Train List - Just a suggestion...don't shoot!

Hi,

More specifically, I want to not have the situation where stationary trains - at a signal, or not - are listed next to trains that are moving at fast speed. That is how a 'status sorted' list presents the train list currently. By using 'halted' rather than 'stopped' the stationary trains would appear at the top of the sorted list, together with joining trains, with the moving trains below in ascending order based on speed. There are, of course, other statuses of trains (waiting for right of way, etc) that would appear in the list; but the stationary/slow trains would appear at the top of the list, excluding trains 'waiting for right of way' which, alphabetically, would be at the bottom of the list, as they are now (the TRTS message is a good enough prompt for me with regard to those trains, anyway - if I miss them).

I hope I've sufficiently elaborated. :)

Cheers,

Dave

Davem1958 in post 151536 said:
Hi,

More specifically, I want to not have the situation where stationary trains - at a signal, or not - are listed next to trains that are moving at fast speed. That is how a 'status sorted' list presents the train list currently. By using 'halted' rather than 'stopped' the stationary trains would appear at the top of the sorted list, together with joining trains, with the moving trains below in ascending order based on speed. There are, of course, other statuses of trains (waiting for right of way, etc) that would appear in the list; but the stationary/slow trains would appear at the top of the list, excluding trains 'waiting for right of way' which, alphabetically, would be at the bottom of the list, as they are now (the TRTS message is a good enough prompt for me with regard to those trains, anyway - if I miss them).

I hope I've sufficiently elaborated. :)

Cheers,

Dave
Right away

The selected column is sorted alphabetically, hence "Moving at" comes before "Stopped at". For speeds 10mph to 99mph it sorts quite nicely by speed, but below 10mph and 100mph and over it does not. Not something I'd ever considered to be honest.

If you wanted "stopped at red signal" then you'd need a synonym like "halted at" so it sorts higher in the list.

... Of course, whilst it would be wrong to always assume that trains belting along at 75mph can be safely ignored, it is probably correct to say that the stationary, or perhaps soon to be stationary trains, are likely to be the trains that are going to need more immediate attention. ...

As noted from Geoff, the multiple reasons to be stopped that can appear will make a mess of any alphabetical sort on the column as it is now.

The selected column is sorted alphabetically, hence "Moving at" comes before "Stopped at". For speeds 10mph to 99mph it sorts quite nicely by speed, but below 10mph and 100mph and over it does not. Not something I'd ever considered to be honest.

If you wanted "stopped at red signal" then you'd need a synonym like "halted at" so it sorts higher in the list.

GeoffM in post 151542 said:

The selected column is sorted alphabetically, hence "Moving at" comes before "Stopped at". For speeds 10mph to 99mph it sorts quite nicely by speed, but below 10mph and 100mph and over it does not. Not something I'd ever considered to be honest.

If you wanted "stopped at red signal" then you'd need a synonym like "halted at" so it sorts higher in the list.

There's no reason the sort has to be alphabetical. Provided that you can write clear rules for determining the order (e.g. a set of "Stopped comes before moving", "Low speed comes before high speed"that are sufficient to cover every possibility, it's possible to write a custom sort order to be added to the other sorting options.

clive in post 151558 said:

GeoffM in post 151542 said:

The selected column is sorted alphabetically, hence "Moving at" comes before "Stopped at". For speeds 10mph to 99mph it sorts quite nicely by speed, but below 10mph and 100mph and over it does not. Not something I'd ever considered to be honest.

If you wanted "stopped at red signal" then you'd need a synonym like "halted at" so it sorts higher in the list.

There's no reason the sort has to be alphabetical. Provided that you can write clear rules for determining the order (e.g. a set of "Stopped comes before moving", "Low speed comes before high speed"that are sufficient to cover every possibility, it's possible to write a custom sort order to be added to the other sorting options.

I was describing how it currently works. Of course it could work differently but because of where it sorts (and filters) is not conducive to anything other than alphabetical sorting.

Of course, in an ideal world, you'd be watching the signalling display and spotting trains before they come up to yellow signals, rather than watching a train list and reacting to them already having slowed down, but this is where we are.

GeoffM in post 151575 said:

clive in post 151558 said:

GeoffM in post 151542 said:

The selected column is sorted alphabetically, hence "Moving at" comes before "Stopped at". For speeds 10mph to 99mph it sorts quite nicely by speed, but below 10mph and 100mph and over it does not. Not something I'd ever considered to be honest.

If you wanted "stopped at red signal" then you'd need a synonym like "halted at" so it sorts higher in the list.

There's no reason the sort has to be alphabetical. Provided that you can write clear rules for determining the order (e.g. a set of "Stopped comes before moving", "Low speed comes before high speed"that are sufficient to cover every possibility, it's possible to write a custom sort order to be added to the other sorting options.

I was describing how it currently works. Of course it could work differently but because of where it sorts (and filters) is not conducive to anything other than alphabetical sorting.

Of course, in an ideal world, you'd be watching the signalling display and spotting trains before they come up to yellow signals, rather than watching a train list and reacting to them already having slowed down, but this is where we are.

I think that, perhaps, is an important point.

The real-life signaller doesn't have anything equivalent to the F2 train list. Keeping trains moving relies on 'situational awareness' (keeping an eye on the panel, both for trains and for routes/signals) and knowledge of the equipment (where there are approach-controlled aspects for junctions, for instance) and of the traffic. When I learned boxes (OK, I'll grant you it was a long time ago) learning the traffic was one of the most important things. Those were the days/locations, of course, where we didn't have 4-digit train descriptions; on the North/West London/T&H network, trains were 'circuited' by phone between designated boxes ("...next up you've got the Langley then you'll have the Millbrook behind the passenger..." ) and it was the bobby's job to know the work well enough to keep everything moving.

Even now I only open F2 if there's a specific query in my mind (a train doesn't move when I think it ought to f'rinstance... some of those drivers are SLOOOWWWWW changing ends) or I need to intervene in a most non-signalman way.