Locomotive fixes for 1.06

[Gumboots]

I have a stack of locos roughed out. The Black 5 is accurate as far as it goes, but the mesh isn't finished yet. For example, there are no drivetrain components at this stage. It also has no UV mapping or texturing, only a basic material applied in Blender. But if you want to mess around with it that's fine. I'll pack it all up tonight, along with the reefers.

By the way, do you use Photoshop for skinning?

Anyway, textures in Blender:

I am 55 myself and didn't find Blender hard to pick up BUT I did spend that many hours (6:22 + 4) reading the manual, doing tutorials, and familiarising myself with the interface BEFORE trying to do any actual work. I did try it the other way (ie: just jump in and go nuts) and that simply didn't work.

Not that you have to use Blender. I'm just reiterating that point for anyone who does want to learn to use it.

I can't be arsed to spend 4 hours figuring out how to get Blender to throw textures on the model.

.
1/ Select object (right click)
2/ Set a material (right side panel, small globe icon)
3/ Scroll down to Transparency. Set Alpha and Specular to 0.
4/ Apply a texture (next checkered icon, to the right).
5/ Set Type to "Image or Movie".
6/ Set Mapping > Coordinates to UV.
7/ Scroll down to Influence. Set Alpha to 1.

There ya go. Model skinned.

.
If you want to get into using Blender, I seriously (this means seriously) recommend starting with their N00b to Pro tutorials:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3 ... f_Contents

You don't need to read all of it, and can just pick the ones that are relevant to RT3 modelling and skinning. The Blender interface is very well designed, but not intuitive. This is a case where learning by breaking things, which is my preference too, simply does not work. Everyone who tries it goes nuts (including me).

But, since Blender will export and import .3ds files, you should be able to do most of the work in 3DS MAX if you prefer to use that. Although there is a Blender setting (in User Preferences) which will set the the interface to use Maya or 3DS shortcuts, but I've never tried it so don't know how good it is.

Actually, my loco knowledge is not that deep. That explains the odd choices in 1.06. However back then, ten years ago, Black 5 was a choice of my interest. I even have a book, which I found in a second hand bookshop for few Euros. So it would be a good engine for to start with. Depending of time and enthusiasm, I think that I could look at 1.06 buildings and diesel and electric locos. I gather that these do not interest you that much?

.
The Black 5 is a good choice, since it was one of the most common and one of the best UK locos. The other 1.06 steam choices were also pretty good IMO, for a basic set.

I have absolutely no interest in diesel or electric locomotives. I know they are practical these days, but they're just not fun. I don't find them any more interesting than a basic delivery van. To me, a train is only a train if it goes choof.

I could get into buildings sometime. Have already done a bugfix for the default Auto Plant upgrade. But, like you, I'm mainly into locomotives.

[Gumboots]

BTW, where is your new car planner file? I saw that you have removed some old versions, but I don't find the post where current file may be?

Ok, the latest (hopefully final) car planner is attached. I wanted to talk it over with RoR first, but he thinks it's working well in his testing.

This latest one is a bit different to the earlier ones, which after more thought and testing had some obvious glitches.
I'll have to revamp some of the existing packs a bit to take account of the changes, but that's not your problem.

I've included .ods and .xls formats. I only use Open Office. I don't know how good the .xls export is, but it should be useable.
If you have any questions about it, ask away. The reasoning behind it goes like this:

1. Default four eras, with doubling of weight at era change, hit locos too hard when they change.
2. Also, 50 years is a long time without changes, so more frequent should be more interesting.
3. Weights are different to default weights, to get a balanced scale that still works with fuel economy and reliability scales.
4. Freights are divided into heavy, medium and light freights (light ones are fast-rotting, heavy ones are mining, etc).
5. To make it less confusing, all light freights are reefer cargoes.
6. All medium freights are either auto racks or boxcars or tankers.
7. All heavy freights are either hoppers (open or covered) or flatcars.
8. Express is a lighter in proportion to freight, to discourage use of fast express locos for hauling freight everywhere.
9. Pax appeal scale is expanded with more options, mainly to make cheap freight locos less appealing for hauling pax.
10. Cargoes are split into two groups for change years, with a ten year stagger between groups.
11. One group contains all light and heavy freights, plus pax and dining car and mail.
12. This group changes from A to B in 1850, then every 25 years (IOW, every second change is same year as default).
13. The other group contains all medium freights, plus troops.
14. This group changes from A to B in 1840, then every 25 years (So military cargoes change at the start of WW1 and WW2).

[bombardiere]

By the way, do you use Photoshop for skinning?

I use GIMP. I guess it is a bit like between Blender and 3DS MAX. GIMP is a bit rough in comparison to Photoshop, but I have used it for some time and learned some of its quirks. Back then I was using Paint Shop Pro and I miss its ready shapes. I was simple to do boxes and buttons with it. GIMP has brushes and I need to learn to use those more efficiently.

But, since Blender will export and import .3ds files, you should be able to do most of the work in 3DS MAX if you prefer to use that. Although there is a Blender setting (in User Preferences) which will set the the interface to use Maya or 3DS shortcuts, but I've never tried it so don't know how good it is.

I need to check that, but for now I will be using 3DS MAX. Anywise, I need to learn a new way of modelling. In SC4 it was enough to make boxes and shapes, but now I need manipulate objects more. DO more complex modelling than I have done before.

The Black 5 is a good choice, since it was one of the most common and one of the best UK locos. The other 1.06 steam choices were also pretty good IMO, for a basic set.

Ok, steams have some valid points. Vittorio was intended as an odd engine any way. I did Mogul as a big Mogul. That is why the wheels were big and intro date so late. (so I ignored that the wheels cut in cabin. ) I was planning to use American body to make a small Mogul. G10 was my favourite although it is very slow in the game. However, I am not sure would I anymore introduce G3/G4/G4.1 into the game. I am not sure would it have use in the game even if it could be "deborked". I would also remove my British BR Class diesels and electric. Those should have stayed in my British packs as a regional pack instead being included in general 1.06 setup.

only use Open Office.

I have open office so I do not need excel conversation. This looks very interesting indeed. I will give my comments in wagon thread later.

[Gumboots]

I use GIMP. I guess it is a bit like between Blender and 3DS MAX. GIMP is a bit rough in comparison to Photoshop, but I have used it for some time and learned some of its quirks.

I have GIMP, but hate it. I will occasionally use it for some things. I am happy to share PSD's for skins I have made, but GIMP won't import PS layer styles so the files probably wouldn't be much use to you.

Ok, steams have some valid points. Vittorio was intended as an odd engine any way. I did Mogul as a big Mogul. That is why the wheels were big and intro date so late. (so I ignored that the wheels cut in cabin. ) I was planning to use American body to make a small Mogul.

IMO it's not worth using the American body for that. Now that we have an import/export script, it's just as easy to make a new loco body as it is to mess around with an old one, and making a new one will usually give a better result. I revamped the Mogul into an average one for the period, although it's still not any particular locomotive and it still has the low-res PopTop texture. I do have some drawings of Baldwin locos from the period.

G10 was my favourite although it is very slow in the game.

I think that is good. A lot of the locomotive stats in RT3 are fanboy stats that have no relation to how the locos actually performed. TBH I think a lot of freight locos need to be slower. They will still work. I've used Moguls around 1900, just to try things out, and they still haul freight and make money. The default Consolidation's 60 mph top speed is ludicrous. In practice, a locomotive like that would have rarely exceeded 30 mph.

However, I am not sure would I anymore introduce G3/G4/G4.1 into the game. I am not sure would it have use in the game even if it could be "deborked".

The G10 and G4 are used in existing maps, so I figure they should stay. The G4 is really quite a nice little locomotive. I have got this far with it.
.

.

I have open office so I do not need excel conversation. This looks very interesting indeed. I will give my comments in wagon thread later.

I've attached a zip of a spreadsheet I made to get my head around what is available in locomotives at the moment, and where there are gaps that need filling. This is for the same cargo scale as the other spreadsheet. The grey columns are when the express and heavy freight cargoes change weight. Those are the most critical years for locomotives.

Locomotives with black background and white text are ideas that have not been finished yet. I have most of them modelled to a basic stage (most of the mesh, but no UV's or textures).

[RulerofRails]

A lot of the locomotive stats in RT3 are fanboy stats that have no relation to how the locos actually performed.

Well the erroneous in-game read-out surely didn't help.

Bomber, you might have read about this already. But here's an illustration of the problem with the readout. In-game (D-era) we see:

The reality is:

The entire problem is that the read-out uses the wrong weights (relative to the default Poptop ones). In fact those weights are double what they should be!

A trick therefore is that 8 REAL cars, seeing they are only half the weight, are equivalent to 4 cars on the in-game read-out. You will see that the in-game read-out column 1 is the same as 2 cars on the actual, column 2 = actual 4 cars, column 3 = actual 6 cars, and column 4 = actual 8 cars. This lines up perfectly with real weight in D-era being half (40 tons).

With the new weight scale, we have more frequent changes in weight, but the principle is the same, if you know the total weight of your consist you can get some idea by picking the column which turns up the closest total weight. The spreadsheet will tell you exactly, but I certainly don't look it up in the middle of my plays. For example, the maximum new weight is 60 tons, with a full consist we have 60x8=560 tons. Working from the in-game read-out above, we can then divide the total by 80, 560/8 = 6. So Column 6 of the in-game readout will tell us the slowest the Class 01 would ever be. Also, don't forget about the "Express" and "Mixed" options on the in-game read-out, these give more divisor possibilities to get close.

[Gumboots]

The entire problem is that the read-out uses the wrong weights (relative to the default Poptop ones). In fact those weights are double what they should be!

Just to make it clear to Bomber: what's happening is the in-game stats are one era ahead of where they should be, so during A era it will assume cars are B era weight.

For D era it is actually showing stats for a hypothetical E era, with 80 ton freight cars, even though the pop-up says 40 tons.

Yes, it's RT3, therefore it is stupid.

And with custom cargo weights the in-game stats stay the same, because the wrong weights are hard-coded into the .exe.

Told you it was stupid.

[bombardiere]

A lot of the locomotive stats in RT3 are fanboy stats that have no relation to how the locos actually performed.

Well the erroneous in-game read-out surely didn't help.

******! I feel so stupid now. I had no intention to give Fanboy stats, but stats were given so that display would make some sense.

The weight is of course 40 t car + 40 t cargo. I think I have read about it , but I need to ask. Sorry. Are you certain that the game does not use cargo weights? These are in the files. I can't remember what kind of discussion we had about this.

During my resent play, I have noticed that some Vanilla locos are performing better than I was expecting. I could run mixed traffic with Stirling. Mainly because some scenarios did not have other usable engine.

I am happy to share PSD's for skins I have made, but GIMP won't import PS layer styles so the files probably wouldn't be much use to you.

Sure, I could test those. For my Connie test I exported uncompressed TGA. The game did not like DDS, which game out from GIMP.

IMO it's not worth using the American body for that.

It was back then. I am here to see if there is new potential in the game.

T
.

106_G4_Basics.jpg

.

That is a lovely little engine. I think I could like it even if it would not have much game use.

[Gumboots]

The weight is of course 40 t car + 40 t cargo. I think I have read about it , but I need to ask. Sorry. Are you certain that the game does not use cargo weights? These are in the files. I can't remember what kind of discussion we had about this.

The only weight the game uses is the value in the .car file. The value in the .cgo file is not used.

We have tested this and are sure of it. You can set the .cgo value to zero or one million and it will make no difference. I think they were planning on using it early in development, but then decided not to.

Sure, I could test those. For my Connie test I exported uncompressed TGA. The game did not like DDS, which game out from GIMP.

Probably not much point testing them in GIMP. I know for a fact that it won't recognise PSD layer styles. I haven't checked for a while, but I don't think GIMP recognises much in a PSD at all. I'll fire up GIMP later and take a look.

That is a lovely little engine. I think I could like it even if it would not have much game use.

Yup.

[Gumboots]

Just checked a PSD in GIMP. Yup, no layer styles. It will recognise the basic shapes, and the guides, and layer groups, but no styles.

And RT3 handles DDS just fine, if you export as DXT3. DXT1 and DXT5 won't work.

TGA is a lot heavier on the graphics card, and for a lot of skins won't give any improvement in looks.

[bombardiere]

Gumboots your loco spreadsheet has been interesting reading. Thanks.

During my campaign play I have noticed some obvious gaps in loco lineup.

In US environment I could have used light express around 1860s. Ten Wheeler with top speed perhaps 60 mph could fill that gap. An early Mogul for mixed traffic would be useful too. I could use it in freight until modified Connie is available and the relegate Mogul into branch traffic.

(I did not use Duke in US scenarios. Sorry Pop Top, it does not belong there.)

Connie has changed dates more times than I can count, but if there is an early Mogul then Connie can be pushed into 1870s. Top speed 60 mph is just too much and 1.06 changed it into 45 mph. I don't know how Lirio treated Connie. So far Connie has been the best engine in 1800s in Vanilla game. I have used it everywhere, including fast express. Which is quite ridiculous. So I really want a proper Ten Wheeler.

Your sheet had black space for mixed in 1890. Oh yes, this needs something. My Mogul was inspired by 1895 Baldwin's Mogul. Inspiration was an export model for Britain. UK did not import many foreign locos and those few mostly for testing, but a handful of American Moguls run British steels. So perhaps this gap could use a Mogul like that or a 2-6-2- Prairie. With a bigger firebox a Prairie could be made a better puller than Mogul.

To be honest, I can't remember of what kind of travesty was introduced in 1.06 for a Prairie. Did I do that? And I was surprised to find 4-6-0 G5 in your sheet. I thought that was still in my workbench.

I agreed that the game's Eight Wheeler does not make much sense. A top speed 100 mph when 80 mph would have been more realistic. Well, that should be fixed easily and perhaps doing that, pulling power could be increased in compensation. Class A4 Mallard would benefit same treatment. First there is some valid speculation that if it ever reached that 126 mph speed and anyway it almost crashed during that attempt. You simply don't do anything like that with paying passengers. I feel that it should be faster than German Br.01, so around 110 mph would be sufficient. Again some extra pulling power to compensate this.

That brings me to Euro locos. These is a huge gap between Beuth 2-2-2 and 4-4-0 Duke and what is more astonishing, it does not have a dedicated Euro freight steam engine until Kriegslok in 1942! Dx Goods is vital, borked it may be. It could also use something bigger during late years of 1800s.

(Crocodile is only other freight, but it is electric.)

I have felt that P8 exit dated is too early, so I did push it until 1960s. If there would be a fixed Black 5, it could fill the space.

PoP Top gave 4-4-0 good grade climbing so I have used it as mixed traffic engine, but sure it is a light passenger engine. Oh those Caledonian mountains.

What is kkStB Reihe 108 2C1? I tried to google it, but I got pictures of Atlantics. If I read that wheel arrangement right, it should be a Pacific then? I would fancy a Bavarian Pacific, which I remember as Br.18. A nice small Pasific. Pacifics in the game tend to be big ones.

I am not sure would Class V2 offer much to the game. And plenty of Euro Big Pacifics already so I feel that Princess Royal is unnecessary duplication. Sure I can use it in UK scenario, but it does pretty much same than German Br.01.

As you have said, the World section has huge gap, but I would sort out US and Euro first and perhaps improve World as a "region" pack. Not many places did locomotives in 1800s so US engines would fill gaps here. I would look at Indian subcontinent and if you can pull a SAR Garret then I would be elated.

This could be my personal bias, but I would categorise Russia as World. The Soviet area brought some grand designs and I was tinkering one or two.

[bombardiere]

The only weight the game uses is the value in the .car file. The value in the .cgo file is not used.

We have tested this and are sure of it. You can set the .cgo value to zero or one million and it will make no difference. I think they were planning on using it early in development, but then decided not to.

Cool. Part of my thinking was that the game works as advertised. I should have know better.

[Gumboots]

To be honest, I can't remember of what kind of travesty was introduced in 1.06 for a Prairie. Did I do that? And I was surprised to find 4-6-0 G5 in your sheet. I thought that was still in my workbench.

1.06 doesn't have a Prairie. And the G5 is just an Atlantic model with a reskin and different wheels, which is pretty close to what it was in real life anyway. Has a few bodgey bits, but they would be easy to fix.

The main thing wrong with the default Atlantic model is its scale. It's ridiculously big compared to what it should be. The default Pacific is even stupider. It's supposed to be a K4 but looks nothing like one, and they made it even bigger than the Atlantic, probably because they thought "Do'h, Pacifics were bigger than Atlantics so we have to make this look bigger".

TBH some of the default locos are so screwed that I'd be tempted to just eliminate them from scenarios and substitute custom locos.

I agreed that the game's Eight Wheeler does not make much sense. A top speed 100 mph when 80 mph would have been more realistic. Well, that should be fixed easily and perhaps doing that, pulling power could be increased in compensation. Class A4 Mallard would benefit same treatment. First there is some valid speculation that if it ever reached that 126 mph speed and anyway it almost crashed during that attempt. You simply don't do anything like that with paying passengers. I feel that it should be faster than German Br.01, so around 110 mph would be sufficient. Again some extra pulling power to compensate this.

Yes those speeds make more sense. A4's commonly operated up to 95 or 100, with occasional peaks around 110 (downhill, at a guess). So did quite a few other UK express locos. The BR 01 never ran at 93 mph in service, although it was probably capable of that speed. IIRC they were limited to 120 kmh in service, which is 75 mph.

That brings me to Euro locos. These is a huge gap between Beuth 2-2-2 and 4-4-0 Duke and what is more astonishing, it does not have a dedicated Euro freight steam engine until Kriegslok in 1942! Dx Goods is vital, borked it may be. It could also use something bigger during late years of 1800s.

Yes, Euro and World freight definitely need more options. I have some ideas there, as you can see from the second spreadsheet. Express isn't so bad, because there are the Crampton, Stirling and Duke already. The Beuth is really a mixed traffic loco. IRL it only did about 25 mph flat out.

I have felt that P8 exit dated is too early, so I did push it until 1960s. If there would be a fixed Black 5, it could fill the space.

PopTop seems to have used build dates for locos. Personally I'm inclined to not have stop dates on locomotives, unless in some cases the early ones become an exploit. I don't think that will happen. I think having them all without stop dates won't be a problem in practice, and it will give a lot more scope for steam in later years. I want this, since I only play steam.

PoP Top gave 4-4-0 good grade climbing so I have used it as mixed traffic engine, but sure it is a light passenger engine. Oh those Caledonian mountains.

The Duke? Yes it was an express loco, and was intended to be pretty good up grades. Flat country express at the time was usually 2-2-2 or 4-2-2.

What is kkStB Reihe 108 2C1? I tried to google it, but I got pictures of Atlantics. If I read that wheel arrangement right, it should be a Pacific then?

No, Atlantic. The C was a typo. The 108 was a nice unit. I like them.

I would fancy a Bavarian Pacific, which I remember as Br.18. A nice small Pacific. Pacifics in the game tend to be big ones.

Yes I'd like some extra ones too, more for fun than because the game actually needs them. The Bavarian S3/6 are elegant units, and I like the Württemberg C too.

The BR naming came in later, when the various state railways were amalgamated into the federal system. For instance, the BR39 was originally the Prussian P10, and carried the Prussian green livery rather than the later Darth Vader livery.

I am not sure would Class V2 offer much to the game. And plenty of Euro Big Pacifics already so I feel that Princess Royal is unnecessary duplication. Sure I can use it in UK scenario, but it does pretty much same than German Br.01.

Sure, but you wouldn't want to use a BR01 in a UK scenario. And anyway the BR01 is more like an A1: three cylinder, moderate size. The V2 is a nice loco, so might as well stay.

As you have said, the World section has huge gap, but I would sort out US and Euro first and perhaps improve World as a "region" pack. Not many places did locomotives in 1800s so US engines would fill gaps here. I would look at Indian subcontinent and if you can pull a SAR Garret then I would be elated.

Agreed. World locos in the 1800's were mainly UK and US exports. Australia used both, but mainly UK-built. We even had a class of Moguls that were built in Scotland by Dubs, but to a Baldwin design. They were nicknamed "Scotch Yankees".

By the way, I have quite a few figures on speeds that were common in practice in the 19th century. Freight, even in the 1890's, often ran at 20 mph or less. Express was usually around 50. Basically, loads increased in weight over the 19th century, but speeds didn't change all that much.

This could be my personal bias, but I would categorise Russia as World. The Soviet area brought some grand designs and I was tinkering one or two.

I agree. Some of the earlier, pre-Soviet ones are interesting too.

[RulerofRails]

I think having them all without stop dates won't be a problem in practice, and it will give a lot more scope for steam in later years.

I remember the poll on that. With running costs and performance balanced up, I'm hopeful that the impact on gameplay will be acceptable. Might need to trim late game engine purchase costs, but I don't have an aversion to that. What are your thoughts on a special case like the Camelback? I read somewhere that the stop date (1926) corresponds with the time that this design was banned from being manufactured in the US, on safety grounds.

[Gumboots]

We could make the camelback a special case. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Edit: In fact we could make any loco a special case if necessary. I just think that, in general, there's no real need for stop years. Older locos won't clutter the list noticeably. They'll be at the bottom of the list, so if you don't want to buy one you simply won't scroll down that far, which means you won't be bothered by them.

[bombardiere]

1.06 doesn't have a Prairie.

Oh really. Then why I have found an old excel where I have included a Prairie... If you guys have not learned it already, now you finally see that I was totally clueless on what I have been doing back then.

I would like to see a Prairie in my game, but I better forgot what ever I was doing back then. I only did wheel swaps, so no real modelling was in progress.

The main thing wrong with the default Atlantic model is its scale

I had not noticed this as my thinking is that if it is an American loco, it must be big. No wonder it was suitable for my freight engine projects.

The BR 01 never ran at 93 mph in service, although it was probably capable of that speed. IIRC they were limited to 120 kmh in service, which is 75 mph.

Yes, i think BR 01 would easily make 93 mph without speed restrictions. Same with many French locos. I think the French had this 75 mph cap for express locos too.

Well RRT3 has no speed restrictions, so for game balance I would use for loco stats what is a realistic top speed. Of course I mean realistic. Not like Eight Wheeler's 100 mph! This is after all a game, not a real life locomotive safety instruction course. I would hate to see my top express loco "crawling" around at 75 mph. And it takes time for steam engine to reach its maximum so I think it is ok to give an engine a little bit extra speed over real life speed limits. I am not sure if I ever seen Mallard to hit 125 mph in my games.

By the way, I have quite a few figures on speeds that were common in practice in the 19th century. Freight, even in the 1890's, often ran at 20 mph or less. Express was usually around 50. Basically, loads increased in weight over the 19th century, but speeds didn't change all that much

The above goes to this one too. I feel that the game balance is more important than real life operational practises. If a freight engine can realisticly do about 50 mph, then I would give its stats as 50 mph. And then punish it with properly adjusted pulling power and car (load) weight.

I don't think it is good for game play when a freight slowly lumbers around doing only 20 mph when it has sufficient power to pull its load. The game's maps are not in constant scale and I don't think we should pay too much attention to real life operating speeds. If we go for absolute operating speed, then ideally each map should be scaled and locomotive speed should adjusted up or down according to the map's scale. I think that it would be too much and I would be happy with realistic looking speeds.

PopTop seems to have used build dates for locos. Personally I'm inclined to not have stop dates on locomotives, unless in some cases the early ones become an exploit. I don't think that will happen. I think having them all without stop dates won't be a problem in practice, and it will give a lot more scope for steam in later years. I want this, since I only play steam.

I would like to keep end dates. In most cases when an engine drops from the roster, it is useless anyway. So those would only clutter the list. There are some scenarios where there are not a replacement available, but I think that is then a poorly made scenario.

I have based my exit on the date when last example was withdrawn from operational service. Not an end of build date. In most cases that is enough.

However I don't mind some late steamers beyond their expiry date for steam option in modern scenarios. If I would ever make any British Railways's standard classes, I would give exit dates till 70's or 80's. Because the steam withdrawal in 1968 was a political decision not an operating necessity. Ok that did make sense and as no new engines were build, the ones in use we getting old. However, if it would have decided otherwise, steam would have survived longer. In Finland steam survived till 70's and even after that the steamer were but into storage for cold war emergency.

No, Atlantic. The C was a typo. The 108 was a nice unit. I like them.

Ah, thanks. I found right engine indeed. Agree it is a good looking loco and it is very distinct. If you pull of that curvy board then it would be a nice addition to loco list. Austrians had interesting loco design philosophy. To my untrained eye some Austrian locomotives look like they are a cross of German real life practises and steam punk space cadet fantasies.

[Gumboots]

Oh really. Then why I have found an old excel where I have included a Prairie...

I know you made a Prairie, but it wasn't added to 1.06. I think it was in one of your loco packs. Anyway you can have a Prairie if you want one.

Yes, i think BR 01 would easily make 93 mph without speed restrictions. Same with many French locos. I think the French had this 75 mph cap for express locos too.

Well RRT3 has no speed restrictions, so for game balance I would use for loco stats what is a realistic top speed. Of course I mean realistic. Not like Eight Wheeler's 100 mph! This is after all a game, not a real life locomotive safety instruction course. I would hate to see my top express loco "crawling" around at 75 mph.

I have thought about French locos and their speed limit. The French were a special case, since they had little or no good coal of their own. That's why they were so keen on efficiency and compounding long after most countries gave it up. They were trying to squeeze the most performance out of the least fuel. And although they had 75 mph speed limit they could sustain it with a full consist, and even on light grades. So there would be scope for balancing a French loco with (for example) 75 mph with 8 cars up a 1% grade, and with low fuel costs. Obviously that's not the only way of doing it, but it would be an option for getting some more variety in loco stats.

BTW, Australian railways usually ran similar speed limits, although the official limits were sometimes exceeded.

And it takes time for steam engine to reach its maximum so I think it is ok to give an engine a little bit extra speed over real life speed limits. I am not sure if I ever seen Mallard to hit 125 mph in my games.

It will get close with a light consist on flat ground, but RT3 seems to never get the last 1 mph, even downhill.

The above goes to this one too. I feel that the game balance is more important than real life operational practises. If a freight engine can realisticly do about 50 mph, then I would give its stats as 50 mph. And then punish it with properly adjusted pulling power and car (load) weight.

50 mph is way too fast for 19th century freight. Ok for mid-20th century. And if you give a loco "adjusted pulling power and car weight" then the top speed becomes irrelevant because it will never get there anyway. You might as well give it a lower top speed and more pulling power.

I don't think it is good for game play when a freight slowly lumbers around doing only 20 mph when it has sufficient power to pull its load. The game's maps are not in constant scale and I don't think we should pay too much attention to real life operating speeds. If we go for absolute operating speed, then ideally each map should be scaled and locomotive speed should adjusted up or down according to the map's scale. I think that it would be too much and I would be happy with realistic looking speeds.

We don't need to get too pedantic about it, but even 30 mph for freight into the 20th century is fine. I've often played with Kriegsloks into the default D era (after 1950) and they usually won't get past 35 mph with a full freight consist on a 0% grade. They only have below average acceleration too, but they're cheap and reliable and that's all that matters. Freight locos in RT3 tend to stop a lot, so acceleration is probably more important than top speed.

Ah, thanks. I found right engine indeed. Agree it is a good looking loco and it is very distinct. If you pull of that curvy board then it would be a nice addition to loco list. Austrians had interesting loco design philosophy. To my untrained eye some Austrian locomotives look like they are a cross of German real life practises and steam punk space cadet fantasies.

Curvy board?

Yes, Austrian locos of that period were interesting. Quite logical too. They just had a different way of approaching the problems, and of course the problems to be solved were slightly different to some other countries. Main ones were really crappy coal, meaning they needed huge fireboxes, and light axle loads, and tunnels. They often had tenders set up with coal and an oil tank. The oil was added to the fire to reduce smoke in long tunnels.

Have you seen this thread? Orient Express choofers (we needz them too).

[RulerofRails]

With the express engines, there is the option to have an engine such as the Mallard tuned (very low free weight) so that it will only be able to hit top speed going down a hill. The drawback is that it may not have enough pace to climb hills or when loaded with 8 cars. The other option is to pick a lower top speed, as Gumboots suggested for the French engines and go with a high enough free weight so that it can pull 8 cars at close to top speed. Probably will use a mix of both. There's so many options.

We don't need to get too pedantic about it, but even 30 mph for freight into the 20th century is fine. I've often played with Kriegsloks into the default D era (after 1950) and they usually won't get past 35 mph with a full freight consist on a 0% grade. They only have below average acceleration too, but they're cheap and reliable and that's all that matters. Freight locos in RT3 tend to stop a lot, so acceleration is probably more important than top speed.

The Kriegslok has a max speed of 39mph with 8 car freight consist. It was balanced this way. Speed is it's weaknesses. Everything else about it is good for freight use. So perhaps we could say that speed is not as important as the other things. I do think that PopTop did put too much importance on speed. But it does have an importance for freight anyway.

Long distance runs is where you will see the difference in top speed (provided not congestion affected). Map scale does matter here. On small maps like the default Italy you aren't going to see a big difference with less top speed. Some of the default maps are maximum size, and regardless of size some have larger spacing between cities.

Personally, I don't have a specific formula for freight traffic route setup, mostly I haul to surrounding cities. But there are various styles, some purposely skip a city or two. I do sometimes skip too, but mainly it's because of a geographic factor or if the closest city is tiny and it's just a bit further to a big one.
.

---

.
So far in my test games (splitting Express and Freight) I end up with a few more locos (like anything this can vary greatly with strategy). Setting Express engines to High priority is not good for freight congestion in general. I did boost acceleration for freight already by about a level or so. There are always provisos with congestion, often times it can be avoided with good planning. I mention this because since congestion in a split system is already more than default, I'm wary of further increases in case it's too much. BTW, I should do some testing for split system in high traffic situations, if you remember some, I'm all ears.

A situation where reducing freight speed will impact gameplay is long distance haulage. This is used as a strategic element in a good number of maps. For example a medal/task with a time limit. Some maps also use an average freight speed target. In such case I will run the Freights on High priority, so if they have speed they can use it.

You could just say, hey, use a Mixed or Express tuned engine with few cars (cringe) for said task. And say, "It's up to the player to pay the fuel cost penalty, who cares if your trains aren't profitable."

Another legitimate use of long distance freight haulage is for transporting a rare resource to a industry that will convert it. For example to a Port, multiple input industry, or generally in games where industry building is disabled. I will also tend to mostly run these engines on High priority. So they can make use of speed. Here fuel cost is important. Would like to use Freight tuness for this task, but maybe that should be a job for Mixed tunes in the first place.

At the moment my test install has the pulling power/top speed stats contained in your Pennsy H3 for the Mogul and Connie (have boosted those accelerations). We could experiment with acceleration graph a bit more (if we have time), but I'm also tending to think not to go extreme.

[Gumboots]

Long distance runs is where you will see the difference in top speed (provided not congestion affected). Map scale does matter here. On small maps like the default Italy you aren't going to see a big difference with less top speed. Some of the default maps are maximum size, and regardless of size some have larger spacing between cities.

There are other things you can do on larger maps. If the scale (miles per pixel) is smaller, using an event to reduce oil, water and sand consumption will speed up haulage without any change to top speed. This is particularly the case with steam locos, but also applies to diesel and electric locos. It makes sense too. The distance in miles between cities in real life is what should set the range of trains in the game. So if you halve the miles per pixel scale of the map (IOW, make the map twice as large for the same real life area) then you should also halve the consumption of sand, oil and water. These stops chew up a lot of time, so reducing them is as good as a top speed boost.

So far in my test games (splitting Express and Freight) I end up with a few more locos (like anything this can vary greatly with strategy). Setting Express engines to High priority is not good for freight congestion in general. I did boost acceleration for freight already by about a level or so. There are always provisos with congestion, often times it can be avoided with good planning. I mention this because since congestion in a split system is already more than default, I'm wary of further increases in case it's too much.

Yes I can see a split system would require more double track, and perhaps more facilities to speed up turnaround there. Congestion is also going to be increased by the longer consists with the new custom cars. I think the proposed system will be more challenging on small maps. But really, making things more challenging was one of the aims.

But OTOH, a fully-developed split system will only be applicable where both express and freight have roughly equal importance. Say you have a freight-heavy map and goals. In that situation you probably won't care too much about express. Most of your trains could be run with freight locos on auto consist. And as you say, if you have high priority freights you can always set them to higher than express.

BTW, I should do some testing for split system in high traffic situations, if you remember some, I'm all ears.

The Blue Mountains map is one that springs to mind. Small map, with lots of traffic to get the goals. And slow locos too, given the period.

At the moment my test install has the pulling power/top speed stats contained in your Pennsy H3 for the Mogul and Connie (have boosted those accelerations). We could experiment with acceleration graph a bit more (if we have time), but I'm also tending to think not to go extreme.

Yup. It wouldn't make sense to have them take off like a Top Fueler.

[bombardiere]

The Kriegslok has a max speed of 39mph with 8 car freight consist. It was balanced this way. Speed is it's weaknesses. Everything else about it is good for freight use. So perhaps we could say that speed is not as important as the other things. I do think that PopTop did put too much importance on speed. But it does have an importance for freight anyway.

Yes. Acceleration perhaps have more importance than I gave credit for it. In my recent games the engines were stopping and trying to accelerate again constantly. Maintenance stops, water refills and other traffic were constantly stopping my trains. There are not that many changes for free runs.

I like how you two have taken such scientific approach to loco stats. Maintenance costs and reliability are important factors in game play, but I often ignored those. Kudos for your work.

50 mph is way too fast for 19th century freight. Ok for mid-20th century. And if you give a loco "adjusted pulling power and car weight" then the top speed becomes irrelevant because it will never get there anyway. You might as well give it a lower top speed and more pulling power.

We don't need to get too pedantic about it, but even 30 mph for freight into the 20th century is fine. I've often played with Kriegsloks into the default D era (after 1950) and they usually won't get past 35 mph with a full freight consist on a 0% grade. They only have below average acceleration too, but they're cheap and reliable and that's all that matters. Freight locos in RT3 tend to stop a lot, so acceleration is probably more important than top speed.

This is interesting thinking. Oh Yes. I see valid points in your argument. Heavy freight was slow in 19th century. One important reason was lack of efficient breaking. At least in UK, the break vans were there for very good reason. Before vacuum break, the breaking power of a train was very miniscule.

Me however, I tend to think Pop Top’s way. At least currently. Give speed for engine and then punish it with cargo weight. Let me explain why. I use DX Goods as an example.

DX Goods is 0-6-0, so it is clearly for freight. But I don’t want to limit to slow moving traffic only. I feel that DX Goods could have done 40 mph if pushed, so that is why I gave that top speed. I wanted it to be useful with light cargo too. To haul handful of reefers with relative high speed, but same time to be useful in heavy cargo. I wanted to have engines which could perform in several roles.

Big railway companies could afford specific engines in specific roles, but it is not option in everywhere. My country Finland is big but sparsely populated. State Railways (VR) has been poor in comparison to other European railways. It means long lines and relatively few locomotives available. Thus most Finnish locomotive are kind of general purpose. Around 1900 there basically two mainline types. 4-6-0s for light traffic and 2-8-0s for freights. But often there were not engines available so ten wheelers had to do freight and I think it was quite common to see 2-8-0 in front of a passenger train.

Anyway I am not sure if this is an “argument” at all. We may not be thinking too differently. I feel that a higher top speed and adjustmenting it with pulling would give flexibility in game use. But this can be seen in many ways and perhaps it depends on which engine were are talking about.

I have thought about French locos and their speed limit. The French were a special case, since they had little or no good coal of their own. That's why they were so keen on efficiency and compounding long after most countries gave it up. They were trying to squeeze the most performance out of the least fuel. And although they had 75 mph speed limit they could sustain it with a full consist, and even on light grades. So there would be scope for balancing a French loco with (for example) 75 mph with 8 cars up a 1% grade, and with low fuel costs. Obviously that's not the only way of doing it, but it would be an option for getting some more variety in loco stats.

I like this thinking. It gives good variation. I have been thinking about French locos and adding a French Pacific. However, there are several other Pacifics in the game, so I have been thinking how to make it different. So how about to draw inspiration from national characters. British for speed and elegance, German for stamina, French for effiency and Americans just for plain bigness.

Curvy board?

Oh, sorry. I lost my English there. I meant the plank about the wheels. Is that called a running plate?
I seem to constantly leave out words while in writing. Some kind of word blindness I guess. I do that in my native language too, so I guess I can’t help it.

[Gumboots]

This is interesting thinking. Oh Yes. I see valid points in your argument. Heavy freight was slow in 19th century. One important reason was lack of efficient breaking. At least in UK, the break vans were there for very good reason. Before vacuum break, the breaking power of a train was very miniscule.

Most freight was slow even into the first quarter of the 20th century. There were some exceptions, like milk and fish, but not many.

DX Goods is 0-6-0, so it is clearly for freight.

They hauled passenger traffic too, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not top line express, just basic branch line passenger traffic.

But I don’t want to limit to slow moving traffic only. I feel that DX Goods could have done 40 mph if pushed, so that is why I gave that top speed.

Yes, in theory, on a straight section of track. But 0-6-0's are naturally unstable, which was why they were usually limited to around 25 mph.

I wanted it to be useful with light cargo too. To haul handful of reefers with relative high speed, but same time to be useful in heavy cargo. I wanted to have engines which could perform in several roles.

We are trying to get away from that, because we are trying to get away from everyone just hauling auto consists everywhere. We are deliberately designing in more specific loco stats, so that each loco will have an optimum use and there will be reasons for using each loco in the roster.

This wont prevent some overlap. For example, an express loco will be able to haul a reefer or two of milk along with express cars, which is how they were used IRL. And it will be fine to use a heavy freight loco to haul pax over steep grades, at the cost of some revenue loss due to lower pax appeal. But, in general, we don't want a roster full of one-size-fits-all locos.

Big railway companies could afford specific engines in specific roles, but it is not option in everywhere. My country Finland is big but sparsely populated. State Railways (VR) has been poor in comparison to other European railways. It means long lines and relatively few locomotives available. Thus most Finnish locomotive are kind of general purpose. Around 1900 there basically two mainline types. 4-6-0s for light traffic and 2-8-0s for freights. But often there were not engines available so ten wheelers had to do freight and I think it was quite common to see 2-8-0 in front of a passenger train.

Sure, but you can do a specific roster for scenarios like that.

Oh, sorry. I lost my English there. I meant the plank about the wheels. Is that called a running plate?

Running boards. It's ok. I don't know the name of every part either. Yes, they are easy to do. There are other parts that are trickier, but nothing impossible.