Adding Station to Timetable
#1
Posted 29 October 2018 - 07:17 PM
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?
#2
Posted 29 October 2018 - 07:58 PM
#3
Posted 30 October 2018 - 04:23 AM
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
#4
Posted 30 October 2018 - 08:21 AM
rickloader, on 30 October 2018 - 04:23 AM, said:
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?
#6
Posted 30 October 2018 - 03:43 PM
JBrownCS, on 30 October 2018 - 08:21 AM, said:
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
#7
Posted 30 December 2018 - 09:51 AM
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.
#8
Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:25 AM
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
#9
Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:31 AM
Chris
#10
Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:04 PM
roeter, on 25 January 2019 - 04:25 AM, said:
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.