The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex  (Read 5243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #70 on: August 26, 2020, 10:24:42 PM »
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.

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).

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #71 on: September 02, 2020, 05:37:26 PM »
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.

and 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.

Blackpool 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.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #72 on: September 02, 2020, 07:20:26 PM »
Excellent, thank you: now incorporated.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #73 on: September 02, 2020, 07:43:44 PM »
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.
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).

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #74 on: September 02, 2020, 08:09:52 PM »
although 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!

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #75 on: September 02, 2020, 10:33:29 PM »
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.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #76 on: September 03, 2020, 07:03:40 AM »
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.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #77 on: September 03, 2020, 10:47:42 AM »
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 ;)

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2020, 08:56:22 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2020, 09:18:48 PM by jonbridg »

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #79 on: September 07, 2020, 03:54:07 PM »
It 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.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #80 on: September 07, 2020, 05:18:48 PM »
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"?

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #81 on: September 08, 2020, 11:46:01 AM »
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.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #82 on: September 08, 2020, 12:11:34 PM »
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.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #83 on: September 08, 2020, 03:03:39 PM »
Huh, until now I thought that 'galley' is a type of ship.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #84 on: September 08, 2020, 04:53:35 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.

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #85 on: September 08, 2020, 10:15:32 PM »
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.

If "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.

the naming scheme for dining vehicles is generally to use the names used for them by the companies that operated them
- 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.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2020, 10:32:49 PM by jonbridg »

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #86 on: September 08, 2020, 10:50:25 PM »
Probably not on one place.

- 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...

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #87 on: September 09, 2020, 03:35:19 PM »
These principles have never been written down in one place.

- Allow what had been technically possible in that time
As 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.

- 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.

- 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.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 03:48:14 PM by Freahk »

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #88 on: September 09, 2020, 06:57:12 PM »
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?

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #89 on: September 10, 2020, 12:12:21 AM »
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

« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 12:37:44 AM by jonbridg »

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2020, 12:14:12 PM »
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?)

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2020, 01:58:03 PM »
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.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #92 on: September 11, 2020, 12:29:25 AM »
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.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #93 on: September 11, 2020, 07:22:37 AM »
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.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #94 on: September 11, 2020, 12:12:53 PM »
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.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1257
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #95 on: September 11, 2020, 12:42:03 PM »
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 [...]
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.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 01:51:49 PM by Freahk »

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #96 on: September 12, 2020, 11:08:07 AM »
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):

Code: [Select]
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'

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #97 on: September 14, 2020, 09:19:39 PM »
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):
Thanks for pointing this out, I believe I've corrected the problem and will push the changes in due course.

see 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.

Usually, trains do always have some power reserves beyond their permitted maximum speed
At 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.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #98 on: September 14, 2020, 10:57:09 PM »
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.

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #99 on: September 15, 2020, 08:51:44 AM »
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.
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

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #100 on: September 15, 2020, 02:10:58 PM »
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.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 20207
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #101 on: September 15, 2020, 07:14:25 PM »
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


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?

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3409
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #102 on: September 15, 2020, 08:56:38 PM »
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.

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #103 on: September 16, 2020, 12:38:49 PM »
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.

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2020, 09:15:41 PM »
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)
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 09:49:13 PM by jonbridg »