Electric Rails -- Help us test

richk67 · Post by **richk67** » 26 Mar 2006 02:57

Brianetta wrote:Even before the upgrade, they were rated to run at 148mph just fine, but signalling issues prevent any train running at speeds greater than 125mph.

I timed one in about 1979 at 144mph (6.25secs for 1/4 mile) between Reading and Swindon. That was before they put the speed regulators on. It was a blast!

hertogjan · Post by **hertogjan** » 26 Mar 2006 18:03

Thief^ wrote:I started a game in 2001 to test elrails (built to newest revision myself). I like the new feature where trains with mixed electric and regular can run on normal track with the electric trains turned off, and I thought, it would be nice if when trains of different speeds are joined the whole set had a max speed of the highest engine but only used the power of trains that can go that fast.
ie. TIM (150MPH, 7000HP) + SH125 (125MPH, 4500HP) runs at 11500HP at up to 125MPH and 7000HP up to 150MPH. Obviously only on electric rail, as the TIM is an electric train.
What do you think?

Thief^ wrote:Maybe as a patch option then.

(...)

I remember that someone already programmed a patch which uses physics to decide the maximum speed. Also for road vehicles.

Or is that not what you meant?

Actually, the maximum speed of a train depends on many parameters. The maximum speed of a train is of course limited by its physics (power, friction, etc.), but also by safety regulations of the engine itself, and of the track (which depends on track condition, presence of curves and junctions, presence of potentially dangerous features like crossings, stations, etc.).
In OpenTTD, currently there is no track speed limit, except on bridges. My opinion is that trains should be able to get slightly above their maximum speed (maybe settable to +5%, +10%, +20%, +50% or so), except for maglev trains: They have no moving parts, so they won't break down when going fast (and at least one type of trains should be able to reach 1000 km/h, just because it's cool).

Thief^ · Post by **Thief^** » 26 Mar 2006 18:43

I just found out that the OpenTTD win32 ElRails exe is over 150kB smaller if LIBC is entered in Project Settings->Linker->Input->Ignore Specific Library. Perhaps it has the same effect on the main openttd builds too?

EDIT: this is in visual studio 2003, dunno about 6. I think it's because it's linking to a library that uses the old single threaded c runtime (libc) and the 2003 project is set to use the new multithreaded one, so unless libc is ignored it includes both versions. I don't recommend setting it to use the single-threaded runtime because it's being phased out, ie. vs2005 no longer includes it, and the single threaded runtime has been reported to have problems on multi-cored cpus even when the program isn't multithreaded.

Darkvater · Post by **Darkvater** » 26 Mar 2006 21:53

I added LIBC to ignore in the release build of OpenTTD/trunk but got the same size with our without, both 848KB. At least on my system.

Thief^ · Post by **Thief^** » 26 Mar 2006 22:48

For the trunk I got 839kB without the ignore libc and 839kB with. It does get rid of the warning about conflicting libs though.

With the ElRails branch I get 1MB without the ignore and 843kB with. Wierd huh?

Note: the current nightly build of elrails is also 1MB.

Ch'marr · Post by **Ch'marr** » 28 Mar 2006 01:44

Starting playing OTT after a long hiatus. The 'elrail' branch certainly piqued my interest again... thank you for that! Unfortunately, there seems to be a pathfinder bug that made trains turn the wrong way out of a depot. Very annoying. Apparently it was affecting the main branch, and 0.4.7 was released to address this.

I'm looking forward to having elrail with the same fix, too

init · Post by **init** » 28 Mar 2006 07:29

Ch'marr wrote:I'm looking forward to having elrail with the same fix, too

The elrail branch is regularly updated with patches from the trunk, so if it isn't already there, it will be soon.

jez · Post by **jez** » 28 Mar 2006 09:00

Hmm, can I just get this patch straight? You go from being able to run electric trains on any rail line to only electrified lines, right? So all it means is you have to spend more money to use electric trains, compared to the original TTD?

OK I guess, but I agree with some that graphically it looks ugly. Why can't they be implemented like underground lines - with a single electric line running through the centre of the track? I never quite understood why they string them along in such an ugly and precarious fashion.

Brianetta · Post by **Brianetta** » 28 Mar 2006 09:03

jez wrote:I never quite understood why they string them along in such an ugly and precarious fashion.

Simple. Third rails kill you when you stand on them. Overheads are very high. Track maintenance staff are expensive.

bobingabout · Post by **bobingabout** » 28 Mar 2006 09:11

i supose someone could come up with an alternate elrails.grf that replaces the track to use a 3rd rail instead of overhead wires.

jez · Post by **jez** » 28 Mar 2006 09:19

Brianetta wrote:
jez wrote:I never quite understood why they string them along in such an ugly and precarious fashion.
Simple. Third rails kill you when you stand on them. Overheads are very high. Track maintenance staff are expensive.

So we get a few Darwin awards; sounds good to me. Might stop idiots playing chicken.

Ch'marr · Post by **Ch'marr** » 29 Mar 2006 04:40

jez wrote:
Brianetta wrote:
jez wrote:I never quite understood why they string them along in such an ugly and precarious fashion.
Simple. Third rails kill you when you stand on them. Overheads are very high. Track maintenance staff are expensive.
So we get a few Darwin awards; sounds good to me. Might stop idiots playing chicken.

Also, third rails usually operate at a much lower voltage. Eg: 600V vs 1500V for overhead caternary wires.

Lower volatage means more losses over distance, meaning you have to have more substations to keep the voltage to spec over the rail network.

As an extreme example, Queensland Rail run their network at 25,000V AC, and they have only two substations for the entire network. Needless to say, the station staff are instructed "When hosing down the platform to wash it, never point your hoses upward."

(This taken from a reliable, but prone to exaggerate, sources

)

Brianetta · Post by **Brianetta** » 29 Mar 2006 07:25

jez wrote:
Brianetta wrote:Track maintenance staff are expensive.
So we get a few Darwin awards; sounds good to me. Might stop idiots playing chicken.

Track maintenance staff don't play chicken! Seriously, with overhead catenary, the points can be maintained, the line inspected and so on, without having to turn off the power. This cuts down the delays due to track inspections and maintenance. Bearing in mind that regular steel track needs to be inspected daily, you start to see why this is such a bonus.

Celestar · Post by **Celestar** » 29 Mar 2006 10:24

As pointed out, third rail is usable for low-speed, short distance tracks. It also has some advantages in subway (less clearance in the tunnel required). But 3rd rail is nothing one should use for high-speed or long distance trains. Many problems with high-speed rails are connected to the panthograph: It produces a lot of noise, runs very hot and wears out quickly. Things get worse with 3rd rail. It's not miracle that typical high-speed trians (SKS, TGV, ICE to mention the 3 main ones) all run overhead.

Btw: Standard voltage in Germany is 15.000V. Even for suburban trains.

The safety point has been spoken for enough.

Celestar

Celestar · Post by **Celestar** » 29 Mar 2006 16:34

Elrails have been merged into mainline.

Transport Tycoon Forums

Electric Rails -- Help us test

NPF fix?

Re: NPF fix?

Who is online