News:

Simutrans Chat Room
Where cool people of Simutrans can meet up.

Tracks replacement project for pak 128

Started by Fabio, February 14, 2009, 03:24:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

uktrain

Or you can dispatch it form pak.Britian-->350km/h

Max Cheng

There is a Japanese pak set of "double-track" tunnel with 450km/h of maximum speed. I use it a lot in my save.

Václav

More than one year passed and I returned to work on new tracks for pak128 (may it be that it will be used only in pak128.CS). Currently you can test this prototype of track for speed 280 km/h.

Curves are not used - but there are used eight new tiles - as they are on this linked picture from the left side:


... but I have not experience with these tiles yet.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní


Václav

If you think my last work, prototype of track for speed 280 km/h, than you have a bit strange scale of beautifulness - because it is a really awful work - and unfinished.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

Fabio

Quote from: VaclavMacurek on August 17, 2011, 02:44:45 PM
I began creation of new tracks - at first I prepared one for speed 280 km/h - but it is not finished - because it needs better shading of bed; I think that next would be track for speed 400 km/h - without classical sleepers. Other tracks should have shorter sleepers (current size was chosen for test).
I don't know what software do you use, but I am ready to share my work with you - to shift work on those tracks ahead.

I have a different speed plan:
60 - 80 - 120 - 160 - 240 - 320 - 400 km/h

Tracks are basically ready for (almost) all these speeds (and they are for a long time)

I got somewhat stuck with bridges and tunnels.

A good idea, if you feel like sharing the work, is to keep the track (ballast+sleepers+track) the same for a given speed and as similar as possible to the others.
e.g. mine are:
60 KM/H: sand ballast (with spots of grass), wooden sleepers, tracks with joints
80 KM/H: sand ballast, wooden sleepers, seamless tracks
120 KM/H: crushed rock ballast (brownish), wooden sleepers, seamless tracks
160 KM/H: crushed rock ballast (brownish), concrete sleepers, seamless tracks
240 KM/H: gravel ballast, concrete sleepers, seamless tracks
320 KM/H: gravel ballast, concrete sleepers, seamless tracks, all tile covered with gravel
400 KM/H: gravel ballast, concrete sleepers, seamless steel tracks (greyish), all tile covered with gravel

Details could still change, but the main goal is an overall consistency.

Timeline will be trickier:

60 KM/H
first tracks ever laid (1850+)
a general purpose track at first, which will remain goods only and be eventually retired circa 1950

80 KM/H
available from 1875
a general purpose track at first, will become goods only and be eventually retired circa 1975-2000

120 KM/H
available from 1900
a high speed track at first, will be less important in later eras and become goods only from 1975-2000

160 KM/H
available from 1925
a high speed track at first, will become general purpose track
it's also the most suitable tracks for stations, so it will probably have a version with the tile fully covered in crushed rock for rail yards

240 KM/H
available from 1950
highspeed mostly-passenger tracks

320 KM/H
available from 1975
highspeed passenger-only tracks
might be retired after 400 km/h tracks are introduced

400 KM/H
available from 2000
highspeed passenger-only tracks

As the eras change (25 years periods), tracks will change their scope. Sume will survive, other retired.
All infrastructure (bridges+elevated and tunnels) need to change according to the "look&feel" of the tracks in that era.

60 KM/H
wooden trestle bridge
no tunnel

80 KM/H
iron trestle bridge
tunnel portan hewn in rocks

120 KM/H
brick or rock arch viaduct 1900-1950
truss bridge 1950+
brick tunnel portal 1900-1950
concrete tunnel portal 1950+

160 KM/H
large (maybe even 1 tile large) brick arch viaduct 1925-1950
large concrete arch viaduct 1950+
(both also elevated)
wider brick tunnel portal 1925-1950
wider concrete tunnel portal 1950+

240 KM/H
pillars supported modern concrete viaduct 1950+
(also elevated)
wider concrete tunnel portal (roughly a circle) 1950+

320 KM/H
modern viaduct (also elevated)
"motorway-like" tunnel portal
(all 1 tile wide)

400 KM/H
modern viaduct (also elevated)
"motorway-like" tunnel portal
(all 1 tile wide)

I use GIMP for all my graphics, I can import multilayer XCFs and PNGs.
I use a standard set of textures, ESPECIALLY FOR BRICKWORK

sdog

Fabio, since those tracks have been finished for such a long time, perhaps you should do a partial release, of the tracks and some of the finished tunnels/bridges. The old bridges can work as placeholders in the meantime. This would make sure it doesn't slip out of memory of others, who in turn would perhaps do the same work again.

Václav

Quote from: fabio on August 17, 2011, 03:36:04 PM
I have a different speed plan:
60 - 80 - 120 - 160 - 240 - 320 - 400 km/h
May it be - I began preparing my tracks in accordance with original set.

Quote
A good idea, if you feel like sharing the work, is to keep the track (ballast+sleepers+track) the same for a given speed and as similar as possible to the others.
It would be good if you would download prototype (link is few posts above) of my track, see it and say if it is usable by yourself.

Quote
60 KM/H
first tracks ever laid (1850+)
a general purpose track at first, which will remain goods only and be eventually retired circa 1950

80 KM/H
available from 1875
a general purpose track at first, will become goods only and be eventually retired circa 1975-2000
It is not good if in menu are too many tracks ... but still somewhere are tracks built only for speed about 80 km/h

Quote
120 KM/H
available from 1900
a high speed track at first, will be less important in later eras and become goods only from 1975-2000

160 KM/H
available from 1925
It seems too high to me for this age - I would like to suggesting shifting of these two tracks by one age (those 25 years).
Only few trains could go by this speed - but technically they went only about 120 and 130 km/h.

Quote
240 KM/H
available from 1950
I am sorry for a little amount of being upset and eagerness for knowledge - but could you tell me which trains could go this speed? If I know well, the first trains that could go this speed appeared at least ten (or more) years later

Quote
320 KM/H
available from 1975
highspeed passenger-only tracks
might be retired after 400 km/h tracks are introduced

Quote
400 KM/H
available from 2000
highspeed passenger-only tracks
What train can go this speed? (I know that in game there are few trains but ...)

Quote
As the eras change (25 years periods), tracks will change their scope. Sume will survive, other retired.
Yes, it is very good idea - to let tracks change as time goes. But most important it is with tunnels.

Quote
I use GIMP for all my graphics, I can import multilayer XCFs and PNGs.
Yes. Thanks. It means I can export my track per parts - for easier improves.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

Fabio

Quote from: sdog on August 18, 2011, 12:12:47 AM
Fabio, since those tracks have been finished for such a long time, perhaps you should do a partial release, of the tracks and some of the finished tunnels/bridges. The old bridges can work as placeholders in the meantime. This would make sure it doesn't slip out of memory of others, who in turn would perhaps do the same work again.
This is very sensible. Perhaps I'm too ambitious and I want to release all the time a full set. I will see when I can access the sources (they are on a different PC) and release a test pak.

Quote from: VaclavMacurek on August 18, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
It is not good if in menu are too many tracks ... but still somewhere are tracks built only for speed about 80 km/h
This is well take care of:

There won't be more than 4 tracks (+bridge +tunnel +elevated) available at any given year. Pretty much as it happens with roads.

Quote from: VaclavMacurek on August 18, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
It seems too high to me for this age - I would like to suggesting shifting of these two tracks by one age (those 25 years).
...
Only few trains could go by this speed - but technically they went only about 120 and 130 km/h.
...
I am sorry for a little amount of being upset and eagerness for knowledge - but could you tell me which trains could go this speed? If I know well, the first trains that could go this speed appeared at least ten (or more) years later
...
What train can go this speed? (I know that in game there are few trains but ...)
Tracks are supposed to have a ceiling speed: if just a train can go this speed between the start of the era and the beginning of the next one, the tracks should be available for the era.
Of course these tracks will be cutting edge technology for the time, but it allows to design a network which can be fully exploited for the present era and for the next one (up to 25+25=50 years, a reasonable lifespan for a railways infrastructure) without being upgraded.
Also in Real Life tracks are often designed for a higher speed than what the rolling stock presently allows to.
Moreover, the 400 kph tracks will e.g. allow for trains for such speeds as 360 kph etc... which couldn't exploit their max speed on "slower" 320 kph tracks.

This is the number of trains for each given speed in any given era:

Note 1: 1925 means 1925-1949, 1950 means 1950-1974 and so on
Note 2: the numbers are rather old, from the old closed source pak128. Since many vehicles have been dropped since and other have been added, figures could eventually change, but this table gives the idea of the general trend.

Quote from: VaclavMacurek on August 18, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
Yes, it is very good idea - to let tracks change as time goes. But most important it is with tunnels.
Tracks will change purpose but preferably not the look.
Some bridges and tunnels will greatly change their appearance in time.
Both design and materials will change:
1850-1950: brick, stone, wooden and iron trestles
1950-2050: pre-stressed concrete, few steel truss

Quote from: VaclavMacurek on August 18, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
It would be good if you would download prototype (link is few posts above) of my track, see it and say if it is usable by yourself.
...
Yes. Thanks. It means I can export my track per parts - for easier improves.
By the way, which programs do you use?

Václav

Corel Draw 9. May it be that it is not perfect tool for painting of such graphics - but I am getting to be better. It can be seen on some addons I made. And finishing works are in GIMP (but I am not good in using of it).

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

sdog

Very well thought of timeline and speed combination Fabio. Certainly a great improvement to the present state in the pak.

Václav

I decided to publish sources for prototype of new track for speed 280 km/h.
There are used few new parts.

There are few night-lighting pixels - and I am sorry for them.

I hope that I will publish new version of graphics soon - and it would be in GIMP XCF file - and also as PNGs - in accordance what I wrote in one of previous posts.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

greenling

It the Tracks replacement project for pak128
beginning or planning time?
Opening hours 20:00 - 23:00
(In Night from friday on saturday and saturday on sunday it possibly that i be keep longer in Forum.)
I am The Assistant from Pakfilearcheologist!
Working on a big Problem!

PkK

#83
Quote from: fabio on August 17, 2011, 03:36:04 PM
400 KM/H: gravel ballast, concrete sleepers, seamless steel tracks (greyish), all tile covered with gravel

I would recommend to use a "Feste Fahrbahn" (don't know the Englisch term) in staed of gravel ballast here. "Feste Fahrbahn" i sused on many high-speed lines these days. Even the French that went with gravel ballast for a long time are now using it for some of their new high-speed lines (and other countried, like Germany have been using it for some time). A typical picture can be found here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Feste_Fahrbahn_FFB%C3%B6gl.jpg&filetimestamp=20050917170741

Philipp




Quote from: fabio on August 17, 2011, 03:36:04 PM
320 KM/H
modern viaduct (also elevated)
"motorway-like" tunnel portal
(all 1 tile wide)

400 KM/H
modern viaduct (also elevated)
"motorway-like" tunnel portal
(all 1 tile wide)

At such speeds, simple tunnel portals won't do (for single-track tunnels, which have a lower diameter than the double-track ones). You'll get a tunnel boom, like when firing a firearm, so the tunnel portal needs the equivalent of a suppressor.

This results in unusual-looking portals, like these:
http://www.eisenbahntunnel.at/bilder/tunnelportale/13002/wienerwald-west-2009-09-0835.jpg

Or, alternatively extra air outlets near the portal, like here:
http://www.tunnel-online.info/de/artikel/bildpopup_1097687.html?image=1
http://www.tunnel-online.info/de/artikel/bildpopup_1097687.html?image=3

Philipp





Mod note: please do not double-post. Edit your last comment instead.
~Fabio



Fabio

#84
Quote from: PkK on August 29, 2011, 10:26:17 AM
I would recommend to use a "Feste Fahrbahn" (don't know the Englisch term) in staed of gravel ballast here. "Feste Fahrbahn" i sused on many high-speed lines these days. Even the French that went with gravel ballast for a long time are now using it for some of their new high-speed lines (and other countried, like Germany have been using it for some time). A typical picture can be found here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Feste_Fahrbahn_FFB%C3%B6gl.jpg&filetimestamp=20050917170741

I'm not a specialist on the issue, but to me (and from the pic) it seems more like replacing the railroad ties (sleepers) instead of replacing the ballast itself. It looks like it's laid on gravel, anyway.
The idea is considered, thank you for suggesting.




Quote from: PkK on August 29, 2011, 10:26:17 AM
At such speeds, simple tunnel portals won't do (for single-track tunnels, which have a lower diameter than the double-track ones). You'll get a tunnel boom, like when firing a firearm, so the tunnel portal needs the equivalent of a suppressor.

This results in unusual-looking portals, like these:
http://www.eisenbahntunnel.at/bilder/tunnelportale/13002/wienerwald-west-2009-09-0835.jpg

Or, alternatively extra air outlets near the portal, like here:
http://www.tunnel-online.info/de/artikel/bildpopup_1097687.html?image=1
http://www.tunnel-online.info/de/artikel/bildpopup_1097687.html?image=3

Very interesting, and also very new to me. I know that today many long base tunnels are bored with two tubes. Also, the air shift of two trains meeting in a double track tunnel at these speeds can be disastrous.
I'll try to see how can a longer portal and some air flow outlets can be added to a single tile :)
Again, thank you very much for the ideas.

Isaac Eiland-Hall

Quote from: PkK on August 29, 2011, 10:26:17 AM
"Feste Fahrbahn" (don't know the Englisch term)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_tie#Ballastless_track

"Slab track" seems to be the term.

And @fabio - sounds like they consider it to be "ballastless" track, so the gravel is only used as a method of providing a roadbed, like gravel/stone under an automobile road. :shrug:

I learned some things this morning, though, so I'm happy either way. :D


PkK

Quote from: fabio on August 29, 2011, 10:37:04 AM
Very interesting, and also very new to me. I know that today many long base tunnels are bored with two tubes. Also, the air shift of two trains meeting in a double track tunnel at these speeds can be disastrous.
I'll try to see how can a longer portal and some air flow outlets can be added to a single tile :)
Again, thank you very much for the ideas.

The portal from the Wienerwald tunnel probably wouldn't be much longer than the current ones (everything except for the red part will be buried). Here's some more pictures from other angles:
http://www.mooser.net/ref_admin/Arge-Tunnel-Wienerwald.jpg
http://www.wienerzeitung.at/_em_daten/_cache/image/wzo/0xUmFuZG9tSVYwMTIzNDU2NzC9Ub7MvX5c8ol2kix+4swVFzwbO/s1GioJ5qyHwKL9V9a7UixabtFVWEOcNfs0QB7zwLeAlMk0NghIlMzsNMg=.jpg

Philipp

Václav

That tunnel is surely very interesting - but as I wrote somewhere else (ROADS REPLACEMENT PROJECT - about else shapes of tunnel), it is shape of tunnel for new ages. And its using in age in accordance with plan as is described above would be very strange. Ages before year 1990 need else shapes. And I don't think that it is so difficult to prepare more tunnels for one track - in comparison with preparing of tracks, themselves.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

missingpiece

Hello dear team !

Are you aware of an add-on or other type of modification which renders intersecting train tracks with straights instead of curves. With all due respect for the smart track re-forming that is happening, I just prefer to see straight tracks as in pak64. Particularly in situations like these....


Fabio

New tracks are being painted. Those won't have curved sections at all...

missingpiece

Oh.....?! Wow !  ;D That's awesome. Please excuse me posting about it. I searched this forum but didn't find any reference to that work going on.

Hmm,...could you point me to the work-in-progress ? I can perhaps try myself on one or the other tile myself ? Trying to follow the tutorials I've read....

Fabio

#91
I had finally managed to resume the work on tracks replacement for a few weeks till now.

As usual, I revised a bit my plan, mostly adding more tracks.  From 1940 on there will be 6 tracks (5 from 1930) with bridges, tunnel and elevated (for the upper levels) available all the time, with a progressive speed increase.

Basically, they are divided into 5 categories:


1) Slow freight: 60-80 km/h

2) Local service / fast freight: 100-120 km/h


3) Regular lines: 140-180 km/h


4) Express lines: 200-240 km/h


5) High Speed lines: 280-400 km/h

Here some tables.


Timeline:

TIME

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050
60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60









80











80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80
80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80











100



100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100








120














120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120
140







140

140

140

140

140

140

140








160









160

160

160

160

160

160

160






180
















180

180

180

180

180

180
200










200

200

200

200

200

200






240
















240

240

240

240

240

240
280













280

280

280

280





320














320

320

320

320

320

320

320

320
400

















400

400

400

400

400
n. tracks available

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

4

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6








Costs:



*
SPEED
WEIGHT
INTRO
RETIRE
COST
MAINT.
BRIDGE COST
BRIDGE MAINT.
ELEVATED COST
ELEVATED MAINT.
TUNNEL COST
TUNNEL MAINT.
1
60

120

1810

1960

30,00
0,75
440,00
11,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2
80

240

1950

2989

40,00
1,00
450,00
11,00
0,00
0,00
850,00
13,00
3
80

180

1840

1940

120,00
2,70
550,00
13,00
0,00
0,00
950,00
15,00
4
100

180

1870

1970

150,00
3,40
590,00
13,00
0,00
0,00
990,00
15,00
5
120

180

1980

2989

180,00
4,10
630,00
14,00
0,00
0,00
1000,00
16,00
6
140

120

1910

1970

280,00
5,60
750,00
16,00
750,00
16,00
1200,00
18,00
7
160

120

1930

1990

320,00
6,40
800,00
16,00
800,00
16,00
1200,00
18,00
8
180

120

2000

2989

360,00
7,20
850,00
17,00
850,00
17,00
1300,00
19,00
9
200

100

1940

1990

500,00
8,80
1000,00
19,00
1000,00
19,00
1400,00
21,00
10
240

100

2000

2989

600,00
11,00
1200,00
21,00
1200,00
21,00
1600,00
23,00
11
280

100

1970

2000

840,00
15,00
1500,00
25,00
1500,00
25,00
1900,00
27,00
12
320

100

1980

2989

960,00
17,00
1600,00
27,00
1600,00
27,00
2000,00
29,00
13
400

80

2010

2989

1200,00
21,00
1900,00
31,00
1900,00
31,00
2300,00
33,00


Estimated work statistics:


TRACK

BRIDGE

ELEVATED

TUNNEL

TOTAL
60

70%

5%



38%
80

70%

5%


5%

27%
80

70%

5%


5%

27%
100

90%

80%


5%

58%
120

90%

80%


5%

58%
140

90%

60%

40%

70%

65%
160

90%

40%

40%

40%

53%
180

90%

5%

5%

5%

26%
200

90%

5%

5%

70%

43%
240

90%

5%

5%

30%

33%
280

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%
320

90%

90%

90%

80%

88%
400

70%

90%

90%

70%

80%
TOTAL

84%

43%

46%

40%

53%




missingpiece

Oh, gosh... that's a plan alright !  :o It is still a hobby for you, is it ?  :P

Hm, with regards to graphical work, I would not dare approach anything else than regular tracks on flat ground. Seeing their WIP percentage being rather high, I do not guess my noob assistance would be of any good to you, or would it ?

Zeno

Oh my..! Those are great news! :)
Our rail system's been begging for a renewal for ages...

ӔO

I think it would be better to change
400km/h to 480km/h
My Sketchup open project sources
various projects rolled up: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Roll_up.rar

Colour safe chart:

Fabio

Is there ANY commercial service on conventional rail (no maglevs) going that fast?

Besides, there are no trains of that speed in pak128 (not yet at least). Seeing tracks with a max speed of 480 km/h wuld just mislead them.

If trains faster than 400 km/h are going to be painted anytime, we will either update the value, either add a new track type.

Zeno

AFAIK the highest commercial train in europe were the spanish Siemens Velaro trains, which were certified for running at 350 km/h. I think the newest french TGV (AGV) was certified 360 km/h, but not sure. I know that the chinese hst were really fast, but I can't say how much is "fast". Definetly, I'd say 400km/h is a good limit, unless we find a good reason to use a higher value.

ӔO

Well, they do last until 2989 and there are already speed record runs that go over 480km/h, so I don't think it would be entirely out of the realm of possibility to see a conventional train in service at 400km/h+ somewhere down the line. I'd guess 2050?
My Sketchup open project sources
various projects rolled up: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Roll_up.rar

Colour safe chart:

Fabio

You paint the train, I'll paint the track ;)

Deal?

ӔO

My Sketchup open project sources
various projects rolled up: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Roll_up.rar

Colour safe chart:

mEGa

#100
Quote from: Zeno on January 17, 2012, 03:43:49 PM
AFAIK the highest commercial train in europe were the spanish Siemens Velaro trains, which were certified for running at 350 km/h. I think the newest french TGV (AGV) was certified 360 km/h, but not sure. I know that the chinese hst were really fast, but I can't say how much is "fast". Definetly, I'd say 400km/h is a good limit, unless we find a good reason to use a higher value.
To feed discussions :
You're right about speed :
"In January 2008 a test conducted by Alstom resulted in the train running at the speed of 360.9 kilometers per hour."
Italian version is named NTV and will run 330km/h
Current projects in progress : improvements of few designed french paks

greenling

fabio
it´s possible to leave the track for 200 and 280 km/h in devlopent?
And a track with 360 km/h be are missing.
Thank you.
Opening hours 20:00 - 23:00
(In Night from friday on saturday and saturday on sunday it possibly that i be keep longer in Forum.)
I am The Assistant from Pakfilearcheologist!
Working on a big Problem!

Fabio

#102
Here I come with some updates.


Tunnels for tracks 80-240 are almost ready!!! (as the tracks themselves)




Another screenshot:



VS

Ummm... sorry to be the bad guy again, but I can't give up on quality.

The tunnels that have only shading and horizontal stripes are almost comic-like.

My projects... Tools for messing with Simutrans graphics. Graphic archive - templates and some other stuff for painters. Development logs for most recent information on what is going on. And of course pak128!

Fabio

I know, those will need a good concrete texture ;)

The biggest part was the layout, and since you didn't complain on the point, I assume it can go...

(high percentage means the hours of actual work, texturing is a rather fast operation...)