Topic: Improving the graphics of the BR Mk. I carriages

[jamespetts]

In undertaking work to bring a full range of liveries to the BR Mk. I carriages in the Experimental version of the pakset, I have undertaken some work in improving the graphics generally. That work is in this commit, and also includes setting separate front/rear brakes for the brake ended vehicles.

Improvements include:

* much better alignment of the BR Mk. I suburban vehicles;
* improved bogie graphics on all vehicles;
* correct end colours for earlier vehicles;
* separate door colours for gangway doors a the ends of carriages;
* lining out and logos on the maroon livery (which otherwise looks very dull and dark); and
* improved text for the mail and buffet vehicles.

A word about bogies and text: bogies in the earlier vehicles seem to have been drawn with wheels fully exposed on the outsides, whereas most carriages and locomotives (with a few exceptions, such as the BR Class 220 "Voyager" DMUs and the BR Class 52 "Western" locomotives) have outside framed bogies. This detail is quite clearly visible in a 128x128 image, and vehicles with bogies drawn as if they were inside framed have rather a toy train look about them. I am eventually to replace all incorrect inside frame graphics, but this will take some time.

As to text, in many cases in the default graphics, text is represented by a box. Although it is not possible to read the individual letters in a 128x128 image, save for the very largest of letters, there is still a noticeable difference at that level when writing actual text as opposed to using a box. Look carefully at the example of the Intercity liveried BR Mk. I RBR for an example:



Another example is in this 1950s TPO vehicle:



Although it is not possible actually to read the words "Royal Mail", the words have the recognisable approximate shape of the words "Royal Mail", and look much better than a box.

Some more sample graphics follow.


BR Mk. I BSO in lined maroon livery


BR Mk. I Gangwayed brake in ScotRail livery


BR Mk. I corridor second in carmine and cream livery


BR Mk. I suburban carriage in BR blue livery


BR Mk. I corridor brake in NSE livery


BR Mk. I corridor brake in Regional Railways livery

[kierongreen]

Nice work Keep in mind the original version of these graphics was one of the first things I drew in blender!

[jamespetts]

Nice work Keep in mind the original version of these graphics was one of the first things I drew in blender!

Gosh - that's some history. Your first attempt at Blender graphics was rather better than mine, I daresay...

I plan to give similar treatment to the Mk. II and Mk. IIIs at some point, too.

[ӔO]

If you do mk3, then you could probably do mk5, which would have been a stretched mk4 without tilting in mind, or basically a stretched mk3.

[kierongreen]

That would require the other parts of the Intercity 250 project to be drawn though... I think that would belong as a "hypothetical what if" addon rather than in the main pakset. In terms of future vehicles I'd suggest the IEP. After that someone could use some imagination and draw designs based on newest TGV/ICE for HS2 vehicles (maybe both captive and classic compatible for experimental at least). Also Thameslink and Crossrail units.

[greenling]

Hello All
It's a very great idea, to make a workaround of the BR Mk carriages.
The over worked BR mk 1 looks very good out.

[jamespetts]

Hypothetical vehicles might be worth adding at some point, but vehicles that actually did exist are perhaps more of a priority at present.

[kierongreen]

What actual gaps are there still in the timeline? As opposed to one off vehicles hardly ever used in real life? I mean, this is about creating a reasonable game to play, not just a collection of every single vehicle that's ever been used in Britain! I'd say city buildings were far more of a priority than cluttering depots up even more....

[jamespetts]

We are missing the 4-CIG and 4-REP EMUs; the BR Class 42, the BR Class 44, the BR Class 26, the BR Class 23, the BR Class 85, and arguably the BR Class 210, which, whilst not used extensively in real life, fills a gap that is not otherwise filled in medium to long distance DMUs in the early 1980s. In more modern terms, we are also missing the 376s and the 379s. Although only actually produced as a one off, the BR Class 89 would also be a useful addition, since it fills a gap of a 125mph electric locomotive in the 1980s, and was only not produced in mass for operational, rather than technical, reasons.

That is not to mention the many pre-nationalisation railway vehicles missing (I am still waiting to find time to complete the Midland Railway carriage timeline, and there are substantial gaps in, for example, the GWR, LSWR, SR, GER and GNR timelines, and almost nothing at all of railways like the SECR, the LYR and the CR). We are also very short of variety of 'buses and trams (although 'buses still need manually aligning as the code for aligning vehicles automatically does not work for road vehicles, which take a different alignment): we are particularly short of 'buses and coaches in the 1980s, but all eras need improvement, as we only have the original basic timeline put in to give a general coverage some time ago.

That is not to say that these things are a priority over other things necessarily, but, all other things being equal, it would be better to have these things than not to have them.

[kierongreen]

The gap of new vehicles in the 1980s is more down to 2 key factors:
1) That steam was phased out in the 1960s - hence many new electrics and diesels were introduce then. This resulted in a lull in major building until the 1990s when the 1960s units had become life expired.
2) A general lack of investment in the railways at that time.

That's not to say there weren't any new vehicles produced in the 1980s - a few were of course, but many of the improved services came about through cascades rather than new stock across the board. The lack of medium to long distance DMUs is a prime example - HSTs on the GWML and ECML resulted in a surplus of carriages and locomotives. As a result cross country gained improved services by replacing MK1s with air conditioned MK2s still loco hauled (although sometimes as push pull on the medium distance routes). Why build expensive new DMUs when you can just reuse existing stock?

[jamespetts]

Indeed - I am aware of the historical reasons for there being few new railway vehicles in the early part of the 1980s, at least until the great investment increases that sectorisation brought (and even then a number of categories are lacking). That is why that period is one in which it is worthwhile to include vehicles, such as the classes 210 and 89 which were only prototypes (albeit ones regularly used on scheduled services, as recently as 9 years ago in the latter case, if my memory serves me correctly) and not put into widespread production.

As a separate issue, the pakset is lacking 'buses from the 1980s (especially double deckers, coaches and minibuses).

[kierongreen]

You're the one advocating realism most often though... If 210 and 89 are included, balanced and priced realistically then they'd be widely used by players - unlike real life. Whereas cascading is perfectly possible in Simutrans so should be encouraged in eras such as this.

[jamespetts]

Ahh, you are referring to a different sort of realism here: there is a difference between realism of the simulation itself and the reproduction of historical accident. It is true that the boundaries between the two are not always clear (any specific vehicle design is to some extent a product of historical accident, and the ultimate abstract transport simulation would have procedurally generated vehicles designed afresh for every game), but it is certainly not as simple as saying that it is more realistic not to have Class 89s or 210s (for example) being built in quantity. We are dealing with a hypothetical sort of realism: this realism does not, after all, confine the player to an actual map of the UK, much less force her or him to build the actual transport networks that existed in reality. Since the particular circumstances of those actual networks is part of the contingent reason that these vehicles were not more widely built, it seems reasonable to include them in circumstances where it is plausible that they would have been used more widely had those circumstances been different. Indeed, the same reasoning applies to the APT, which you drew, and which AEO has pressed into regular service on his premium railway line on the Bridgewater-Brunel online game (they are still running as of 1990).

As to cascading, that should certainly be encouraged, I do agree. I have planned for a while some features in Experimental to make cascading easier, including allowing using stored out of production vehicles as well as newly bought vehicles in the replacer and establishing a second-hand market in vehicles.

[kierongreen]

Oh I do realise the slight contradiction regarding the fact I drew the APT. On the other hand it is very famous (at least, in transport circles) much more so than the 210 or 89, and when I made that dat I tried to ensure it would be significantly less profitable than other vehicles of the time.

Actually both the 210 and 89 have interesting features that might restrict their use in game (if balanced realistically):
In the case of the class 210 it had an engine room on one of the carriages so lost a lot of capacity that way. The earlier DEMUs it was planned to replace had a similar engine room, and ultimately successful D(E)MUs since have had all power located beneath the train.
As to the class 89 - it weighs 20 tonnes (25%) more than a class 91, while tractive effort is only 6% more, and it has a lower top speed.

[ӔO]

mk5 carriages do not necessarily need an intercity 250 locomotive. They could be used as replacements for mk3 carriages.
similarly, mk4T does not exist, because there is no tilting locomotive nor DVT

speaking of locomotives, should there not be class 59?
It uses the same body shell as class 66 and filled in some sort of gap left by class 56 and class 58.

[Junna]

We are missing the 4-CIG and 4-REP EMUs; the BR Class 42, the BR Class 44, the BR Class 26, the BR Class 23, the BR Class 85, and arguably the BR Class 210

I intend to oversee making the 210 (and 206) and 33 at least.

The 210 was successful, it was only for cost reasons that the government did not allow BR to produce more units.

[jamespetts]

Yes, I do intend to balance these realistically: they do have drawbacks, which will be simulated, and it remains to be seen the extent to which players use them in spite of those drawbacks. Junna is right about the 210, I think: it had much better performance than other DMUs of the time (on par with the class 317 EMUs) and was also more comfortable than all but the by then withdrawn long-distance DMUs (such as the Class 123, which has been very popular in the Experimental online game, and which currently has no replacement).  As to the cost, I have found exact figures for the cost of the class 210, so this can be balanced precisely. AEO - thank you for reminding me about the class 59 - this would certainly be worth adding, and I had planned to do so at some point. Junna - I shall look forward to your contributions (indeed, this Mk. I project was in part caused by your contributions and the need to make existing Mk. I EMUs and DMUs fit in with the look of the hauled carriages with which some of them share graphics, which is the next step in this project).

A final note on the Class 89: it was introduced in 1986, whereas the class 91 was introduced in 1989, so there is a three year window within which the class 89 is the fastest electric locomotive.

[ӔO]

It is possible to replace class 123 with class 158, but the owner hasn't bothered to upgrade them just yet.

[kierongreen]

Ah 158 - supposedly medium long distance but feel very cramped inside (and they don't even have proper first class). Certainly better than 156s but not as comfortable as 170s in my experience. Although that said for standard class I suppose they are on par with 22x (now that shops have gone on those).

[jamespetts]

The 158s' seats are much more comfortable than the Voyagers' - and they are more spacious inside. It is really very painful to sit on a Voyager seat for more than about half an hour.

[ӔO]

So after some research, how about class 159?
Those are rebuilds (interior only) of surplus class 158 and offer first class accommodation on top of standard.

[jamespetts]

We don't simulate first class in Simutrans - but we might want an NSE livery and middle carriage option for the 158, I suppose.

[kierongreen]

First class could be simulated with comfort?

[jamespetts]

Possibly - but the point of first class is that not everybody can afford to use it, whereas affordability is not simulated in Experimental, so it would be a somewhat confusing implementation of first class (plus it would increase greatly the amount of work in producing first class and composite, and, before 1912, second class variations of each of the passenger carrying vehicles)...

[ӔO]

scratching the first class idea, how about a hypothetical 158/1?

Since 158/T are built to order and 159 are rebuilds, it is not entirely unreasonable to have a higher comfort 158 to fill in a gap that was made due to a lack of funds.

[jamespetts]

Hmm - what would the 158/1 entail different to the current 158, but with a centre carriage option?

[ӔO]

I would suggest more leg room, so removal of 2 to 3 rows of seats. -8 to -12 pax per car for higher comfort.

[jamespetts]

Was that variant ever actually planned?

[kierongreen]

Leg room generally isn't the issue on 158s (well, some with ScotRail have no airline seats - they are all tables and then it can get a bit annoying when someone sits opposite you...). It's the lack of on board amenities for long distance services that's the problem. Generally you've got a small trolley (which may or may not be able to get through the train), a toilet, and well, that's about it. As I also mentioned they feel more cramped than 156s or 170s also. Incidentally 158s in Simutrans can have middle coaches (as they could in real life, just most of those are 159s, and most of the 158s that are 3 coaches long are actually formed from 3 end coaches rather than 2 ends and a middle...) - I don't really see the need for separate 158 and 159 in Simutrans as, livery aside they are identical (and that can be handled through livery options/variants).

No I don't think a higher comfort variant was ever planned. If you are going down the hypothetical route a better one would be to have a miniature buffet (such as was done by Hull Trains to class 170s).

[jamespetts]

Hmm - I think that Kieron is probably right here. 159s can be dealt with by an NSE livery variant of the 158s.

[ӔO]

Class 159 is rather interesting, in that it had other candidates that never came to fruitation.
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class159_1.html

Class 48 passenger version
Class 171, which was an intercity version of class 165 networker family.
Intercity 125 in 1+5

Of that, class 171 would be the proper candidate for higher comfort DMU.

[jamespetts]

Hmm - were any drawings ever produced of what a class 171 would look like?

Edit: I have now fixed a bug with the graphics of the suburban Mk. I vehicles which caused them all to have black outlines and updated the graphics of the BR Class 123 to match the refreshed hauled Mk. I stock: see this commit.

Samples:



Improved suburban Mk. Is



Improved BR Class 123 graphics

[ӔO]

presumably, it would have used the intercity livery on class 165.
The best I could find is here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1384647

[kierongreen]

It might not have been as simple as that... For a start air conditioning would have been fitted, maybe even doors moved to ends of carriages and made smaller. Plus it would have been in Network SouthEast livery :p

[jamespetts]

Hmm, I am wary of moving too far into the realms of speculation...