(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/Screenshot_from_2020-07-13_19-51-38.png)
East Coast Main Line scene: A Hull Trains "Paragon" hurries north with a service to Beverley past an LNER "Azuma" bound for King's Cross.
Hi all, the purpose of this topic should be self-explanatory! I'll be posting my updates in here from now on (and they might not just be vehicles...)
PS: yes, the image is from an alternate universe where LNER has 10-car Azumas and the ECML has TVM signalling :o
EDIT 24/07/20:
dat/png: https://github.com/jonbridg/simutrans-pak128.britain
.blends : https://github.com/jonbridg/Pak128.britain-blends
To Be Merged
dat+png+blends BR Class 222
simuconf 9 new livery definitions, etc.
simuconf East Coast Trains (FirstGroup) livery definition missed from the above commit
dat+png BR Class 68 (TPE livery) (no new translations)
dat+png BR Mark5a coaches
dat+png BR Class 397
dat+png BR 220 + 221
Blends BR 220 Cross Country
dat Class 222 update
dat+png Class 801 LNER/re-render Virgin
Blends br-801-lner.blend
dat Class 172/0 and 172/2: Insert retirement dates
dat Class 397: revise costs and constraints
dat+png Class 801
dat Class 397
en.tab Additions and changes for 801 and 397
dat+png Class 800
en.tab BR-222Rear translation
dat Class 800 coupling constraints correction
dat Class 165 coupling constraints correction
dat+png Class 331
en.tab Class 331 translations
dat+png Class 196; dat Class 195; en.tab Class 195/196/197 translations
dat+png Class 769 dat+png Class 319 en.tab Class 769 translations
dat+png Class 141 dat+png Class 142 dat+png Class 144 dat Class 141-1 dat Class 142-1 dat Class 144-1 en.tab 141 and 144 translations
I love this, I will be following with interest.
Pak128.Britain has such a great group of developers but unfortunately they're also involved with extended development.
I do think the design principles set out work well, your train fits right in from the screenshot. I'm very curious what other plans you've got.
Thank you for this: this does look very interesting. Apologies for not having had the chance to look into these things recently - I have been somewhat preoccupied. We definitely do need some more modern trains, however, as I believe that we are only up to date to circa 2016, when the last round of modern trains were produced, so this is most helpful.
Thanks both, I appreciate it. Yes, it's a fun time to be modelling with so much new rolling stock on order and I'm indebted to the previous pak developers for drawing so many of the newest designs, often before they'd even been built! Only the Stadler FLIRTS stand out as needing substantial work, I think the rest can be modelled fairly easily from existing stock.
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgtpenova1.png)
Another new livery for the pak: TPE. It still needs adjustment. This livery is an experiment, partly using a UV map and texture painted within Blender itself, which I think could make adding new liveries (particularly the more intricate modern ones) a bit easier.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 13, 2020, 07:28:13 PM
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/Screenshot_from_2020-07-13_19-51-38.png)
East Coast Main Line scene: A Hull Trains "Paragon" hurries north with a service to Beverley past an LNER "Azuma" bound for King's Cross.
Hi all, the purpose of this topic should be self-explanatory! I'll be posting my updates in here from now on (and they might not just be vehicles...)
PS: yes, the image is from an alternate universe where LNER has 10-car Azumas and the ECML has TVM signalling :o
Hull Trains Class 802's have small kitchens at the London end of each set
Thanks, yes, I forgot to blank out the end windows when I copied the rear unit. Sorted!
Still working away at TPE:
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgtpenova2.png)
BR Class 397, or "Nova 2" in marketing language. The lighting seems to be off. I'm having some trouble with spacing between the carriages; does anyone one know if the .dat vehicle length only supports integers? I've the correct length value (12.6) and rounded-up (13) and can't see much difference. I know it's based on the number of pixels so suspect my query is true...
Quote from: jonbridg on July 17, 2020, 09:01:34 PMdoes anyone one know if the .dat vehicle length only supports integers?
Yes, it doesn't make sense to write decimals.
Nice work pal, as I said this pakset has a HUGE gap in rail vehicles as there are no new trains after 2016 (apart from the IET fleet)
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgtpenova123.png)
TransPennine Express' 'Nova' fleets, complete! From left to right:
Class 800/802 (Nova 1) - may be formed as allowed for Class 800 now.
Class 397 (Nova 2) - fixed 5-car unit, but two or more units can be coupled if required.
Mk5a push-pull set (Nova 3) - in reality a fixed 5-car set, but I've allowed extra standard-class carriages to be added as required. However, like the prototype all trains require a First Open and Driving Trailer, since only these have buffers.
Let me know what you think - the colors are a little darker now, hopefully not too much?
These are looking very good - thank you for your work on this. Modern trains are definitely a welcome addition. Your work on new Blender techniques is especially interesting.
Incidentally, you might want to look into whether to add retirement dates to existing trains which were the latest technology in 2016 but which have now been superseded by what you are now adding.
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgnortherntrains1.png)
A busy scene somewhere in the North of England. A 2-car Class 195 trundles over the mainline as a 4-car Class 331 with a stopping service makes ready to depart. Passing on the fast lines is a Class 319 on its way to Liverpool while in the depot a newly-delivered Class 769 undergoes tests in diesel mode.
On the subject of retirement dates, I'll add it to my list. As it happens I'll need to modify a number of .dats to accept new trains so it makes sense to take at the same time.
Below: one of these new trains has long been retired, and the other should have been years ago!
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgearlypacers.png)
Ah, Pacers. The marmite of British Railways! In the cream and green of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive is Class 141, the first production run of Pacers from 1984, so Pacer fans can have one a year earlier! You'd better be quick though, it becomes obsolete with the introduction of Class 142 in 1985. The class was retired in 1997.
Beside it is a Class 144, the only Pacer available in 3-car formation, in WYPTE red and cream. Driving cars will be available from 1985 and the middle car from 1987. The class is not due to be retired until the end of August 2020 thanks to an exemption from disability regulations to cover for late deliveries of Class 195 above, although many are now in store.
Excellent!
Is there a Github repository where you are uploading these (and the .blends for them, in case anyone else needs to add more liveries, etc. in future)?
Apologies if you have mentioned this before and I have missed it.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 23, 2020, 06:59:29 PM
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgnortherntrains1.png)
A busy scene somewhere in the North of England. A 2-car Class 195 trundles over the mainline as a 4-car Class 331 with a stopping service makes ready to depart. Passing on the fast lines is a Class 319 on its way to Liverpool while in the depot a newly-delivered Class 769 undergoes tests in diesel mode.
On the subject of retirement dates, I'll add it to my list. As it happens I'll need to modify a number of .dats to accept new trains so it makes sense to take at the same time.
Below: one of these new trains has long been retired, and the other should have been years ago!
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgearlypacers.png)
Ah, Pacers. The marmite of British Railways! In the cream and green of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive is Class 141, the first production run of Pacers from 1984, so Pacer fans can have one a year earlier! You'd better be quick though, it becomes obsolete with the introduction of Class 142 in 1985. The class was retired in 1997.
Beside it is a Class 144, the only Pacer available in 3-car formation, in WYPTE red and cream. Driving cars will be available from 1985 and the middle car from 1987. The class is not due to be retired until the end of August 2020 thanks to an exemption from disability regulations to cover for late deliveries of Class 195 above, although many are now in store.
Not gonna lie, the front of the Civity's could do with some form of improvement but otherwise its great that new trains are been added
Quote from: thegamer7893 on July 23, 2020, 11:37:54 PMNot gonna lie, the front of the Civity's could do with some form of improvement but otherwise its great that new trains are been added
Yeah, they're not the most attractive of trains, but I'm sure people will prefer them over Pacers.
Quote from: jamespetts on July 23, 2020, 08:09:12 PM
Is there a Github repository where you are uploading these (and the .blends for them, in case anyone else needs to add more liveries, etc. in future)?
Apologies if you have mentioned this before and I have missed it.
Not yet, I hadn't decided whether to upload everything en masse (as in I believe the maintainers of pak128.britain did?) or piecemeal as each vehicle is completed.
Progress on dat files has lagged behind so far (making models is much more fun) so for now, I'll finish the Class 196 I'm working on and focus on completing the dat files, with a view to uploading everything at the end of the month. Thereafter I'll aim to upload vehicles as I complete each Class, before moving onto the next.
I've added links to my repositories in the original post.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 24, 2020, 01:09:08 PM
Yeah, they're not the most attractive of trains, but I'm sure people will prefer them over Pacers.
Of course they are attractive trains. Its just that the cab ends have been poorly represented in-game
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/331001_approaching_Crewe_platform_1.jpg/1280px-331001_approaching_Crewe_platform_1.jpg)
Note: image is not mine
(https://i.imgur.com/089fzI3.png)
I beg to differ, it's a truly magnificent representation and quite unequaled in its accuracy...
I'm kidding.
Thanks to the alpha channel, the buffers do rather blend into the background. I can try changing the colour to compensate but can't promise any radical changes at present.
Excellent, thank you for the clarification.
I suggest that piecemeal would be better than in a large batch, as it is easier to check each individual vehicle for errors in that system. The only reason that the original vehicles were uploaded as a large batch long ago was that they had been completed before it was decided to upload them to a repository at all.
In preparation for new vehicles I've been updating the livery definitions in simuconf and en.tab. These changes have now been pushed to my repo.
The figure in brackets is the number of liveries added with each scheme.
Added livery schemes for TransPennine, Wales & Borders (4), Bristol & SW (Wessex Trains, metrobus), Caledonian Sleeper (Serco), Merseytravel (4), Essex Thameside (3, c2c), WCML Franchise (Avanti), Tyne & Wear (4) and Thameslink GN (5, includes wagn)
New livery definitions under existing schemes are LNER, East Coast Trains (2021), West Midlands Network, TfL Rail and Overground (2018 revision), and a name change for the London-Midland livery scheme in en.tab - to London & Midlands - to enable LNwR and Silverlink without starting a new livery scheme.
I've also corrected what looked like an error in the Lynton & Barnstaple livery: one entry carried the number of the livery scheme preceding it.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 23, 2020, 06:59:29 PM
(https://simutrans-germany.com/files/upload/jonbridgnortherntrains1.png)
OCD triggered xD
(https://i.ibb.co/tqFSng1/ocd.png)
Quote from: jonbridg on July 26, 2020, 04:32:03 PM
In preparation for new vehicles I've been updating the livery definitions in simuconf and en.tab. These changes have now been pushed to my repo.
The figure in brackets is the number of liveries added with each scheme.
Added livery schemes for TransPennine, Wales & Borders (4), Bristol & SW (Wessex Trains, metrobus), Caledonian Sleeper (Serco), Merseytravel (4), Essex Thameside (3, c2c), WCML Franchise (Avanti), Tyne & Wear (4) and Thameslink GN (5, includes wagn)
New livery definitions under existing schemes are LNER, East Coast Trains (2021), West Midlands Network, TfL Rail and Overground (2018 revision), and a name change for the London-Midland livery scheme in en.tab - to London & Midlands - to enable LNwR and Silverlink without starting a new livery scheme.
I've also corrected what looked like an error in the Lynton & Barnstaple livery: one entry carried the number of the livery scheme preceding it.
Excellent, thank you: now incorporated.
Quote from: thegamer7893 on July 26, 2020, 09:50:23 PM
OCD triggered xD
(https://i.ibb.co/tqFSng1/ocd.png)
That depends on which side it is as the toilet will be on one with a passageway on the other in the centre carriage that doesn't have a pantograph - see image at https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/news/class-769-driver-training/ (https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/news/class-769-driver-training/) for the other side for example.
Quote from: kierongreen on July 27, 2020, 06:48:34 PM
That depends on which side it is as the toilet will be on one with a passageway on the other in the centre carriage that doesn't have a pantograph - see image at https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/news/class-769-driver-training/ (https://www.communityraillancashire.co.uk/news/class-769-driver-training/) for the other side for example.
As seen in the picture below, the toilet side is corrected marked on the class 319s non-motor coach whereas on the class 769 it is incorrectly marked (as they are both the same train with the class 769s being the dual-mode versions)
(https://i.ibb.co/vDPLRxF/nt.png)
Quote from: thegamer7893 on July 27, 2020, 07:08:14 PM
As seen in the picture below, the toilet side is corrected marked on the class 319s non-motor coach whereas on the class 769 it is incorrectly marked (as they are both the same train with the class 769s being the dual-mode versions)
(https://i.ibb.co/vDPLRxF/nt.png)
Zooming in the N on the northern logos is at the wrong end of 'northern' on certain carriages also.... I wonder how many of these details would be picked up in-game, the overall impression of the new graphics is very nice I'd say!
The extra toilet window is indeed an error common to both Class 319/769 and has been corrected.
(https://i.imgur.com/HLiX5K3.png)
A class 196 in West Midlands Railway livery, fresh from the workshop. Like classes 195, 331 and 397, this is a CivityUK product from CAF. The very similar class 197 has been ordered by Transport for Wales but it's low priority until better info on it becomes available.
Kieron, well-spotted - I hoped no-one would notice that one! I mapped both sides of the vehicles with the same texture to save time. I'll take a look at re-mapping it when I'm finished with the dats.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 27, 2020, 11:12:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/HLiX5K3.png)
Brilliant work! Now hopefully we can start to fill in a massive gap in rail vehicles and make my gamesaves more enjoyable ;)
Quote from: jonbridg on July 27, 2020, 11:12:02 PM
Kieron, well-spotted - I hoped no-one would notice that one! I mapped both sides of the vehicles with the same texture to save time. I'll take a look at re-mapping it when I'm finished with the dats.
I'm sure if people look back at my original graphics plenty of similar errors would be found! Good work with all the new vehicles :)
Quote from: jonbridg on July 27, 2020, 11:12:02 PM
The extra toilet window is indeed an error common to both Class 319/769 and has been corrected.
(https://i.imgur.com/HLiX5K3.png)
A class 196 in West Midlands Railway livery, fresh from the workshop. Like classes 195, 331 and 397, this is a CivityUK product from CAF. The very similar class 197 has been ordered by Transport for Wales but it's low priority until better info on it becomes available.
Kieron, well-spotted - I hoped no-one would notice that one! I mapped both sides of the vehicles with the same texture to save time. I'll take a look at re-mapping it when I'm finished with the dats.
Looking splendid! It is lovely to see new vehicles being produced.
Thanks, it's great to hear that people like what they see. I've put modelling on hold for now while I put my efforts into releasing the vehicles I've done so far. Class 800 will be first as they require least work.
On this subject, is there any need for Class 800/802 to have separate dats? Until fuel range and bi-mode are implemented there's little difference between them in Simutrans at present.
I've been putting the dat files together with the help of Freakh and Vladki's useful explanations of tractive/brake force (and running costs, when I get around to it) from a short while ago and tested them against existing vehicles, which has raised a few interesting points.
I notice the power on some classes is lower than I'd expect. A search reveals this was a point raised by Vladki with regard to class 801, but I can't see why this wasn't implemented; was there a particular reason that might be pertinent to other vehicles? Similarly the Desiro UK units which have a rated power of 1000kw per motor coach in reality; 750kw in Simutrans. Was this to compensate for the tractive effort of 100kn per car? I've seen at least one article which quotes this figure (a Deutsche Bahn Class 460, I think), which suggests it is correct, although it does seem high in comparison to the recently re-calibrated Electrostars.
I was about to fiddle with 801 (not only power but also constraints and vehicle selection (powered/unpowered and classes) but got distracted by acceleration patch.
Anyway I always put the power to the same values as found in specs. But then all electric vehicles have gear 0.75. It may not be exact but at least consistent with other vehicles. Diesel vehicles have gear 0.5 (James may explain more why he chose these).
As tractive effort is rarely found in specs, but maximum acceleration sometimes is. So I used acceleration, weight and gear to calculate tractive force, to get approximately same acceleration as in real world. I have omitted friction. I plan to recalculate some to see how big is the error and eventually fix the trams and emus I did recently.
jonbridg - you note that the power on some of the classes is lower than you would expect. The power is, wherever the data are available, based on the actual data for the vehicles in question. Have you found any instances where this is not so?
Quote from: jonbridg on July 29, 2020, 12:47:34 AMWas this to compensate for the tractive effort of 100kn per car?
There are quite a lot vehicles with wrong technical data.
That's not for a specific purpose. If you notice such and feel confident to provide the correct data, including sources, this would be appreciated.
Some care needs to be taken as sometimes different sources are inconsistent. Especially in modern times, there seems to be an increasingly huge difference in between one-hour-power, permanent-power and short-time-power.
For example, a German BR class 462 (Siemens Desiro HC) has a short-time power of 6mW (750 kW per engine) but only 4 kW one-hour-power and 3290 kW permanent power.
The very high short-time power allows that train to accelerate its 4 cars to their maximum speed of 160 km/h quite quickly, but as it cannot run that power permanently, it's not good in climbing long slopes or pulling heavy trains.
Generally, it's a bad idea to compare different types of Desiros. Siemens simply called all of their local service trains "Desiro" for some time, though these differ quite a lot.
Same goes for any other train class. Even within the same train family, specs can be quite different (e.g. see German ICE4, which was originally ordedered in a 230, 249 and a 250 km/h version, whilst all these are technically quite identical and will get a software update (including all the complicated admission procedures) to run at 265 km/h.
Thanks for the replies. I'm sorry, it would've made more sense if I'd included sources the first time!
As regards Class 801 (paraphrased from another topic):
Quote from: Vladki on May 24, 2020, 10:39:29 PM
I have got to try the class 801 (800) and found some discrepancies. (and this old thread).
Diesel engine has correct power 700 kW, but electric has 4x 226 = 904 kW, according to http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf
Power and weight is also here (for the whole train). Power agrees with the above.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181005071852/https://www.railengineer.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Table-1-Hitachi-800-802-orders-V3-Avenir.pdf
As regards
Desiro UK:
There is a good deal of data on Class 350/1 here https://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains/17
Data is also available on this site for 350/3/4 and 360.
class 380: http://www.railway-centre.com/class-380.html
class 444: https://sremg.org.uk/gallery/class444_01.html
My conclusions are that all 5
Desiro UK classes use 250kw-rated 1TB2016-0GB02 traction motors, and in the same configuration of 2 per powered bogie. This gives 4x250=1000kw per motor vehicle.
I have since found this article which includes data on power-at-rail and acceleration for some units:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111006082417/http://www.mobility.siemens.com/en/data/pdf/ts_tr/02_reference_brochure_trains.pdf
Compare the figures for 350/1 with those given by Angel Trains. Siemens quotes power-at-wheel of 1500kw (under DC) for the whole train, or 750kw per motor vehicle, which is the figure given in the dat file.
From my limited understanding (I haven't got round to looking at the physics engine, and it's been a while since I did A-level physics!) I would say that power-at-wheel = rated power * gear?
Thank you for that; which of the data do you believe are incorrect? If you find any units with incorrect data, do feel free to correct them, providing that the corrections are themselves based on reliable sources.
As to "gear", this is unfortunate terminology and a remanent of Simutrans Standard of old; all that it does is multiply the power and tractive force by the factor. The English translation texts have this as "power output ratio" to make it clear that this has nothing to do with gearing. It is used to allow the use of real data (which do not take into account transmission losses) to calibrate the physics of powered vehicles where the engine is separate from the vehicle itself (i.e., everything other than steam locomotives) and where the data are all for the engine power as distinct from the locomotive power, as they inevitably are.
I'd like to increase the power of the Desiro UK units as I believe the figure used in the dat file is for power-at-rail and thus already accounts for losses that would otherwise be applied using 'gear'; but it's not high priority. It was something I picked up on whilst testing the electric Civity units, whose specifications I initially adapted from Class 380 (which has a similar quoted max. acceleration) until I found more reliable information.
With the new liveries for 801 requiring a dat update anyway I've increased the power to 904kw-per-motor-vehicle and converted the trailer composite to a motor composite, as there are no trailer composites in reality. I've also added a motor first for 9-car trains.
Vladki, what were your ideas on 800/801 constraints? If you like I could add them at the same time as the liveries.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 30, 2020, 02:42:31 PM
I'd like to increase the power of the Desiro UK units as I believe the figure used in the dat file is for power-at-rail and thus already accounts for losses that would otherwise be applied using 'gear'; but it's not high priority.
Interesting - may I ask what the source is for this?
Quote from: jonbridg on July 30, 2020, 02:42:31 PMVladki, what were your ideas on 800/801 constraints? If you like I could add them at the same time as the liveries.
Real formations according to wikipedia are:
5-car: DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF
9-car: DPTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-MC-MF-DPTF
But in simutrans we have:
name=BR-801Front (DPTF)
name=BR-801MiddlePower (MS)
name=BR-801MiddleTrailer (TS)
name=BR-801MiddleComposite (non existent TC)
name=BR-801Rear (DPTS)
So we are missing MC (motor composite) and MF (motor first class), while TC (trailer composite) does not really exist (but probably could).
Also there is upgrade from TS to TC and back, which does not work properly, and should be removed.
I had two ideas about constrains. Flexible to allow any combination of motor and trailer cars, only forcing a motor car just next to front and rear cars, so that there is at least some power available...
More realistic: DPTF-(MF)-MC-MS/TS-MS-MS/TS-MS-DPTS
DPTF can be followed by MF or MC (or MS?)
MF must be followed by MC (or MS?)
MC can be followed by TS or MS
TS must be followed by MS
MS can be followed by TS, MS or DPTS
Here: http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf is detailed seat plan of 5-car unit, so capacities can be checked and corrected if needed.
If you have sources for power-at-rail then you could set gear=100%, but add a comment with the source in the dat file. So that it is clear to anyone who looks at it later, that it is not a bug but a feature.
Quote from: Vladki on July 30, 2020, 03:19:10 PMIf you have sources for power-at-rail then you could set gear=100%, but add a comment with the source in the dat file. So that it is clear to anyone who looks at it later, that it is not a bug but a feature.
I'd rather set the known engine power and adjust gear accordingly to result in the, in this case, also known power at rail. Feels more consistent to me, especially as the long-term objective should be to set the gear of all vehicles individually according to their actual loss factor.
Quote from: Freahk on July 30, 2020, 03:30:22 PMI'd rather set the known engine power and adjust gear accordingly to result in the, in this case, also known power at rail. Feels more consistent to me, especially as the long-term objective should be to set the gear of all vehicles individually according to their actual loss factor.
Of course, if we have both values that this is the ideal situation. I thought we have ONLY power-at-rail value.
I'd use the quoted document with care.
I just had a more detailled look at it and it seems to mix up power at rail and installed traction power (engines maximum output)
As far as I know, the Velaro E has a total of 8800 kW engines installed, but the paper quotes that power as "Maximum power at wheel", so it is quite likely that further "powers at wheel" are actually the power of the installed engines.
In case of the Velaro E, the transmission losses are minimal due to the engine type, it's maybe 5% or even less, I once had a source about this and it was significiantly less than 20%, although I am not sure about the exact number anymore.
Sorry for not putting the source here, I had posted those sources somewhere in the forums before, but I am too lazy to search for them now as it's not pretty relevant in this case anyway.
Just keep in mind, the quoted paper does not seem to be a pretty reliable source, as with any of such data collections, at least from my experience.
Those collections are nice to get started, but often unpreciese or even wrong in the details.
Ok, this gives me some peace of mind as max output power is what I've used on vehicles I needed new data for.
Contrary to what I said earlier classes 8xx will not be released first while I add the constraints, so as TPE Class 68, Mark 5a coaches and Class 397 are ready to go I've pushed them instead.
Quote from: jamespetts on July 30, 2020, 03:03:29 PMInteresting - may I ask what the source is for this?
The definition I found for power-at-rail is here:
https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/3181161
A summary of what I've been up to so far:
After much deliberation I have opted not to separate the 800 and 802 classes. My initial plan was to distinguish the 800 as cheaper-to-maintain, possibly with down-rated engines, and with restricted coupling constraints. This would be justified as the class was ordered to specifications laid down by the UK government.
802 on the other hand would be as Hitachi might present the product to a private customer, i.e. full-rated engines, and largely unrestricted constraints.
I tried this with separate vehicles, a number of common vehicles, and deleting liveries on vehicles that don't carry them in reality, but the effect in the depot window was confusing, particularly for new players. I also wanted to add new vehicles for variety and constraint purposes which resulted in a lot of duplication so, ultimately, I dropped the 800 side of the plan.
Proposed changes look like this:
Too speed: 200km/h (225 unrealistic in diesel mode)
Tractive effort: better than 65 (to reflect higher acceleration of 802, about 0.85m/s/s. Will be calculated using data published by Rail Performance Society and Eversholt Rail
New vehicles: front and rear motor standards (constraint purposes), 18+58 composite (Hull spec) and Driving Trailer (compact; 10 extra seats, lesser catering. TPE/Hull spec)
All liveries will be supported.
I'll be ready to upload once the 68/397/Mk5a have been added to the pakset, to avoid a backlog for James Petts who is kindly merging the vehicles.
Excellent, thank you for this.
Can I check whether there is anything waiting to be merged at present of your work? It would be helpful if this could be indicated on this thread in future so that I can keep a track of what is awaiting merger.
Thank you again.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 03, 2020, 10:53:18 AMand deleting liveries on vehicles that don't carry them in reality
I do not think this matches the spirit of the pakset, which is "design vehicles according to what would be possible in the real-world rather than what was actually ordered"
There's always much room for interpretation in this statement.
To my interpretation, adding more liveries to train that didn't carry these might not be a priority, but existing ones are totally fine and shouldn't be deleted.
Quote from: Freahk on August 03, 2020, 04:57:35 PM
To my interpretation, adding more liveries to train that didn't carry these might not be a priority, but existing ones are totally fine and shouldn't be deleted.
I agree. The deletions were temporarily made to a few vehicles, and then, only liveries I have created. These have now been reversed anyway. You won't find a Motor First vehicle on any real TransPennine class 802, but you will in Simutrans!
For the same reason I haven't changed kierongreen/TheHood's Virgin livery for Class 801, which is based on an early livery design that was not used in the real-world. A different Virgin livery was later applied to Class 800 and I have added this, but I don't know if it was ever used for Class 801.
Quote from: jamespetts on August 03, 2020, 11:21:52 AM
Can I check whether there is anything waiting to be merged at present of your work? It would be helpful if this could be indicated on this thread in future so that I can keep a track of what is awaiting merger.
Of course, I've added a To Be Merged list in the original post. I haven't uploaded the .blends yet as I want to tidy them up before public release: the livery is packed within the .blends as a .png image, which is 'UV' mapped to the mesh using a material texture. My hope is that new liveries can be created using a 2D graphics program (which many more people seem to be familiar with) such as Photoshop, and Blender only used for final tweaking and rendering. I will write a more in-depth post explaining how it works soon.
These look fantastic and you've made serious progress in a very short space of time. That's commendable!
For what it's worth, I think keeping the various 80x as one unit until features directly relating to these come in to effect is the best way forward and agree with your decisions.
Keep the work up!
Thank you for this, and apologies for not having had a chance to look into this until now.
Unfortunately, there is a compile error:
ERROR: image_writer_t: cannot open trains/./carriages/br-mk5a-fo-tpe_S.png
I suspect that you may have mistakenly left some of the image files out of the commit. I should be grateful if you could look into this so that I can test and integrate this.
Thank you very much for your work on this - this does look good.
Bother. I'm sorry, I copied the images to the 'railcar' folder instead of 'carriages'. I'll see if I can move them tomorrow.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 07, 2020, 10:45:36 PM
Bother. I'm sorry, I copied the images to the 'railcar' folder instead of 'carriages'. I'll see if I can move them tomorrow.
Splendid, thank you.
Ok, I've moved the images, does that solve the problem?
Excellent, that does now work, thank you. Now incorporated.
Great, thanks very much.
Going away for a few days so there'll be no progress until I get back, and as the extra vehicles I've added to the 8xx classes allow me to add extra livery details (which I've yet to complete), the 8xx are still not complete to my satisfaction, I'm afraid.
However, I got bored whilst working on dat files and added a Cross Country livery to the Voyagers:
(https://i.imgur.com/m4UdEjo.png)
I've also re-rendered the Virgin variant with the new RGBA workflow. These are both ready to go.
Together with a dat file update to Class 222 (Not class 22 as it says in the commit, that's a misspelling) to make the constraints less restrictive, I've pushed these and updated the list in the original post.
There's no rush, of course, I'm happy for them to be added as and when time allows, this is my hobby after all :)
Excellent, thank you for that: now incorporated.
Bon voyage!
Nice work being done!
Is it possible top have a ScotRail update with the Class 320 added along with a Saltire variant of the 318 and a 156 update?
Would be nice to see on my WIP ScotRail fantasy network.
Hi Scotrail, I won't make any guarantees, but I'll keep those ideas in mind. I've a pretty long list of objects I'd like to do and it could be months before I get around to anything else.
That said, the shorter and cheaper Class 320 would make a useful addition alongside its faster cousins, and the great similarity of 320/321/322 would make it easier to create than some.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 15, 2020, 10:52:44 PM
Hi Scotrail, I won't make any guarantees, but I'll keep those ideas in mind. I've a pretty long list of objects I'd like to do and it could be months before I get around to anything else.
That said, the shorter and cheaper Class 320 would make a useful addition alongside its faster cousins, and the great similarity of 320/321/322 would make it easier to create than some.
There's already an SPT 318, so it's just a relivery and the 321 is already in game, so the base units are there. I had a go at the 320 a while back, it worked functionally but looked odd graphically, I also done a 303, 101 and 156 which I might add to the repository if you wish.
Quote from: jamespetts on August 09, 2020, 11:31:58 AM
Bon voyage!
Thanks, it was. Suitably refreshed from my break, I'm pleased to announce I've pushed the updated Class 801 featuring LNER livery, increased power and revised constraints. I've also RGBA-rendered the existing Virgin-proposed livery.
Quote from: ScotRail170434 on August 16, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
There's already an SPT 318, so it's just a relivery and the 321 is already in game, so the base units are there. I had a go at the 320 a while back, it worked functionally but looked odd graphically, I also done a 303, 101 and 156 which I might add to the repository if you wish.
Sounds good, are the 303/101/156 in SPT livery? What was odd graphically about the 320?
Quote from: jonbridg on August 16, 2020, 11:32:59 PM
Thanks, it was. Suitably refreshed from my break, I'm pleased to announce I've pushed the updated Class 801 featuring LNER livery, increased power and revised constraints. I've also RGBA-rendered the existing Virgin-proposed livery.
Sounds good, are the 303/101/156 in SPT livery? What was odd graphically about the 320?
The carriages had a gap between which I fixed but lost the blend and graphics etc due to switching to a new setup. Would be nice to see a better version. Aye SPT is correct.
Splendid, thank you for that: now incorporated.
I have amended some of the translation texts to make them more consistent with the general scheme of these texts especially as regards descriptions and capitalisation.
Oh, I see the 801 has been modified. Thanks.
But I have a question. Why there is a distinction between 801MiddlePower and 801FrontMS ? Looking at the constraints I do not see any reason for FrontMS. Also we could do without RearMS, unless the difference in capacity 72 vs 88 is significant?
Then the First and Composite power cars should have the same running and maintenance costs as MiddlePower.
MiddleTrailer and Rear should have the maintenance also like other Middle cars. Extra maintenenace makes sense only for the front car (driver, catering).
EDIT: Maybe the rearMS is the car with the auxiliary diesel engine? and thus it has reduced capacity and increased weight?
EDIT: and about 397 - the only car that has some per/km costs is front pantograph (unpowered). Usually it is the powered vehicles that have non-zero per/km costs, usually proportional to their power in kW. Now the 397 is extremely cheap compared to 801 or 395
Also - I cannot find any electric engine suitable for pulling the Mk5 coaches? (200 km/h)
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMAlso - I cannot find any electric engine suitable for pulling the Mk5 coaches? (200 km/h)
That's because the pakset is obviously very British.
The coaches were ordered to run with a class 68 locomotive, which is a 200 km/h fast diesel engine.
Afaik, there is no modern fast electric locomotive available in the UK, so it's not in the pak.
Freahk is correct - all the modern electric passenger trains in the UK are multiple units.
Hi Vladki, thanks for taking the time to look over these details.
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMBut I have a question. Why there is a distinction between 801MiddlePower and 801FrontMS ? Looking at the constraints I do not see any reason for FrontMS.
The distinction between MiddlePower and FrontMS removes the need for MiddlePower-MiddlePower constraints, which could be misused. It prevents players forming long trains without trailer cars. which is fundamentally possible but unrealistic.
This arrangement also allows differences in livery along the train, as used by these Class 800 liveries:
(https://i.imgur.com/7HgInmU.png)
Notice, on the blue unit, the three middle vehicles have different liveries. This may also be useful for the upcoming Avanti livery which looks complex.
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMAlso we could do without RearMS, unless the difference in capacity 72 vs 88 is significant.
---
Maybe the rearMS is the car with the auxiliary diesel engine? and thus it has reduced capacity and increased weight?
The RearMS would indeed have the auxiliary engine. On Virgin/LNER 5-car units this vehicle also boasts a 'cafe bar' hence the reduced capacity (on real 9-car units the cafe vehicle is nearer the middle, but in Simutrans passengers can't tell the difference). Unless class-specific catering is implemented at some point, this cafe is actually redundant, so the reduced seating is purely for realism! If people would rather have more seating that's fine with me.
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMThen the First and Composite power cars should have the same running and maintenance costs as MiddlePower.
MiddleTrailer and Rear should have the maintenance also like other Middle cars. Extra maintenenace makes sense only for the front car (driver, catering).
EDIT: and about 397 - the only car that has some per/km costs is front pantograph (unpowered). Usually it is the powered vehicles that have non-zero per/km costs, usually proportional to their power in kW. Now the 397 is extremely cheap compared to 801 or 395
I haven't paid much attention to the running costs, knowing that they would probably be changed as and when the pakset is properly balanced. Is there a standard formula for calculating running/maintenance costs? I believe I read somewhere that electricity costs 0.1c/kw in pak128.Britain?
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMAlso - I cannot find any electric engine suitable for pulling the Mk5 coaches? (200 km/h)
This has been pretty well answered already. The only option is the 225km/h-capable Class 91 of 1989, which is outdated by the time Mk5 coaches appear. (Some day I hope to model Class 89 of 1986, a single prototype locomotive designed for 200km/h). Currently the only single diesel locomotive capable of 200km/h in pak128.Britain is the Class 67; its successor, Class 68, is limited to 160km/h, though I suspect this is to reduce track wear. There were reports of a 177km/h bi-mode locomotive (Class 93) being introduced a year or two ago, but nothing has appeared as yet.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 20, 2020, 11:48:57 AMI haven't paid much attention to the running costs, knowing that they would probably be changed as and when the pakset is properly balanced. Is there a standard formula for calculating running/maintenance costs? I believe I read somewhere that electricity costs 0.1c/kw in pak128.Britain?
The current pakset values are based on the formulae in this spreadsheet (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9r44cbdw33xhh1b/Pak128%20Britain.xlsx?dl=0).
You not only can use this spreadsheet, you should, since it will ensure balance with the other vehicles in currently active games. It's unfortunate that none of us made you aware of it earlier, especially since you've mentioned that you dislike the .dat side of things.
This prompts two long-term questions.
Firstly, since this spreadsheet is in practice one of the most important standards of pak128.Britain-Ex, wouldn't it be better if it was added to the pakset's Github repository? The values for new vehicles can then be added to it as the vehicles are created. Having an up-to-date spreadsheet might also make it easier to carry out the eventual Great Economic Rebalancing.
Secondly, can you remember which thread you used to learn about pak128.Britain-Ex? If it's a stickied thread, perhaps the spreadsheet should be mentioned there.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 20, 2020, 11:48:57 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/7HgInmU.png)
Will there be a mini-buffet coach added as currently, there isn't one available with the trains pretty much running as at-seat catering only sets
Aha! Thanks Matthew, that's very useful, I'll refer to (and add to, if required) that in future. Which topic was that posted in? I hope it wasn't obvious, I'll be embarrassed if it is.
The 'sticky' topics I primarily used to create the vehicles were:
https://forum.simutrans.com/index.php/topic,15174.0.html
Simutrans Extended Development >> Dat file reference for: Vehicles and WaysThe contents of this topic applies to all paksets, not just Pak128.Britain-Ex
https://forum.simutrans.com/index.php/topic,17510.0.html
Pak128.Britain-Ex >> Step by step tutorial: making vehicles for the pakset.This topic is primarily concerned with the graphics side of vehicle creation.
I learnt to calculate tractive effort and brake force from the recent topic on the recalibration of Electrostars; I think there was comment about the running costs of electric trains there.
Looking further the chief problem with the 397's dat is that I used the old 801 dat as a template. The result is that the end vehicles were altered from unpowered to powered without changing the costs. It should have cost the same as an 801, but that's irrelevant now that I have standard formulae to work from.
Quote from: thegamer7893 on August 20, 2020, 05:05:13 PMWill there be a mini-buffet coach added as currently, there isn't one available with the trains pretty much running as at-seat catering only sets
Probably not, in Simutrans the kitchen in the front vehicle is sufficient.
Apparently people need permission/licence to use my spreadsheet? Honestly do whatever you want with it.
It was generated from an old set of pakset data. As such some entries in it no longer match or are missing. Additionally changing anything inside it will not be used by the pakset automatically as I wrote a custom tool to merge the data into the pakset and then merged those changes into the git. The tool was not designed for an incomplete dataset so I am not sure what would happen if it was just run in its current state.
The balancing was very rough. People have pointed out the formula do not currently work within gameplay, especially for some vehicles with high powers but low power utilization as that was not factored in as doing so from a pure data view is not trivial. Additionally the formula should eventually be made obsolete once more features are added to extended such as wages and energy metering.
Personally for new additions I would recommend gut feeling and just throwing out some reasonably sensible numbers. As mentioned above everything will eventually be rebalanced once/if all the required features get added.
For reference, the spreadsheet was used to try and convert the pakset from speed bonus based balancing to something more physical. This is because fast trains were impossibly expensive to run at the time they were introduced as they were based around large speed bonuses to revenue which no longer existed. It also solved an issue where more powerful vehicles could be more efficient at hauling cargo at slower speeds that purpose built engines. That said this has its own problems with some vehicles being impossibly expensive to run due to having powerful engines but seldom using all the power. it also does not scale well with speed since faster vehicles have lower per km cost due to moving faster.
Quote from: Matthew on August 20, 2020, 02:33:42 PMThe current pakset values are based on the formulae in this spreadsheet.
I can't find any formulae in that spreadsheet. However in my recent modifications of trams and EMU's I kept the ratio of runnigcost to power (without applying gear) to stay the same. E.g. for electrostars and azuma (801) it is 0.15 c/km per kW. Some other modern trains and trams have even 0.10 c/km per kW. Unpowered vehicles have 0 running costs.
For monthly maintenance I just used my gut feeling and kept the original values where they were sensible. Reasoning was: manned vehicles should be most expensive (driver, guard, catering). Powered vehicles also need more maintenance (engine checks and repairs) than unpowered. But I have no exact method, so I made fixes only when it was obvious copy/paste error or typo, etc...
I have now integrated Dr. Supergood's spreadsheet - thanks to Dr. Supergood and Matthew for that.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 23, 2020, 07:42:45 PM
Apparently people need permission/licence to use my spreadsheet? Honestly do whatever you want with it.
Thank you!
QuotePersonally for new additions I would recommend gut feeling and just throwing out some reasonably sensible numbers. As mentioned above everything will eventually be rebalanced once/if all the required features get added.
You modestly pointed out some weaknesses with the spreadsheet. And you're right that it's not necessary for some values: power and brake force, for example, are entered in real-life units and are often obtainable from online sources.
Where the spreadsheet shines, though, is the cost variables. Simucents do not bear any relation to real-life values,
§ but it's important for playability that paks have values that are broadly consistent with the rest of the pakset. For existing paks, DrSuperGood's monumental rebalancing has already achieved that. But your "gut feeling" about "reasonably sensible numbers" is the result of many (hundreds? thousands?!) of hours spent playing the pakset and playing about with the .dat files. There's nothing stopping people doing that, but the spreadsheet's cost formulae are a fast and convenient way to get cost values that are consistent with the interim economic balance. Exporting the values programmatically was very useful for the rebalancing but is less important when adding a handful of new vehicles.
Quote from: Vladki on August 25, 2020, 09:39:38 PM
I can't find any formulae in that spreadsheet.
Sorry, I linked to an older version. James has kindly integrated the latest version to the pakset here (https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/blob/master/Pak128%20Britain.xlsx).
QuoteHowever in my recent modifications of trams and EMU's I kept the ratio of runnigcost to power (without applying gear) to stay the same. E.g. for electrostars and azuma (801) it is 0.15 c/km per kW. Some other modern trains and trams have even 0.10 c/km per kW. Unpowered vehicles have 0 running costs.
For monthly maintenance I just used my gut feeling and kept the original values where they were sensible. Reasoning was: manned vehicles should be most expensive (driver, guard, catering). Powered vehicles also need more maintenance (engine checks and repairs) than unpowered. But I have no exact method, so I made fixes only when it was obvious copy/paste error or typo, etc...
You know much more about both trams and Simutrans than I do, so you've surely chosen "reasonably sensible" values. But now that you have a chance to see the spreadsheet values for yourself, you can see that the formulae do try to use a "more exact method" using several factors. Using DrSuperGood's spreadsheet gives creators an easier and consistent option if they want it.
Quote from: jamespetts on August 25, 2020, 11:39:20 PM
I have now integrated Dr. Supergood's spreadsheet - thanks to Dr. Supergood and Matthew for that.
Jonbridg's experience suggests that it would be helpful to edit the tutorial stickies to signpost it. If your modpowers allow you to do that, here is some draft text that you could use:
In the .dat reference (https://forum.simutrans.com/index.php/topic,15174.0.html), under "
Vehicle economy" you could add:
(If you are contributing vehicles to pak128.Britain-Ex, you can find formulae for calculating runningcost and fixed_maintenance data in [url=https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/blob/master/Pak128%20Britain.xlsx]a spreadsheet in the Git repository[/url]. For other paksets, consult existing .dat files.).
In the graphical tutorial (https://forum.simutrans.com/index.php/topic,17510.0.html), above "
Stage 5 - Compiling the vehicles" you could add:
If you add new vehicles, then it is helpful to use use data values that are consistent with the rest of the pakset. You can find useful formulae for calculating runningcost and fixed_maintenance data, and many examples of other values, in your Git repository's [url=https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/blob/master/Pak128%20Britain.xlsx]Pak128 Britain.xlsx spreadsheet.[/url]
§ That may have to be fixed in the Great Economic Rebalancing, but that's off-topic.
Quote from: Matthew on August 26, 2020, 01:20:58 AMYou know much more about both trams and Simutrans than I do, so you've surely chosen "reasonably sensible" values. But now that you have a chance to see the spreadsheet values for yourself, you can see that the formulae do try to use a "more exact method" using several factors. Using DrSuperGood's spreadsheet gives creators an easier and consistent option if they want it.
Great table. Recently I thought we should make some table specifying wages (drivers, guards, etc...) Good that it exists already. I see the formulas are quite complex... It will take some time for me to understand them properly. But even now I see some problems and inconsistencies. As you said I learned a lot about trams (especially Blackpool), so I will continue on that. Trams until second half of 20th century, had crew of 2 or even 3: driver and conductor (2nd conductor on double deckers or trailers). So there should be some distinction in wages (monthly costs) for trams with and without conductor (OMO - one man operation). Also the conductor was most probably paid less than the driver. Same is about steam engine crew. The fireman was also paid less than the driver. (and what the hell is SteamBig crew of 5 persons?)
Also now I understand why modern tram monthly costs seemed wrong to me. They are calculated as if it was an EMU with driver and conductor. (I'm not sure about UK, but I think tram conductors are long forgotten history). Also the monthly cost for some parts are calculated as for ModernRail and some as ModernElectricRail. Purchase costs are also funny - all parts are the same price except for the rear part which is free...
And running costs. According to comments, they reflect the price or efficiency of fuel production. IMHO they should reflect the efficiency of fuel consumption. Again example on Blackpool trams. Blackpool was using basically the same trams for over 70 years. Balloons, EE-railcoaches and Brushes from 1930's use the same engines. ProgressTwin (1958) is just an upgraded railcoach, so there is no reason why it's running costs should be halved after upgrade. Jubilee, Centenary and Millenium are still using the same engines, maybe with better controller. So the fuel costs should be IMHO based on technological advances: e.g.: DC motor with rheostatic controller, DC motor with thyristor controller, AC async motor with or without regenerative braking, etc.
We do not have inflation in simutrans, so the price of fuel should be constant too. Only the efficiency of its use should change. According to the table, best price for electricity is 1980-2000 so it does not make sense to upgrade electric vehicles to more modern ones, as they will be more costly (per kW).
I have pushed a couple of changes: to Class 172 (retirement dates) and Class 397. The latter features revised costs derived from DrSuperGood's spreadsheet, and now allows 3- and 4-car formation in line with other CivityUK products.
Quote from: Vladki on August 26, 2020, 10:24:42 PMand what the hell is SteamBig crew of 5 persons
I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind this too! I guess it simulates the difference in pay between the drivers of express trains and branch-line trains.
I'm also a little confused between ModernPassengerRail and ElectricRailPassengers; I have assumed that the latter refers to an electric
locomotive as opposed to an electric multiple unit; it seems to me that any vehicle carrying passengers (with associated wear-and-tear) should be assigned ModernPassengerRail.
Quote from: Vladki on August 26, 2020, 10:24:42 PMBlackpool was using basically the same trams for over 70 years. Balloons, EE-railcoaches and Brushes from 1930's use the same engines.
Aside from the point on electricity costs, this raises the question as to whether these would be better implemented as upgrades, perhaps only available "new" at elevated cost to reflect the decline in popularity of trams in the UK from the late 1930s.
Excellent, thank you: now incorporated.
Quote from: jonbridg on September 02, 2020, 05:37:26 PMAside from the point on electricity costs, this raises the question as to whether these would be better implemented as upgrades, perhaps only available "new" at elevated cost to reflect the decline in popularity of trams in the UK from the late 1930s.
Some of them are available as upgrades. e.g. balloon->jubilee->millenium and brush/ee-railcoach->progress-twin. But for timeline completeness we have to offer them as new, although there were really no new trams in UK since blackpool coronation (1950's) to Metrolink T68 (1990's). Blackpool Centenary is a border case - from what I read it was a new tram, yet using some old components including motors from retired trams. (I doubt they ordered new motors based od 50 years old design).
Quote from: Vladki on September 02, 2020, 07:43:44 PMalthough there were really no new trams in UK since blackpool coronation (1950's) to Metrolink T68 (1990's).
shhhh...
Don't remind me!
Some day that dark age will come at Bridgewater!
Yeah, I'd be interested to know how the later Blackpool trams compare to contemporary vehicles from other countries; were there any advances in technology not seen in Blackpool, such better motors? I note that articulated trams seem to have become popular in Central Europe, and that 3- or 4-car formations don't seem to have been uncommon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tatra_trams
The whole production of tatra was using DC motors, but there was significant development in controllers. Especially T3 got later many various upgrades which improved efficiency. Longest trams were either a pair of T3, T6, or T5 (Budapest) and the 3-part articulated KT8. Judging from the length of platforms at some stops there must have been plans tu run KT8 in pairs, but that never happened. But they run similar RT8 in triplets in Manila (Philippines) but that is light rail, not tram.
I can offer a pair of KT4D to the discussion, as operated in East Berlin, as well as a triplet of these, as operated in Erfurt ;)
Thanks, this is interesting stuff. It might be fun to have UK versions of these: 'licence-built', of course, given the opposition in the 1950s and 60s to foreign manufacture of goods that the UK could make itself (to varying degrees of quality...). At any rate, the 1972 'One-Man-Operation' rebuild of the EE railcoaches (not currently in the pak, IIRC) would make a useful addition to narrow the gap between new trams.
On a separate note, I've finally got round to finishing an update to Class 800/802, featuring:
-revised costs*
-revised constraints*
-revised weights based on Class 802*
-tractive effort set at 122kn
-a choice of catering and composite vehicles*
-the ability to upgrade to Class 801*
-updated GWR livery
In preparation I have pushed similar changes (marked with * above) to class 801, as befits largely identical trains. It looks likely that Hitachi's AT300 design is going to dominate UK inter-city services, so I think these additions are worthwhile.
Having done some reading about CAF's Civity product and discovered they are available in formations up to 8-cars, I have also added a non-pantograph trailer to Class 397 to enable this realistically.
There're some additions to their translations in en.tab too; James, could you let me know if you're happy with the format? I've tried to avoid any confusion between somewhat similar vehicles like FrontMS and RearMS, and the composites. Thanks.
Quote from: jonbridg on September 06, 2020, 08:56:22 PMIt might be fun to have UK versions of these: 'licence-built', of course
The problem is, that some of the paksets design decisions are conflicting here:
- Allow what had been technically possible in that time
- Do not simulate political decisions being made in the real-world
- Bring a British feeling to the player.
The former two suggest to add such vehicles, as well as allowing faster speeds when running trams on roads, as it was technically perfectly posible and the speed limit was purely a political thing. In other countries, faster speeds on-road were quite usual.
The last one suggest to not allow such vehicles, as it would not feel pretty British.
That being said, I'd really love to fill that gap in the tram timeline, but I do not think it is possible without providing a non-British feeling.
Thank you for that - I have now incorporated these changes. The formatting is fine, but can I ask why you changed "galley" to "compact kitchen"?
I used the term "galley" initially as this is the term used on the Class 222 Wikipedia entry, but I've since realised it's the only vehicle in pak128.Britain-ex to use that term and decided to change it for consistency. In hindsight "compact" is not correct: looking at photographs of the 222 kitchen it is notably larger than that specified by Hull Trains and TPE for their AT300s, for which I coined "compact kitchen" in the first place. It would probably be better re-named plainly "kitchen".
Ironically the Hull Trains facilities look very much like the "galley" provided on aircraft for heating food.
If "galley" is the official term used, then I suggest that this be reverted: the naming scheme for dining vehicles is generally to use the names used for them by the companies that operated them.
Huh, until now I thought that 'galley' is a type of ship.
Quote from: Vladki on September 08, 2020, 03:03:39 PM
Huh, until now I thought that 'galley' is a type of ship.
The word also has that meaning, but more generally means a kitchen on a ship. The term has since been used for kitchens on aircraft and trains, too, and in more modern times is sometimes used to mean a kitchen laid out in a style akin to that which one might find on a small ship.
At last, Class 800 update finished and pushed! Hope everyone enjoys it. The rest of the vehicles I've done so far shouldn't be far behind.
Quote from: jamespetts on September 08, 2020, 12:11:34 PMIf "galley" is the official term used, then I suggest that this be reverted
East Midlands Trains use the term galley on their seating plans, so it would appear to be. I have pushed a change to en.tab.
Quote from: jamespetts on September 08, 2020, 12:11:34 PMthe naming scheme for dining vehicles is generally to use the names used for them by the companies that operated them
Quote from: Freahk on September 07, 2020, 03:54:07 PM- Allow what had been technically possible in that time
- Do not simulate political decisions being made in the real-world
- Bring a British feeling to the player.
Have these principles ever been written down in one place, like an explanation of pak ethos, or an overview of design goals like Extended? I realise the high-level goals of Extended cover some of the above (although 'Allow what was technically possible' is implied rather than explicitly stated) but the rest are definitely pakset specific.
Probably not on one place.
Quote from: jonbridg on September 08, 2020, 10:15:32 PM- Allow what had been technically possible in that time
This was said when I was reworking electrostars. They exist in several classes, some of them consist of 3, some of 4, and some of 5 cars. The general consensus was, that it is technically possible to make any class in any length, so we should not limit players only to real world combinations, but allow any class to be 3-5 cars long, with one unpowered (pantograph) car in the middle. So similar reasoning could be used for classes 800/801/802, that it is technically possible to have them in any length, not only the 5 or 9-car sets used in real world.
For trams, I think would be enough to have Blackpool OMO to fill the gap. But now there is no distinction in monthly _costs of trams with conductor and without...
These principles have never been written down in one place.
Quote from: Freahk on September 07, 2020, 03:54:07 PM- Allow what had been technically possible in that time
Quote from: jamespetts on May 16, 2020, 08:45:12 PMAs to realistic combinations, the general principle is to permit anything that would be permissible or realistically possible in reality, not to limit options to what people in fact chose in reality even if other options were available.
Quote from: Freahk on September 07, 2020, 03:54:07 PM- Do not simulate political decisions being made in the real-world
I do not recall where exactly this was stated. It might have been somewhere in the forums, it might have been on stephenson-siemens ingame chat.
In any case, I am quite sure James made that statement. He might confirm this.
Quote from: Freahk on September 07, 2020, 03:54:07 PM- Bring a British feeling to the player.
This was never explicitly stated I guess, but there are a lot of decisions made in the pakset that imply this.
One example is the explicit decision not to introduce fast tram tracks before the 1990s, because trams in die UK did not move faster than 35 km/h on road tracks before that time.
This is clearly not a technical limitation, as trams in other countries were running much faster on roads before that time.
And, to be honest, pak128.britain should in any case aim for this, otherwise it could simply be renamed to pak128.darkened or something.
It just shouldn't try to feel British in any situation at whatever the cost, as feeling British does always imply some kind of conflicting with point 1 and 2.
Thank you for this. I notice that you have reduced the speed to 200km/h, whereas Wikipedia states that their maximum speed is 225km/h; may I ask what the reasoning behind this is?
The simple answer is, because the 800/802 are bi-mode trains, and theoretically can attain 225km/h in electric-mode after changes to the software. But from the research I've done, I can only conclude that these trains are not designed to run at greater than 200km/h in diesel-mode (as currently coded in Simutrans).
Take a look at the Rail Performance Society reports below: although they exhibit excellent initial acceleration, even in diesel, these trains struggle to match the performance of a 45-year-old HST at high speeds; even the 802 which has access to the full 700kw of its diesel engines.
Comparing power-to-ratios: 8-car HST ~410tonnes, 8.10kw/tonne; 9-car 802 ~438tonnes, 7.99kw/tonne.
A modern high-speed DMU such as a Voyager or Adelante has a power-to-weight ratio of about 11 or 12kw/tonne.
Conclusion: 800/802 are relatively underpowered for diesel trains. I suspect their performance is intended to roughly match a HST with improvements to journey-time achieved through superior initial acceleration, particularly under the wires, rather than a higher top speed. Interestingly the 802 page on Eversholt Rail's (owning company) website quotes a top-speed on diesel of 110 mph, although RPS timings show at least 123mph.
I have found no mention in the Department for Transport specification for any requirement to reach 225km/h on diesel-mode, only electric; nor are there any diesel trains internationally that reach this speed in regular service.
http://railperf.org.uk/docs/IETperformance.ppt
http://railperf.org.uk/docs/802intro.pdf
This could be a good check of the physical model accuracy - leave the top speed at 225 km/h and see if it can accelerate over 200 km/h in simutrans (and how long it takes?)
I think that Vladki is correct; the speed limit is intended to reflect limits other than those imposed by those parts of the physical characteristics of vehicles that we simulate, such as power, tractive effort, weight, air resistance and rolling resistance. If the reason for the limitation is one of these, then this should be modelled by the physics code in any event. If the reason is other than one of these things (e.g. that travelling at that speed for any sustained time may cause the vehicle damage or that it would be unstable at such a high speed) then it should be coded as a speed limit. Generally, for modern rail vehicles, the speed limits should be coded as the maximum permissible speed for this type of unit. If these units actually have a maximum permissible speed of 200km/h in diesel mode, then that is what needs to be coded; otherwise, this needs to be reverted to 225km/h, even if it cannot reach this physically in many or even most configurations.
Usually, trains do always have some power reserves beyond their permitted maximum speed. Otherwise they would take much too long to accelerate to that speed.
That given, balancing counter forces in a way that does not allow those trains to exceed 200 km/h does not seem sensible to me.
At least in Czechia, trains have to perform test at 110% of the permitted speed. So clearly they must be powerful enough to reach that speed in reasonable time. But the dual mode mey be different. The unit may perform certification tests at 250 km/h on electric power, but the diesel engines may be too weak for that... And then there's the question, if they are legally permitted to run faster than 200 in diesel mode (e. g. downhill) or not.
Quote from: Vladki on September 11, 2020, 07:22:37 AM
And then there's the question, if they are legally permitted to run faster than 200 in diesel mode (e. g. downhill) or not.
Not necessarily a regulation of general law, but at least such rules as imposed by or on railway operators; this is probably the important question for determining what the speed limit should be.
Quote from: Vladki on September 11, 2020, 07:22:37 AMAt least in Czechia, trains have to perform test at 110% of the permitted speed. So clearly they must be powerful enough to reach that speed in reasonable time. But the dual mode mey be different. The unit may perform certification tests at 250 km/h on electric power [...]
Same here. To gain permissions, trains have to perform 10% faster than their permission. I have no idea about the UK, they are different from the continent in many cases.
At least in Germany, I cannot imagine any bi-mode train might be tested in electric mode at 110% diesel permitted speed to gain the permission to run that speed in Diesel mode.
The testings are made that way to ensure that in peak situations in regular service, the train will work without any serious issues, which might be for example catching fire due to engine overheating.
When talking about heat:
Any train usually does not only have one power rating.
It's usually a time/power curve, simplified as long-term power, one-hour-power and peak-power.
The peak is the relevant factor in acceleration. Long-term or one-hour rating are relevant when keeping up the maximum speed.
That means, strictly, we'd have to implement such figures, but it's near-impossible to get such data anyway and it would be quite complicated to implement, so it's not worth the effort.
A good approximation to this is to simply specify the peak power (which is the one you will usually find in most sources like wikipedia, if there are not explicitly multiple given) and using a proper maximum speed, which is usally the maximum permissible speed in the real-world.
I have noticed from log files that some of the vehicle references in coupling constraints are incorrect. The errors are as follows (note that some refer to other vehicles):
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'GOOD-bulk'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-800FrontMS'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-LBSCR-4Wheel-composite-sub-fitted'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-800MiddleFirst'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-800Composite18+58'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-800Rear-trolley'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-gwr-4100'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-GWR-517Tank-AutoFitted'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-LBSCR-4Wheel-Brake-front-sub-fitted'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-LBSCR-4Wheel-Brake-rear-sub-fitted'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-LBSCR-4Wheel-Second-sub-fitted'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-1665Rear'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-800RearMS'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-LBSCR-4Wheel-First-sub-fitted'
Warning: obj_reader_t::resolve_xrefs(): cannot resolve 'VHCL-BR-800Rear-compact'
Quote from: jamespetts on September 12, 2020, 11:08:07 AMI have noticed from log files that some of the vehicle references in coupling constraints are incorrect. The errors are as follows (note that some refer to other vehicles):
Thanks for pointing this out, I believe I've corrected the problem and will push the changes in due course.
Quote from: Vladki on September 10, 2020, 12:14:12 PMsee if it can accelerate over 200 km/h in simutrans (and how long it takes?)
It can, indeed I've tested it up to 294km/h (and still accelerating!) which suggests there is a lack of resistance from somewhere. I haven't checked its performance up to 200km/h against real data. Note this was on a completely flat, straight, track.
Quote from: Freahk on September 11, 2020, 12:29:25 AMUsually, trains do always have some power reserves beyond their permitted maximum speed
Quote from: Vladki on September 11, 2020, 07:22:37 AMAt least in Czechia, trains have to perform test at 110% of the permitted speed
I realise this. This is true in the UK too; if anything, speeds greater than 110% service speed have been quite common on UK tests in the past.
To the best of my knowledge, 200km/h is the maximum permitted speed of an 800/802. This is based on real timing data, reports in the railway press and information from ROSCOs. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia data too much: on the Class 800 page, the citation for 225km/h on Wikipedia leads to a Hitachi article giving a speed on diesel of just 160km/h, from the days before the engine software was adjusted.
Thank you for this - I shall await the adjustments.
As to the timing data, reports in the railway press, etc., about how the units are actually used, is it not extremely difficult to disentangle that from the limits imposed by lineside signalling? In the UK at least, cab signalling is required for any speed in excess of 200km/h, and none of the routes on which these trains run have cab signalling.
The speed limit specifically of lineside signalling is independently simulated, with trains able to travel >200km/h with cab signalling or high speed moving block signalling, so it is important to disentangle this.
Quote from: jamespetts on September 14, 2020, 10:57:09 PMAs to the timing data, reports in the railway press, etc., about how the units are actually used, is it not extremely difficult to disentangle that from the limits imposed by lineside signalling? In the UK at least, cab signalling is required for any speed in excess of 200km/h, and none of the routes on which these trains run have cab signalling.
Yes, that is the limitation of the timing data I provided. Data from commissioning tests would be more helpful but are unavailable.
Press reports I've read have often quoted design specifications as well as how the units will be used. The fourth paragraph of this article gives a top speed of 200km/h, which is the highest value I have seen (where authors have bothered to make the distinction between modes - many just quote 225km/h without being specific).
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/first-bodyshell-of-hull-trains-first-802/3-completed
Please remove the "upgrade" from electric class 801 to diesel class 800/802. In simutrans it is effectively a downgrade, at least until we have impementation of bi-mode vehicles.
Quote from: jonbridg on September 15, 2020, 08:51:44 AM
Yes, that is the limitation of the timing data I provided. Data from commissioning tests would be more helpful but are unavailable.
Press reports I've read have often quoted design specifications as well as how the units will be used. The fourth paragraph of this article gives a top speed of 200km/h, which is the highest value I have seen (where authors have bothered to make the distinction between modes - many just quote 225km/h without being specific).
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/first-bodyshell-of-hull-trains-first-802/3-completed (https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/first-bodyshell-of-hull-trains-first-802/3-completed)
Thank you - that is very helpful, as this article explicitly disentangles the diesel top speed from the signalling limit. I have now incorporated these changes and the fixes to the coupling constraints. Thank you for this.
Edit: Vladki - surely it is not a downgrade for a transport company that wishes to use these on a non-electrified line?
If the diesel unit will have limited speed (and lower power), it will be at least confusing for players. The line dialog will show a possible upgrade, which will result in worse performance than the original vehicle had. I remember similar upgrades were with steam engine "jinty". Once you upgrade there is no way back. Upgrades there and back do not work as seen on some airplanes which have upgrade from low to high density and vice versa. At least for me it is very tempting to do the upgrades if possible, but it is not always desired.
The real question then is whether the 'upgrade' function should be renamed, or a 'downgrade' function enabled alongside it. I suspect renaming would be simpler: maybe to 'rebuild', 're-purpose' or 'conversion'.
'Re-purposing' (horrible word!) trains for different uses is pretty common, at least in the UK where re-building older trains is often cheaper than buying new.
Hi all,
I have pushed the new Class 331 to my repository. This is a 160km/h AC EMU from CAF's Civity product line and is available in formations of +3-cars.
I've some suggestions for retirement dates for existing units:
160km/h AC; All standard class: Class 380 "Desiro" retired upon intro of Class 331 "Civity"
160km/h AC/DC; 1st class available: Class 350/2 "Desiro" retired upon intro of AC-only Class 385 "AT200" (AC/DC role taken over by Class 700 "Desiro City" from 2016)
177km/h AC; 1st class available: Class 350/1 "Desiro" retired upon intro of Class 730 "Aventra" (not yet included)
160km/h DC; All standard class: Class 450 "Desiro" and Class 707 "Desiro City" retired upon intro of Class 701 "Aventra (Arterio)" (not yet included)
160km/h Diesel; All standard class: Class 185 "Desiro" retired upon intro of Class 196 "Civity"
I would be happy to make these changes if no-one has any objections. They would be useful to de-clutter the EMU tab as the many Bombardier Aventra trains are introduced (at least 5 separate Classes covering Metro, Inner Suburban, Outer Suburban and Regional operations)
About retirements yes, it's intended to retire a vehicle after its last unit was produced, but not before a successor is available.
The last Desiro was produced in 2014, so any retirement due to a successor after that date is fine.
Splendid, thank you. Now incorporated. Also, Freakh is correct about retirement dates.
Great, thanks you both. I have now pushed the new Class 195 and 196/196, which completes the current Civity family in the UK.
These are 160km/h DMUs: the 195 is presented as a budget version with more seats, while the 196/197 has higher comfort and options for first-class and trolley service. Both are available in formations of +2 cars.
Quote from: jonbridg on September 30, 2020, 08:39:44 AM
Great, thanks you both. I have now pushed the new Class 195 and 196/196, which completes the current Civity family in the UK.
These are 160km/h DMUs: the 195 is presented as a budget version with more seats, while the 196/197 has higher comfort and options for first-class and trolley service. Both are available in formations of +2 cars.
Excellent, thank you: now incorporated.
Hi, I see some inconsistencies in class 801 Azuma:
composite-motor with 18 1st class seats has 0 running costs. It should have the same as other motorised parts.
And I still do not get the reason why there are three stnadard class motor cars: FrontMS, RearMS, and MiddlePower.
Also the constraints are not consistent, e.g. MiddleTrailer has constraint[prev]=FrontMS, but FrontMS does not have constraint[next]=middleTrailer.
IMHO it would be sufficient to have only one MiddlePower (get rid of FrontMS and RearMS). And just forbid putting two unpowered trailers next to each other, or next to front/rear. If you agree, I can prepare a patch.
Potential oddities in the "Things that could have existed, but did not" would include Boeing-Vertol LRVs from San Francisco operating in Manchester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle#Manchester) circa 2002. I would also expect that since the Docklands Light Railway was built to German standards, and its original equipment even sold for operation in Essen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway_rolling_stock), that similar crossover designs could have happened then or even in the 1970s like the Duewags that started operation in San Diego, California in 1981.
You know what I want to see: Northern Irish locomotives. Northern Ireland is part of Britain is it not? So it would be fine to have locomotives from Northern Ireland in a Britain pakset.
Quote from: TheRoadmaster1996 on October 03, 2020, 02:49:46 AM
You know what I want to see: Northern Irish locomotives. Northern Ireland is part of Britain is it not? So it would be fine to have locomotives from Northern Ireland in a Britain pakset.
The trouble with Irish railways (whether Northern Ireland or the Republic, the distinction between which did not exist until 1922) is that the railway gauge there is greater than it is in Great Britain, so the vehicles of the two systems are not compatible. Since it is impractical to have a large number of different gauges, rail vehicles in the pakset are restricted to those that ran on standard gauge or 2ft narrow gauge.
Quote from: Vladki on October 02, 2020, 09:59:03 PMcomposite-motor with 18 1st class seats has 0 running costs. It should have the same as other motorised parts.
---
Also the constraints are not consistent, e.g. MiddleTrailer has constraint[prev]=FrontMS, but FrontMS does not have constraint[next]=middleTrailer.
Aha, thanks for pointing this out. 0 running costs is certainly wrong, as is the MiddleTrailer constraint[prev]=FrontMS. The third vehicle should always be a motor. If you'd be willing to patch them that'd be great, thanks.
Quote from: Vladki on October 02, 2020, 09:59:03 PMAnd I still do not get the reason why there are three stnadard class motor cars: FrontMS, RearMS, and MiddlePower.
---
IMHO it would be sufficient to have only one MiddlePower (get rid of FrontMS and RearMS). And just forbid putting two unpowered trailers next to each other, or next to front/rear. If you agree, I can prepare a patch.
The system with three standard motor cars was created to limit the number of powered vehicles, similar to other EMUs such as the Pendolino, by prohibiting MiddlePower-MiddlePower constraints. Under the old system doing so would have broken the Trailer-Motor-Motor-Motor-Trailer configuration needed for 5-car trains, so I added an extra standard-class motor vehicle.
The extra standard-motors also support livery differences along the length of the train: both VTEC and Hull Trains (and Avanti, according to concept art) make use of this. This is a symptom of UK railways' fondness for fixed-formation trains - since the number of cars very rarely changes, a train-length design can be applied.
(I would post a screenshot but my Ubuntu partition which has Simutrans fails to start after a recent update, so I can't access it yet)
Quote from: jamespetts on October 03, 2020, 10:27:40 AMThe trouble with Irish railways (whether Northern Ireland or the Republic, the distinction between which did not exist until 1922) is that the railway gauge there is greater than it is in Great Britain, so the vehicles of the two systems are not compatible. Since it is impractical to have a large number of different gauges, rail vehicles in the pakset are restricted to those that ran on standard gauge or 2ft narrow gauge.
Yeah, I can see why that would be a problem. Irish Gauge wouldn't work in the pakset. Same as if we wanted to do South African locomotives, you would have to create a whole new set of tracks for the Cape Gauge.
Not to mention the unique and often highly political nature of Irish railway history, too. Much as I'd love to see Irish 3ft gauge in pak128.Britain, it was uncommon on the British mainland despite the cost benefits it could have achieved in rural areas.
Maybe we need a Pak128.Ireland then. Of course we would need to considered the two Ireland's as well.
If someone is willing to spend the huge amount of time needed to create such a pakset, why not.
I'm already making my own pakset. Once I finish my Pak256.America, I might tackle a pak.Ireland. It aught to be easier then doing 256, I won't have to worry about a lot of things I can just focus on houses and locomotives. Besides, I enjoy modeling and creating things, I find it relaxing.
Quote from: jonbridg on October 03, 2020, 12:06:02 PM
Aha, thanks for pointing this out. 0 running costs is certainly wrong, as is the MiddleTrailer constraint[prev]=FrontMS. The third vehicle should always be a motor. If you'd be willing to patch them that'd be great, thanks.
The system with three standard motor cars was created to limit the number of powered vehicles, similar to other EMUs such as the Pendolino, by prohibiting MiddlePower-MiddlePower constraints. Under the old system doing so would have broken the Trailer-Motor-Motor-Motor-Trailer configuration needed for 5-car trains, so I added an extra standard-class motor vehicle.
The extra standard-motors also support livery differences along the length of the train: both VTEC and Hull Trains (and Avanti, according to concept art) make use of this. This is a symptom of UK railways' fondness for fixed-formation trains - since the number of cars very rarely changes, a train-length design can be applied.
(I would post a screenshot but my Ubuntu partition which has Simutrans fails to start after a recent update, so I can't access it yet)
Regarding liveries - now the 801 (virgin livery) has much darker middle cars, than the front a and rear driving trailers.
Regarding the constraints. If I uderstand it correctly you want to enforce the following:
- minimum configurtion is DT-M-M-M-DT (DT=driving trailer, M = moror).
- for longer config to prohibit not only two trailers next to each other, but also two motors next to each other, but enforce two motors next to DT ?
Quote from: Vladki on October 15, 2020, 02:21:20 PMfor longer config to prohibit......two motors next to each other, but enforce two motors next to DT ?
Yes. my main concern was players ignoring the trailer cars and forming longer trains without trailers; trains that would probably be tripping circuit breakers left and right if they existed in reality!
One composite motor and and one 1st-class motor are also allowed per train: if both are used, formations up to DT-M-M-M-M-M-DT (a 7-car train with 5 motors) are possible before intermediate trailers are required.
This might seem to penalise players who want standard-class-only trains with very high power, but remember that the 1st-class portion can be declassified. Yes, this is inefficient and slightly more costly - but that is the price to pay for the extra power! Fewer power cars are usually sufficient: a 9-car, 5 motor Class 801 still accelerates better than a 9-car Class 390
Pendolino, despite the latter having greater power.
Quote from: Vladki on October 15, 2020, 02:21:20 PM- minimum configurtion is DT-M-M-M-DT (DT=driving trailer, M = moror).
It is currently set to a minimum of 2 motors per 4-car train (DT-M-M-DT), allowing it to compete with most contemporary EMUs in Simutrans. 1 motor per 3-car train (DT-M-DT) is technically feasible (there are A-Train family members in Japan with this configuration - most limited to 130km/h, IIRC) but this would make it somewhat underpowered compared to other, slower, 3-car EMUs in Simutrans, so I didn't permit it - but I have no problem with this being changed if people think this could be useful.
Quote from: Vladki on October 15, 2020, 02:21:20 PMRegarding liveries - now the 801 (virgin livery) has much darker middle cars, than the front a and rear driving trailers.
This is unchanged from TheHood's original 801 Blender model: I re-rendered this livery in RGBA rather than RGB but made no changes. It may well be an optical illusion caused by the dark roof of the middle cars: I've checked the lighting setup and colours of the middle and end cars; they're the same.
Please check https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/99
Or https://github.com/vladki77/simutrans-pak128.britain/tree/electrostar-fixes
I have changed the constraints so that BR-801RearMS must be the second last vehicle (just like 801MiddleFirst).
FrontMS may be immediately followed by RearMS, MiddleComposite and MiddleFirst to allow 4-car units. But we can easily enforce 5-car units by allowing only MiddlePower next to Front MS
Only RearMS, MiddleComposite and MiddleFirst may be at the second last position.
MiddlePower must be followed by RearMS, MiddleComposite, MiddleFirst or MiddleTrailer
MiddleTrailer must be followed by MiddlePower or MiddleComposite - i hoped for enforcing 2 power cars between MiddleTrailer and rear driving trailer, but the composite car allows immediate end. So we could as well allow MiddleFirst and RearMS next to MiddleTrailer. Should we?
DTS-MS-Mx-DTx (shortest possible, x is any class)
DTS-MS-MS-Mx-DTx (existing 5-car units)
DTS-MS-MS-MC-MF-DTx (non existent 6-car unit, high power)
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MC-DTx (non existent 6-car unit, lower power)
DTS-MS-MS-TS-M(sc)-Mx-DTx (probable formation of 807)
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-MC-DTx (non existent 8-car unit)
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-M(sc)-Mx-DTx (existing 9-car units)
I also thought about enforcing standard class rear (Rear-trolley) after RearMS, and first class rear (compact or full kitchen) after MiddleCOmposite and MiddleFirst.
So what dou you think?
I am preparing a patch allowing any motor after trailer, thus allowing units like:
DTS-MS-MS-TS-Mx-DTx
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-Mx-DTx
I think these should be allowed. No reason to enforce MC in these combinations.
Hovewer I found that it is also possible to make unit like this:
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-MC-MF-DTx
So for even numbered units (6,8, ..) there will be always a high and low power variant.
For odd numebre units (5,7,9,..) it will be always two motors at each end, and nicely alternated m/t in between.
Is that OK?
Quote from: Vladki on November 06, 2020, 04:42:40 PM
I am preparing a patch allowing any motor after trailer, thus allowing units like:
DTS-MS-MS-TS-Mx-DTx
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-Mx-DTx
I think these should be allowed. No reason to enforce MC in these combinations.
Hovewer I found that it is also possible to make unit like this:
DTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-MC-MF-DTx
So for even numbered units (6,8, ..) there will be always a high and low power variant.
For odd numebre units (5,7,9,..) it will be always two motors at each end, and nicely alternated m/t in between.
Looks good to me, thanks very much! I was probably a bit restrictive with the trailer constraints.
Quote from: Vladki on November 03, 2020, 11:23:26 PMI also thought about enforcing standard class rear (Rear-trolley) after RearMS, and first class rear (compact or full kitchen) after MiddleCOmposite and MiddleFirst.
I would allow as much flexibility as is sensible with these. For example a Composite or MiddleFirst---Rear-trolley connection is useful where first-class demand is good but higher catering doesn't justify the cost, probably where journeys are quite short.
Changes pushed. (To above mentioned branch). Please test. Then I would make the same fixes to br-800.
Also I read about recently planned class br-810, which has 4 motorised cars in 5-car unit. So that would be probably the first car not being DTS but DMS.
Great, I will.
Yeah, I'm not sure how it'll work, there's a lot of conflicting info flying around on enthusiast forums! However it works, as the 810 will have ~24m rather than ~26m vehicles (and a shorter nosecone), it's probably better designated a separate unit to 800/802.
Should anyone be wondering, I'm still beavering away at new vehicles when I have the time! The Northern 319 and 769 are pretty much done and I've been working on Pacers, to which I've added Upgrades, available from 1991, to increase engine power.
It's been too long since I last posted any screenshots, so I decided something fresh was required...
(https://i.imgur.com/LaFFUpo.png)
Ok, not that fresh: 80's and 90's liveries for Class 142. Does anybody recognise them? At the bottom is a WYPTE Red 141/1, which is how class 141 will look when upgraded. As well as increased engine power, multiple working is extended to include other Pacers, Sprinters and Class 170.
NB: the Regional Railways livery is not my work, but has been re-rendered in RGBA to match the others.
I am preparing the patch for class 800 constraints, and see that the overcrowded capacities of classes 801/800 are not consistent. I'm adjusting them using the class 801. I hope those are OK, I think I have checked the capacities some time ago...
Patch pushed. https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/100
Apart from constraints there are a few other changes:
- formatting -- moved the blocks of specs to the same place so it was easier to compare class 800 and 801 side by side
- smoke -- removed from unpowered vehicles
- middlefirst -- running cost increased from 0 to 210 (same as other powered vehicles), small capacity adjustment 56 -> 58 to match class 801
- overcrowded capacity -- set to 0 in first class vehicles and compartments. Adjustments in both class 800 and 801 to match each other (18 for middlepower or middletrailer, 12 for front/rear/composite, 9 for the other composite.)
Looks good, I've tested the 801 constraints and haven't found anything wrong.
Great, those adjustments will make things clearer. Part of the trouble with these units is that the various operators have configured them differently depending on how much revenue they want to squeeze out of their assets luggage space is provided. Imagine if players could change the seating in-game - in an ideal world :)
I'm delighted to announce that, to mark the introduction of the first Class 769 units to services in South Wales today, I have also pushed the Simutrans version! As mentioned above the commit also includes Northern livery for Class 319 (the 319 and 769 units are practically identical in appearance at this scale).
Note that the Class 769 is only available as an 'upgrade' of Class 319 as in reality. I used real-world values in the dat but performance was sluggish, so I tweaked 'gear' until it performed at least as well as a Class 150, which was the design brief for the real units. This makes sense since a 769 uses electric transmission and modern-day diesel engines, so transmission losses would be lower compared to a 150.
Quote from: jonbridg on November 17, 2020, 12:10:56 AM
I'm delighted to announce that, to mark the introduction of the first Class 769 units to services in South Wales today, I have also pushed the Simutrans version!
That is great timing!
There is a huge backlog of things to do in Simutrans-Extended, so it's great that we are up-to-date in this one area! ;D
Thanks Matthew! Hot on its heels I can now also announce I've pushed my Pacer update...
(https://i.imgur.com/KqdMVey.png)
The update also unifies constraints so that all compatible BSI-coupling units (ie. 14x, 15x and 170) can work together.
There does appear to be a slight size discrepancy between the Pacers and other units, but this might be solved rendering the other units with alpha-channel. I'll check later.
Now the trains I produced months ago are finished (finally!!) I've turned my attention to Stadler FLIRTS. The bodyshells are already being drawn up in Blender so watch this space!
Excellent, thank you for this: now incorporated. Apologies for the delay in incorporation.
These do look very good and add some nice variety; this is splendid.
I have modified and corrected the Regional Railways/Provincial livery scheme, however, as some of the dates were not quite right, and have also added a new livery to that scheme, the "Sprinter" livery, as some units (e.g. the class 150) carried the original Provincial livery, the "Sprinter" livery and then later the "Regional Railways" livery.
James, can you pleas merge https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/100 ?
Quote from: Vladki on November 23, 2020, 07:47:22 PM
James, can you pleas merge https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/100 ?
Now done - thank you.
Possible to do some more modern units?
For example, 318/320/158/156 in Saltire?
Need loads of Scottish liveries for a project WIP.
Quote from: ScotRail170434 on January 02, 2021, 02:37:34 AM
Possible to do some more modern units?
For example, 318/320/158/156 in Saltire?
Need loads of Scottish liveries for a project WIP.
It is possible in theory to produce anything - but it is a matter of what free time that the people producing them have and their priorities. May I suggest that you learn to produce new vehicles for the pakset? You can then have whatever you want.
I have noticed that one part of br-800 has gear=53. Probably a typo... Fix here:
https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/108
Thank you - now incorporated.
Please indicate if this is the wrong thread - but I have made a pull request adding capacity to class 395 carriages. A six-car set has 352 seats in reality, compared to 310 in-game: https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/116
Also Vladki, is there any info on the class 387 having only 10 first class seats?
Quote from: freddyhayward on February 17, 2021, 10:21:49 PM
Also Vladki, is there any info on the class 387 having only 10 first class seats?
I have not travelled in it, so I dont know. I remember adjusting capacities for some trains and trams by looking at walkthrough videos from railway fans, but this one does not seem to be the case.
Jundging from the schemes on wikipedia - the first class area (if provided at all) spans 3 windows in the last car:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387#/media/File:Gatwick_Express_Class_387-2.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387#/media/File:Great_Northern_Class_387-1.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387#/media/File:Cambridge_-_GTSR_Great_Northern_387123_empty_to_depot.JPG
There are also some photos, that suggest that the comfort in 1st class is the same as in 2nd class.
According to this photo the first class has at least 22 seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387#/media/File:The_1st_Class_Interior_of_Gatwick_Express_387218.jpg
Finally made some more progress on the Stadler FLIRT range, after some setbacks upgrading Ubuntu to 20.04...
(https://i.imgur.com/dRM7zY2.png)
This is the regional bi-mode variant and is available in formations of 2- to 6-cars, with 960kw or 1920kw power-packs, and optional 'bistro' car or trolley-service. I can see these being popular trains - even limited to 960kw the 2- and 3-car FLIRTS can keep time with contemporary DMUs, while at 1920kw a 2-car can outpace some EMUs!
I have coded the power-pack cars as motor vehicles (with tractive effort adjusted to compensate) which makes different power options (including batteries or even fuel-cells) much simpler to implement.
A few more tweaks to make, including adding Greater Anglia livery...
Will these include 2-car EMUS? A phenomenon on bridgewater-brunel after the 2010s is electric branch lines reverting to DMUs because of the lack of any EMUs fitting within 2 station tiles, and 2-car DMUs being almost as fast and just as cost effective as 3-tile EMUs anyway.
There are 2-car FLIRT EMUs so yes, if that's what people need. The Stadler Metro (think Merseyrail's new Class 777) could probably be made to fit into a 2-tile platform as well, and has the advantage of dual-voltage capability.
Yes, ingame that's really needed.
Imo it's not that much about the need for two tile trains but moreover about the need for low capacity EMUs 2 or 3 tiles is not that important.
Quote from: jonbridg on February 28, 2021, 08:37:59 PM
Finally made some more progress on the Stadler FLIRT range, after some setbacks upgrading Ubuntu to 20.04...
(https://i.imgur.com/dRM7zY2.png)
This is the regional bi-mode variant and is available in formations of 2- to 6-cars, with 960kw or 1920kw power-packs, and optional 'bistro' car or trolley-service. I can see these being popular trains - even limited to 960kw the 2- and 3-car FLIRTS can keep time with contemporary DMUs, while at 1920kw a 2-car can outpace some EMUs!
I have coded the power-pack cars as motor vehicles (with tractive effort adjusted to compensate) which makes different power options (including batteries or even fuel-cells) much simpler to implement.
A few more tweaks to make, including adding Greater Anglia livery...
That does look splendid - shall look forward to those being incorporated. Apologies for the delay in replying.
The 2-car bi-mode seems impossible :P
It doesn't have a pantograph on the roof :O
In Simutrans it's just an ordinary diesel variant anyways, so no need for a pantograph.
Great work anyways!
Quote from: Freahk on April 02, 2021, 12:13:31 PMThe 2-car bi-mode seems impossible :P
It doesn't have a pantograph on the roof :O
It's a battery-diesel bi-mode ;);D Yeah, it's a placeholder until I get around to drawing a pantograph-driving-car graphic. Progress is somewhat non-existent at the moment whilst I relocate to Cornwall for a new job. When I'm settled in I hope to complete the above and make a start on the 145km/h commuter DMU variant bought by Transport for Wales (TfW), which I guess will be a bit lighter and accelerate better than the bi-mode at the expense of top speed (and seating capacity, there being more doors to speed-up boarding).
TfW have also ordered a very similar 120km/h commuter OHLE/diesel/battery variant. Many of its advantages such as discontinuous electrification and regenerative braking aren't coded in Extended, but its USP could be EMU-style acceleration over short distances - anyone have ideas how this could work with the current code? I get the feeling they should be restricted in range somehow because of the batteries, but the diesel engines could be kept running to charge the batteries - and in Extended these effectively have infinite fuel. Then there's the question of what the power should be set at... :o
What do you all think?
Apologies for the late reply: I have been preoccupied with other matters of late. I do hope that your Cornwall relocation and new job are going well.
I should note that it is planned eventually to code for bi-mode vehicles, although it may be some time before this is possible; but having graphics representing these so that it will be easy to encode them properly when the feature comes to be added is a good idea, even if the benefits of these vehicles for the present are somewhat marginal. I would suggest coding them as one of their various modes for the time being, with comments in the .dat files showing what the data would be for the other modes.