Atomic Systems

This excellent route is out NOW...here...

https://www.uktrainsim.com/filelib-info ... leid=38739

Nice to find a route that doesnt need a huge amount of custom assets from elsewhere ! (For me anyway). Just ran my first scenario, from Vic to Hud with a Class 150+142 combo, but found the timings too tight from Stalybridge onwards....so had to add a couple of extra minutes into my schedule. So will try it again soon.

Go get this great route !

Cheers

Derek

Just wondering what assets are needed from Midland Mainline route, as it is the only route I haven't got

Michael H asked...

Just wondering what assets are needed from Midland Mainline route, as it is the only route I haven't got

A quick application of RW_Tools suggests some 300-350 items come from the DTG Bed-Pan Line... You would notice a shortage of signals, of buildings and of vegetation.

Hope that helps...

John M

JohnM1945 wrote:RW_Tools suggests some 300-350 items

Is that after you've removed duplicates John?

@shinymac Thanks for your comment. The 142+150 scenario is impossible, I included it as all times are taken from the 2014 Northern timetable.

@michaelhendle Apart from missing scenery, the main thing will be missing speed limits which you can probably swap in from any DTG route. The route is currently £7.49 on the DTG store if you want to purchase it.

Gary asked:-

Is that (300-350 items) after you've removed duplicates John?

Yes, that's after removing duplicates.

To get a quick and dirty estimate, I loaded the MCV-HUD Assets and Content as supplied into the data subset I'm using at the moment - which relates to half a dozen French metre-gauge lines and little else. Not very useful for running a Pennine route, of course, but excellent for excluding any Pennine-relevant assets. I came up with a Missing Assets total (after de-duplication) of just under 1,000 items. Scrolling through the list, and noting that roughly a third of the entries related to the Bed-Pan Line, gave me my 300-350 item estimate.

I assumed, correctly I hope, that Michael only wanted a ball-park estimate at this stage.

Kind regards,

John M

JohnM1945 wrote:Yes, that's after removing duplicates.

Thanks John; yes, that's a significant number, as you noted possibly up to 30-35% of the individual assets used in the route making swapping things with RW Tools not a viable option.

Mike, you've nothing to lose by trying the route to see what it looks like without Bed-Pan.

Hi Pennine Pacer

Thanks for the reply.

But if you KNEW that it was impossible to complete the relevant scenario on time, did you not think of adding in a few minutes of extra time to it, so that it WAS possible to get a tick for ? There seems little point in creating a scenario if it doesnt work !

Cheers
Derek

shinymac wrote:There seems little point in creating a scenario if it doesnt work !

Look at it the other way Derek...it's timed to be impossible*, so therefore it does work as intended.
If you really, really, really want or need a tick your options are to edit the scenario to give yourself more time, or edit the Scenario database to make it show as successfully completed.


*My moneys on somebody actually doing it to prove everybody wrong.

Installed the route tonight and I'm impressed, particularly with the view approaching Huddersfield from the Leeds direction---the depiction of the town makes it instantly recognisable. My only gripe so far is that Felix wasn't included at Huddersfield
I've only run a single scenario, but the trackwork is better than many routes, with only a handful of badly rendered points spotted---those on complicated junctions such as slips and double slips are forgivable, but it was nice not to be assaulted by loads of simple crossovers looking *wrong*.
If you're wondering whether to give it a whirl, stop wondering and get downloading.

@shinymac That scenario is the only one which uses real timings, if I would have changed the times it would no longer be realistic. My recollection of using the service daily from 2008 to 2012 is that the trains were always at least 2 minutes late so I don't think the timetable was achievable in real life either. I thought I made it clear in the scenario description that it was not possible but I apologise if it bothers you.

@gptech Thanks.

PenninePacer wrote:@shinymac That scenario is the only one which uses real timings, if I would have changed the times it would no longer be realistic. My recollection of using the service daily from 2008 to 2012 is that the trains were always at least 2 minutes late so I don't think the timetable was achievable in real life either. I thought I made it clear in the scenario description that it was not possible but I apologise if it bothers you.

@gptech Thanks.

Is it possible to find a compromise by widening the tolerances so that you arrive late as in reality but you still get a tick (as long as you’re not ridiculously late)? Alternatively, I’ve seen a number of scenarios that have this situation and the last few stops are not timed. Having a scenario that cannot be completed will inevitably infuriate or frustrate some people (me included).

Stunning route, many thanks for all your hard work.

I don't bother with collecting ticks, but regarding that scenario, is the performance of the class 150/142 combo anywhere close to real life? I don't think it managed above 45 up the gradients.

I did find a few signalling issues. Are some of the led signals meant to be 2 aspect distants followed by 2 aspect green red by any chance? At the HUD end travelling towards Manchester in the class 170 scenario , I got a lot of yellows despite the previous train being several blocks ahead, and the distance between blocks being several miles.

It's a really nice route though with some lovely trackside detail, distant scenery and custom assets.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

What a beautiful route! Thank you

@sbowness Widening the tolerances would be a good idea but I don’t know how to do that. I will not make a scenario that is not possible in the future.

@stevegreen Thanks, I have no idea if the performance is realistic. I don’t know if the signals are meant to be 2 aspect but the JT signals don’t have 2 aspect LEDs anyway. I think the problem is that the repeater signals don’t have a triangle or R to show they are repeaters, I think the only way to tell the difference is by looking at the 2d map where repeaters don’t show.

@chrisreb Thanks.