[OTTD] UKRS2 - Latest version 1.05 (02/01/2013)

FooBar · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 8:07 am

Then don't make that combination

I can imagine diesel traction being used to haul carriages from one place to the other. Even if it's only to their eventual destiny: the scrapyard.

supermop · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 3:37 pm

NY subway uses diesel locomotives in the actual tunnels to pull maintanace trains, which are often made up of old subway cars. They are also used in the marshalling of newly delivered trains. Quite loud when they pass you on the platform at 2 am.

andythenorth · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2012 5:07 pm

Bonjour Monsieur le Bird.

It was not all. The 0-6-0 Goods, I can't find a good use for it. The Jinty is cheaper and has better TE, and seems to match better to the 45mph wagons. Am I overthinking it? :twisted:

Ovenbaked · **Joined:** Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:32 pm **Posts:** 31

andythenorth wrote:

Bonjour Monsieur le Bird.

It was not all. The 0-6-0 Goods, I can't find a good use for it. The Jinty is cheaper and has better TE, and seems to match better to the 45mph wagons. Am I overthinking it? :twisted:

The goods arrives in 1873, the 0-6-0T Jinty arrives in 1890.
It's useful for the 17 years between. They are different generations of engine.

I barely use the Jinty as they aren't a significant increase from the 0-4-2T of 1868 and the Goods fit the bill for freight so no point replacing them.

The Goods also has a longer life, being able to match speed in it's role till 1942! (though it's role gets split into parts, mineral the heavy, and moguls the fast.) So I end up building them for freight roles so that once 55mph wagons arrive i only need to buy new wagons instead of a new engine as well.

Officially it is the stepping stone to the jinty and mineral.
http://users.tt-forums.net/pikka/wiki/i ... -6-0_Goods
Note: "Replaced By: Jinty, Mineral"

EDIT: Pikka, would it be possible to use correct whyte notation with suffixes. At least T for tank.
But if possible the full: T for side tank, PT for pannier tank, ST for saddle tank, WT for well tank.

Bob_Mackenzie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:36 pm **Posts:** 775

um its 17 years...

Ovenbaked · **Joined:** Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:32 pm **Posts:** 31

Thank you.
I've corrected the error.
Still it's 17 years of needing a job done, express engines are hardly gonna cut the mustard.

dooo282 · **Joined:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:25 pm **Posts:** 26

The goods also has a higher power (600hp, 500hp for Jinty)

I was thinking during my last game about the limited use for the basic sprinter which is out classed by the Express sprinter very quickly. Why not make a change to the load time of the express sprinter so its either 4 or 5 so its more of a long distance replacement for the sulzer and Brush type 4 and the EE Type 3. And the Sprinter used on more local and when you want the shorter loading times?

I know you don't want to do all the liveries but how about the current silver livery for the Class 91 and Mark 4 set (This is slightly personal as I am not a fan of the blue livery and always play with the real world colours)
As show here:
http://www.train-photos.com/picture/number11116.asp

Lillymon · **Joined:** Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:24 am **Posts:** 21

dooo282 wrote:

I was thinking during my last game about the limited use for the basic sprinter which is out classed by the Express sprinter very quickly. Why not make a change to the load time of the express sprinter so its either 4 or 5 so its more of a long distance replacement for the sulzer and Brush type 4 and the EE Type 3. And the Sprinter used on more local and when you want the shorter loading times?

I always thought the reason to continue using the Sprinter on the local routes was the lower running costs, with the Express Sprinter being a pricer mid-range passenger train to go between the Sprinter and the HST. This suggestion would also make for a rather jarring transition with the loading times suddenly going up with the Express Sprinter, then down again with the Turbostar (unless that was changed too). It would also remove what I consider the big selling point for the Express Sprinter over the BREL Renewal EMU (which is already significantly more powerful and cheaper to run). Other factors (cheaper running costs, more power, more speed, the ABB Class 525, the Bidwell Tripworker) already make electrification an attractive enough proposal without nerfing the DMUs.

Speaking of the Sprinter though, 2020 seems like an ambitious withdrawal date for it given that in real life current Sprinters will most likely need to keep going well past 2020 in order to provide replacement capacity for all the Pacers that will need to be withdrawn prior to 2020. Perhaps it should be extended to 2030 or even to 2040 (same as the Express Sprinter)?

PikkaBird · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 8:15 am

Alternative points of view are that the Sprinter was an evolutionary design, and once the definitive "Express Sprinter" appears there's no reason to build the older ones any more. It needs an advantage over the later model no more than the AL1 needs an advantage over the AL6.

Why not replace older Sprinters with Turbostars as 2020 approaches? This set isn't meant to be true-to-life as far as vehicle replacements go, because OpenTTD certainly isn't.

dooo282 · **Joined:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:25 pm **Posts:** 26

I know that you are not trying to make this set completely true to life but in real life the sprinter (Class 150) have been designed as more commuter trains the door are 1/3 and 2/3 of the way down the carriage and have 5 seats across each row, where as the Express Sprinter (class 158 and 159) are much more like intercity carriages (4 seats per row) designed for much longer journeys and (from personal experience more comfortable).
In relation to the AL1 and AL6 both were designed to do the same job just the AL1 was part of a group (AL1-AL5) of prototype locomotives for the AL6.
I realise that this is your set and you should do what you think is right with it these are just my thoughts.

Replacing Sprinters with Turbostars is very true to life for vehicle replacements some of the Class 150 have been replaced by Class 172 by London Midland.

Bob_Mackenzie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:36 pm **Posts:** 775

I have notices that the stats for the Bogie bolster give a speed of 65mph, but in game it is limited to 55mph

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:09 pm

I think it is to do with Generations, It is quicker (65mph) later on for sure.

PikkaBird · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:35 am

A321Pilot wrote:

I think it is to do with Generations, It is quicker (65mph) later on for sure.

Yes, they get the higher speed if built after 1950.

Bob_Mackenzie · **Joined:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:36 pm **Posts:** 775

Thanks - I presume you can refit from the older to the newer generation?

A321Pilot · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:26 pm

Bob_Mackenzie wrote:

Thanks - I presume you can refit from the older to the newer generation?

I believe it is like the Generations in AV8, where you have to replace them all.

Asteconn · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:45 pm **Posts:** 15

Is this the place for a feature request?

The idea:

I sometimes couple a locomotive to a multiple unit. Most commonly a diesel like the Type 1 on an EMU, or the JB with the BREL Renewal EMU. Either to provide a means to access lines yet electrified, or provide a nice power boost whilst keeping the train compact.

Would it be too much trouble to get them to run MU-first after hitting a terminus?

SquireJames · **Posted:** Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:04 am

I was just reading about the 4REP and 3TCL sets used on the Portsmouth line today

A UKRS2 Sulzer Type 2 might stand in for a Class 33 in that case.

I second this suggestion, perhaps make it only work with the Electro-Diesels and the Type 2 though, as otherwise that is a lot of callbacks to code and there might be instances where you don't want push-pull operation.

PikkaBird · **Posted:** Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:45 am

Asteconn wrote:

Would it be too much trouble to get them to run MU-first after hitting a terminus?

Yes, sorry.

SquireJames · **Posted:** Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:29 pm

Understood. I know a little about the way DVTs are coded and I know they are essentially vehicle-specific "hacks" and that they are time consuming to do.

Whilst you are around Mr Pikkabird, was wondering if you might take a peek at the Royal Scot I drew for the expansion set, if you are interested.

Brumi · **Joined:** Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:54 pm **Posts:** 647

Sorry if this question has been asked before:
Why are all wagons in the set marked as articulated? I want my AI to use non-articulated wagons only - mainly to rule out the Articulated Carriage and similar ones, as they're more difficult to handle - but if I exclude articulated wagons from being bought, my AI says that there are no suitable wagons available.

Transport Tycoon Forums

[OTTD] UKRS2 - Latest version 1.05 (02/01/2013)

Who is online