So recently been a lot of different routes. And noticed that coasting is really on almost all trains. My fellow train lovers what train/loco do find really bad at coasting. For me it's the dutch trains and hst. Thanks and you all have a good weekend.
also br 442... the newest version is slightly better but still not ideal... lets say British 323 gains speed even at 0.3 or 0.4% given enough time... rolling resistance can be an issue on certain locos and units in the game
Trains do coast to different degrees in real life too. For example, generally a unit with AC traction motors will coast less well than a unit with DC traction motors. Note, it’s the traction motors which count, not the power supply - older EMUs generally had DC traction motors (if the power supply was AC they converted it to DC to feed the traction motor) whereas newer EMUs generally have AC traction motors (if the power supply is DC they convert it to AC to feed the traction motor). Whether the particular variations in coasting between units/locos in TSW are accurate though, I don’t know. I can’t say I’d particularly noticed the HST coasting poorly. Maybe someone should do some coasting trials. Take each unit/loco up to a set speed at a set point on a given route, shut off power, and see where it comes to stand.
Most of the posts I see complaining about coasting are players not understanding how trains should coast rather than there being an error in the simulation. If a train appears to not coast well then it is actually likely to be more realistic. The unrealistic ones are the ones that seem to not have any kind of realistic rolling resistance or drag and will accelerate even on a very shallow gradient at higher speeds. Better drag simulation was brought in for TSW3. I think this aspect has improved since then and I think that’s why more complaints are seen on the forum because players are expecting the trains to behave like the poorly simulated ones or expect lighter modern units to coast like a heavy freight train or older loco hauled passenger trains. Players were complaining a lot about the two Dutch trains and a real driver of those trains then posted that one of them (the ICM) was almost spot on and the other one lost only slightly too much speed when coasting. I don’t expect trains to be perfectly simulated here but I definitely see complaints about the trains that seem more realistic to me when it comes to coasting or maintaining speed on level track and shallow downhill gradients.
The one instance that comes to mind where we can straight up say they really messed it up would be the ALP45-DP, where they set one motor to be engaged but not the other, the way it would work in the real life loco..
on the Dutch route there is a short section with like 0.6 or 0.7% descent (I believe in the direction Groningen - Zwolle), which should be enough to gain at least a bit of speed, and I believe both of those just kept it also, 442 in both older and newer iterations, it took like 0.8% or so for it to start gaining speed during coasting 323s on lets say Birmingham CrossCity route gained speed even on 0.4%, and I remember on London Commuter most units gained speed on 0.4% descent, albeit slowly the thing is, train enthusiast on many levels pick on details, yet not many of them have the means to know if this or that behavior is close to IRL... thats why lets say me personally I am grateful if someone with more knowledge steps into a discussion about a route or loco and writes an educated post on this... also, personally, I dont expect stuff to be IRL perfect, but then I would like to know in which ways it differs from reality
The Davis equation is a good rule to estimate the rolling resistance, this site also adds some further 'fudge factors' to take into account various of contributors to rolling resistance:https://www.coalstonewcastle.com.au/physics/resistance/, this in turn will determine how far a train will coast in the absence of a downhill gradient.
The Voyager always seems to quickly lose speed unless you keep switching the power handle between notches 1 and 2. Don't know whether or not this is true to life though.
The Dutch trains are by far the worst, particularly the ICM. But I have also had issues with the 805 on Birmingham to Crewe where you need to keep power on, even running downhill to avoid slowing down too quickly.
I think coasting works just fine, and I am a train driver IRL. Gaining speed on 0.3 or 0.4% is realistic at least for modern EMUs. Any train left on released breaks on 0.2% is probably going to run away. And that's what's happening in TSW I think (will actually try this out a bit lol) [edit] When you start a service in Trenton and release breaks the train starts moving backwards. [end edit] However on some trains like the bugged german Dostos where other Cabs constantly apply breaks because they have breaks cut in on position 4 coasting will obviousely not work because the rear part of the train is constantly breaking. (unless you fix these cabs and cut them out before running your train - and don't make the mistake of simply releasing breaks because then you will not be able to break properly because the other cab constantly releases breaks and the rear part will not break!) I don't own the Dutch route neither Birmingham to Crewe so I cannot talk about those. Could it be the Dutch Dosto is similarly bugged as the German?
It will be as they are diesel they won’t coast as well as a electric unit electric units ie AC and DC have better resistors and traction packages which can give a more smoother application to coast with the help of resistors and Regen traction.
I mean, is there actual numbers for the sim versions compared to their IRL counterparts on any of these engines? One thing sorely lacking in most of these accuracy discussions is cold, hard numbers. Saying something like this with nothing but a vague general statement puts you in the same vain as the people you're complaining about. Not saying you're wrong, just something I think needs to be said, we really need real numbers if there's gonna be call outs.
Absolute tosh! IRL - I can coast a Class 66 with 1800 tonnes on the hook from Tring to Bletchley, accelerating to 75mph by the time I reach to Cheddington, the train will then hold that speed through Leighton Buzzard and start to slow down towards Denbigh Hall South Junction. A Class 92 and MK5 sleeper coaches, will slow down from Cheddington onwards once it hits a level piece of track. You'll need to keep the power in to maintain the line speed in a Class 92, not much, but you'll have some in!
That’s an interesting insight, thank you. It’s a really complex equation, as the weight of the train will make a difference as well. You really need to put that 92 on the front of the 1800 tonne freight train and see what happens! However we could, on TSW, recreate a 66 with 1800 tonnes from Tring to Debigh Hall and see how similar it is to your description. That might be interesting. I think we need to do a few ‘real life vs game’ trials like this before we criticise DTG. That’s difficult to do using published logs because you don’t know exactly when the train is coasting, but as we have some friendly real-life train drivers on here we might be able to get that extra insight we need…
Good point. There are some class 87 videos on YouTube where controls are visible too. We could do a comparison with the JT version.
