Transport Tycoon Forums

michael blunck wrote:So this would be purely a private agreement between some vehicle and track set authors, and in no way obligatory or even "recommended".

Well, "recommended if you want to be compatible with other sets that follow these guidelines", if you don't care about that you're of course free to choose any label of your liking. But I guess that's the definition of recommended: one is not required to follow it.

i am having this strange deja vu...

Since there were no comments on the content of the scheme for a few weeks now, I moved it out of my user space and into the public wiki space. I also added a link to it from the list of railtype labels.

I guess that sort of makes the scheme official for those who want to use it.
It's called "standardized" because that's what it is. That doesn't imply that it's obligatory to follow it.

FooBar wrote:Since there were no comments on the content of the scheme for a few weeks now, I moved it out of my user space and into the public wiki space. I also added a link to it from the list of railtype labels.

I guess that sort of makes the scheme official for those who want to use it.
It's called "standardized" because that's what it is. That doesn't imply that it's obligatory to follow it.

Nice achievement, let's hope it finds its way to train sets near everyone .

FooBar wrote:It's called "standardized" because that's what it is. That doesn't imply that it's obligatory to follow it.

obligatory reply

Completely agreed. Standards are for those who want to follow one. Otherwise it would have been a law.

When I was making my rail type newGRF I noticed that there was not 4th rail with overhead wire. As it didn't exist in the rail scheme I didn't want to add it to my newGRF. I think it would be good if there was 4th rail with overhead wire.

Seems you already added it... Which is fine, but the fallback should only be "3 or E", because "4" is not a generic energy source type. A vehicle set could choose a gradual degradation via "4", but if there is no track with energy source type "4", a vehicle set will fail if there is no further fallback to either "3" or "E" (preferrably "E").

But yes, it's perfectly acceptable to add a new class. The scheme was specifically designed to allow future expansion, so let this be the first one!

Hi.
Would it be any benefit in moving xUSSR set to NRLS? All the tracks are Broad gauge (1520 vs 1435)
RLA0 60 km/h 20 t BABN
RLA1 100 km/h 30 t BBDN
ERD1 100 km/h 30 t BBDD
ERA1 100 km/h 30 t BBDA
ER2S 120 km/h 30 t BCD2 (D+A)
RLA2 140 km/h 25 t BDCN
ERD2 140 km/h 25 t BDCD
ERA2 140 km/h 25 t BDCA
RLA3 250 km/h 25 t BECN
ERD3 250 km/h 25 t BECD
ERA3 250 km/h 25 t BECA
ERA4 Unlim 20 t BFBA

I thought the xUSSR set was a train set, and for train sets there is only added value if you want to use specific features (like multipowered trains in the Dutch Trainset), otherwise you should just stick to the default railtypelabels.

If you want to include tracks in the xUSSR-set, the list looks good, just 2 notes I'm not entirely sure on:
-Which tracks are you going to give the default labels? Given the provided list, I expect RLA0 as RAIL and ER2s as ELRL?
-Maybe stick to the normal gauge labels? I believe the narrow/broad gauge labels are more for if you have different gauges in the same set. Or maybe with the alternative_railtype_list that you can also provide other gauge track-labels.

using broad gauge labels only makes sense if you actually provide a distinction between broad gauge and standard gauge. otherwise you're just excluding people from using your track set. if you only provide one gauge, you should probably call that standard gauge, no matter what gauge you have in mind while modelling it.

in your train set, you can use the broad gauge track labels, to move the trains to broad gauge if the track set provides them, but you should always have a fallback method (RAIL and ELRL always work as fallback, as every track set must provide those)

xUSSR set pretty well operates on standard rail labels (there is a switch for this feature), but have also built in own rail system, which is graphically not compatible with existing sets, because (fun fact) it is much narrower than standard track.
In my personal opinion, narrower gauge looks better if compared to railway stock scale, but is unscaled in case of bridges and platforms,
and looks strange if other sets are in use (for example metro tracks).
The best choice would be give opportunity to choose track functionality and track graphics separately.

BTW, is axle load defined for any existing train set? I'm curious how it works.

McZapkie wrote:xUSSR set pretty well operates on standard rail labels (there is a switch for this feature)

there should be no need for a switch here. just provide fallback railtype labels in the railtype table, and have the trackset as separate set (so it could be used together with other train sets)

In my personal opinion, narrower gauge looks better if compared to railway stock scale, but is unscaled in case of bridges and platforms

that depends how the bridges and stations are coded. "modern" bridge and station sets can be coded so the correct sprite from the trackset is used instead of some builtin sprite. MB's NewStations recently got an update that supports this feature.

BTW, is axle load defined for any existing train set? I'm curious how it works.

that depends on your definition of "existing".

Sorry for necro-ing this thread.

FooBar wrote:It must be noted that I did add monorail and maglev track classes. I didn't find anything about those, so I picked letters M and L for it. If there are previous definitions that I don't know about, please let me know. I do realize that in practice these will probably never be used, due to the defaults MONO and MGLV probably being enough. But it's good to have them predefined just in case someone wants to go berserk on a monolev set.

So I went berserk, and I discovered that this scheme is incompatible with maglev. All maglev types, with the exception of the SCmaglev, are fourth-rail powered. This means that while there is a large variety in what kind of maglevs exist, and how they work, the scheme doesn't allow me to differentiate between the types. What I did for MTS is that I used the "Energy source type class" with existing labels to differentiate between the different types of maglev; for instance, induction type maglevs run on "3rd rail", and that the SC-maglev is simply "electrified". On top of that, maglev types like the M-Bahn and the Chinese low-speed maglevs use the same technology, but the M-Bahn has a "U-shaped" track, while the Zhuifengzhe and Linglong have a monorail-type track.

I would like to request the following amendments:
Track gauge and type class:
L should become the standard for U-shaped maglev tracks, much like the tracks in the standard game.
T should become the standard for monorail type maglev tracks.
Energy source type class:
I should become the standard for Linear Induction Motor type maglev tracks.
S should become the standard for Linear Synchronous Motor type maglev tracks.
And optionally: Speed limit class:
P should become the standard for maglev tracks that mainly use permanent magnets or superconductivity for levitation, like some in-dev maglevs have..

This would change the following for MTS (which I'll make backwards compatible):
M-Bahn: LAAT -> LAAS
Zhuifengzhe: LBAT -> TAAS
Transrapid: LCAT -> TCAS
Linimo: LBA3 -> TAAI
SCmaglev: LCAE -> LCAS,
which is a lot more intuitive, than what we (didn't) have for maglevs.

I would like to be able to edit the Railtype Labels to add Early Rails tracktypes to the list.

If this is not possible, then please add WGWY (Wagonway) and LIHT (Light Rail) to the list.

These do not follow the standard naming scheme so should not be added.

Gwyd wrote:These do not follow the standard naming scheme so should not be added.

The page is explicitly for labels which "do not follow the standard naming scheme".

I've added them to the table.

PikkaBird wrote:

Gwyd wrote:These do not follow the standard naming scheme so should not be added.

The page is explicitly for labels which "do not follow the standard naming scheme".

I've added them to the table.

Can you also add ToyTrax (TYTX) and ElecTrax (ELTX) from ToyTrax? Thanks.

I guess so.

PikkaBird wrote:I guess so.

Sorry I keep hounding you. Could you add Vacuum Tube (VACT) from VacTrains? Thanks.