Transport Tycoon Forums

I'm little bit confused with proper naming of track label. How should be properly named tracks with 25 kV catenary and speed limits 160 and 300 km/h?
SDAA and SEAA (there are also track lower than 160km/h in my newgrf, but not electrified) ?

McZapkie wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 10:08 I'm little bit confused with proper naming of track label. How should be properly named tracks with 25 kV catenary and speed limits 160 and 300 km/h?
SDAA and SEAA (there are also track lower than 160km/h in my newgrf, but not electrified) ?

Probably, yes. Make sure to include `SAAA` in the `compatible_railtype_list`, though.

Assume that there are 3 different voltage systems: SAAA (25kV AC), SAAa (15kV AC), SAAD (3 kV DC) and additionally multisystem track - just generic ELRL.
I want to allow 25 KV locotomove to be powered by 25kV or multisystem track, etc, while multisystem locomotives can go everywhere.

How to correctly define it?
powered_railtype_list in track nml file should have only native catenary, or both native and multisystem, while locomotive track_type is defined as 25kV only,
or alternative multisystem should be defined in vehicle section?

McZapkie wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020 13:42 Assume that there are 3 different voltage systems: SAAA (25kV AC), SAAa (15kV AC), SAAD (3 kV DC) and additionally multisystem track - just generic ELRL.
I want to allow 25 KV locotomove to be powered by 25kV or multisystem track, etc, while multisystem locomotives can go everywhere.

How to correctly define it?
powered_railtype_list in track nml file should have only native catenary, or both native and multisystem, while locomotive track_type is defined as 25kV only,
or alternative multisystem should be defined in vehicle section?

SAAA should have ELRL in its powered_railtype_list, SAAa+SAAD+ELRL+RAIL in its compatible_railtype_list, and RAIL should have SAAA+SAAa+SAAD+ELRL in both compatible_ and powered_railtype_list, and ELRL should have SAAA+SAAa+SAAD in both compatible_ and powered_railtype_list and additionally RAIL in compatible_railtype_list. Then on the locomotive you set tracktype to SAAA for 25kV AC locs and to ELRL for multisystem locomotives and RAIL for wagons.

Thanks for reply. But why unelectrified RAIL should have catenary tracks in powered railtype list?

McZapkie wrote: ↑03 Oct 2020 10:42 Thanks for reply. But why unelectrified RAIL should have catenary tracks in powered railtype list?

The powered railtype list indicates what tracks a train with railtype RAIL can run on. RAIL vehicles can run on catenary tracks, so they should be in the powered railtype list.

McZapkie wrote: ↑03 Oct 2020 10:42 Thanks for reply. But why unelectrified RAIL should have catenary tracks in powered railtype list?

I assumed you want vehicles that run on tracks without catenary to also be able to run on tracks with catenary. By default RAIL has only ELRL in its lists, but as you are introducing additional tracks, you also need to update RAIL to also allow running on those tracks if that is needed.

Oh, I see, it is just to ensure that steam/diesel can run on electrified tracks.

McZapkie wrote: ↑03 Oct 2020 19:58 Oh, I see, it is just to ensure that steam/diesel can run on electrified tracks.

Steam, diesel, but also wagons, to ensure they can run on your tracks. That is also why you add RAIL to the compatible_railtype_list of your tracks, so that engines can be push/pulled on those tracks. Because you are also reusing ELRL as a multisystem track that can also run on your tracks, you need to add RAIL explicitly in the compatible_railtype_list of ELRL so that it behaves as default OpenTTD again.

What is the correct label for 'metro' in the standardised scheme?

This is for Iron Horse, where 'metro' is:
- standard gauge track
- undefined axle limit
- 3 or 4 rail electrification (unimportant which, but 4 rail is more accurate for London Underground, which UK Horse trains are inspired by)
- limited loading gauge
- specific signalling

The latter 2 preclude compatibility with the wider standard gauge network.

Currently MTRO is used, with fallbacks to 3RDR and SAA3. All of these appear to be inappropriate.

I am not concerned about compatibility with existing railtype grfs. Iron Horse provides railtypes as well as trains. I just want to set the correct label in the standardised scheme

How about sAA4?
- s = standard gauge, but restricted loading gauge
- A = no speed limit
- A = axle loads are not defined, so use A
- 4 = 4 rail electrification

EDIT: I re-read the guidance on using speed limit for special types. I think metro might be best as SPAM.
- S = standard gauge
- P = poky (restricted loading gauge)
- A = no axle limit
- M = metro power supply (equipped for both 4 rail and 3 rail with return via running rails)

andythenorth wrote: ↑15 Apr 2022 21:10 SPAM

I dont like Spam!
Sorry, couldnt resist

What about TUBE for metro?

- standard gauge Tunneled (use lowercase t for tunneled narrow gauge)
- Unlimited for speed limit (rather than A which is ambiguous)
- B for axle weight, because axle weight limits are all levelled in this case
- E for electrified

This doesn't work for UK Horse though, because that's 3rd or 4th rail, so TUB3 and TUB4 might work there?

andythenorth wrote: ↑16 Apr 2022 16:52 What about TUBE for metro?

- standard gauge Tunneled (use lowercase t for tunneled narrow gauge)
- Unlimited for speed limit (rather than A which is ambiguous)
- B for axle weight, because axle weight limits are all levelled in this case
- E for electrified

This doesn't work for UK Horse though, because that's 3rd or 4th rail, so TUB3 and TUB4 might work there?

"E" for electrified would be too generic... subway systems other than the London Underground use different systems, for example catenary. I'd suggest sZA4 ("Z" could be used for no speed limit).

On advice from others, standardised scheme is orientated towards compatibility across complicated railtypes. So that multiple vehicle grfs and railtype grfs can all work together across a range of common properties

Whereas Iron Horse metro is just metro. It's not compatible with other things. It's deliberately isolated from other vehicles and railtypes, unless they're also metro.

And standardised scheme seems to not cover this case, and that is fine.

So Iron Horse metro can just be "MTRO", which it already was for n years, and can continue to be.

I will use the standardised scheme for Iron Horse narrow gauge, as that case makes complete sense. I've switched the Horse label for vehicles and narrow gauge rails to NAAN.

what exactly speaks against "xxx3" for metro? whether it's 3 or 4 rails doesn't really matter, unless you have both kinds in the same train set and really want them to not mix. (where actually, there are even ways to mix them in reality)

Eddi wrote: ↑17 Apr 2022 14:02 what exactly speaks against "xxx3" for metro?

Very little. It's really arbitrary whether it's 3 or 4 rail in this case.

the very idea of this scheme is to have a "close enough" simulation to increase interoperability. so reusing something someone else has already used is preferable.

Some train grfs can't (or choose not to) correctly implement the axle load component of the Standardised Railtype Scheme, but still wish to use the other components of the scheme.

For this case, the "Innsbruck 2022 Convention" puts a name to behaviour that train grfs are already using. This avoids fragmenting the Standardised Railtype Scheme spec by defining a common approach to partial compliance. https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/S ... compliance

This isn't a whim, there has been extensive discussion about this in the OpenTTD Discord amongst active grf authors. Nor is it satire, to pre-empt that possible interpretation. But yes, the name is silly.

andythenorth wrote: ↑07 May 2022 15:35 Some train grfs can't (or choose not to) correctly implement the axle load component of the Standardised Railtype Scheme, but still wish to use the other components of the scheme.

For this case, the "Innsbruck 2022 Convention" puts a name to behaviour that train grfs are already using. This avoids fragmenting the Standardised Railtype Scheme spec by defining a common approach to partial compliance. https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/S ... compliance

This isn't a whim, there has been extensive discussion about this in the OpenTTD Discord amongst active grf authors. Nor is it satire, to pre-empt that possible interpretation. But yes, the name is silly.

maybe recommend to new grf mod devs to use uppercase "E" for axle?

also Brickblock say "B" and "b" as two different generic broad gauge better than specific "unrealistic" and "realistic" broad gauge?

The problem with this is that it wouldn't work with current railtype sets without really adding much.