[New vehicles] Railway carriages

[jamespetts]

Moving on from multiple units to hauled stock, here is a set of London, Brighton and South Coast non-corridor lavatory carriages from the 1890s. These are a half-way house between the traditional Victorian four and six-wheelers with no amenities and the 20th century full corridor offerings. (Note that I plan to undertake some adjustment of some of the existing vehicles of that era, particularly the clerestories).

These carriages are set up to require a brake vehicle at the front and rear, as was the actual practice in the steam era. I am planning to update all steam-hauled stock in time to reflect this requirement. These vehicles, like the LSWR carraiges, can be upgraded to the early Southern EMU types.

.dat and .png files attached; translation texts below:

Code Select Expand


LBSCR-non-cor-lav
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory coach
LBSCR-non-cor-lav-brake-rear
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory coach (brake)
LBSCR-non-cor-lav-brake-front
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory coach (brake)


[jamespetts]

Here are the suburban equivalents of the above, bogie compartment stock from the late 19th century, which, I suspect, will be much appreciated, as stock of this nature is currently distinctly lacking in Pak128.Britain. These can also be upgraded (in Experimental) to the somewhat eccentric augmentation trailers: see the multiple unit thread for details.

.png and .dat files attached, translation texts below:

Code Select Expand


LBSCR bogie suburban carriage
LBSCR-bogie-sub-brake-front
LBSCR bogie suburban carriage (brake)
LBSCR-bogie-sub-brake-rear
LBSCR bogie suburban carriage (brake)


[jamespetts]

Moving slightly West from the Brighton line, here are some London & South Western Railway corridor carriages from the very early days of corridor stock: 1903. These were amongst the earliest gangwayed corridor carriages in the UK (only a few years later than the very first by the Great Western), and carry the distinctive (and rather attractive) salmon and brown livery of the LSWR.

Attached are the .png and .dat files; below are the translation texts.

Code Select Expand


LSWR-corridor
LSWR corridor carriage
LSWR-corridor-brake-front
LSWR corridor carriage (brake)
LSWR-corridor-brake-rear
LSWR corridor carriage (brake)


[sdog]

James,

could you please explain what corridor carriage, or rather non corridor carriage means? I understand they have a corridor at every carriage and seperate small compartments. The corridors between cars are linked, so you can get from one wagon to the next (prerequisite for dining cars). Did the pre corridor carriages just have no link between the wagons but a corridor inside each carriage accessing the compartments? Or did they have one or several larger compartments with many seats you had to go through to get to the next compartment.  Were the still linked. Or was it like the very early carriages where every compartment had doors directly to the outside?

[jamespetts]

Back to the London, Brighton and South Coast for these later, larger updated versions of the lavatory non-corridors, the "balloon" stock with its distinctive roof profiles, carrying the later "Edwardian" white and umber livery. Fitting one extra compartment's worth of passengers at slightly a slightly higher comfort rating, these carriages are a good update to the earlier LBSCR stock in this thread, although, being heavier, one might find that one needs a larger locomotive to pull them: the LBSCR "L" class Brighton Baltic type already included in Pak128.Britain courtesy of The Hood is the perfect locomotive for these carriages, which, although non-corridor, were used on the LBSCR's express trains from London to Brighton and survived well into Southern Railways days. This set includes a mail-carrying full brake.

.dat and .png files attached, English translation texts below:

Code Select Expand

LBSCR-balloon-full-brake
LBSCR "Balloon" carriage (full brake)
LBSCR-balloon-brake-front
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory "Balloon" carriage (brake)
LBSCR-balloon-brake-rear
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory "Balloon" carriage (brake)
LBSCR-balloon
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory "Balloon" carriage


***

To answer SDog's question, the answer is not entirely clear as the word "corridor" was used at different times to mean slightly different things. It can refer either (and more correctly) to a corridor down the side of a carriage whereby passengers from different compartments in the train may access other compartments and (more importantly) lavatories in the same carriage, or to what is more correctly called a "gangway": a connector between carriages.

Most corridor carriages were also gangwayed, but some early examples were not, and the corridor was present just to enable passengers to access the lavatory. The traditional British side-corridor carriage indeed consisted of a number of different separate compartments containing (usually) two facing rows of seats with a corridor down one side. This evolved from the non-corridor compartment coach (with the carriage split into many different compartments, each inaccessible to the other, with a pair of facing rows of seats with anything up to six passengers on each row), which in turn evolved from the stage coach, as the first railway carriages were essentially two stagecoach bodies mounted on a railway truck underframe.

Unlike in the US, the open carriage (without compartment partitions) was slow to evolve in the UK, first appearing in the 20th century, and not really taking hold (with the exception of urban metro networks) until after the second World War (although some companies, such as the LMS, did build quite a few open carriages for their longer distance work in the late 1920s and early 1930s).

To complicate matters further, many gangwayed corridor carriages still had outside doors to every compartment, as this enabled faster loading and unloading than the more modern vestibule approach, although the latter produced a more comfortable travelling environment. In Pak128.Britain, the SR Maunsell carriages, the GWR toplight carriages and the GWR "express" carriages were of the "all doors" type (in addition to the LSWR carriages above), while the LNER "teak" carriages, the LMS standard carriages, the SR Bulleid carriages are vestibuled corridor types.

Note also that the non-corridor compartment carriage with no interconnexion between the compartments at all remained popular throughout the first half of the 20th century, and a little way beyond until displaced by open types, for short-distance, suburban traffic, as the carriages could absorb far more passengers than the corridor design, and short distance passengers require less in the way of amenity (it is supposed) than passengers who have to remain for several hours in the same vehicle. The LSWR compartment carriages and the later BR Mk. I suburban carriages of which you are very fond of using in your most recent game are both of this non-corridor type (hence their lower comfort rating: passengers have no access to a lavatory, for example). Most inner suburban EMUs before the 1960s also used this style, including the LSWR EMUs, the SR 3-Subs, the SR 4-Subs, the SR 4-Lav (apart from the centre coach, which had a side corridor (but no gangway) and a lavatory; you will see that the comfort rating of that carriage is higher than the others in the train!), and the BR 2- and 4-EPBs as well as the class 319.

For further reading, see the fascinating and delightfully well-written, "The History of British Railway Carriages 1900 - 1953" by David Jenkinson, ISBN 1-899816-03-8.

[sdog]

Thank you very much for that explanation. I tried to google this but was confused by sparse and conflicting information.

Is there also a difference between a coach, car and a carriage? Wagon, as i understood is only for goods?

A third question, i'm under the assumption the pak is designed to use trains always with carriages from the same company. And if completness permits only to pick one corporation and use the rolling stock of that company only. Is this correct, or did i misunderstood it?

[jamespetts]

SDog,

"coach", "car" and "carriage" are used interchangeably; there is no difference in meaning. "Coach" and "carriage" tend to be more British English use, whereas "car" is more American, although the word "car" is often used in the UK, too, as a number of railways had certain American influences (the District Railway in the London metropolitan area, and Pullman vehicles, which is why we have a "dining car" and not a "dining carriage"). "Wagon" is indeed generally used for goods. "Truck" is also sometimes used to describe a goods vehicle, but "wagon" is the preferred term.

The pakset was originally designed by Kieron in about 2006 as a rail vehicles addon for Pak128. I'm not sure what the original intention was as regards companies, but it seems that one is supposed to be able to make trains all of one company (i.e., not have to mix locomotives and carriages of different companies in the same train), but not necessarily to have all trains of the same company (which would be silly if one chose a company like the Highland Railway or the Great Eastern, for example, of which there is one locomotive each and no rolling stock in the pakset). My developments have continued using this assumption (although I may need to add some LSWR and LBSCR locomotives to go with some of the carriages above).

[jamespetts]

Here is a little gap filling by graphics recycling: the Southern Railways Maunsell corridor carriages were very similar to their London and South Western Railway "Ironclad" predecessors, which are available a full five years before the Southern type. The only visual difference perceptible at pak128 scale is the difference in the shade of livery, so I have simply re-coloured the vehicles using the GIMP.

The "Ironclads" were a new concept for the time, being one of the earliest railway vehicles to use steel-clad bodies (the body structures were still made of wood), giving them a smooth sided appearance: hence the name. The carriages were the first to which the LSWR's sage green livery was applied, which was very similar to the olive green subsequently used by the Southern after the 1923 grouping.

.dat and .png files attached, translation texts below:

Code Select Expand


LSWR-Ironclad
LSWR "Ironclad" corridor coach
LSWR-Ironclad-Brake
LSWR "Ironclad" corridor coach (brake)
LSWR-Ironclad-Dining
LSWR "Ironclad" corridor dining coach
LSWR-Ironclad-Pantry
LSWR "Ironclad" corridor pantry coach
LSWR-Ironclad-Mail
LSWR "Ironclad" mail coach
LSWR-Ironclad-TPO
LSWR "Ironclad" TPO


[jamespetts]

Here are some carriages that may prove very useful and have been lacking from some time: LMS standard pattern non-corridor carriages; perfect to go with the 3p class tank locomotive (introduced 1930), or the 2p or 4p tender locomotives from the other thread. They were built in very large quantities by the LMS after grouping (1,616 of the non-brake non-lavatory types and 1,356 of the brake; only 200 of the lavatory types, however), and were ubiquitous throughout the network.

These are ideal for shorter distance journeys where passengers can tolerate less comfortable conditions, but where capacity is important. The lavatory vehicle is something of a compromise: it is more comfortable than the non-lavatory version (as well as having lavatory access, it has larger compartments), but has lower capacity. There is no lavatory brake, as the LMS did not build any.

.png and .dat files attached; English translation texts below.

Code Select Expand


LMS-non-cor-lav
LMS standard non-corridor carriage (lavatory)
LMS-non-cor-non-lav
LMS standard non-corridor carriage
LMS-non-cor-brake-front
LMS standard non-corridor carriage (brake)
LMS-non-cor-brake-rear
LMS standard non-corridor carriage (brake)


[kierongreen]

Most inner suburban EMUs before the 1960s also used this style, including the LSWR EMUs, the SR 3-Subs, the SR 4-Subs, the SR 4-Lav (apart from the centre coach, which had a side corridor (but no gangway) and a lavatory; you will see that the comfort rating of that carriage is higher than the others in the train!), and the BR 2- and 4-EPBs as well as the class 319.

Class 319? Thameslink EMU built in the late 1980's? :s

I'm not sure what the original intention was as regards companies, but it seems that one is supposed to be able to make trains all of one company (i.e., not have to mix locomotives and carriages of different companies in the same train), but not necessarily to have all trains of the same company (which would be silly if one chose a company like the Highland Railway or the Great Eastern, for example, of which there is one locomotive each and no rolling stock in the pakset).

Originally I was concentrating on the British Rail era so this wasn't a problem. I then gradually extended the timeframe back to the big four era and added various coaches from that time with no real plan... I'd suggest that before 1947 each of the big 4 companies (and before them at least one option from the one of the companies in their region) should have appropriate stock to run local, regional and express services - essentially so if a player wants they can produce a rough recreation of a map of Britain. I'd be wary of having too much choice as this can clutter up depots though. You can also introduce some minor variation to differentate between similar stock from different companies to give players a bit of choice with regards purchase costs, upkeep, etc.

[jamespetts]

Here are some earlier Midland Railway equivalents of the LMS non-corridor carriages above: they are shorter (one compartment less each) and lighter, and also a little cheaper. The lavatory version is also less comfortable, as only two of the seven compartments can access the lavatory(!). The comfort of the non-lavatory vehicles is the same. These are available from 1913 until the LMS carriages above are introduced in 1924.

.dat and .png files attached, English translation texts below:

Code Select Expand


MR-non-cor-lav
MR standard non-corridor carriage (lavatory)
MR-non-cor-non-lav
MR standard non-corridor carriage
MR-non-cor-brake-front
MR standard non-corridor carriage (brake)
MR-non-cor-brake-rear
MR standard non-corridor carriage (brake)



***

As to Kieron's post - I had meant 309 instead of 319 - oops! It's harder to do a full range of all companies when one is doing a far greater range of different types of vehicle. One could over time build up a fairly complete range in all of the grouping era companies, as there were only four of them, but it would be insane to try to do that for all the pre-grouping companies. Even with the grouping companies, there are complexities: the Southern did not build a single steam-hauled non-corridor carriage during its entire existence, having more than enough from its constituents in 1923, all new non-corridor stock being electric.

For the time being, I am adopting a system of allowing people to put together consistent trains if possible, with the locomotives matching the rolling stock, although there are still some gaps - for example, turn of the century LBSCR locomotives are missing, and there are currently only two LSWR examples (also, there is no matching stock for the GER Claud Hamilton). I try to concentrate on a few companies and try to produce a consistent range from those companies, as it makes for a more coherent experience than to have bits from lots of different companies. It also makes it easier to re-use graphics, as the continuum between the MR and LMS carriages above demonstrates (they were made by shortening and re-windowing the same Blender files), and the Ironclad/Maunsell stock in the above post. At the moment, I am trying to make sure that there is enough choice of all different types of stock and locomotive in all the eras; filling in company duplicates is a later task (the GWR has, for example, been notably absent from my recent work, an omission which will need rectifying at some point, as the GWR was very important). There had been a distinct lack of suburban stock (which is needed more for Experimental than Standard because of the comfort/loading times feature that makes distinction between suburban/long distance more important), which I have been trying to remedy with the MR/LMS/LBSCR stock here, and likewise the intermediate "lavatory non-corridor" that was important in the first quarter of the 20th century but faded afterwards.

One area that I have yet to tackle is the branch line and auto trains: we need more than the GWR auto coach, I think; the GWR "B-set" is a notable omission, and it would be useful to have higher density push-pull trains such as those used on the LMS and the Southern. I fear that I may run out of time and have to return to work/reality soon, so I am not sure how much time that I shall have for that. If anyone else would like to have a go at making some carriages (they're the easiest sort of railway vehicle to make), it'd be much appreciated!

[wlindley]

With so many excellent new additions lately -- Would there be a way to use them with different depots, or different players in multi-player?  What if you had to pick a "home" road and then could not purchase vehicles from "other" roads?  (Although many vehicles would remain "generic.")  Or if you could designate a depot as being for a specific railway, and got discounts on that railway's vehicles but had to pay extra (like patent fees) for others?  I wonder if anything like that would improve gameplay or just be too complicated.

[The Hood]

James, I believe GER used teak coaches and therefore the teak clerestory stock was intended to go with it (as well as GNR).  When I did the pre-BR expansion of kieron's set I wanted a good range of the big 4 and then a sample of pre-grouping; coaching stock was intended to be generic but still enough to get most colour schemes approximately right. 

It's great to have such detailed stuff coming out but I do worry about cluttering depots and confusing people.  I suppose one way to do it (although this would require code changes) would be to define sets of locos/stock you could purchase.  The logical way would be to define groups corresponding with each of the big 4 and the stock they took on at grouping, and each player would only be allowed one of these groups.  E.g. if you were LMS, you would be allowed all LMS (and later BR and post-privatisation) stuff, all LNWR, MR stuff, but nothing else (although I suppose some of the pre-1850ish stuff should be generic too?).  This could possibly be overridden by a "show all" button similar to obsolete vehicles.

[inkelyad]

E.g. if you were LMS, you would be allowed all LMS (and later BR and post-privatisation) stuff, all LNWR, MR stuff, but nothing else (although I suppose some of the pre-1850ish stuff should be generic too?).

We can do different depots for that. It is more or less intuitive.

[jamespetts]

WLindley's idea is an interesting one, and one that I had previously considered in various forms (including, at one point and somewhat fancifully, the notion that one might be able to hire various possible CMEs who would then turn out their design of stock for the period that they remained employed!). However, there are practical difficulties with this idea (even in its simplified form). The first and most obvious is that it would require every type of vehicle from every company to be represented, which would amount to a very large amount of work. That might just be surmountable in the grouping era, but would be impossible before 1923.

Secondly, and more subtly, not all companies produced all types of stock. As noted above, the Southern did not produce any non-corridor hauled stock throughout its entire existence; if a player chose Southern and had a need for this sort of stock at the relevant times, he or she would be stuck. Also, if one uses historically accurate dates for introduction/retirement, many companies did not build certain types of stock during certain (often long) periods simply because they already had enough of them; again, if the player decided that he or she needed that particular type of stock at that particular time, he or she would be stuck.

As for depot clutter, I really don't think that that would be a difficulty, as many of these items are quite specific to certain time periods. As things stand, many time periods have distinct gaps for certain sorts of stock which I am trying to fill. I don't think that the choice at any given point in time is overwhelming. It is probably a little much with the timeline turned off, but then Pak128.Britain wasn't really designed, I don't think, to be played with the timeline turned off.

One measure that I am in the process of taking that should reduce clutter in the carriages window is to require all steam-era trains to start as well as end with a brake vehicle, as was the case in reality, such that players will no longer see in the carriage window just after purchasing a locomotive every type of carriage: just the brakes of each type. On selecting the brake, the player will then see the full set of carriages that go with that vehicle, but no others.

[ӔO]

The only place where I find depot clutter a bit confusing are the BR. Mk1, Mk2 carriages and their various liveries.

One thought that occurred to me, is being able to set "region filters". With no relation to the 6 BR regions.
Let's say you set "South West" and this will give you rolling stock for GWR and all its constituents as well as modern traction you would only find in this area, like BR Class 52.
or if you set "North Eastern", this will give you rolling stock for only LNER, GER, GNR, etc.

If no region filters are selected, then the game will list all stock.

[The Hood]

Moving progressively away from on-topic, regarding liveries, I've always wanted to have different liveries available for different vehicles without including them as separate objects (this would remove some of the clutter AEO has noted).  E.g. you build an LMS princess class, then you select the livery from a drop-down menu (LMS Crimson, LMS Black, BR Blue, BR Green etc).  Obviously this would involve a lot of graphics work, but if it gets coded I'd do some vehicles like that (eventually).

I do like the idea of filters though, especially considering that between the different companies post-grouping a lot of vehicles do similar functions (LNER A3, LMS Princess, GWR King) at the same time and it would be nice to allow people to replicate historical situations without requiring an encyclopedic knowledge of who built what when and for what purpose!  Jamespetts' objection regarding introduction and retirement dates can easily be surmounted by giving these carriages a notional last build date corresponding with the first build date of replacement stock.

[jamespetts]

Here are some useful items for branch-line working: Midland Railway and later LMS push-pull sets (the MR push-pull set has one vehicle either side of the locomotive, although can run with just the one either in front of or behind of the locomotive and the LMS set consists of up to three carriages behind the locomotive). These are based on the MR and LMS non-corridor carriages above, and in Experimental, can be upgraded from them.

.png and .dat files attached; translation texts below:

Code Select Expand


LMS-push-pull-brake
LMS push-pull set (driving trailer)
LMS-push-pull-centre-1
LMS push-pull set (centre trailer)
LMS-push-pull-centre-2
LMS push-pull set (centre trailer)
MR-push-pull-front
MR push-pull set (front)
MR-push-pull-rear
MR push-pull set (rear)


[jamespetts]

Attached is a useful vehicle so far missing: a non-full brake for the LMS express carriages in both rotations to enable use at the front and end of the train (which is now mandated). .dat files for all LMS express carriages are included because of the necessary updates to the coupling constraints.

Translation texts below:

Code Select Expand


LMS-open-brake-front
LMS open brake
LMS-open-brake-rear
LMS open brake


[The Hood]

In the Push-pull brake dat files, there is a line saying "uptrade_cost="  - this is presumably a typo that will need fixing in experimental versions...

[jamespetts]

Thank you for spotting that, although my copies seem more complete.

[jamespetts]

Moving progressively away from on-topic, regarding liveries, I've always wanted to have different liveries available for different vehicles without including them as separate objects (this would remove some of the clutter AEO has noted).  E.g. you build an LMS princess class, then you select the livery from a drop-down menu (LMS Crimson, LMS Black, BR Blue, BR Green etc).  Obviously this would involve a lot of graphics work, but if it gets coded I'd do some vehicles like that (eventually).

Taking your idea of having different liveries for different eras without having different objects (and combining it with the discussion on economic balancing and overhauls), I should be interested in your thoughts on my suggestion in that respect in this thread (preferably expressed in that thread rather than this).

[jamespetts]

Moving progressively away from on-topic, regarding liveries, I've always wanted to have different liveries available for different vehicles without including them as separate objects (this would remove some of the clutter AEO has noted).  E.g. you build an LMS princess class, then you select the livery from a drop-down menu (LMS Crimson, LMS Black, BR Blue, BR Green etc).  Obviously this would involve a lot of graphics work, but if it gets coded I'd do some vehicles like that (eventually).

I do like the idea of filters though, especially considering that between the different companies post-grouping a lot of vehicles do similar functions (LNER A3, LMS Princess, GWR King) at the same time and it would be nice to allow people to replicate historical situations without requiring an encyclopedic knowledge of who built what when and for what purpose!  Jamespetts' objection regarding introduction and retirement dates can easily be surmounted by giving these carriages a notional last build date corresponding with the first build date of replacement stock.

I am considering implementing a feature of this description in the next major version of Experimental: see here for details. Your thoughts on the implementation would be much appreciated.