (refer Mantis 14980) talks about Signallers obtaining permission prior to sending a train in. This is not a slot, this is just a clear understanding through communication between two parties, the ground rules of which are set by the SBSI. This communication is not interlocking however. A slot is. This is the distinct difference. Essentially, if a Signaller "Must Not", then it's not a slot. If a Signaller "Can Not" because there is a physical feature that prevents a Signaller doing something without someone else physically operating something, then Slot... Sorry guys, I am in the business of making people wait! Log in to reply |
| Provision of slot controls within a simulation when they don't exist in real life 26/07/2017 at 18:17 #96626 | |
GeoffM
6377 posts 
|
Andrew G in post 96621 said:My personal view on this issue, across all simulations - not just Edge Hill, is that slot controls should only be provided where these exist in real life.I certainly agree with that and endeavour to do so in my own simulations. However, a couple of caveats: - Sometimes we get ambiguous information from signallers or other staff. Without naming names or simulations, one sim involved two signallers giving completely contradictory information about how the slots worked. Only some scrappings of data helped resolve who was actually right. IECC screenshots can be difficult to interpret whether a roundel on the screen is clickable or not. So sometimes it may be wrong because we just don't know, or have been informed wrongly. - At a simulation fringe to another (separate) simulation, where "slotting" in real life is simply asking the signaller sat next to you, we might consider putting slots in because that verbal arrangement doesn't exist in the simulation. I'm not sure we've ever done that though. Along the same lines, sometimes compromises have to be made between reality and what's possible in the simulation. A final note: if we don't have control tables or interlocking logic, it is not obvious whether slotting is done at locking level or aspect level (former prevents setting the route until slot is given; latter allows route to set but holds signal at danger until slot is given). SimSig Boss Last edited: 26/07/2017 at 18:20 by GeoffM Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Andrew G |
| Provision of slot controls within a simulation when they don't exist in real life 27/07/2017 at 11:13 #97644 | |
Noisynoel
989 posts |
With regards to Edge Hill, the "slot" being discussed is not actually a slot. If you look at the simulation, it is just a phone call, there is no slot's there, however, the reply given by the shunter is "Speke TC Slot given". This is because some signallers & shunters refer to the permission given by the shunter as "slot". If people want to pedantic I can change it and just change it to "Speke TC given", which in my mind doesn't sound right. Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| Provision of slot controls within a simulation when they don't exist in real life 27/07/2017 at 11:33 #97646 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
Noisynoel in post 97644 said:With regards to Edge Hill, the "slot" being discussed is not actually a slot. If you look at the simulation, it is just a phone call, there is no slot's there, however, the reply given by the shunter is "Speke TC Slot given". This is because some signallers & shunters refer to the permission given by the shunter as "slot".Noel, I think the point being made is that in the real box you can set a route from 306, 402, and 60 into the roads marked #3, #4, #5 on the sim irregardless of whether you've had permission, you can't do this in the simulation. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |
| Provision of slot controls within a simulation when they don't exist in real life 27/07/2017 at 14:27 #97648 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
Noisynoel in post 97644 said:With regards to Edge Hill, the "slot" being discussed is not actually a slot. If you look at the simulation, it is just a phone call, there is no slot's there, however, the reply given by the shunter is "Speke TC Slot given". This is because some signallers & shunters refer to the permission given by the shunter as "slot".You could, if you wish, change it from "slot" to "permission to send train" - but we're well in to the pedantry over semantics bracket there. The issue here is being unable to set a route without a permission, which is not correct. **** I'm a firm stickler for sims being as accurate as possible - controls and their behaviours should mimic real life as far as is practical within the limitations the core code presents. Indications are a little tricker as SimSig uses a VDU-style display which occasionally makes it difficult to render totally accurate indications. Thus far I've yet to encounter any kind of signalling control that cannot be replicated accurately in SimSig, if you're creative enough with command/condition logic. My (metaphorical) door is always open if any of my colleagues want support in that regard. As such, slots should only be used where slots are actually used. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Stephen Fulcher |