Page 1 of 1
Strange invalid traction problem 15/12/2019 at 23:40 #122289 | |
trolleybus
![]() 148 posts |
I'm running a Watford - Rugby North chain which is working well, apart from minor sim and TT problems reported on this forum. However I have a problem with a VT 57+Pendolino which is insisting that it can't run towards Whitacre Junction for traction reasons. The train type is described as being powered by diesel (only). I've tried changing the train to a Voyager but it hasn't helped. Save attached. Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 00:10 #122291 | |
MarkC
![]() 1099 posts |
I have just had a look at your save and while the TT does say it should be a 57+390 running on diesel it is infact running on AC only. As you are running as part of a chain I can see that 1G49 was seeded into Watford Jn as just a CL 390 (AC only) and whist it moved from sim to sim as the train started as AC only it will transfer between sims as AC only. Reported Mantis 0028687 Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 07:52 #122294 | |
trolleybus
![]() 148 posts |
That would explain it. I can see why a TT writer wouldn't remember to drag a 390 when writing for Watford, possible not realising that there was a gap in the knitting later in the journey.
Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 10:49 #122296 | |
Meld
![]() 1108 posts |
Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton. It was very rare for a drag to be done throughout, often only in the case of a failure, When Pendolinos went to Holyhead the drag was only between Crewe & Holyhead Passed the age to be doing 'Spoon Feeding' !!! Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:01 #122297 | |
postal
![]() 5216 posts ![]() |
Meld in post 122296 said:Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.So to make sure I've got it clear in my own head about how a TT should be written to cover this situation. Let us take the case of a 9/390 appearing in the various chained TTs and which then has Cl. 57 attached at Nuneaton to take the train forward. In all of the TTs as far as Nuneaton then the train type will show as the normal 9/390 and power AC electric. The train TT will terminate at Nuneaton and will have an action at Nuneaton of J 0Z00 to allow for the Cl. 57 to join and then an N working. This will be a new TT will be created forward from Nuneaton with a train type of Cl. 57 + 9/390 and power diesel plus AC electric. Although the train is not running under AC electric power, that power type will be needed to avoid the problem when the hauling loco is dropped off of a train appearing to be an unpowered consist. Then at the point where the Cl. 57 is detached, that TT will terminate with an action of DEF 0Z00 and an N working. The N working will pick up the TT for the train with a train type of 9/390 and power AC electric. Thinking forward from that, it would seem sensible for TT writers creating timetables based on the current situation to check both power types when setting up the train type for the various bi-modal units which are appearing around the network. This will handle the situation where even if the unit only runs on one power type in the sim for which the TT has been created, there is a chained TT where the unit changes power mode. If both power types are checked as a matter of course, it will be able to switch to the other power mode in a chained sim without the rigmarole of having to create new TTs, train types or whatever. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:21 #122298 | |
MarkC
![]() 1099 posts |
A DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:39 #122299 | |
Meld
![]() 1108 posts |
postal in post 122297 said:Meld in post 122296 said:Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.So to make sure I've got it clear in my own head about how a TT should be written to cover this situation. Let us take the case of a 9/390 appearing in the various chained TTs and which then has Cl. 57 attached at Nuneaton to take the train forward. In all of the TTs as far as Nuneaton then the train type will show as the normal 9/390 and power AC electric. The train TT will terminate at Nuneaton and will have an action at Nuneaton of J 0Z00 to allow for the Cl. 57 to join and then an N working. This will be a new TT will be created forward from Nuneaton with a train type of Cl. 57 + 9/390 and power diesel plus AC electric. Although the train is not running under AC electric power, that power type will be needed to avoid the problem when the hauling loco is dropped off of a train appearing to be an unpowered consist. Then at the point where the Cl. 57 is detached, that TT will terminate with an action of DEF 0Z00 and an N working. The N working will pick up the TT for the train with a train type of 9/390 and power AC electric. In theory John 1Z00 joins 0Z00 @ Nuneaton then the sim should change the traintype to 57+390 amending length train and power types, there should be no reason for terminating the train and creating a new schedule Saltley/BNS & Wolves should be given the traintype 57+390 Quote: Thinking forward from that, it would seem sensible for TT writers creating timetables based on the current situation to check both power types when setting up the train type for the various bi-modal units which are appearing around the network. This will handle the situation where even if the unit only runs on one power type in the sim for which the TT has been created, there is a chained TT where the unit changes power mode. If both power types are checked as a matter of course, it will be able to switch to the other power mode in a chained sim without the rigmarole of having to create new TTs, train types or whatever.Maybe there should be a new traintype added for Bi-modals at source which would effectively allow the trains to seemlessly switch between the 2 as required. I can foresee there being an issue with for example Severn Tunnel where the Bi-modals have to switch to diesel go through then back to electric on the other side, you can't really allow for that in a schedule at the moment. Passed the age to be doing 'Spoon Feeding' !!! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 13:43 #122300 | |
Meld
![]() 1108 posts |
MarkC in post 122298 said:A DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.DEF would but DF should just remove the diesel portion I would have thought Passed the age to be doing 'Spoon Feeding' !!! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 14:18 #122301 | |
MarkC
![]() 1099 posts |
Meld in post 122300 said:MarkC in post 122298 said:That would be the caseA DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.DEF would but DF should just remove the diesel portion I would have thought Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 15:16 #122302 | |
jc92
![]() 3649 posts |
Meld in post 122299 said:postal in post 122297 said:Id argue for the tunnel being wired in sim as well but not being marked on the panel. Not 100% accurate but I doubt performance will be that much different.Meld in post 122296 said:Thinking about this a little, if the train is dragged over the final leg between Nuneaton and Birmingham, the train would have the correct type, 9/390 in Wembley Main and the three Rugbys. The class 57 being attached at Nuneaton to form the 57+390 forward to Birmingham/Wolverhampton.So to make sure I've got it clear in my own head about how a TT should be written to cover this situation. Let us take the case of a 9/390 appearing in the various chained TTs and which then has Cl. 57 attached at Nuneaton to take the train forward. In all of the TTs as far as Nuneaton then the train type will show as the normal 9/390 and power AC electric. The train TT will terminate at Nuneaton and will have an action at Nuneaton of J 0Z00 to allow for the Cl. 57 to join and then an N working. This will be a new TT will be created forward from Nuneaton with a train type of Cl. 57 + 9/390 and power diesel plus AC electric. Although the train is not running under AC electric power, that power type will be needed to avoid the problem when the hauling loco is dropped off of a train appearing to be an unpowered consist. Then at the point where the Cl. 57 is detached, that TT will terminate with an action of DEF 0Z00 and an N working. The N working will pick up the TT for the train with a train type of 9/390 and power AC electric. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:08 #122305 | |
postal
![]() 5216 posts ![]() |
jc92 in post 122302 said:Id argue for the tunnel being wired in sim as well but not being marked on the panel. Not 100% accurate but I doubt performance will be that much different.But if the unit has been set up from the start as both AC electric and diesel, then will the sim code not just accept the train running onto an unwired section and assume it is on diesel? “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:22 #122307 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
MarkC in post 122301 said:Meld in post 122300 said:No, because SimSig doesn't have a concept of individual vehicles and their traction. Logically yes, if you put a 23m diesel on the front of an AC train, then take a 23m diesel off the front, then the remainder would be AC. But that's not how it works in SimSig. I don't think N:<withoutDiesel> would work either as current power is carried over to the N, not re-initialised from the new timetable.MarkC in post 122298 said:That would be the caseA DEF would not be appropiate in this case as it would remove all power types from the remaining portion of the train.DEF would but DF should just remove the diesel portion I would have thought jc92 in post 122302 said: Id argue for the tunnel being wired in sim as well but not being marked on the panel. Not 100% accurate but I doubt performance will be that much different.That's not true. There is a difference, both in real life (typically) and in the core code. I also don't understand why you would wire something that's not IRL. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:31 #122310 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
Meld in post 122299 said:Yes: at a join the core code just adds all the power types together. But at a divide (except DEF/DER) it just gives all the power types to both trains. One day we'll have a vehicle-based model instead of a train-based one, but at the moment it's some vague ideas in my head and a large dragon labelled "backwards compatibility". Log in to reply The following user said thank you: WesternChampion |
Strange invalid traction problem 16/12/2019 at 16:57 #122311 | |
MarkC
![]() 1099 posts |
clive in post 122310 said:Meld in post 122299 said:From testing I have done It is possible to seperate power types on a train with a divide, you just use DF/DR and Next, and 3 stock types, you would have 66+365 (power of diesel and AC) LD66 (diesel) EMU365 (AC) you can have train 5A01 (the 66+365) with activeities of DF:0A01 (LD66) N:5A02 (EMU365), 0A01 and 5A02 now has its own power type Diesel and AC respectivly.Yes: at a join the core code just adds all the power types together. Additional The TT Attached was created on Aston Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Last edited: 16/12/2019 at 17:09 by MarkC Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |