[JBrownCS]

How does one add a station to an OR timetable if it doesn't come up in the list when you open the trb?

Does this need to be done with TSRE? If so, is it safe to do or is adding stations something that will blow up an existing route?

[ebnertra000]

Adding stations to a route? I have no idea if that's what you need to do in this case, but it should be safe to do in a route as long as you don't start taking track pieces out of the track database that have interactives on them. But, make a backup just to be safe before you do any editing

[rickloader]

An alternative to adding a station platform would be to use the #dispose field. Naturally, any commands would be done at the end of the trains path, and a new train $formed or $triggered to continue.
Here is an example taken from Robs documentation


$detach defined in #dispose command : all non-power units are detached as static train, the
power units are formed into a new train :
$forms=newtrain $detach /nonpower /static

The advantage of using the #dispose field is that you don`t modify the route and also you can share the timetable
The disadvantage is that in the timetable a single train is broken into several sections / columns. You need careful comments to keep track. I give each subsection of a train a " or B orC" suffix eg "newtrainB" etc
rick

[JBrownCS]

rickloader, on 30 October 2018 - 04:23 AM, said:

An alternative to adding a station platform would be to use the #dispose field. Naturally, any commands would be done at the end of the trains path, and a new train $formed or $triggered to continue.
Here is an example taken from Robs documentation


$detach defined in #dispose command : all non-power units are detached as static train, the
power units are formed into a new train :
$forms=newtrain $detach /nonpower /static

The advantage of using the #dispose field is that you don`t modify the route and also you can share the timetable
The disadvantage is that in the timetable a single train is broken into several sections / columns. You need careful comments to keep track. I give each subsection of a train a " or B orC" suffix eg "newtrainB" etc
rick

The stops that I want to add lie between the beginning and end points of my run.

So basically what you are saying is that I need to break up the schedule into separate segments. but how do I get my train to stop at a place that is not defined as a platform?

[LeoGarcia]

Timetable Mode don't have wait points, yet.

[roeter]

JBrownCS, on 30 October 2018 - 08:21 AM, said:

The stops that I want to add lie between the beginning and end points of my run.

So basically what you are saying is that I need to break up the schedule into separate segments. but how do I get my train to stop at a place that is not defined as a platform?

By terminating the path. A train will always stop at the end of the path (note that the path is always extended to the next switch or signal).
As explained above, you can than restart the train from that location using the #dispose command.

Waiting points are not implemented for timetable mode and never will be, because they would break the timetable logic.
A waiting point is defined in a path but performs an action on a train. A path should only define where a train goes, not what it does - that is defined in timetable commands.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[shadowmane]

Timetable Mode is very clunky if you're using it for anything other than passenger trains. If they simply added a command to detach a portion of the consist and leave it at a siding, then re-attach to the original consist (minus the cars left out) and move on without disposing and forming a new train, and allow starting and ending points (and action points) other than stations, they would already have a replacement for activity mode.

Also, if they added a way to add static cars (like a pool for cars instead of engines), you could begin the whole scenario with all of the locomotives in a pool and all of the cars in a pool, then form your trains from those pools. You would simply take x number of power units from the engine pool and y number of cars from the car pool to $form <newtrain> with a path to follow (either to a station, or to the mainline for a run to the end of the path). You have no consists to build or keep up with, just a defined set of cars at each pool.

Timetable Mode also seems to be designed for programmers. It needs a front end that users will understand. This button causes this, which causes the train to do this. Power users can simply open a spreadsheet and go to town.

[roeter]

Attact/detach commands and other shunt moves can be defined at any location by terminating that train at the required location. All commands can be defined in the $dispose row. The train can be formed into the next 'leg' of that working. As the train (either player or AI) will automatically form into that new train, there is no practical difference in defining a single train with the commands for a station entry or using multiple trains setting the commands as the train terminates. All commands which can be set at a station stop can also be defined for the $dispose row or as start note.

To introduce new location identifiers would require extensive changes to the path processing which is already very complicated, such changes were not particularly welcome. As mentioned above, there is also no need for this - just split the train in 'legs' by splitting its path and setting up multiple entries in the timetable.
All that is required to do so is to split the path - there is no need to define the consists for each leg separately as these will automatically form out of the previous 'leg'. In my own timetables I have many trains which are split in this way - either because of shunt moves or because these trains run over sections which are defined in different timetable files. Usually I define the consist only for the first leg, and use a dummy consist, e.g. a light engine, for all other legs.

As for a full editor - to create such an editor would obviously have been a lot more work, and would have seriously delayed the introduction of the timetable (if, indeed, it would ever have been introduced at all). Using a spreadsheet was by far the most quick and easy way to introduce the timetable mode.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[CrisGer]

We may try this approach for a very early era route.... with a single track but yards. It looks like we will have to have someone (not me) who understands and can use spreadsheets. it sounds like it might be nice to have some kind of buttons to push as expressed above but i guess if the spreadhseet approach programmer approach works, we will look for someone who can do that. intersting topic. Can you give me a link to the instructions for how this works as it is now? thanks. sounds like a very complex process to do in any form so I am glad you were able to do it. thank you. :sign_thanks:

Chris

[Buttercup]

roeter, on 25 January 2019 - 04:25 AM, said:

To introduce new location identifiers would require extensive changes to the path processing.

Would it be possible to use TrackViewer to add new location identifiers to a route and not to a path? They could have the same structure as a station entry. These new identifiers would be written to a separate file that OpenRails would read and add to the route when loading a timetable.