NSWGR Locomotive roster

[Gumboots]

Ok, tis done and it works. A decent all-purpose hauler for the 1850's and 1860's.

I've given it an introduction year of 1850, even though the NSWGR didn't start using them until 1855. It was a pretty standard Stephenson unit of the period and would be suitable for any railway during the 1850's. Stats are in the ballpark but, as always, may get changed slightly after more extensive in-game testing.

It looks like this in the game:

Zip is attached, containing the usual bits that go in the usual places (Data/EngineTypes and Data/PopTopExtraContent).
Now I can get on with finishing the Blue Mountains revamp map.

[Gumboots]

Have got its partner running too now: the 8 Class 2-2-2WT. This is basically an 1850's suburban tank, designed for passenger service.

This comes in 1858, which is when they were introduced in real life and is also about the right timing for an express loco in the Blue Mountains scenario. It still needs a bit more work on graphics (mainly frame detailing) and some tweaking of stats, but I'll knock that off over the weekend.

[Gumboots]

Well, that didn't happen. Got sidetracked with the scenario map itself (needed to track down a nasty little bug, among other things) and with other locos to go with these two.

The good news is other locos, as well as the 8 Class, shouldn't be far away. I've found that although the spreadsheets are good for number-crunching of stats, the effects of distance between stations and actual terrain means stats that might seem theoretically perfect when calculated often need slight adjustment for overall balance. This obviously means getting things running and testing them is the way to go.

I already have the 6N Class 4-4-0T ready for export, and will probably give it a test run tonight. This isn't 100% finished for detailing, but is certainly close enough to try it live and see what else needs doing.

I'm finding the NSWGR locos in this period to be particularly easy and enjoyable to build and skin. All of them seem to work very nicely at a scale of 30 pixels per RT3 unit (IOW, 3 pixels per inch at full scale). This is a nice scale to work with because:

a/ it gives enough resolution for really good detailing, and
b/ it's easy on the brain, since multiplying and dividing by three is generally not difficult, so calculating sizes and positions of things for accuracy takes little time, and
c/ since they all work at the same scale, relevant parts and layer styles can be transferred between models to save time.

Some less critical components are being done at 20px/RT3 unit to save space on the image, but only where the lower resolution won't be noticeable. That's the same scale as the Pennsy H3, so still not too gruesome.

One thing I have noticed is that slight adjustments to layer styles can make a big difference. Take rivets as an example. A layer style that works well at 30px/RT3 unit won't work at 20px/RT3 unit. The latter rivets have to use a smaller brush to look right, and that messes with the layer styles because past a certain point there simply aren't enough pixels for the same style to work. However, by changing the angle of the light source for those particular rivets (and leaving the others alone) it seems to be possible to get them all looking good. It just comes down to trying a few things (ok, a lot of things) and seeing what works and what doesn't.

[Gumboots]

Got the beast running. Looks like this in the game:

The attached zip contains all files for this beast and the 8 Class suburban tank, as well as revised EngineTypes files for the 1 Class (1 Class PK4 is attached to the first post). Stats for the 6N are straight from a spreadsheet and haven't had any significant testing yet, but since the spreadsheet was balanced with the updated stats for the 1 and 8 classes the 6N shouldn't be too far off the mark. Note that skinning for the 6N and 8 classes is still not quite finished for detailing, but is pretty good for now.

For a brief indication of use: the 1 Class is a general purpose unit. The 8 Class is obviously the express unit, and the 6N is primarily for freight. Compared to the 1 Class: the 6N is more expensive to buy, very slightly cheaper to run, has better acceleration, is stronger up grades with heavy loads, but is slower on flat terrain with light loads and has lower pax appeal.

Edit: Added an image showing actual stats. Since we know the game's stats pop-up is always wrong (even for default cargo cars) and since fuel economy rating tells you nothing without other information, the screenshot shows what running costs and speeds you can expect when hauling my custom cargo cars in the 1850's and early 1860's.

The menu shown in the shot is a prototype for a menu I will release once stats are finalised. It can be opened in any browser and is more convenient in some ways than a spreadsheet. A list of locos can be compared easily, and each one can be expanded or collapsed simply by clicking on its header.

[Tomix]

I have not been on here in years, and I'm amazed what I see from you Gumboots! Really incredible what you've made with the RT3 engine in mind. Do you do all of your texture work in photoshop? It looks like the classic handmade textures; something we don't see as much anymore.

[Gumboots]

Yep. All made in PS from scratch. I thinking I'm getting the hang of it.

I've had to take a break from RT3 the past coupe of weeks due to other things, but should be ready for another binge soon.

[Gumboots]

Y'know I'm starting to get a hankering to do a bit more on these. I have delusions of doing most of the NSWGR classes, but realistically that would take ages. I think I can whip up a couple more though.

[Gumboots]

Should be able to get some more of these running pretty soon. Several of them are already good enough for beta testing. The 14 and 17 can go on the tracks for testing as soon as I get around to exporting them. The 23 and 93 shouldn't be that far behind.

Edit: Ha. Just tried exporting this mongrel (14 Class). Exporting choofers is a no-brainer. Done heaps of them. No worries. They usually come out good, and if they don't the errors are obvious. Famous last words.

Attempting to use the 14 class causes CTD, with no recognisable error message either. All it says is it can't read the data, and it suggests reinstalling the game or running scandisk. That's not a message I've ever had before, and it tells me nothing of any value (game is fine, and disk is fine too).

So I'm going to have to go over the whole thing again and see if I can figure out what went wrong. My prediction is I'll do it all again and it will then work, and I'll never find out what went wrong.

RT3.

There are a few more locomotives from this timeframe stashed away in Blender (60 Class, 79 Class, and maybe just maybe the 131 Class) but they aren't as near to finished at the moment.

[Gumboots]

Yay! Got it working. Turned out to be borked syntax in a steam file. Easy to fix once I spotted it.

Zip is attached. Note that this is still a beta, but is pleasant to play with and has performance that is generally in the ballpark. It will get more tweaking for eye candy, and possibly for stats, but it's pretty close to what the finished item will be like.

[Gumboots]

Alrighty then, here's another one. I want these things running so I can balance stats across the whole pack for the Blue Mountains revamp, so I'm pushing the 17 Class 0-6-0 out the door now, just because I happen to have reached 1865 in my latest test play.

This is a bit more beta than the 14 Class, but is still quite passable for general use.

[Gumboots]

Next one isn't quite ready yet, but I've made some more progress on it and it's getting close to usable. The handy thing about this one is the 23 and 79 classes are virtually the same unit, so once this one is sorted I'll be able to do the 79 Class* as well with very little extra work.

*The 79 Class (introduced in 1877) had a 4 wheel front truck instead of a 2 wheel unit, and increased boiler pressure for extra grunt, along with a few minor detail changes (slightly different drivewheel spacing, different frame shape, etc).

[Gumboots]

Got some more done. I've found some shots which show they went rather ornate on lining during this period, as least for some locos. They also seem to have given up on polishing or lining the boiler banding, with all the decorative work done on various side panels. There doesn't appear to be much consistency to it though. There are shots of units of the same class with no lining or with ornate lining, all within a year or two of each other. I get the impression each shed or painter or whatever basically did whatever they liked. Or it may be that some of the district sheds got away with stuff that head office wouldn't have approved of. That has been known to happen in other cases*.

The locomotives are known to have had a green base colour before the 1880's. Obviously any shots from the 1860's and 1870's are in black and white. so it's anyone's guess what colours were used for lining. I figure go with how they probably would have done it originally: use existing livery examples as inspiration and then roll your own. So that's what I've done. The actual patterns and line weights are taken from reference shots, and I've gone with gold and black for now. Colours can be easily changed with layer styles anyway so more liveries are easy to do. It was quite good fun doing this. Using custom vector shapes makes quite complex lining pretty easy, once you get the hang of it.

*One of the other known cases was "invisible green". That was on the South Australian Railways line out to Broken Hill. Which is in NSW, but SAR had a line there too since Broken Hill is a major mining centre. SAR head office had declared that all SAR locos were to be painted black. The crews on the Broken Hill run were driving Garratts at the time, and decided they wanted to paint them green. They asked for permission, and head office said no, so in typical Australian fashion they ignored head office and threw some green paint into the standard black paint. They used just enough so it didn't look black to them, but little enough so they could swear it really was black if someone from head office came looking. They called it "invisible green".

[Gumboots]

Ok, it's running. Once again it's a beta, and still needs extra eye candy. It will also need some tweaking of stats to balance the whole pack. Current stats are a quick educated guesstimate. It looks quite cool though, and hauls things around the tracks.

Current introduction year is 1869, which I may adjust a bit. Current stop year is 1876, because that's when the 79 Class came in, but that can be extended if anyone wants to. The 23 Class were only purchased during a short period.

[Gumboots]

Got the 79 Class basically sorted now. Still needs a bit more tweaking before I get it running, but it's mostly there. Most parts transfer straight from the 23 Class, but there are detail differences*.

The 79's came in two versions. The first batch (1877-78) had the same steam dome as the 23 Class, with a fluted top and with external valve bits hanging off the back of it, and the sandboxes that were part of the drivewheel splashers had flat front ends.

The later batches (1880-82) had the newer style of steam dome, and a curved front to the sandboxes. That's what is shown in the shot. I can do either style easily enough, but am thinking of doing the later batches just to emphasise the difference to the 23.

*Some details: driving wheels are 96 inches apart instead of 100 inches, cylinders are tilted 7 degrees instead of 7.5 degrees, cylinders are a bit further forward compared to the drivewheels (longer snout due to the four wheel front truck), steam dome is further back, cab roof is a bit wider, etc.

Incidentally, this class were more reliable than the 23's, and the four wheel front truck was the main reason. The single front axle on the 23's carried more load than it should have, so they were notorious for cooking front axle bearings on long runs. This was their only real flaw, but the crews who had to keep time with 23's didn't like them much.

The four wheel front truck on the 79's not only gave better high speed stability but also reduced the axle loadings to a bulletproof level. They ended up being one of the best classes on the NSWGR, and some of them kept running (in modified form) until the end of steam.

[Gumboots]

Been thinking about filling a gap in this roster. At the moment it's like this:

1855 - 1 Class 0-4-2 (Mixed traffic)
1858 - 8 Class 2-2-2WT (Pax)
1861 - 6N Class 4-4-0T (Freight)
1865 - 14 Class 2-2-2 (Pax on flat) and 17 Class 0-6-0 (Freight)
1869 - 23 Class 2-4-0 (Pax on grades)

1876 - 79 Class 4-4-0 (Pax on grades) and 93 Class 0-6-0 (Freight)
1879 - End of scenario time frame

Which is a pretty good mix, but there's a bit of a gap between 1869 and 1876 and it'd be cool to have an extra one there. I was thinking of the 60 Class, a class of six grunty 0-6-0's built for pax traffic in the Blue Mountains, but in this scenario the Blue Mountains doesn't get much pax traffic anyway, and there is already the 23 Class to handle pax on grades.

However, the Sydney area gets stacks of pax traffic late in the game, and ends up with lots of trains trying to run in a limited area between closely-spaced stations. What could be really useful is a small unit with reasonable pax appeal, moderate top speed, and fast acceleration. What I'm thinking is throw in the 67 Class, which was a 0-6-0T built for suburban pax traffic around Sydney. They were a copy of the LB&SCR A1 "Terrier", but with minor detail differences (mainly a simpler cab, plus a bigger coal bunker and tanks).

The Terriers were known for fast acceleration between stops when hauling lightweight consists, so the 67 seems like the perfect gap filler for this scenario. Modelling the 67 Class will also give a perfect base for the Terrier, with the majority of the mesh and skinning being identical and plenty of space on the skin to do either cab or coal bunker. This means it's basically a 2 for 1 deal, which has to be good, and it's an easy one to model and skin anyway.

[Gumboots]

More progress. Should be able to get this one running pretty quickly. It's a fairly simple beast.

[Gumboots]

Ran a few numbers with acceleration ratings and times to top speed thrown in. It becomes a bit trickier to balance things once you can see the actual effect of acceleration ratings, instead of just using ones that seem to make sense based on what they are called and what sort of loco you think it is.

The stats shown in the screenshot are tweaked a bit compared to the current .lco files. Obviously the 67, 79 and 93 classes haven't been released as betas yet either, but I have a good idea of where I want them to be in terms of performance.

The screenshot shows actual rates of acceleration, for 5 car and 8 car consists, on a 0% grade. Rates will be different up grades due to the lower top speeds, with flat ground specialists being more heavily affected.

To get a unit with moderate top speed accelerating off the line as quickly as a loco with a higher top speed you need to use a much higher acceleration rating than you might think. This applies particularly to dedicated freight locos (red header bars in the screenshot) which you'd naturally think of as slow but which in practice are set up to haul heavy loads from a standing start. In other words, for a given load in real life they will usually be quicker off the mark than an express loco which is set up for lighter loads and higher top speed.

I'm still messing with numbers here, so there are not finalised yet. Given that freight locos usually stop more often due to lower priority settings there is an argument for boosting acceleration another notch for these units.

[RulerofRails]

Yeah, I have seen the same thing: it's tempting to be bumping up the freight accelerations.

In reality I have been running standard priority on engines for the most part. Partly it's due to the reason that I buy a train to fulfill an economic function to distribute consumers and/or pick-up resources. So each train is "hopefully" forming a part of the economic web. And timing matters for the profits of the whole system. Also, the idea of a "low-grade" sort of run isn't really practical. In most cases the system will be better off without that train. So, in the end my express trains wait a bit longer for the freights and that's that.

PS. I had a little flu so didn't get much done of late. Once there are betas for these locos ready so I can do a big comparison I will be sure to give them a good thrashing. The map will be quite fun with so many custom locos.

[Gumboots]

Got the 67 Class running. Same deal as the last few. It all works, but still needs bit more eye candy, and will still get some extra stats tweaks for overall balance. Zip is attached.

I'm also going to get the last two running for Christmas. That's the 79 Class 4-4-0 (an upgraded 23 Class) and the 93 Class 0-6-0 (which is basically an upgraded 17 Class, but built by Beyer Peacock instead of Stephenson).

[Gumboots]

I've hit a problem here. My old monitor died on Christmas Eve, so I went and bought a replacement. Problem is that now RT3 won't work, which is very strange given that the monitor was the only thing changed. I've also noticed the nVidia control panel isn't working, and attempting to access it gives a pop-up message saying "You are not currently using a display connected to an nVidia GPU".

Which is even weirder, since the nVidia GPU is the only one on the box, and everything (except RT3) seems to be working as far as graphics goes. So I'll have to dig into this over the next few days and see if I can figure out what's up.

Edit: Got it figured out. Wrong cable. Next problem is it works with the old DVI cable, but the plug on that is single link DVI-D, and single link DVI-D won't handle the bitrate required to run the new monitor at its native resolution and refresh rate. It forces the res back to 1920x1080, which looks like total rubbish.

The daft thing here is the output from the graphics card is dual link DVI-D, and the input to the monitor is dual link DVI-D, and dual link DVI-D handles a much higher bitrate than single link DVI-D, and does have enough bitrate to run 2560x1440 at 72 Hz. So the only thing stopping it all being good at this stage is the bloke at the store gave me the wrong cable. I'll go see them Friday and make grumbling noises at them.