Atomic Systems

xguerra wrote:Now that's strange. I do not have that set of points

...a set of points that show in davep's photo from 3pages back, which I reposted a page back, the same set of points I've enquired about twice.....

xguerra wrote:And my summation originally that the issue originally was not that the Kuju 37 was used at all, but both trains were a Kuju 37

Sorry, but

xguerra wrote:The good news is that it is not the signals nor the track that is the issue.

It's the Kuju class 37.

is the bit that everybody else has taken to be the reason, and the bit I've always called into question. As the released version of the route, which I assume everybody except you is using, appears to be different to the version you're using it does rather throw the spotlight back onto the route/track/signalling.

xguerra wrote:your demonstration above as one of the two trains is a 37 and all appears to run smoothly.

OK, so after doing a wagon test i'll switch both 66's for 37's...though as I wrote, in Colins scenario because I'd already done the editing before playing it ran fine, with both services involved being 37 hauled.

gptech wrote:

CeeGee wrote:The correct routing is through Camden Road P1 which is where it was sent originally

Yes, but how did it get to Camden Road P1, and how should it have got there is what I'm trying to ascertain---there are 2 possible junctions, so which one should it use?...we know it uses the second (from the viewpoint of it's line of travel) but as Dave has said (and I agree) it does seem to make more sense for it to use the first one, which I circled on the re-posted photo.

CeeGee wrote:It reaches the junction a few minutes after the player train.

Yes, but we've moved on from your scenario and trying to replicate/corroborate/refute Xaviers test and findings.

There is only one route to Camden Road P1 - unless the AI reverses. The route for all the AI was set up correctly - and if the scenario runs correctly then all the AI runs correctly. If the two AI Kuju Class37 aren't routed through the junction (sent to Finsbury Park) then the Player Kuju Class37 appeared to have no problems.
The routing in the scenario for the RSC Class37s is exactly the same as it was for the Kuju Class37s. Replace the two AI Kuju Class37s with something else may work with a Player Kuju Class37. Kuju Class37s crossing the junction in both directions (at different times) doesn't.

Ok, let's stop and go back a bit before we advance further with this situation.

I think the real reason we are in this irritating predicament is because I have miserably failed as a marketer and distributor of my content. I have not provided a system where users are notified of updates and fixes outside of Facebook, nor have I provided a change log for users to check against. Therefore, it has become impossible to diagnose any problems between us because we all have different copies of the route. I take full responsibility for this incompetence. Yes it has been confusing for users when the installers are all named the same but that was for the aid of uploading via Google Drive where versions could only be overwritten to the same url if the file names were the same. Perhaps it was a foolish shortcut to take.

I have been giving a bit of thought about a proper website to host my content and a system for notifying users about updates. At the moment the system of sending the download links via email as with SteamSoundsSupreme sees to be the most effective way of doing it. Though I have yet to figure out how it is applied to a website.

Fortunately, since I have remembered to post updates via FB, I am able to write a change log from that eventually which might temporarily help with keeping an eye on updates. The blog has got to go though, because as time goes by and I add more scenarios, it's going to become unnavigable.

So.I think instead of continuing from where we were, we should all download the latest version of the route and start the investigation again, myself included. And in the meantime I will try to make amends for this huge c*ck up that I have caused.

CeeGee wrote:There is only one route to Camden Road P1

Wrong (or at least for davep and myself) --- there are 2 possible junctions services can traverse to get to Camden Road P!; admittedly the second one seems to be an erroneous one. Are you basing your statement on the original edition of V2 of the route, which may be why you're only seeing one.

You keep harping back to your scenario---I've stated at least twice that I didn't have an issue with that; what part of "replicate Xavier's test scenario" are you failing to understand? have you even bothered to look at the screen shots posted?
We're looking at the *odd* signalling/point work at the Eastern end of Camden station, the section of track between signals NL1205 and NL1213 as an exercise in route investigation not as an in-depth re-work of your scenario.

xguerra wrote: I have miserably failed as a marketer and distributor of my content.

That's ....<insert favourite word meaning small spherical objects>

Marketing and distributing of the route may not be *perfect*, but look at Steam---one of the biggest marketers and distributors of content on the planet and they still have issues. Don't be so hard on yourself, if it takes a bit of graft from the likes of us who can't/won't produce routes then that's how it is and nothing can change the fact that you've provided us with a lovely, atmospheric route to drive pretend trains along.
As scathing as I've been about your testing methodology there's never been any intent to take away from what you've created and shared, and I thank you immensely for that.

xguerra wrote:Therefore, it has become impossible to diagnose any problems between us because we all have different copies of the route.

Yes, that seems to be the crux of the matter----if Colin's not seeing what I'm seeing then there's bound to be conflict and confusion.

I think your being a bit hard on yourself.
I for one am most grateful that you even took the time and trouble to provide us with BNLL, I imagine you do it in your spare time, so it's a double thank you from me. The only suggestion I would make if I may, that might smooth discussions is that there be a version no. I wish all routes had one.
Thank you again for all the fun I am getting from this route.
Cheers John (ex of Richmond)

CeeGee wrote:Kuju Class37s crossing the junction in both directions (at different times) doesn't.

40 seconds later....



another 5-10 seconds or so...



(OK, the ground signal has cleared which it shouldn't have done but the service waits for another 15 seconds or so....)

to eventually...



Now I'm no scenario writer, just plonk 'em down and give 'em instructions, but if I can do it and make it work around that junction in that version of the route then anybody can. Of course if you're seeing different track to me it's no use to you.
And yes, I could have posed those pictures 'cos I'm a sneaky old so-and-so, so if anybody wants the scenario to check/test/rip to bits/have an opportunity to stick one to the gobby old git you're welcome to a copy---just drop a PM my way.

Hi
As it seems to be only 1 scenario that is having problems I think you should have a pat on the back,you have spent a lot of hours on this route,and have made it perfectly,it's just how I remember it.
It's just a pity there are no Distract Line stock,as Richmond Station looks a bit bare with out them,the whole of the area between Richmond and Gospel Oak is so Realistic,that was as far as I used to go on the NLL,as we changed trains there to go on the Midland line to Leyton Midland Station,when going to see my uncle,at Leyton we used to get a Trolleybus to where he lived.
Thanks for bringing back the memories
Mike

Installed V2 (dated 14 May). The original Freight to Stratford (FTS) runs without issue.

Checking V2 against "V2.1", the latter has an extra crossover just beyond the crossover protected by NL 1205 (and just before NL 1213) and that would appear to be causing the pathing problems. If that crossover were to be removed I'm certain FTS would run correctly on V2.1 and the AI train would use the points at the location indicated by Gary on Wednesday (as it is used by the AI on V2).

As I mentioned previously the ETA calculations were going haywire driving the original FTS on V2.1 (but not when locos were swapped out). I can only think that when a loco is changed, pathing is recalculated and ETA can then be accurately calculated.

Great route, great scenarios. Thanks.

The new website is now live in a limited capacity!
And I have put in an application to have the name of the Facebook page changed.

All the content from the blog sites has been transferred to this site and so all the blogs will be going offline in a couple of days.

In the meantime, please visit the site and report to me of anything that doesn't work.
http://backdatedtrainsim.weebly.com/

The new site is looking good Xavier, despite being of 'Limited Capacity'.

Well done,
Trevor

I've just run the (CG) Freight to Stratford scenario through with no problems - latest version of both the route and the scenario. I was a copule of minutes late by the time I reached the Stratford Container Terminal but there was no stand off, no collisions,and it was very enjoyable.

One comment - the freight trains wouldn't have had brake vans in that era.

alanch wrote:I've just run the (CG) Freight to Stratford scenario through with no problems - latest version of both the route and the scenario. I was a copule of minutes late by the time I reached the Stratford Container Terminal but there was no stand off, no collisions,and it was very enjoyable.

One comment - the freight trains wouldn't have had brake vans in that era.

Thanks.
Re: the Brake Vans. I though it was the late eighties when they were removed, but on re-checking I find it was earlier (late seventies/early eighties) when they were done away with. The two freight scenarios I did for the NLL(Backdated) were set several years later than the passenger ones, and I failed to check properly. These modern 1980's scenarios are strange to me. I moved from the 70's to the mid-late 80's to enable the Richmond-Woolwich services to run.
Even now, I still don't think freight trains look right without a Brake Van at the back.

CeeGee wrote:Even now, I still don't think freight trains look right without a Brake Van at the back.

Me too, but that's the world we live in now!

Another little signalling/pathing anomaly.

I was driving the [NLS] 01 - Craven to the Docks scenario, and after leaving Hackney Wick on a green signal with the path set for Stratford Low Level I noticed a Class 47 on the 12:30 Harwich - Bristol coming off the Lea Valley line and crossing my path. Heavy braking but then I found the player path had changed to divert me onto the Lea Valley line missing the other train.

I checked in the editor and the player path is defintely set for Stratford Low Level. Luckily I had saved the previous run at Homerton so I tried again, obeying the speed limits and checking in the track view what was happening, When I stopped at Hackney Wick the player path was still set for Stratford Low Level. However, both the Class 47 and the player had green signals for the conflicting path. I set of from Hackney Wick and the points changed as I approached them to divert me onto the Lea Valley line. The dispatcher isa doing something really strange here.

Third time of asking I drove slowly from Homerton to Hackney Wick so the Class 47 passed me in the station, and the path remained set for Low Level - so I could drive through the tunnel that I used to walk through from the Low Level platform nearly 60 years ago to bunk Stratford shed.

I have, with great reluctance, scrapped the Brake Vans and sacked the guards from my two freight scenarios for the route.