I have been spending some time recently working on pre-grouping (that is, pre-1923) railway carriages. I have not yet finished the graphics or .dat files for the new carriages that I have been creating, although I attach some work in progress samples below.
However, during my research, I have noticed some anomalies with the existing 4 and 6 wheel carriages. Firstly, according to the Vintage Carriage Trust (http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/MS&L.htm), which owns one, the MS&LR 4 wheeler weighs 12t, not 10t; likewise, the Trust (http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/Midland.htm) gives 15t as the weight of the MR 6-wheeler, not 12t (the weights were used on all later 4 and all 6 wheel carriages). I must confess, I cannot now recall whether I had changed the numbers originally in Experimental based on research that I had done in books giving average weights for four-wheeler carriages in general, and, since it seems that the carriages in Pak128.Britain are based on those two specific carriages, it might be that Standard already has the correct weights. (Edit: this 15t figure is probably wrong, and a figure of 12-13t more accurate: see this (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=8902.msg96731#msg96731) post).
However, further consideration might be given to the specific examples of the vehicles taken, and their capacity. The Midland 6-wheel vehicle (called a first in its .dat and .blend file although the Vintage Carriage Trust's example is a composite) has a reported seating capacity of 32, whereas the M&SLR 4 wheel vehicle has a capacity of 34. In Experimental, the vehicles can be differentiated by comfort, but this is not so in Standard. The M&SLR vehicle has a luggage compartment and four passenger compartments. Later four wheeled vehicles tended to have five third class compartments, at least in suburban sets; firsts might well have had four. The Midland 6 wheeled composite preserved in the National Railway Museum has five compartments (source (http://www.nrm.org.uk/OurCollection/LocomotivesAndRollingStock/CollectionItem.aspx?objid=1975-7033&pageNo=14)), so it seems reasonable to infer that an all third class vehicle would have six compartments ("A Short History of the Railway Carriage" by R. W. Kidner, published 1946, shows at p. 98 an illustration of a GNR 6-wheeler of 1880 vintage, all third class, with only five compartments; yet it has two lavatories and a side corridor, so the inference should stand for more general, non-lavatory stock). Assuming five a side in third class for long distance travel, two rows of seats in each compartment, a 1870s four wheeler should be able to accommodate 5 x 2 x 5 = 50 third class passengers, and an 1880s 6 wheeler 5 x 2 x 6 = 60 third class passengers (plus, as far as Experimental is concerned, half as many again standing). If one is considering first class, with four a side and four and five compartments respectively (without lavatories), that would get 4 x 2 x 4 = 32 for a four compartment four wheeler and 4 x 2 x 5 = 40 for a five compartment six wheeler. The Midland composite, I suspect, must have had a lavatory or luggage compartment to produce the lower seating number (and the M&SLR composite would of course have had mixed seating densities).
Because Simutrans (neither Standard nor Experimental) implements class, one must consider what to do with carriage capacities. Generally, I have taken third/standard class as the base for capacities, but that is perhaps not advisable in the early railway; before the 1870s, it is probably wise to retain both first and third class vehicles, for Experimental at least, such that they might be used as low comfort/high capacity or high comfort/low capacity vehicles, depending on the distance to be travelled.
I do suggest, however, that consideration be given in the Standard version at least to having the 6-wheel carriages having a substantially greater capacity than the 4-wheel equivalents, or else they are a downgrade in every sense! Might I provisionally suggest using all third class seating capacities for all post 1870s vehicles (using the numbers given above)?
There is also the issue of railway carriages in the 1860s. The current carriages go from 1847 to the 1870s without renewal. I have drawn some LBSCR vehicles for the 1850s and 1860s (some samples below), and I shall be adding some LNWR and possibly Midland examples, too (Pak128.Britain had sadly hitherto lacked entirely the "Parliamentary" carriage, which was of some importance in the 1850s and later 1840s; the LNWR 1847 vehicle is a first class, I think). For reference, perhaps as much for my use as anyone else's, Kinder (supra) gives (at p. 92) the average weight of railway carriages during the 1860s as 8t and the average length as 27ft; this compares to the 32ft of the MS&LR 4-wheeler of 1876. An interesting comparison between LNWR 4-wheelers can be observed between the following pictures, this (http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrml2186.htm) depicting a rake of 1860s vehicles used in suburban traffic around Manchester, and this (http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrml2186.htm) depicting a rake of 1890s 4-wheelers used in suburban traffic around London (the carriages being specifically built for the purpose: notice the five compartment 3rds).
Another small matter: I have noticed that the very early open 3rd class carriage from the Liverpool and Manchester Railway had no loaded graphic, which I have now drawn (but not fully prepared to be used in the game). I have also produced loaded graphics for the enclosed carriages of that era, showing luggage on the roof, as well as brake versions of the carriages (identical to the non-brake versions, save that they have a guard riding on the roof, if provided, or amongst the passengers otherwise, and a brake screw). The provision of brake vehicles will be important when a forthcoming version of Experimental featuring Bernd Gabriel's braking physics feature is released, when the stopping distances of trains will be based on their actual braking capacity.
I have also corrected the length of the LBSCR non-corridor lavatory carriages and Balloon carriages, and the alignment of the suburban BR Mk. Is, as well as adding the appropriate suburban carmine livery alongside the existing maroon.
A few sample graphics follow, which are, in order:
(1) the LMR first class carriage with luggage and guard;
(2) the LMR third class carriage, loaded with passengers;
(3) a later type of open third, with higher capacity, from the LBSCR, showing the guard and brake screw;
(4) a roofed but open sided third from the LBSCR from the 1850s;
(5) a "Parliamentary" type vehicle of the LBSCR from the 1850s;
(6) an LBSCR first from the late 1850s/early 1860s;
(7) an LBSCR brake third from the mid 1860s;
( 8) an LBSCR full brake from the early 1860s/late 1850s;
(9) an LBSCR version of the existing 6-wheelers (depicted here in the Billinton umber livery);
(10) the longer, 54ft arc roof non-corridor bogie carriages produced by the LBSCR from about 1905 onwards (depicted here in Southern Railway Maunsell green);
(11) the earlier, shorter version of the arc roof non-corridor bogie carriages of the LBSCR, produced from about 1894 onwards, here in BR suburban carmine livery; and
(12) the push-pull trailer of the LBSCR "balloon" series, here in Southern Railway green.
Very detailed indeed! To be honest the current selection is fairly cursory, mainly because I couldn't find a lot of data at the time and it was intended to cover the basics with something looking about right. I'm sure your additions and suggested changes will be worthwhile here.
Very nice work jamespetts.
The photo bring a Smile in my Face.
(http://forum.simutrans.com/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Here are some previews of the 1860s four wheelers (4 compartment third, two compartment brake).
Edit: Further research has so far been unable to elucidate much on 1860s Midland carriages (authors seem to concentrate on the Midland after the 1870s, when it famously abolished second class), so I have extrapolated and produced a Midland version of my four-compartment 24' LNWR carriages, pictured below. (This (http://www.modelrailways.tv/images/catalogue/larger/SW20.jpg) intriguing model does rather suggest, though, that the Midland did indeed build the 4-compartment 4 wheeler at some point, and the carriage looks more 1860s than 1870s, so this might well be some evidence that my extrapolation is correct).
I have also not been able to pin down when what became the standard short-distance carriage, the five compartment, four wheeler third came onto the scene. The LNWR "brown train" examples, linked (http://basilicafields.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lnwr_785.jpg) above, were produced in the 1890s, but, aside from their electrical lighting, their design was much as had been built for many years before. There is some record in Kidner (p. 93) of a rather primitive North London Railway specimen as early as 1866, but that is the earliest record that I can find of such a vehicle. There is reference in Hamilton Ellis ("Railway Carriages in the British Isles"), p. 74 to South-Eastern railway carriages of 1873 origin designed for commuter work having 5 compartments and 4 wheels. GNR suburban vehicles of similar length seemed to be six wheeled vehicles, although cramped internally, and were built well into the 1890s (see David Jenkinson, "The History of British Railway Carriages 1900 - 1953", p. 146). Further, there is evidence that my inference about six compartment six wheelers was correct: on p. 162 (ibid) there is pictured a former South-Eastern 6 wheel 6 compartment vehicle, albeit one where one of the compartments has latterly been converted into a lavatory. 6-wheeled carriages, it seems, were generally used for longer distance trains (providing a better ride quality), whereas the four wheelers continued in suburban service until displaced directly by bogie vehicles.
I think that I shall have to adapt the existing 4 wheelers for suburban purposes, and for the time being produce LNWR and Midland 4 wheel 5 compartment thirds and 3 compartment brakes available from about 1873 to the early 1900s (adding GNR examples when I eventually get around to filling in the gaps for that company, and likewise the GWR). The existing 4 wheel carriages can suffice as the long distance versions (to complement, say, a Stirling Single), as it was around the 1860s and 1870s that differentiation started to be made between suburban and long-distance passenger accommodation, as suggested by this (http://basilicafields.wordpress.com/category/passenger-traffic/) article about the London, Brighton & South Coast, which begun by removing armrests from long-distance carriages in the 1860s to produce higher density suburban vehicles, and whose first purpose built suburban vehicles were Stroudly designs of 1873 - already present in Pak128.Britain, thanks to The Hood.
Edit 2: Attached are some previews of my LNWR/MR 4-wheel suburban carriages, as discussed above; 1870s vintage, but built until the early 1890s.
Well I have to say I'm impressed by the detail here. I do sometimes worry there is becoming too much choice of vehicles in the pak but for standard at least, which can't/won't ever reproduce the economic simulation experimental is aiming for the long term balancing aim will be to get most vehicles profitable if used vaguely sensibly on an efficient network, but allowing for some indulgence in "model railways"...
Ahh, yes, it is a tricky issue as to how to deal with adding in Standard sets of vehicles designed for Experimental. Certainly, those differentiated by time period (I am thinking particularly the 1860s MR/LNWR carriages, and also the different lengths of the LBSCR carriages) can be added without increasing choice excessively; it might be that some vehicles that are distinguished only by Experimental specific characteristics can be left out of Standard (after all, it is not possible in any event to open Experimental games with Standard, so the missing vehicles will not be a problem in that sense). It is, I suppose, a judgment as to what works best in Standard as to which vehicles will benefit it and which not.
Some more research, and some more graphics (as yet, without .dat files: those are to follow). Firstly, the new graphics. These are LNWR 8-wheel 42' non-bogie non-corridor carriages, based on the Webb radial trucks. They were introduced in about 1883 and were produced for about a decade, until the bogie corridor carriages of 1893 for the "Corridor" (the 2.00pm express from Glasgow to London and London to Glasgow) were built. I have included a lavatory third, brake third, mail and TPO in LNWR and LMS liveries. Some samples are given (note that the graphics are now processed). The TPO is based on a carriage preserved in the National Railway Museum at York, and the mail carriage is shown in its later, LMS livery (for Standard, I recommend the use of the LNWR livery).
As to research, I have not been entirely successful in finding as much detail as I can on the clerestories. What I know is that the GWR (which I shall skip for the present, as I am focussing on the MR, LNWR and LBSCR, and will return to the GWR, LSWR and GNR at a later time) made a great many clerestories to a similar pattern for many years, and even made 6-wheel clerestories.
The Midland was famed for its clerestories, but produced fewer of them. Hamilton Ellis records the Midland's earliest adventure into the clerestory way of things as being in 1874, with an 8 wheeled bogie coach (an example of which is pictured at plate 15 III between pages 80 and 81). The length of this carriage is not given by the author, but appear to have been 45'. It weighed 18.5 tons. In 1875 (or possibly 1876 - the year 1875 is given as the date in which they were designed and the later year appears on page 70 of that work), a longer version was introduced, at 53' over headstocks, this time a twelve-wheeler. These were all non-gangwayed, non-corridor vehicles. A diagram is shown of this vehicle on p. 69 of that work, and a side elevation drawing on p. 94 of Kidner's pamphlet. These appear to have weighed 22.5 tons (p. 70, Hamilton Ellis), and were very comfortable and long-lasting vehicles (ibid). The 8 wheel version appears to have had 7 compartments and 4 in the brakes, with 8 and 5 in the brakes for the 12 wheel version.
Then, in 1879, bogie carriages were built without clerestories, and all carriages continued to be built thus until the 1890s. There is little detail of what these non-clerestory bogie carriages were like, save for a photograph of a somewhat lengthy brake third example also at plate 15 III in Hamilton Ellis, which is shown to be of Midland and Scottish joint stock. This, too, was a twelve wheeler. No length or weight is given, but it seems sensible to assume that these vehicles were otherwise similar to the 1874/6 carriages. This (http://www.51l.co.uk/mrclaytonbogie.htm) modelling website, however, has some good information on them. It seems that, at some point, lavatories were added, probably by the same method (discussed below) used in the six wheelers of simply replacing one compartment with a lavatory.
In 1896, the clerestory returned (Jenkinson, p. 109) to the Midland, in a slightly updated style, and this time of 48ft in length for the 8 wheelers (which contained six compartments - Jenkinson p. 174) and 60ft in length for the 12 wheelers. The Midland was late in introducing gangwayed corridor carriages, the first coming in 1898 (Jenkinson, pp. 109-110), and then lengthened in 1903 to 50-54ft for the eight wheelers (giving 7 compartments - Jenkinson p. 174) and 65ft for the twelve wheelers (Jenkinson p. 110). The clerestory was finally abolished in 1913 on the Midland (ibid), the last of the major companies to do so. However, it seems that the corridor carriages of elliptical roof design (which replaced the clerestories) did not appear until after the first world war (ibid), so the clerestories might well have to be made available to Simutrans players until the beginning of the 1920s. This gives a good idea, however, that 1913 should be the introduction date for the Midland non-corridor carriages currently in the game (which appears is their current introduction date - excellent!). The elliptical roof corridor carriages turned out after the war were 57ft for the 8 wheelers and 65ft for the twelve wheelers (ibid). I can find very little other information on what must have been the rare post-war pre-grouping MR corridor carriages, and it might be sufficient to leave the MR clerestories until the first LMS c5-ranking of train services (although later to be cascaded to secondary services). A later Midland non-corridor lavatory, built in 1905, is pictured at p. 40 of Jenkinson. Non-corridor lavatory carriages were used in the period for intermediate class trains.
The Midland also seem to have produced some rather celebrated 12 wheel diners at around this time (in the 1890s clerestories, the diners, it seems, were normally the 12 wheelers), a 1911 example being illustrated by Jenkinson on p. 108 and also illustrated by Hamilton Ellis at plate 27 III between pages 160 and 161. (One should note that the Midland built some non-corridor diners from about 1892, where passengers had to book their dinner reservation in advance, and would travel the whole way in the dining carriage: Hamilton Ellis, p. 160).
For commuter trains, the Midland continued to build the old-fashioned four wheelers of 1870s design right up to about 1898-9 (the exact date is not given, but recorded as "just before the turn of the century" - Jenkinson p. 109). Then, at around that time, some very high quality clerestory commuter carriages were introduced, 45ft in length (illustrated in Jenkinson, p. 151). Weight is not given. These were only built for a short time, until about 1903, when it was realised that they were far too expensive and low in capacity (details ibid), and replaced with bogie arc roof vehicles (ibid), which one can infer survived until the 1913 eliptical roof non-corridors were introduced. The passenger capacity of each vehicle is not given, but the clerestory suburban has six compartments in a composite carriage (and one can therefore infer seven compartments in an all-third, seating probably 8 in each compartment, giving a total capacity of 56; I will assume the arc-roofed vehicles to be less generous in compartment size, seating 10 each, giving 70 seats; in each case, there would be room for half as many again standing).
On six wheelers, Hamilton Ellis records that the Midland built these from 1875 "for more than 20 years" (perhaps to 1896, when the later clerestories became prominent) to more or less the same design (p. 115), which seem to have been 32ft vehicles (see link below). There is reference (ibid) to the Midland building six-wheel clerestories during that period, but I can find no illustrations of such a thing. However, from 1887, the five compartment six wheeler, which had been the Midland standard, were sometimes converted to (and sometimes thereafter built afresh as) four compartment lavatory provisioned vehicles by the simple (and, Hamilton Ellis records, space inefficient) expedient of converting the central compartment to a lavatory. One would estimate that this would remove not only one compartment's worth of seating capacity, but also at least two additional seats, needed to provide access to the lavatory from the adjacent compartments (the far compartments not getting access to a lavatory at all). That is probably what is behind the seating capacity of this (http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=623) Midland six wheeler of 1886, although in that case, the central compartment space appears to be used for luggage rather than lavatory facilities (note that the livery depicted is not an historical livery). For Simutrans purposes, lavatory versions of the 6 wheelers can be produced quite simply by whiting out the central compartment's central window, and blocking up its side windows.
One can reasonably infer, therefore, from all of the above, that, before 1875, four wheelers had held sway; after 1875 and before 1896, there was a mixture of the bogie (which was clerestoried until 1879) stock for the very top rated trains, the 6 wheelers for intermediate use (converted later on longer distance trains to have lavatory provision), and the suburban type 4 wheelers for short distance journeys. In the late 1890s, clerestories replaced all categories, albeit this did not last long for suburban traffic.
That, then, is the Midland. Before turning to the LNWR (the LBSCR already being more or less complete for this period with the additional graphics that I have produced in the last few weeks), a brief mention of the GNR is in order, for, in 1880, the GNR introduced a corridor 6-wheeler (Kidner, p. 98). This was not the gangwayed corridor vehicle in which passengers could pass between carriages, but the corridor ran the length of the carriage and was used to serve its two lavatories (one for ladies, one for gentlemen). This was 37ft long (comapred to the 32ft of the Midland carriage), but had a somewhat inefficient seating capacity for its size. I should think that the GNR 6 wheelers perhaps ought be lengthened and their window patterns and altered weight, capacity, cost, comfort (for Experimental), etc. in the .dat file.
On the LNWR, as stated above, the 8-wheel radial 42ft stock was introduced in the early 1880s and held sway for many years for principal services. I cannot find much mention of the 6 wheeler after this period (with the exception of oddities such as picnic saloons which we can safely ignore for Simutrans purposes). However, in 1893, the LNWR introduced its celebrated "corridor" train (pictured in Hamilton Ellis, plate 22 I, between pages 128 and 129; see ibid pp. 156-7 for text). These corridor carriages effectively superseded the Webb radial carriages for new built long distance vehicles, but, with the exception of the monumental 12 wheel diners, were restricted to the same 42ft length of their predecessors (ibid). The bogies gave them better ride quality, however (ibid) than their predecessors.
As on the Midland, the LNWR produced longer diners of twelve wheeled construction, one of which is illustrated (by a line drawing) in Hamilton Ellis at p. 175, and a 1904 example is pictured by Jenkinson at p. 108, and an earlier example (described only as "late nineties") is pictured by Hamilton Ellis on plate 26 I, between pages 144 and 145. These were 60ft vehicles of somewhat American appearance. The later versions seem to have been 65ft long (Hamilton Ellis, p. 175). All types had shallow clerestories, that, unlike on the Midland, followed American practice and tapered at the ends. Sadly, weights are not given for these magnificent vehicles, so I shall have to guess.
By 1900 or so, the LNWR long-distance corridor carriages (that is, the gangwayed corridor) appears to have grown to 50ft in length (Jenkinson, p. 107), and have acquired a "low eliptical roof" in place of the former arc roof. By 1912, a 57ft length had been adopted, along with the full elliptical roof (ibid). 57ft, for reference, was the length of the suburban BR Mk. Is. From 1907 onwards, the 12 wheelers had elliptical roofs rather than clerestories (Jenkinson, p. 109). Some 1908 LNWR corridors are illustrated on Jenkinson, p. 108, and one example of a 50ft design and one of a 57ft design illustrated on p. 175 ibid. The 50ft vehicles contained seven third class corridor compartments plus lavatories, and the 57ft design eight compartments plus lavatories (ibid). It seems reasonable to assume that the 60ft diners would be built at the same time as the 50ft ordinaries, and the 65ft diners at the same time as the 57ft ordinaries. No weight data are given for these carriages, unhappily, at least that I can find. These carriages seemed to have been built until grouping.
On the intermediate (semi-fast) front, I cannot find much information about new build carriages. It seems (Jenkinson, p. 160) that the LNWR simply cascaded its 1880s radial truck carriages to semi-fast duties when it introduced its corridor stock.
As to suburban carriages, certainly, four wheelers were built right into the late 1890s (see here (http://basilicafields.wordpress.com/category/london-north-western-railway/)). From about "the turn of the century", however, the LNWR seemed to have started building bogie non-corridor non-lavatory suburban carriages, illustrated by Jenkinson at p. 156. The length, weight and capacity are not given, although I guess them to be of 50ft in length; the brakes have 7 compartments, and the non-brakes 8 compartments, so I assume a seating capacity of 70 and 80 respectively (plus standees). These would have been considerably more comfortable than 4 wheelers. I cannot find any further information on LNWR suburban carriages, so I shall assume that this type was built from 1900 to 1923 unchanged.
That will suffice for the present in terms of carriage research: the joys of the GWR (with its numerous clerestories, enormous "dreadnoughts" and other such delights), the GNR (with its non-gangwayed corridor 6 wheelers) and the LSWR (with its early dining carriages and rather elegant livery) will have to wait probably for another year or two unless anyone cares to bring forward the date by drawing them themselves, but this should fill the gaps for the present when completed. In the meantime, there may be one or two grouping era carriages that need adding, but that is also for another time.
Edit: Corrected the reference to the length of BR Mk. Is.
Edit 2: Some minor corrections from research, including the correct length of Midland clerestories and some additional links.
Impeccable detail! I am curious -- in your research, did any of the railways carry "express cars" on their passenger trains? In America one might often find a train with half a dozen express boxcars (carrying packages), one railway post office (TPO), and a combine (divided into half for local express and passenger baggage, with the other half being seating for passengers). The express boxcars were built on passenger trucks (bogies) to operate at the higher speed of a passenger train. Did those carriage types exist in Britain?
Quote from: wlindley on January 10, 2012, 01:15:21 PM
Impeccable detail! I am curious -- in your research, did any of the railways carry "express cars" on their passenger trains? In America one might often find a train with half a dozen express boxcars (carrying packages), one railway post office (TPO), and a combine (divided into half for local express and passenger baggage, with the other half being seating for passengers). The express boxcars were built on passenger trucks (bogies) to operate at the higher speed of a passenger train. Did those carriage types exist in Britain?
Ahh, we don't have the term "express car" in the UK. We had such things as "luggage vans" (see here (http://www.bluebellrailway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/153.html) for a 1922 example), which were attached to passenger trains and carried passengers' luggage: there were also luggage compartments in brake coaches. We haven't put them in Pak128.Britain because there is no simulation of luggage in Simutrans, so they would have no economic function. What you call the "combine" is roughly equivalent to our brake-ended vehicle (see here (http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/1520.html) for a 1910 example) with luggage space.
Those were not the full extent of non-passenger coaching stock (i.e., rail vehicles not designed to carry passengers but capable of being run at passenger train speeds and connected to passenger trains; typically, these were fitted with continuous brakes even when freight trains were not), however. Milk vans, fish vans, newspaper vans, horse boxes (but not, generally, cattle wagons), parcels vans, travelling post offices, and any other vehicle for conveying precious, perishable or time-sensitive materials would rank as non-passenger coaching stock. Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidedwards/4461624111/) is an example of a milk van, for instance, and here (http://ukrailways1970tilltoday.me.uk/wagons_PMV_S17006S_gcr.html) is a parcels van.
We do have some milk vans and parcels vans in Pak128.Britain, the latter of which are treated as mail vehicles, and the former of which are treated as vehicles for cooled (now "perishable", I think) goods.
I have been working on 6-wheelers, but, troublingly, I have found that some of my scales were incorrect: I had used the 1870s four wheelers as a base for the scale, assuming them to be 27-28ft, but, actually, comparison with the BR Mk. I underframe (57ft) showed them to be closer to 32ft - the same length as the Midland six wheelers. This seems entirely too long, and has had the unfortunate effect of making everything that I based on the earlier vehicles also similarly out of scale, so I shall have to spend some time re-scaling all the old vehicles. Two sample re-scaled vehicles are attached (I should be grateful for comments as to whether they appear to be in the correct scale): firstly the MR suburban 4-wheeler of the 1870s, and secondly an earlier Brighton 4-wheeler, which is supposed to be 20ft long. The latter of the two I have had to reduce in height as well, since it appeared to be far too tall when scaled correctly. This might be a good thing, as I suspect that many of the early vehicles as originally drawn were too tall.
Also in the 6-wheel brigade are the GNR non-gangwayed lavatory corridor (37ft) and the probably earlier GNR 34ft vehicles (the GNR 6-wheelers were longer than the Midland 6-wheelers). Most of these are very slightly modified versions of the originals in the pakset (lengthened slightly with some tweaks to the roof decorations), but there is a new vehicle, a brake third, based on this (http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/f13.htm) carriage. I had not initially intended to deal with GNR 6-wheelers, but thought that I ought to address them to maintain consistency if the 6-wheeler issue is to be dealt with properly.
The Midland 6-wheelers had a different roof profile to the GNR types (a traditional arc roof, much as their 4 wheelers), and were also shorter, at about 32ft instead of 34-37ft. I have made the Midland 6-wheelers from the existing 1870s 4 wheelers (as they were already the correct length - the 4 wheelers will therefore need shortening). I have not completed these yet, but attached are a five compartment third and a four compartment lavatory third. Brake ended and mail versions will follow.
I have not had time to look at LNWR 6-wheelers this evening - that should follow.
Edit: Unfortunately, it transpires that I had made an error in relation to the BR Mk. I underframe, and it is only the suburban carriages which were 57' in length - the normal versions were 63'6". I am going to have to rescale these all over again, alas.
HAve you got the dats for any of these yet?
The only .dat files that I have produced so far (attached) are for the LBSCR 20ft carriages from the 1850s, attached. I shall post others when I have done them.
As noted above, I have discovered that I have made an error with the scaling of some of these carriages, which are about 10% too long. However, I have now finalised the correct scale version of the LNWR 8 wheel radial carriages discussed above:
(http://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/radials.png)
.png and .dat files attached (these will need the liveries stripping for Standard). Translation texts as follows:
LNWR-8wheel-radial-brake-front
LNWR 8 wheel (radial) compartment carriage (brake)
LNWR-8wheel-radial-lav
LNWR 8 wheel (radial) compartment carriage (lavatory)
LNWR-8wheel-radial-brake-rear
LNWR 8 wheel (radial) compartment carriage (brake)
LNWR-8wheel-radial-mail
LNWR 8 wheel (radial) mail carriage
LNWR-8wheel-radial-tpo
LNWR 8 wheel (radial) TPO
Note to self: when redrawing the 1847 carriages, backdate them to 1845 to coincide with the introduction of the LNWR Crewe Type.
Added the LNWR radials to standard just now.
Radials: Would the TPO really have been placed in the middle of the rake ("consist")? At least in the U.S., the mail section would be locked away from the passenger section.
Early parcel vans and cooled vans would make an excellent addition, although it is unclear to me as yet , how early such passenger-rated vans operated. In reading the Livery section of the GWR coaching history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaches_of_the_Great_Western_Railway) those would have been in a solid brown taken from the brown-and-cream colors. Electric railways carried parcel vans too, see 1930s stock for the LNER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Tyneside_electric_units). (My question about "express boxcars" I understand now would be "parcel vans" -- two countries separated by a common language...)
Usually, TPOs would not be marshalled with passenger trains at all, but would run in all-mail trains. On major routes at least, mail and passengers were carried in separate trains. Luggage vans of the sort usually found in passenger trains were usually used for passengers' luggage. In rural areas with very light traffic, mail might have been mixed with passengers (as indeed was freight on occasions), and from somewhere around I think the 1970s to the 1990s, when mail was dwindling on trains, mail was often carried in the guard's compartment of passenger trains, but mixing was not ubiquitous before that.
For the LNWR radial truck carriages, I pictured them all together just to showcase the work.
One addendum on LNWR 6-wheelers that I have found whilst researching other matters: they were very much in evidence in the Newark Brake Trials of 1875, when the LNWR's contribution was composed entirely of them according to Ahrons at p. 230.
A new passenger vehicle: a very early makeshift passenger wagon, based on a coal wagon. This is, effectively, a bulk hopper in which passengers are allowed to ride. Vehicles like these were used on the early days of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. It has room for 9 passengers in very little comfort but at least with a good view.
.dat file here (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/wagon-passenger.dat).
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/passenger-wagon.png)
Another new set of carriages: this time, MR and LNWR 4-wheelers from the 1860s (1 .dat file with two liveries defined for Experimental).
Here are the graphics for the LNWR version (the MR version is on Github)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/4wheel-1860s-lnwr.png)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/4wheel-1860s-brake-front-lnwr.png)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/4wheel-1860s-brake-rear-lnwr.png)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/4wheel-1860s-mail-lnwr.png)
.dat file here (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/4-wheel-1860s.dat).
Translation texts:
4-wheel-1860s
4 wheel compartment carriage
4-wheel-1860s-brake-front
4 wheel Brake cariage
4-wheel-1860s-brake-rear
4 wheel Brake cariage
4-wheel-1860s-mail
4 wheel mail cariage
4-wheel-1860s-tpo
4 wheel travelling post office
I have now been working on the 1870s four wheelers, and have produced suburban versions (five compartment types) in LNWR and MR liveries. Some examples are pictured below:
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-4wheel-suburban-brake-rear.png)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-4wheel-suburban.png)
However, I suspect that these are of limited use for Standard, as the only difference between these and the other versions that Standard can understand is capacity, which, without the balancing factor present in Experimental of lower comfort, makes the other four compartment vehicles redundant. One option might be to use these instead of the previous vehicles in Standard (as that would provide an improvement on the 1860s vehicles, which are smaller and ligher, and thus take less space and pulling power, for the same capacity), but it would be rather a shame not to use the original graphics in Standard.
Meanwhile, in Experimental, I have produced fitted and unfitted versions of the 1870s four wheelers, with the option to upgrade from the unfitted to the fitted version, the latter of which is available in 1876. It has a lower brake force than the default for its weight to simulate the relatively primitive early braking systems, such as the Clark & Webb chain brake, often fitted to these early vehicles. The 6 wheelers and later will have their default brake force (which is roughly equivalent to vacuum operated clasp brakes).
I have implemented on the Experimental branch an overhaul of the 6-wheel carriages (particularly Midland and Great Northern). There are no substantial new carriages, but a general re-working of existing vehicles. There are some new graphics, however. I am not sure whether there is any interest in adapting these for Standard, but here are some samples of the new graphics:
GNR 6-wheel brake third
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/gnr-6wheel-brake-third-front.png)
GNR 6 wheel corridor lavatory
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/gnr-6wheel-cor-lav.png)
GNR 6 wheel third
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/gnr-6wheel-third.png)
MR 6 wheel lavatory
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-6wheel-lav.png)
MR 6 wheel non-lavatory
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-6wheel-non-lav.png)
These are all on Github with their respective .dat files. If there is interest in adapting these for Standard, I can assist in pointing to exact files if necessary.
Jamepetts have you be update this Adresse https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain too?
Yes, indeed, all these changes have been pushed to my Github repository.
Thank you.
Jammespetts
I have finished some further carriages: 1870s and 1880s bogie carriages from the Midland, including the earliest standard gauge bogie carriages in the UK and some twelve wheeler bogie carriages. There are versions with and without lavatories; the earlier carriages are clerestories, and the later carriages arc roof vehicles (which are a little cheaper to build and run than the clerestories).
All of the .dat and .png files are available on Github (https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/tree/master/trains) - unless specially requested, I shall not link to all of them individually here, but instead post some samples.
1874 clerestory in pre-1883 dark livery
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-third-dark.png)
1874 clerestory brake, with lavatory (which is an upgrade available from 1887), in the later crimson lake livery
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-brake-lav-front.png)
1875/6 clerestory 12-wheeler brake in pre-1883 livery
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-brake-dark-rear.png)
1879 arc roof brake in post-1883 crimson lake livery
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-brake-rear.png)
1879 arc roof 12-wheeler with lavatory
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/mr-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-third-lav.png)
The relevant translation texts are below:
MR-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-third
Midland eight wheel bogie seven compartment carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-third-lav
Midland eight wheel bogie six compartment lavatory carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-brake-front
Midland eight wheel bogie five compartment brake carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-brake-rear
Midland eight wheel bogie five compartment brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-brake-lav-front
Midland eight wheel bogie four compartment lavatory brake carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-arc-roof-brake-lav-rear
Midland eight wheel bogie four compartment lavatory brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-third
Midland eight wheel bogie seven compartment clerestory carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-third-lav
Midland eight wheel bogie seven compartment clerestory lavatory carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-brake-front
Midland eight wheel bogie five compartment clerestory brake carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-brake-rear
Midland eight wheel bogie five compartment clerestory brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-brake-lav-front
Midland eight wheel bogie four compartment clerestory lavatory brake carriage
MR-clayton-8wheel-clerestory-brake-lav-rear
Midland eight wheel bogie four compartment clerestory lavatory brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-third
Midland twelve wheel bogie eight compartment clerestory carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-third-lav
Midland twelve wheel bogie seven compartment clerestory lavatory carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-brake-front
Midland twelve wheel bogie six compartment clerestory brake carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-brake-rear
Midland twelve wheel bogie six compartment clerestory brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-brake-lav-front
Midland twelve wheel bogie five compartment clerestory lavatory brake carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-clerestory-brake-lav-rear
Midland twelve wheel bogie five compartment clerestory lavatory brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-third
Midland twelve wheel bogie eight compartment carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-third-lav
Midland twelve wheel bogie seven compartment lavatory carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-brake-front
Midland twelve wheel bogie six compartment brake carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-brake-rear
Midland twelve wheel bogie six compartment brake carriage (rear)
MR-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-brake-lav-front
Midland twelve wheel bogie five compartment lavatory brake carriage
MR-clayton-12wheel-arc-roof-brake-lav-rear
Midland twelve wheel bogie five compartment lavatory brake carriage (rear)
Incidentally, some numerical information about 1870s carriages that some might find interesting (these are for third class, non-brake-ended carriages):
4-wheeler (suburban)
Capacity: 50 passengers
Weight: 9t
Comfort: 55
Weight per passenger: 0.163t
4-wheeler (long distance)
Capacity: 40 passengers
Weight: 9t
Comfort: 62
Weight per passenger: 0.225t
6-wheeler (non-lavatory)
Capacity: 50 passengers
Weight: 13t
Comfort: 73
Weight per passenger: 0.26t
6-wheeler (lavatory)
Capacity: 38 passengers
Weight: 13t
Comfort: 79
Weight per passenger: 0.342t
8-wheel bogie (non-lavatory)
Capacity: 70 passengers
Weight: 19t
Comfort: 75
Weight per passenger: 0.271t
8-wheel bogie (lavatory)
Capacity: 58 passengers
Weight: 19t
Comfort: 81
Weight per passenger: 0.328t
12 wheel bogie (non-lavatory)
Capacity: 80 passengers
Weight: 24t
Comfort: 77
Weight per passenger: 0.3t
12 wheel bogie (lavatory)
Capacity: 68 passengers
Weight: 24t
Comfort: 83
Weight per passenger: 0.353t
It will thus readily be observed why Clayton decided to equip most of his trains, save for a few of the very best expresses, with the 6-wheel carriage rather than the 8- or 12-wheel bogie carriage in an era where steam locomotive power was at far more of a premium than it was when bogie corridor carriages became the norm.
Edit: Finally, I have discovered some evidence of a Midland 6-wheeler clerestory:
(http://www.tathamhistory.org.uk/resources/railway/train-mr-passenger.jpg)
This was turned up at this (http://www.tathamhistory.org.uk/resources/railway/4-locos-rollingstock.php) website. It appears to show a 6-wheel clerestory brake/mail van at the head of a train of bogie clerestories in the first decade of the 20th century. That suggests that, when clerestories were reintroduced in 1896, the pattern was extended to brake/mail vans, too, but that they remained on six-wheel chassis, presumably in order to keep the weight down in vehicles where ride quality was not important.
Edit 2: Incidentally, during my work researching the above statistics, it emerged that the Vintage Carriage Trust's weight for the Midland 6-wheeler must be wrong, as it produced a higher weight per passenger than the bogie carriages! Ahrons's chapter on the performance of locomotives in the 1870s period suggests that a 150t train would consist of about 12 six wheelers, giving a weight of 12.5t each. I have therefore changed the Midland 6 wheelers to 13t, and, when I update the LNWR 6-wheelers, I shall give them a weight of 12t (to reflect their smaller size/lower comfort).
A snippet of new research on capacity: Jenkinson at p. 49 records thus,
"At the turn of the [twentieth] century, vertically sided coaches were normal, but, for structure gauge reasons, were generally confined to a maximum of 8ft 6in wide (8 feet being a particularly common figure). Virtually all had turned-under lower bodyside panels, but the true clipper shape was largely a twentieth-century feature. It was found that by increaseing the wasit width to a full 9 feet over the panels that an extra seat per side could often be incorporated and the slight reduction of width at the roof made little or no difference in this respect".
So it seems that the advent of six-a-side seating in third class was around the early 20th century when the "clipper" shaped railway carriage (with the middle part wider than either the top or lower panels, making the most of the width) was invented. That might well explain the somewhat inconsistent capacity information that I have so far found.
Some work on LNWR 6 wheel carriages. The current examples in the pakset are based on the shape of the Great Northern 6 wheelers, which is not correct: the LNWR 6-wheelers were much more similar to the 4-wheelers (and only 2' longer). Research for this topic has been assisted by "London & North Western Railway thirty foot one inch carriages" by Philip A. Millard (published by the LNWR Society). The 30'1" carriages were introduced in the 1880s, although very similar 30' and 32' carriages had been built from the middle of the 1870s (the construction was quite different, but, from what little I can make out of them, they were of fairly similar appearance, and there do not appear to have been significant economically relevant differences between the batches). Many of them were converted between 1895 and 1899 to accommodate a lavatory in much the same manner as the Midland carriages - by replacing the middle compartment with a pair of lavatories, allowing lavatory access to only half the passengers in the carriage.
Here are the graphics: first, the brake third (note the typical LNWR arrangement of having a centre brake compartment):
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-6wheel-brake-third.png)
secondly, the full brake:
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-6wheel-full-brake.png)
thirdly, the four compartment lavatory carriage;
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-6wheel-lav.png)
fourthly, the mail carriage;
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-6wheel-mail.png)
fifthly, the non-lavatory 5 compartment carriage (this was the most common single type of carriage ever built in the British Isles);
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-6wheel-non-lav.png)
and finally, the parcel sorting van;
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-6wheel-parcel-sorting-van.png).
The .dat files are as follows: brake third (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-6wheel-brake-third.dat); mail (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-6wheel-mail.dat); lavatory and non-lavatory thirds (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-6wheel-third.dat); and full brake (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-6wheel-guard.dat).
The translation texts are as follows:
LNWR-6Wheel-non-lav
LNWR six wheel five compartment carriage
LNWR-6Wheel-lav
LNWR six wheel four compartment lavatory carriage
LNWR-6Wheel-Guard
LNWR six wheel brake/mail carriage
LNWR-6Wheel-brake-third
LNWR 6 wheel three compartment brake carriage
Now for some early corridor stock - the LNWR carriages for the 2.00 p.m. "Corridor" train from London Euston to Glasgow introduced from 1893. Outwardly, these were very similar to the 42ft radials (they were also 42ft and retained arc rooves), but they were mounted on bogies, and thus rode better. Further, the compartments were more generous in size and appointment, and all compartments had access to lavatories by virtue of the corridors, so comfort was much higher.
Also included in this set is a slightly later 45ft full brake from 1895, and a 12 wheel dining twin set from 1893, with the famous LNWR domed clerestory roof and semi-open end vestibules that gave these vehicles a distinctly American appearance.
For Experimental, these vehicles come in two liveries (as with the radials and 6 wheelers): original LNWR and LMS.
Here are the graphics:
42ft corridor carriage
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-42ft-cor.png)
42ft corridor brake ended carriage
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-42ft-cor-brake-rear.png)
LMS version
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-42ft-cor-brake-rear-lms.png)
Mail carriage
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-42ft-cor-mail.png)
TPO
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-42ft-cor-tpo.png)
45ft full brake
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-45ft-cor-full-brake.png)
Diner twin
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-50ft-6in-diner-twin-kitchen.png)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-50ft-6in-diner-twin-saloon.png)
.dat files are as follows: 42ft corridors (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-42ft-cor.dat); 45ft full brake (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-45ft-full-brake.dat); and dining twin set (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-dining-twin.dat).
English translations are as follows:
NWR-50ft-6in-diner-twin-kitchen
LNWR corridor dining car twin set (kitchen)
LNWR-50ft-6in-diner-twin-saloon
LNWR corridor dining car twin set (saloon)
LNWR-45ft-cor-full-brake
LNWR corridor full brake
LNWR-42ft-cor
LNWR corridor carriage (42ft)
LNWR-42ft-cor-brake-front
LNWR corridor brake carriage (42ft)
LNWR-42ft-cor-brake-rear
LNWR corridor brake carriage (42ft) (rear)
LNWR-42ft-cor-mail
LNWR corridor mail carriage
LNWR-42ft-cor-tpo
LNWR corridor TPO
Here are the 50ft versions of the LNWR arc roof corridor carriages, produced from 1897 until 1893. Only passenger types were produced: the non-passenger types continued to be produced in 42ft length.
50ft Corridor
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-50ft-cor.png)
50ft Brake
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-50ft-cor-brake.png)
The .dat file is here (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-50ft-cor.dat).
Translation texts are as follows:
LNWR-50ft-cor
LNWR corridor carriage (50ft)
LNWR-50ft-cor-brake
LNWR corridor brake carriage (50ft)
Here is the famous LNWR 60ft 6in dining car from the turn of the last century - similar to the previous dining twin pair, but longer and in singular form. These were built from 1896 to 1905.
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-60ft-6in-diner.png)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-60ft-6in-diner-lms.png)
The .dat file is here (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-60ft-6in-diner.dat). Translation text:
LNWR-60ft-6in-diner
LNWR dining car
Here are the final corridor/long distance carriages of the LNWR era - the elegant elliptical roof stock of 1907 onwards.
57ft corridor third
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-57ft-cor.png)
The same in early BR livery
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-57ft-cor-br.png)
Passenger brake
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-57ft-cor-brake-front.png)
Tea car (LMS livery)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-57ft-cor-tea-car-lms.png)
TPO
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-57ft-cor-tpo.png)
Diner (BR livery)
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-60ft-6in-diner-non-clerestory-br.png)
50ft mail
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-50ft-mail.png)
50ft full brake
(https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/raw/master/trains/images/lnwr-50ft-full-brake.png)
.dat files are as follows: diner (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-60ft-6in-diner-non-clerestory.dat); full brake and mail (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-50ft-full-brake.dat); and others (https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/lnwr-57ft-cor.dat).
Translation texts:
LNWR-60ft-6in-diner-non-clerestory
LNWR twelve wheel dining car
LNWR-57ft-cor
LNWR corridor carriage (57ft)
LNWR-57ft-cor-brake-front
LNWR corridor brake carriage (57ft)
LNWR-57ft-cor-brake-rear
LNWR corridor brake carriage (57ft) (rear)
LNWR-57ft-cor-tpo
LNWR corridor TPO (57ft)
LNWR-57ft-cor-tea-car
LNWR corridor tea car
LNWR-50ft-cor-full-brake
LNWR corridor full brake (50ft)
LNWR-50ft-cor-mail
LNWR corridor mail carriage (50ft)
These look wonderful, James! :)
Thank you!
Cool Jamespetts
Great Work.
Thank you.
Wow, lots of coaches. Just wondering, for standard, are there any that can be omitted? I'm a little concerned about a confusing surfeit of lots of rolling stock (without the variances in comfort), e.g. lavatory, non-lavatory, corridor etc, or suburban vs long distance. Also, how should these new LNWR coaches (for example) relate to the existing catch-all clerestory stock?
Hmm, this is a complicated question! As you will see from Github, there are more carriages on there that I have not yet got around to putting on this thread. The additional carriages are intended to fill in gaps in the timeline of Pak128.Britain-Ex, and the variety is indeed designed to suit the features of Experimental. I'm not really sure how Standard balances with vehicles, especially unpowered vehicles, so it's rather hard to tell what would be a good policy.
A few thoughts that might help, however, to form a germ of an idea. Firstly, a number of the new items are time separated rather than role separated. For example, the LNWR 32ft radial six wheelers, LNWR radial carriages, the LNWR 42ft bogie corridor carriages, the LNWR 50ft corridor carriages and the LNWR 57ft corridor carriages all mark a smooth transition of long distance stock from the 1880s to the beginning of the 1920s. All of those carriages have the same role - long distance express work - and all are of the same company, the LNWR. Standard has/had just the (one set of) LNWR six wheelers and no later LNWR carriages until my 42ft 8 wheel radial carriages were added a few months ago. Where things are separate in time, there is less harm in having lots of them, as only one set is exposed to the player at any one time. (As to the clerestories - the LNWR never had any of those apart from dining cars - of which there is not much use in Standard - so these do not fit into the LNWR's history; for reference, the LNWR went from arc roof carriages, through a short spell of cove roof types i n the 1900s (which I have omitted for simplicity) to the modern elliptical roof design, the cove roof and later types all having the wider body that enabled an extra passenger's width per row of seats than earlier carriages).
Where there may be less use for Standard carriages are the suburban types and lavatory upgrades of existing carriages, as well as the lavatory/non-lavatory distinction. Which to adopt is very difficult to judge (the anomalies created by having to make that sort of decision is one of the reasons for Experimental in the first place), but being consistent in what sort of things to leave out is probably a good (if incomplete) guide as to how to go about it. It gets more complicated, however, if one considers the needs/desires of sandbox players who are not concerned for the vehicles to have economic significance, but wish for their trains to look historically accurate. I do not know to what extent, if at all, you want the Standard version of the pakset to cater for this audience, but I note that some dining cars seem to have been produced for Standard which seem to me to fall into this category.
I hope that this goes some way towards helping, at least!
Generally for standard I would suggest plain, brake and restaurant versions only. At least one short, medium and long distance carriage type should be available throughout the timeline, though I'm not convinced that we need to have a range from each railway company (especially pre grouping!).
I Live change in Trains.
Thanks for the feedback so far. I'll try and separate this into a few different issues:
1) At present we have (for passengers) "normal", brake and restaurants for most stock. The need for restaurants is debateable - they have no function in standard and have a lower capacity per unit length than a normal carriage. I quite like the idea of ending on a brake as we currently have it, so that will probably stay. Should we be worried about dining cars though? Existing ones could be removed and normal versions used instead using compat.tab.
2) Long/medium/short distance - how would these be distinguished? If by capacity alone, then it would make sense to always choose the highest capacity. Suburbans could be speed-restricted however? Since faster locos have much higher maintenance costs (due to speed bonus) that would necessitate faster rolling stock for these locos. Thoughts?
3) Lavatory/non-lavatory/corridor etc. - we can choose fairly arbitrarily. I wouldn't see the need for multiple versions (except sandbox players particularly interested in this thing, who could always download the graphics from experimental anyway).
4) Liveries - I would disagree with kierongreen here, mainly because I like the carriages to "look right" with the loco for a particular train. For me that means having crimson coaches with MR locos and choc/cream ones with LNWR, hence the discinction of my catch-all clerestories by livery rather than company. I'm not fussed by the detail in point 3 however - that's a micromanagement level I'm not into. I'd be interested in what other players felt though.
5) Timeline - as long as there isn't too much overlap between the different coaches, I don't see such a problem with having lots of different types of carriage in a continuous timeline - depot clutter is always a problem with timeline on and the pak is not intended for playing with timeline off anyway.
Very happy to discuss each of these points (and more) if people have other views.
This is not straightforward as many distinctions don't work in Standard. As to long distance, intermediate distance and suburban: generally, before the 1930s and after about the 1900s at least, long distance carriages tended to be corridor carriages, intermediate distance were lavatory non-corridor and suburban carriages were non-lavatory non-corridor. Earlier, there were no corridor carriages and the long distance carriages were also lavatory non-corridor. Before the 1880s, there were no lavatories at all, and before the 1860s, there was no distinction at all between different distances. After the 1930s, the lavatory non-corridor slowly disappeared, to be replaced on intermediate distance services by corridor carriages. After the 1955 modernisation plan, multiple units became prevalent for all but long distance services, but we have those covered in any case. You'll have to decide what you want to represent. The issue of long distance, intermediate distance and suburban therefore overlaps completely with the issue about lavatory, corridor and non-corridor stock. The suggestion of having suburban/intermediate stock have a lower speed limit for Standard is not a bad idea - perhaps adding a comment to the .dat file to explain that it's not a realistic speed limit, but some Standard specific speed bonus balancing. That still won't do much for cascading, but that's not practical in Standard anyway given the lack of a replacer.
It might be best to be rid of the restaurants in Standard, as they have no function and might confuse players. You could perhaps provide a pak with the Standard versions of all the extraneous vehicles from Experimental that have no economic function in Standard as an addon for people who care about these things.
QuoteI like the carriages to "look right" with the loco for a particular train.
I agree but then we have to also look at how many engine types there are as well. Is it really necessary to have GWR, LNWR, MR, GNR and SR versions of every engine type in every era with every carriage type also? When I started the pak I tried to be selective in picking vehicles that were well known from various companies - hence in the 1930s you got GWR autocoaches, SR EMUs and LMS/LNER long distance carriages - with the appropriate engines. Problem is there's always the temptation to think it'd be nice to have this engine or carriage in....
QuoteYou could perhaps provide a pak with the Standard versions of all the extraneous vehicles from Experimental that have no economic function
I'd go one step further and say a pak for just the restaurant carriages. Other paks could be made available for variations on liveries, a wider variety of vehicles and so on. That way people can be more selective about what they add.
QuoteSuburbans could be speed-restricted however?
Indeed - from the beginning the general idea was suburban would have high acceleration, low top speed, long distance the other way round, reflecting real life.
QuoteThat still won't do much for cascading, but that's not practical in Standard anyway given the lack of a replacer.
Oh it can still be done, and is quite fun, all the more so for being a bit fiddly :)
Hmm, I'm beginning to think it's time to split off a core vehicle set from various add-ons - I've been thinking about this for a while. At present I think only trains would be affected by this; there aren't too many buses/trucks and air and boat are not complete yet. I'll start a new thread about this and we can continue discussion there.
Another question - which of your new carriages is intended to replace the "1847" LNWR carriages? I can't find any with an intro date that early.
Ahh, this gets slightly complicated. My research indicates that the differences in carriages styles from the early 1830s right until the 1850s differed very little, and that they were also the same size, so, instead of having new carriages in the 1840s, I have just given new liveries to the 1830s LMR carriages, which are now also available in LNWR and MR liveries, and put in new carriages in the 1850s. Those 1850s carriages I had originally built to replace the 1847 carriages, so you can use those if you'd prefer.
Thanks - that's helpful. Did you get my email with all the other questions and spreadsheet?
And another point (just for reference if necessary) - there seems to be a gap in MR carriages between 1896 and 1913 (and 1913 onwards for corridor stock?) - is this me missing it, deliberate, or just not filled in yet?
Working on it...
And another question - what is the difference between your LNWR 6 wheel radials and the existing 6 wheelers? Should I replace the existing ones?
The old graphics for the LNWR 6 wheel carriages appear to be based on the shape of the GNR six wheelers, and don't look anything like carriages actually used by the LNWR. They have been replaced in the Experimental version with two different types of 6 wheel carriages - the 32ft radial types from the 1870s and the 30ft 1in non-radial types from the 1880s (which type of carriage was the most numerous type ever built by any British railway ever). The earlier types were at the time the railway's staple long distance stock, but, by the 1880s, the 8 wheel radials had taken that role, so the shorter non-radial 6 wheelers were built for lesser trains, albeit often secondary long distance expresses (it was to be some years before such types were confined to suburban/branch line work). It should be noted that this in itself represents a substantial simplification of the picture, with other carriages of 30'0", 33' and other such things also being built.
I have estimated for the purposes of Experimental that the earlier type was both more comfortable and more expensive than the simpler fixed chassis type. In Standard, it being later and less expensive to build/run might be sufficient differentiation from the earlier stock.
I hope that this helps!
Thanks. I am currently working through a complete revamp of the standard set rolling stock to simplify appearance in the depot. I'm removing a few of the generic carriages which you have done replacements for in the process.
Some work on LBSCR carriages, replacing some of the existing types:
Re-scaled 4 wheel carriages
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-4wheel-first.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-4wheel-second.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-4wheel-brake-rear.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-4wheel-brake-front.png)
6-wheel carriages (new)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-6wheel-brake-front.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-6wheel-brake-rear.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-6wheel-guard.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-6wheel-mail.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-6wheel-third.png)
48ft lavatory carriages
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-non-cor-lav-48ft-brake-front.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-non-cor-lav-48ft-brake-rear.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-non-cor-lav-48ft.png)
48ft suburban carriages
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-sub-bogie-48ft-brake-front.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-sub-bogie-48ft-brake-rear.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-sub-bogie-48ft.png)
54ft suburban carriages
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-sub-bogie-54ft-brake-rear-umber.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-sub-bogie-54ft-brake-front-umber.png)
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-sub-bogie-54ft-umber.png)
Push-pull carriage
(https://raw.github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/master/trains/images/lbscr-balloon-push-pull.png)
As usual, the .dat files and translation texts are on Github.
Thanks - not had chance to include these yet but I'll sort that out in a few weeks...
Dat files don't appear to be all on github?
Hmm, odd. Which ones are you missing?
Found them now. I've noticed the mail capacities are huge (several hundred per carriage) - unless you've rewritten the mail generation code this is probably not desirable - I've been working on the assumption that mail capacity should be similar to passenger capacity given the relative generation rates of units of passengers and mail in game.
Ahh, yes, I have indeed changed the mail generation code in Experimental, and also changed mail from being measured in "bags" to "bundles", each weighing 1/10th as much and producing 1/10th of the revenue of the former "bags" of mail, so the capacities are increased by 10 to compensate. You can either implement this change in Standard, or adapt the Experimental capacities by dividing by 10.
That makes sense of it. Presumably it would require a code change in standard too so I will just keep the original behaviour by /10. I'm considering a major rebalancing exercise in the next few months anyway, so things may change...
Actually, implementing this would not require a code change in Standard: if anything, it would balance better with Standard. The problem currently is that there is far too much mail generated per passenger: an entire bag of mail for every three passengers(!). In Experimental, I have done two things to change this: (1) change the code to reduce the ratio of units of mail to units of passengers considerably; and (2) change the value of units of mail to make the amount of mail that they represent ten times smaller. Each of these things alone is a worthwhile step, although they are even better in combination. The result of implementing this in Standard, however, will be that there will be a tenth of a bag of mail generated for every three passengers, rather than a whole bag of mail, which, while still excessive, is not as bad as before.
So you are suggesting that, although the amount of mail generated by standard (without a code change) would be the same (in terms of mail quanta in the game) but each quantum would be worth 1/10 and therefore you would need approx 1/10 the number of convoys to carry the same amount of mail generated? Worth considering given the amount of mail generated in the forthcoming rebalance.
Indeed.
I have been working lately on (finally) finishing the work on the Midland carriages that I had started over a year ago. These new carriages represent the period from 1896 until the end of the Midland's independent existence in 1923, and incorporate the famous "clerestory" carriages of the late 1890s and early 1900s. All the work is on my Github (https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain) repository for Experimental, which has all the .dat files and .pngs. I thought that it would be better, instead of posting each graphic file to this thread, given that they are already on Github, to post some images of the new carriages in action.
Firstly, a selection of some of the earlier non-corridor clerestory carriages behind a 2203 Class 4-4-0, including lavatory carriages, dining carriages (with kitchen car) and brake carriages:
(http://www.bridgewater-brunel.me.uk/screenshots/mr-new-carriages-1.png)
Secondly, a mail train with clerestory brake carriages (bogie brake at the front and 6 wheel brake at the rear), mail carriages and TPO carriages (in the centre), all behind a 2871 Class "Belpiere" 4-4-0:
(http://www.bridgewater-brunel.me.uk/screenshots/mr-new-carriages-2.png)
Thirdly, some turn of the century corridor clerestories, again behind a 2203 Class:
(http://www.bridgewater-brunel.me.uk/screenshots/mr-new-carriages-3.png)
Fourthly, a train of close-coupled arc roof suburban carriages, behind a 2000 Class 0-6-4 "Flatiron" class:
(http://www.bridgewater-brunel.me.uk/screenshots/mr-new-carriages-4.png)
Finally, a train of the last Midland design of carriages, the modern elliptical roof corridor carriages, including dining car and a full brake, hauled by the 1000 class compound 4-4-0:
(http://www.bridgewater-brunel.me.uk/screenshots/mr-new-carriages-5.png)
Very nice :)
Thank you!
Very nice job!
I wonder if you could clean up the top edge of these cars a touch:
(http://www.bridgewater-brunel.me.uk/screenshots/mr-new-carriages-5.png)
It looks like one of the pixels could get shifted over to the right and down to make the edge look less "jagged".
That is just a scaling artefact present because the image was captured at an intermediate zoom level. At a 1:1 zoom level, or a 2:1 zoom level (as for all the other pictures), these artefacts are not present.
Gotcha... didn't notice it wasn't a 1:1 zoom level. :)