Topic: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex

[Freahk]

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.

[jamespetts]

Splendid, thank you. Now incorporated. Also, Freakh is correct about retirement dates.

[jonbridg]

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.

[jamespetts]

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.

[Vladki]

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.

[wlindley]

Potential oddities in the "Things that could have existed, but did not" would include Boeing-Vertol LRVs from San Francisco operating in 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, 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.

[TheRoadmaster1996]

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.

[jamespetts]

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.

[jonbridg]

composite-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.

And 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)

[TheRoadmaster1996]

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.

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.

[jonbridg]

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.

[TheRoadmaster1996]

Maybe we need a Pak128.Ireland then. Of course we would need to considered the two Ireland's as well.

[Freahk]

If someone is willing to spend the huge amount of time needed to create such a pakset, why not.

[TheRoadmaster1996]

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.

[Vladki]

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 ?

[jonbridg]

for 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.

- 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.

Regarding 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.

[Vladki]

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?

[Vladki]

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?

[jonbridg]

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.

I 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.

[Vladki]

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.

[jonbridg]

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.

[jonbridg]

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...



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.

[Vladki]

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.)

[jonbridg]

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

[jonbridg]

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.

[Matthew]

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! 

[jonbridg]

Thanks Matthew! Hot on its heels I can now also announce I've pushed my Pacer update...


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!

[jamespetts]

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.

[Vladki]

James, can you pleas merge https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/100 ?

[jamespetts]

James, can you pleas merge https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/pull/100 ?

Now done - thank you.

[ScotRail170434]

Possible to do some more modern units?

For example, 318/320/158/156 in Saltire?

Need loads of Scottish liveries for a project WIP.

[jamespetts]

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.

[Vladki]

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

[jamespetts]

Thank you - now incorporated.

[freddyhayward]

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