Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Locked
Schedule matching does not seem to work
#operationspro
|
After reading the topic Adding "Custom" loads to OpsPro - Part Three, I had setup two spurs with a schedule for a reefer to receive MTY and? ship FROZEN FOOD. The Destination was left blank. I then setup two other spurs with a schedule for a reefer to receive FROZEN FOOD and ship MTY. I then had a reefer on one of the spurs shipping FROZEN FOOD and its load was MTY. Now, according to Part Three, the system should, on building a train, apply the schedule and do two things, change the load to FROZEN FOOD, and find a spur to receive FROZEN FOOD and set the car to go to that destination.
?
However, the car was set with a load of FROZEN FOOD, but shipped to a yard track. Then, the system is just moving this car around to other C/I and yard tracks and the car appears to never get to one of the two spurs that want FROZEN FOOD. I have tried to set the car with a Final Destination that matches one of the spurs that should receive the car, and when I preview the car routing report it appears that the car should move to a C/I track, and then onto the final spur. However, when I build the train to move the car from the yard track to the C/I track, the resulting move is to another C/I track, and the final destination is removed. On checking the Build Report, I can see that the final destination is currently unavailable due to the fact that there is another reefer on that spur.
?
Now I would expect that as there is a final destination already set for the car, the car would remain on the yard track until the receiving spur is cleared and would then send the car to the destination. The system appears to be trying to re-assign the final destination and ignoring the fact that there is a final destination already established, and under the rules as described by Pete for a blank Track on the shipping schedule, even though the car is not on the shipping spur, it is moving the car to whatever C/I or yard track that has the least number of moves.
?
I can understand the system moving the car around if it was empty, but why override a valid final destination with the car having a custom load and the final destination's schedule wants that load? To me, I feel that there is a logic error in the system where the testing of the schedule matching is being applied without first checking that a final destination has been set. It seems to ignore a manually set final destination.
? |
|
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 09:53 AM, Eric Coughlan wrote:
To me, I feel that there is a logic error in the system where the testing of the schedule matching is being applied without first checking that a final destination has been set. It seems to ignore a manually set final destination.What you've described doesn't seem right.? Could you please attach a build report for the train that isn't moving the car correctly so we can see how you've configured things. ?
The program changes a car's load and final destination when the car gets delivered, not when a train gets built.
?
If a spur is full, the program will first look for an alternate track for that spur to spot the car, and if not available, find the nearest yard to temporally store the car until the spur track becomes available.? The program should not remove the car's final destination AND track until the car is spotted at the spur.?
?
Dan |
|
What action should be moving on the car occupying the destination spur? If nothing is moving that car your FROZEN FOOD will defrost in its car. On Sun, 1 Sept 2024 at 14:53, Eric Coughlan via <eccoughlan=[email protected]> wrote:
|
|
Dan, After preparing the build report for attachment to my reply, I re-read the section relating to the car and found why the system was deleting the final destination - the car length is longer than the spur length, and thus the car could never be delivered to the destination. A copy of the build report is attached. I increased the length of the spur, reset the train and built the train again. The car now moves correctly. This will teach me to read the build report more carefully when I have a problem. I now need to review all my spurs, and the cars that should be sent to the spurs to ensure that I do not have any similar issues. Problem is that most of my experience is with my own layout where the maximum length of cars is 50'. For the club layout, I need to deal with more modern, and longer cars. As a suggestion for a future build of Ops Pro, it may assist others if a warning is issued when the system deletes the final destination because it is not an obvious situation and the car was being moved. Eric On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 1:21?AM Dan Boudreau via <daboudreau=[email protected]> wrote:
|
|
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 06:53 AM, Eric Coughlan wrote:
After reading the topic Adding "Custom" loads to OpsPro - Part Three, I had setup two spurs with a schedule for a reefer to receive MTY and? ship FROZEN FOOD.Did you actually have two Spurs using the same schedule for the MTY refer? And on each of them, you left the "Destination" column blank? ?
How did you get this refer into the Spur and it remain MTY?? The program would have converted the MTY to a load of FROZEN FOOD when the car was spotted at the Sour.? If you placed it manually and then told the program NOT to apply the schedule, that is the only way I know of that would have left the car MTY.? If you misunderstood the sequence of load conversion from my article's instructions, I apologize.? If you read down through the whole article, I wrote...
This occurs when you build the train that delivers the cars to the Spur in the first place.? The schedule of the Spur is applied when that train terminates (or is "moved" beyond the location of the Spur).? Thus, if you have Train#1 that services the Spur and it has a refer listed to set out at the Spur, the schedule will act upon the car when Train#1 terminates.? Then the car will remain with its converted load until you build Train#2, at which time, the assignment check (for a destination) will occur and the program will try to send the program on to the stated destination.?
You wrote...
I fear you are mixing up the actions of the schedule and the program's choosing a destination.? Or at least, misunderstanding how many trains make the process work.
So, again to be clear, when Train#1 is built and delivers the car, the schedule is applied and when Train#2 is built, a destination is assigned, which the program tries to route to the new destination, using the second train built.
?
Again, you wrote...
If the program is removing the final destination, this indicates to me that the route is broken somehow.? When you built the train you expected to set out the car at the Spur, did your Build Report have any wording similar to this...?
This might mean the program isn't able to route the car properly and is attempting to reload the car in order for it to then be moved.? The program is always seeking to move cars and if it thinks it just can't deliver the car anywhere, it attempts to reload with something it CAN deliver.?
This is why I also mentioned in the article...
Now, since you mentioned in your post, that...
This alone should not cause the program to replace the load.? It should just find another track on which to wait (if no "alternate" is used).
As Dan notes, the behaviour is not expected and the Build Report will shed light on the actual issue.? Can you post the train's BR here on the forum and we'll take a look...?
?
I would also suggest a pencil-to-paper approach to sketching out the movement of the car between the Spurs involved.? Check the trains involved, any intermediate tracks you think should be used to facilitate the movement, and the final tracks (the ones with the schedules) used to set out the car.? Sometimes, this lets you see what you might have missed if you are only looking at computer windows stacked on top of each other...
?
Happy to help, hope it helps,
<Pete Johnson>
? |
|
Pete, Thank you for the detailed explanation as to how the schedule assigns the load and sets the destination. After re-reading my original text, I realise that I did not fully explain the true situation. When I found the issue, the car had been moved from its original track where the schedule had correctly set the load, but, it moved to a yard track where I was not expecting it to go to. It was then that I noticed the load assigned to the car, but no destination. I remembered where the car originated, so checked the schedule on that spur - all looked ok, then checked all the other spurs where we were creating the load and delivering the load, and all looked ok, and now I know that the schedules were working correctly. So I manually set the final destination and ran a test to see if I could get the car to go where I wanted it, and, of course, the system deleted the destination due to the car being too long to fit the delivery spur, although I did not realise that, thinking that the spur was occupied by another car. I remember when I first tested these movements as a result of applying schedules, I used a car that would fit into the delivery spur without realising we had longer cars on the layout, so it all worked, and this was another factor that got me scratching my head as to why it was not working when we were actually running the trains. Our most recent ops session was the first actual run of the new setup with most cars now moving with custom loads. As a result of this session, we had a review and identified a number of changes in how we wanted the trains to move (one train ended up requiring the crew over 4 hours to complete the switch list). I was then updating the trains, locations and routes to create the new setup, and then started testing that the new setup would work as we were hoping it would. We will have another ops session in a few weeks using this new revised setup. Thanks again for all your effort in replying to my issues. Eric |
|
Hi Eric,
?
On my layout, I create my spurs to allow 10' more than the length of the car/cars length that can go into the spur.? Example, 1 car is 50' so I make the spur at least 60'.? Two cars is 100', so I allow 120' when creating the spur.? It's not that I will put a longer car there, its simply to account for coupler lengths on both ends of the car and not have any build or movement issues.? Besides, I can always squeeze an extra 10' in N scale.? haha
?
Regards,
Frank
--
Frank Kenny
Central Pacific Railway - CPRX
310-344-9145
Los Angeles area
Instagram:?
Facebook:?
YouTube:? Blog:?? ?(Updated occasionally)
|
|
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 01:18 PM, Frank Kenny CPRX Model Railroad wrote:
On my layout, I create my spurs to allow 10' more than the length of the car/cars length that can go into the spur. This is interesting.? I just measure my spurs and put the result in JMRI.? JMRI does take coupler lengths into account when determining the length of rolling stock.
--
Tom |
|
Tom/Frank, I also allow additional length when setting up my spurs, only 5' extra per car, but when some other club member adds a car that is 57', even an additional 10' will not provide enough room for the new car. It also does not help when the spur is for a Walthers distribution kit where the two doors on the rail side will only allow 2 50' cars to be opposite the doors. What I have done to permanently fix the issue is set the two spurs, which are the two docks, as a pool, so when one of the longer cars is scheduled to go to the facility, it will allow that car but no other for the other dock. I think all of us can fall into the trap when we buy new modern era cars which can be longer than the old standard of 40' and 50'. If you do not check spur lengths when adding a new, longer, car, you may also run into the problem that I encountered. Eric On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 8:41?AM Tom Myrick via <jmri=[email protected]> wrote:
|
|
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 04:41 PM, Eric Coughlan wrote:
What I have done to permanently fix the issue is set the two spurs, which are the two docks, as a pool, so when one of the longer cars is scheduled to go to the facility, it will allow that car but no other for the other dock. I find track pools to be an extremely powerful feature of JMRI operations.??
--
Tom |
Tom Myrick
to navigate to use esc to dismiss