Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Timetables > Slough PSB > Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15

Page 1 of 1

Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 30/03/2022 at 12:04 #145938
headshot119
Avatar
4869 posts 		Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15

This thread is for discussion of the Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 timetable.
"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
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 31/03/2022 at 18:50 #145979
tjtbcork
Avatar
75 posts 		Everything entering from Southall (Down Relief) seem to slow to 10mph.

The Defensive driving rules in the timetable are set to approach Y at 10mph.

I guess that's not correct?
Log in to reply
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 31/03/2022 at 19:11 #145980
JamesN
Avatar
1611 posts 		tjtbcork in post 145979 said:
Everything entering from Southall (Down Relief) seem to slow to 10mph.

The Defensive driving rules in the timetable are set to approach Y at 10mph.

I guess that's not correct?
That's certainly not the intended behaviour no, I'll take a look. Mantis 35973.
Log in to reply
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 31/03/2022 at 22:25 #145981
JamesN
Avatar
1611 posts 		The rule is - after passing a yellow, reduce speed to 10mph at 183m from the next signal (basically: 10mph at the AWS ramp approaching a red). It wasn’t a problem with the driving rules in the end - they are working as intended.

However, the driving rules were highlighting a minor issue in the off-sim black hole controlled by the Paddington virtual signaller; which caused most non-stop entering trains to see and pass a single yellow signal off screen as they entered the sim; thus triggering the driving rule.

The virtual signaller has been given a bit of a hurry up for the next update of the sim, so they won’t show entering trains single yellows at the first signal any more.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: tjtbcork
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 02/04/2022 at 11:41 #145998
casey jones
Avatar
73 posts
Online 		JamesN in post 145980 said:
tjtbcork in post 145979 said:
Everything entering from Southall (Down Relief) seem to slow to 10mph.

The Defensive driving rules in the timetable are set to approach Y at 10mph.

I guess that's not correct?
That's certainly not the intended behaviour no, I'll take a look. Mantis 35973.
most of the junctions under the old slough psb you can see the Signals from quite a distance away if approaching a red then stepping up to a proceed freight drivers wouldnt be doing 10MPH
Log in to reply
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 02/04/2022 at 12:25 #146000
JamesN
Avatar
1611 posts 		casey jones in post 145998 said:
JamesN in post 145980 said:
tjtbcork in post 145979 said:
Everything entering from Southall (Down Relief) seem to slow to 10mph.

The Defensive driving rules in the timetable are set to approach Y at 10mph.

I guess that's not correct?
That's certainly not the intended behaviour no, I'll take a look. Mantis 35973.
most of the junctions under the old slough psb you can see the Signals from quite a distance away if approaching a red then stepping up to a proceed freight drivers wouldnt be doing 10MPH
I believe that's more a feature in how defensive driving rules work in SimSig - they appear (from my experimentation looking into tjbcork's report) to not account for signal sighting distance. Once the rule is applied it will apply until the train passes the next signal, even if it steps up in the meantime.

There is an already active ticket on mantis (#20507) querying whether this is correct/intended behaviour.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: casey jones
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 04/05/2022 at 19:55 #146378
hotwellian
Avatar
211 posts 		Hi, great timetavle. One issue I noted is that 6B11 does'nt enter as scheduled. The timetable gives Hayes Tarmac Sidings (west) as the entry point. The decision box says Thorney Mill. In the misc tsb, Thorney Mill FHH is given as the origin. I was wabdering if there is an error here?
Last edited: 04/05/2022 at 19:56 by hotwellian
Reason: None given
Log in to reply
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 04/05/2022 at 20:08 #146379
JamesN
Avatar
1611 posts 		hotwellian in post 146378 said:
Hi, great timetavle. One issue I noted is that 6B11 does'nt enter as scheduled. The timetable gives Hayes Tarmac Sidings (west) as the entry point. The decision box says Thorney Mill. In the misc tsb, Thorney Mill FHH is given as the origin. I was wabdering if there is an error here?
6B11 and 6M54 are alternatives. Both are empty aggregates workings, 6B11 runs to Pengam in South Wales; 6M54 to Bardon Hill in Leicestershire.

The decision “chooses” whether the Thorney Mill working goes back to S Wales or Leicestershire.

6B11 enters Slough sim at Thorney Mill, runs off sim to Hayes to run round and re-enters to trundle down to S Wales; so appears in the timetable twice.

6M54 simply enters at Thorney Mill, and runs up to Leicestershire via Acton, Cricklewood and the Midland Mainline.

So yes, an entry point of Hayes Tarmac and Misc tab origin of Thorney Mill is correct.
Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Last edited: 04/05/2022 at 20:11 by JamesN
Reason: None given
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: hotwellian
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 04/05/2022 at 22:15 #146380
hotwellian
Avatar
211 posts 		OK, I didn't notice that they were alternatives, I would have expected it to just disapper for the TT when 6M54 did run. I notice that there is nothing in the rules about 6B11 and 6M54 being alternatives. There is a rule that states that "6B11/H73909D must appear 10 minutes after 6B11/H739-0U leaves the area".

I have noticed another problem. When 0A47 enters from the TC to join WA47 to form 7A47, 0A47 stups in the good loop , it meassages that WA47 is in front but doen't join. Save attached. I uses the analysis tool and it came up with a number of warnings abot the lenghts of 0A47, WA47 & 5A13 which may indicate the problem
Post has attachments. Log in to view them.
Last edited: 04/05/2022 at 22:44 by hotwellian
Reason: None given
Log in to reply
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 04/05/2022 at 22:44 #146381
y10g9
Avatar
895 posts 		There is no rule for 6B11 and 6M54 because it is not a rule that determines which one runs. A decision is used which is a much more powerful version of the alternatives rule (and also the must not run if rule) which appears on a different tab.
When a train is not going to run because of a decision, the train is still marked as entered to remove it from the list of trains due to enter. The second 6B11 will remain in the list because it does not have a decision tied to it. It simply has a dumb rule of enter 10 mins after the first version leaves the area. If the first train doesn’t run due to its decision, then the second part can’t enter as the rule is never fulfilled.
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: hotwellian
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 04/05/2022 at 22:45 #146382
hotwellian
Avatar
211 posts 		y10g9 in post 146381 said:
There is no rule for 6B11 and 6M54 because it is not a rule that determines which one runs. A decision is used which is a much more powerful version of the alternatives rule (and also the must not run if rule) which appears on a different tab.
When a train is not going to run because of a decision, the train is still marked as entered to remove it from the list of trains due to enter. The second 6B11 will remain in the list because it does not have a decision tied to it. It simply has a dumb rule of enter 10 mins after the first version leaves the area. If the first train doesn’t run due to its decision, then the second part can’t enter as the rule is never fulfilled.
OK, I get that.
Log in to reply
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 05/05/2022 at 10:38 #146386
y10g9
Avatar
895 posts 		hotwellian in post 146380 said:
I have noticed another problem. When 0A47 enters from the TC to join WA47 to form 7A47, 0A47 stups in the good loop , it meassages that WA47 is in front but doen't join. Save attached. I uses the analysis tool and it came up with a number of warnings abot the lenghts of 0A47, WA47 & 5A13 which may indicate the problem
There is indeed an issue. Length of WA47 should be 254m not 21m. As a work around, if you go back to a save before WA47 is dropped from the back of 6A13, in F4 edit the Length of WA47 to 254m the join should then work correctly.
Mantis 36083 applies
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: hotwellian
Slough PSB SX 2009-10-15 06/05/2022 at 21:35 #146395
y10g9
Avatar
895 posts 		y10g9 in post 146386 said:
hotwellian in post 146380 said:
I have noticed another problem. When 0A47 enters from the TC to join WA47 to form 7A47, 0A47 stups in the good loop , it meassages that WA47 is in front but doen't join. Save attached. I uses the analysis tool and it came up with a number of warnings abot the lenghts of 0A47, WA47 & 5A13 which may indicate the problem
There is indeed an issue. Length of WA47 should be 254m not 21m. As a work around, if you go back to a save before WA47 is dropped from the back of 6A13, in F4 edit the Length of WA47 to 254m the join should then work correctly.
Mantis 36083 applies
This issue is now fixed and has been released tonight via the 'check for updates' you will have to restart the TT to get the fix for the train length
Log in to reply
The following user said thank you: hotwellian
Back