OPEN LETTER TO DTG. I have reported this previously, and I would have thought, as it is critical for the realism aspect, that DTG would have corrected this error in the in-depth update that you have done for GWE. But obviously, it seems to me that you only pay lip service to realism and when it is pointed out that you are making a critical error you choose to ignore the constructive criticism to get you to put it right. I refer to the timed speed of the class 166. The 166 has a maximum speed limit of 90mph, which is clearly displayed in the cab of even the simulated units. Yet you choose to ignore this fact and set the timed speed for the class at 100mph. So any player of GWE who chooses to stick to the correct speed of 90mph cannot hope to keep to the timetable. This just makes a mockery of your plans for trying to portray a realistic train simulator. If this is the case then all of us who use TSW2 might as well pack up and change to Aurans Trainz simulator where anything goes. You really are spoiling a very good simulator by ignoring these points when they are pointed out to you. So do you think you could put this right, or are you going to continue to ignore the fact that you have got something wrong. Please put this correct and retime the class 166 scenarios so that the running time from London Paddington to Slough and Reading is adjusted so that at 90mph the train stays on time.
Sorry, but that's rubbish. Prior to the recent patch I never had trouble keeping to schedule at a top of 90, either on stoppers or expresses. Timing has become an issue after the patch- but not because of the top speed but rather the more realistic (i.e. slower) acceleration. In fact, the revised accel would make it close to impossible to hit 100 even on a limited-stop run. It never becomes an issue on stoppers. Schedule problems are an issue across TSW, but that has everything to do with making timetables based on computer-driven AI runs (impossible for human players to match), not top speed issues.
I'm with solicitr on this, prior to update I never had an issue with keeping to 90 and maintaining timetable. Since the update it's certainly more challenging admittedly due to the more realistic acceleration but even so I've completed numerous services on time (and as mentioned above on stopper services you rarely get the chance to top 90 regardless )
I hit 95mph the other day on it. I assume any DMU going downhill will fall over the maximum speed of 90mph.
Similar myself I was at around 95-97mph mark when I backed-off the throttle on a semi fast service with only a few stops. What I did notice was that at 90mph and still in notch 5 I was slowly dropping speed while on a .1% decent. Is the rolling resistance maybe a bit high? It seemed to me that to still maintain 90mph on level track I had to keep it between notch 5 and 6. So much for coasting
They aren't exactly profiled to reduce drag resistance so its natural to reduce speed especially running at 90mph. Is it too much drag? possibly or it could be a case that other trainsets don't have enough. I've not been fortunate enough to get behind the desk of a RL loco at that speed to know.
Air resistance- which at 90 mph consumes the vast majority of power expended. The 166 isn't exactly streamlined. Drag is geometric in effect, too.
Most locos can do more then their permitted maximum, so its no surprise or indeed wrong that the 166 can do over 90mph even though its not permitted to do so in service.
My thoughts exactly. I was trying to find an old forum which had an example of a 166 over the max speed. Will keep searching... ghawk2005 any guidance on this thread about 166's going over 90mph?
On german routes there are freight trains driving 160 kph down the line. TSW2 can be enjoyed a lot more by not hunting medals and fantasy schedules, but going by the rules as good as possible. Thats my own way to get the best out of the experience. If the GWE a.i drives the 166 with 90 or 100mph, is something you wont notice anyway.
At least the 166 behaves more realistically than the TSC version and the other hydraulic transmission DMU’s, where Notches 1 to 6 simply act as a speed setter regardless of going up, down or on the level. The 166 on GWE is now far more realistic than the previous incarnation, the issue is more that the timetables need fully validating to reflect the real schedules not the AI computer generated version we have.
The units CAN achieve higher than 90 but on mainline use the governor comes in at 92-93. 110mph was achieved in a test unit though Likewise the 156 was designed for 75mph but can also achieve way higher than that. I have no issue with the GWE timetable so far.
Actually the speed governer, aka overspeed trip, is something DTG ought to simulate on all their traction units where fitted. I’m not 100% certain but nevertheless fairly sure most of the classic BR diesels were so fitted.
