What Jubilee was used for the sound in TSW3, was it kolhapur? I don't think they opened it up too much. Apologies for going OT In the 80s I did a "Trans pennine Pullman" with Leander. There were about 10 or 12 coaches, with no diesel. I can't remember the exact route, what I do remember was the noise going up through Stalybridge. There's no way to recreate that sound of Leander on TSW3. Although there were several people with microphones standing at the windows, and a couple of mics attached to the top of the coach doors. Not sure health and safety would allow this now. I expect the passengers nowadays are too busy eating to take recordings. Or can they even hear the loco with the windows shut, and the diesel pushing? At some point in the evening, the steam leg of the railtour ended at Hellifield. Then we took a service train home. The run I had I seem to remember was in the Autumn, not April as in the photos. https://www.flickr.com/photos/71592768@N08/7945971944/sizes/4k/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/71592768@N08/50062397853/sizes/h/
Nice run, glad to hear you enjoyed it. I think we have definitely found a flaw with our artifical method of restraining the locomotive by using the dampers. As lcyrrjp mentions the slow speeds must undoubtedly have a disproportionate effect on the airflow through the fire which is something I've never thought of. Perhaps something like 30 or 35 would be required to get accurate performance. But then again it seems to be quite realistic on flats and gentle gradients so maybe it's just an issue with the physics. I have noticed the blower doesn't really do much and in some cases when stationary, full blower actually lowered the pressure. Perhaps I am using it incorrectly?
Looks fun - great pictures. I've been trying a few railtour times as an experiment a I find the same issue in that the timings are so relaxed. Obviously it makes sense as the signallers don't want their trains held up but it doesn't make for much of a challenge. Not compared to our SOS and NTP exploits anyway.
I’ve never really sussed out an effective use of the blower on TSW. Logically, if our issue is getting airflow to the fire at lower speeds, it should be an important tool, but I’ve never seen it do anything other than slow the rate at which boiler pressure recovers, so I don’t use it at all now. I do wonder whether there some more scope for playing with different front and rear damper positions to improve pressure at low speeds but reduce it at high speeds (what happens if we do combinations like 50/0 or 0/50, which I think Jetgriff said is actually what was used on the Jubilees when he was on them?) At the same time I’m conscious that if we mess with the formula and all end up doing different things, then our runs become incomparable, which takes some of the fun out of it!
lcyrrjp, a.paice, interesting thoughts, both of you. I also didn’t consider that the slow speeds might impact our damper-method. That’s my feeling so far as well. On flats and gentle gradients, it seems to be quite a good approximation, but lacks any of the stamina the real one seems to display on slow, steep climbs. I think I’ll have another run and some testing on WSR this evening or on the weekend at the latest. I also noticed that I didn’t test 25 front 50 back in my tests. Don’t think it’ll bring anything new to the table, but I’ll have a look regardless. Correct usage of the blower is also something I still need to look up. Thus far, I’ve just cranked it on whenever the regulator is shut off
lcyrrjp, what is it with the two of us posting simultaneously? Interesting idea with 50/0 etc. I’ll add that to my tests on WSR.
Sounds good. I’ve checked back to Jetgriff’s post and he says the front damper was never opened, and 50% maximum on the rear - so perhaps 0/50 is one to try. It would be nice if the real-life usage actually proved to give realistic results!
Had some time this evening and I come back with mixed results. Didn’t have enough time for testing + full run, so I went for testing + partial run. For ease of reading and writing, X/Y will denote front damper/back damper. Let’s start with the test. Back to Bishops Lydeard and the climb to Crowcombe. I tested 25/25, 25/50, 0/50, 50/50. 25/25 as our bechmark choice underperformed slightly, as already expected. It gets up to 21 at 169 III with realtively little trouble but then plummets on the 1.3% climb after that. I improved my technique a bit and managed to stay longer in a 16/15mph bracket. 0/50 - our secret hope - was an interesting case. Overall, it performed similarly, but slightly better than 25/25. Managed to hit 169 III just right and then maintained 17/16mph for most of the climb before hitting Crowcombe at 15mph. This is where I’d like to point out what looks weird to me in our log. At 171 III, the driver was going 19mph before dropping rapidly to 15mph just a few meters onwards in Crowcombe. If the 19mph are correct, then 0/50 was underperforming, but if we look at 15mph in Crowcombe instead, 0/50 was very close to the log. Then, I tested 25/50 since we still don’t match the 18mph climb after 169 III. 25/50 actually managed to get very close to this with a sustained speed of 17mph. For our amusement, I decided to test 50/50 again, if only to truly eliminate it as an option. It was disastrous - well the opposite actually but you know what I mean. On the 1.3% climb after 169 III, it not only hit the 25mph speed limit, but wanted to accelerate even further. I feel very confident in saying that 50/50 is not what we’re looking for. Before we draw any conclusions, I’ve got my partial run to add evidence. Since I wanted a change of scenery after all that testing, I started the opposite run from Minehead to Washford. For testing purposes I used 0/50 on this. Some things I’d like to call out: Looking particularly at 186 III, Blue Anchor, 183 II, I was often slightly faster than our log. I can’t put my finger on it, but something felt off about 0/50 in the flat. Maybe I’m just too used to 25/25, but I felt like the loco was a bit too quick on her feet with 0/50. The climb to Washford - 182 II in particular. This is a brutal climb up a 1.5% gradient (in-game at least). At least with 0/50, I have no idea how the driver managed to hold 18mph (the same speed as on the 1.3% climb out of Bishops Lydeard interestingly enough). I managed to hold her on just about 9mph, which is perhaps more similar to the log on the other route. This is where I think I need the perspective of others. I feel like I’m slowly reaching the end of what I can really test with my (basically non-existant) knowledge about steam locos. To me, it seems right now that 25/25 might still be our best bet on the flat, but 0/50 or even 25/50 might be a better approximation on slow, steep climbs. If any of you could try it, I’d love to hear what you all think of 0/50. It seems like a truly promising candidate based on initial testing but my partial run makes me unsure. Was my mind just playing tricks on me when I felt the loco was a bit too nimble on the flat?
Great analysis, Lamplight. I tried 0/50 on the 8F on Preston - Blackpool - as a direct comparison with my 25/25 run yesterday, and it steamed a little better with 0/50, throughout the speed range. I was consistently able to maintain slightly higher cut-off and regulator positions without losing boiler pressure. I'm with you in that I can't really say which is more realistic, having limited evidence to work with on the real life performance of an 8F. My feeling is that 25/25 probably remains the most realistic as an average across the speed range, based on the logs which you have provided, but that we may find the low maximum speed on the WSR means the journey time achieved by the 8F in your log isn't quite achievable (the comparison isn't helped by the fact that the Driver on that run exceeded the speed limit at a number of quite critical locations).
I think this phenomenon where the driver seems to have a bit of extra power than us is due to the fireman. The fireman in real life would have been gently building up the fire before the gradient, carefully timing it so it was burning at its maximum ferocity just as the train starts on the gradient giving the driver the maximum steam possible. In the game however, we have no idea what the fireman is doing. Whatever it is he certainly isn't paying attention to the gradients. He's probably smothering the fire or pouring water into the boiler as we try to climb the hill. For that reason I don't think we can ever hope to match the performance on the climbs. I suspect its the same reason the Jubilee with 10 coaches struggles so much in game on the climb from Stalybridge or Huddersfield. Nice experiments though, thank you for putting the time in. Interesting to see that two dampers is not always better than one.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. One way or another, we lack the evidence to make truly substantiated comments on the 8F’s performance. Your 25/25 combo feels right, even if it does underperform on the slow speeds potentially. Even if we look at the performance on these climbs, the performance in TSW with 25/25 doesn’t seem to be miles off - perhaps with the exception of my climb to Washford. That, however, I’m putting down to my technique for now without a re-run. The human factor, meaning me, is always a potential source of failure. Good point about the fireman. No problem regarding the testing As I said before, I’m a freight person at heart so trying to give the 8F the same treatment as the Jubilee is something I’m particularly passionate about. Thank you all for your input, and thank you a.paice for giving me the push to finally start working on the 8F performance. For now, I’m with lcyrrjp and think 25/25 is the best overall approximation and feels the most right. I’ll continue looking into the 8F and will report back when I had another run on the WSR, but with steam physics being what they are in TSW, I reckon 25/25 is the best we’re gonna get.
Had some time on my hands, so I’d like to finish up with my findings of another WSR run. This time, it’s the full version of my partial run - Minehead to Bishops Lydeard - with our beloved 25/25. The run really seems to cement some of the things we’ve speculated about. Here’s my timings. This time only for stations and without associated speeds. My reasoning for this was I wanted to truly focus on driving instead of looking for miniscule mile posts all the time. I wanted to focus more on the overall performance and not on whether the loco was going 15 or 16mph so much. Allow me to talk you through. First off, I have to admit that I overdid the speeding between Dunster and Blue Anchor a bit while taking notes, which put me slightly ahead of our log. I corrected this by later approaching Watchet slowly to synchronise the times again, so to speak. Up to Blue Anchor, 25/25 mirrored the real performance very well, it would seem. Then came the dreaded climb to Washford, which turned out better than expected. The speed never dropped below 11mph (compared to my previous 9mph with 0/50; 18mph in the log). Following Watchet, the clocks were properly synced again. Doniford and Willington were no problem at all and the performance of 25/25 was again very true to our log. The climb to Stogumber was the most revealing part of the run. For the first half of the climb, 25/25 was actually very close to the log with a somewhat steady speed of 20mph. Inevitably though, the pressure and speed began to drop and once speed dropped to around 15mph and the pressure was not up to scratch anymore, the performance plummeted and the climb was slowed down to around 11-13mph mostly (40 regulator, 23 cut-off for power or 22-20 for regeneration was what worked best for me). This resulted in me running about 3 minutes late at Stogumber. Unfortunately, the climb was far from over since the gradient continues all the way up to Crowcombe. Not having any break to recover pressure, I pushed on with my pretty depleted boiler with the same performance as on the last leg of the climb to Stogumber. I was now about 8 minutes late when I pulled into Crowcombe. The last downhill bit is obviously of little interest and I arrived at Bishops Lydeard with about 7 minutes of delay. My conclusions are as follows. Upwards of 15-20mph on the flat or normal gradients, 25/25 delivers a very good approximation based on our extremely limited data set. At 15-20mph and below on very steep climbs, it does seem to underperform quite a bit. In other words, 25/25 seems appropriate in most situations and should probably remain our go-to for the 8F as well. This is what I meant when I said that my run seems to cement our speculations. The climb to Stogumber with its split between accurate performance and underperformance when my speed dropped would seem to confirm that our damper settings are throttling the 8F a bit too much on the slower speeds up to 15-20mph. Past that speed, the fire gets going and 25/25 seems pretty accurate. I feel like if we ever do something like focusing in on the hard climbs of Peak Forest with the 8F (in particular the gradient up to the station of the same name), it might be worth it to see if we can find a bespoke set-up only for slow climbs, but otherwise, as lcyrrjp already said, 25/25 seems to give the the most appropriate overall average performance.
I really want to give these challenges another go, but quite honestly I am hooked with the peak on BPO. I may try out the 8f railtour though as I do like both the 8f and BPO and may be nice to get away from the 45 for a couple of runs. Also some very interesting findings above.
A New Challenge: Leicester to Derby Browsing through the logs on the 'loco performance' website (which is a fantastic site, featuring the many logs, I believe, of a Mr Brian Basterfield) I happened upon two which piqued my interest - both were Jubilees working the 14:25 St Pancras to Manchester, including a non-stop run from Leicester to Derby... The first run - in September 1957 - was noted by the author for its poor running, and was heavily affected by signal checks. The second, however, in January 1958, was a much quicker run, unaffected by slacks or signals until the final approach to Derby. I've noted the timings in the first 2 columns of the spreadsheet below. The first, with 45605, can largely by disregarded, except to highlight the extreme difficulty in trying to compare the performance of TSW steam locos to their real-life counterparts, when the performance of the real thing can vary so significantly. The only section really comparable is Leicester - Loughborough, as both locos get a clear run. Note that although I've equalised the starting times with the schedule for the sake of comparison, both trains departed Leicester late, so there was no reason for either to take it easy. 45605 takes 14m23s to reach Loughborough, passing at 72mph. 4 months later 45683 gets there in 12m41s, passing at 84mph. 45605 had 1 more coach, but that would not account for so much variation. The running of 45683 on the latter run was noted by the author as impressive, with a net time time comfortably inside the 30 minute schedule for the Leicester - Derby section. But can we match it...? I was fearful that the speed restrictions in 1957/8 might have been significantly different to those on the modern day route, but the log of 45683 suggests not. Aside from the approach to Derby the only restriction affecting its running appears to have been at Sheet Stores Jn, for which it eased to 69mph - suggesting the limit was 70mph then, as it is now (or if it wasn't, the driver thought it ought to be!) Sadly, with no formation editor, we can't yet match the exact load of 8 coaches. I made two attempts - first with 7 mk1s, and and then with 10 mk1s. With 7 mk1s I found it an enjoyable run, but ultimately a little too comfortable to be much of a challenge. We touched a maximum of 92mph before Sheet Stores Jn and arrived just over 2 minutes early (it would have been over 3 minutes early, had I not been over-cautious in the braking for Derby). The most satisfying thing for me was just how similar the running was to 45683 on that 1958 run. Our run was quicker, but only by roughly the amount I'd expect with 1 fewer coaches, and speeds were very similar throughout. This further suggests we're on the right track with our '25% dampers' rule to correct the performance of the TSW Jubilee. With 10 mk1s it was more challenging. Learning from the first run, where I felt I'd run down boiler pressure too much in the initial start from Leicester I made a steadier start, and could only reach 60mph by Syston, but with boiler pressure still over 200psi. This allowed me to use higher regulator/cut-off settings on the fast sections beyond, and we took our heavy load through Loughborough at 78mph, only 49secs down on schedule. We touched 83mph before braking for Sheet Stores Jn, the safety valves lifting just before we able to open up for the climb beyond. Even with maximum boiler pressure and the gentle gradients, the heavy train prevented any significant acceleration, and we were only able to achieve a maximum of 71mph, through Borrowash, before we had to ease off for Derby. None the less, it was enough, and we came to a stand in Derby a little over a minute early. In all cases an asterisk indicates that speed was reduced due to a speed restriction. The gradients for the route are gentle - a gradual descent to Sheet Stores Jn, and a gradual climb from there to Derby. The below profiles are from 'Gradients of the British Main Line Railways' by Ian Allan. On the first profile Leicester is 1 mile off the left hand edge of the profile, with the first quarter mile being level, then 1 in 500 falling. The route remains on the first profile until Trent Jn. On the second profile the route is on the lower part of the profile until Spondon Jn, then the raised 'cut-out' section from there to Derby. In case you want to compare the above timings with your own attempts, I tried to note the passing points which are easily identifiable on the modern route. The only one which is a bit tricky is Borrowash station, which is closed. It's 5 miles after Sheet Stores Jn and is most easily identified from the right-hand side of the loco. It's just beyond the bridge shown in the picture below. Note the distinctive retaining wall on the right, the signal beyond the bridge and the right-then-left S-curves. To set up the run I used Free Roam, with a 16:00 start time to allow myself plenty of time for a 16:07 departure. The route is easy to set up - set the destination to any through platform at Derby, with no waypoints required. If you want to give it a go, it would be great to hear about your efforts here. Good luck.
I took a Jubilee for a spin on Peak Forest earlier, using the 25 on the dampers and it were a very nice run and certainly felt right. This sounds like a good challenge, slightly different to the others as it will require a different driving style to the slower, steeper routes we've done these challenges on before. With the MKIs is it not possible to spawn a Jubilee plus 10 and then uncouple and 'delete' (or whatever the freeroam word for that is) those two leaving 8 in the rake?
I hadn’t thought of that. I tried coupling an extra vehicle to a 7 - which didn’t work - but your suggestion sounds much more sensible! I’ll give it a go.
That’s MML, right? I’d love to participate, but don’t own that one (PS5 player and as far as I know, MML is still unplayable on PS5). Agree with matt#4801, it sounds like a different challenge, more akin to the stretch into/out of Crewe. Also, wanted to suggest the same thing with ‘manually’ creating the consist in free roam Also, a bit of a status report and recommendation: Having put in the work testing on WSR, I’ve been playing a lot of 8F freight runs on Peak Forest. They’re surprisingly challenging given that I’ve only run them on auto-fireman before. Even the ICI empties are pushing the 8F hard on the brutal climbs. I’ve been sticking to 25/25, but did allow myself to go up to 25/50 once after a miscalculation (let the boiler run down too much, for which I blame the beautiful scenery , and was crawling along at walking speed). Not the same kind of challenge we do here usually, but check it out if you like freight Good luck on MML, everyone!
It is a shame those ICI runs are so short because they really are probably the best, most immersive steam runs I've done, especially with the 25/25. Can certainly agree with the scenery, myself and the mrs are staying up here for a week and I nearly came off the road yesterday looking at the view down one of the hills!
Also, Lamplight mate it may be of interest that a patch to fix the PS5 issues went out today. I The route itself is a real gooden though so providing the patch does it's job I would recommend it and although most say the 158 is the standout, for me being back in a VP185 and hearing that roar again as it's just brilliant. Of course more importantly you can also take part in this steam challenge too!
Yeah, I’m watching the feedback thread with great interest. If the crashes are indeed fixed, I’mcertainly interested in picking it up, though I will wait for a sale, I think (I’ve-waited-this-long-mentality ). Thanks for your input, much appreciated
Yes, I do hope all the fluff that came with that route has now gone. I am not sure I put in enough input (five or six posts was it) so will just once more say it is a good route! Sorry to any mods if those posts flagged something, I can assure you I am human, just the internet in Peak District seems to be worse than it is back home in Lincolnshire!
Not gonna lie - the prospect of having another real performance log to work with was one of the main things pushing me towards picking up MML in the ongoing PlayStation sale. Now, I’m finally joining in Right off the bat, this was such a lovely change of pace. Coming to this race course after the slow climbs on NTP, the slow testing of the 8F on WSR and the even slower 8F climbs on PFR, it was a real marvel to behold King Steam (as we sometimes say in Germany) in full speed. For my set-up: I did a freeroam run within the timetable (I imagined it being a railtour, that’s also why you’ll see three lanterns in my pictures). Departing Leicester at 16:07 puts you right after an HST service departing for Derby at 16:04. That HST clears your way nicely to ensure a green run (and as much as we love steam, the Jubilee is just not catching up to an HST ). lcyrrjp, as you pointed out that only the second log is really comparable for all of the run, I used it as my inspiration and ran an eight-coach train (spawned a ten-coach train and deleted two coaches). Quick disclaimer: I put my Leicester departure time as 17:07:00, but it’s likely around half a minute later. I was playing around with tail lights and saloon lights and had a bit of a “Oh, flip!” moment when I noticed the clock. That being said, here’s my run (station: time; speed): Let’s address the elephant in the room first: Yes, I was ever so slightly too fast at Sheet Stores Jn. I hit the points at 80, but with heavy braking. I was down to 70 shortly after. So, I was doing 70, just a couple of yards too late. I didn’t barrel through to improve my time. That’ll just be our little secret I was still used to the 8F and her brakes feel a lot more sensitive, so I was expecting the brakes to apply quicker than they did. Onto the meat of the run. I wasn’t satisfied with the start. Using my experience (love 40 reg, 17 cut off), I got to 60mph with little trouble, but struggled to find my footing in the higher speeds. Here, I’d like to shout out lcyrrjp. I looked at your runs and noted the use of 29 reg, 19 cut off. What black magic did you use to find those numbers? That combination in particular carried my entire run once I tried it past Syston. It maintains around 200psi +/-5-10psi depending on speed and easily gets you to the mid 70s - more downhill. I get the feeling that that is where the Jubilee works best - in the 180-200psi bracket. 29 reg, 19 cut off seems to exploit this bracket very well. Up to Syston, I used 40 reg, 17 cut off, which got me up to 60. I got impatient and used some 60 reg, 25 cut off, which ruined my boiler pressure (down to ~160psi). I used 20 reg, 17 cut off the rest of the way to Syston to get my boiler back up to 200psi. The rest of the run, if I wasn’t braking, I was using 29 reg, 19 cut off. This got me to my top speed of 88mph just before the 70mph junction. What a feeling. All in all, it seems I hit the log targets pretty well. Not only did I have a lot of fun, I’m very satisfied with my run on top (apart from the junction, have to get used to the Jubilees’ brakes again). I’m really curious what your take on this will bring, matt#4801. It’s not neccessarily a “challenge” as our other runs, but it’s really good fun I’ve only brought two pictures, I was enjoying the sensation of speed to much for frequent interruption As I said, I decided on doing a “railtour” on a lovely Christmas afternoon Spoiler: Christmas Railtour 45674 ‘Duncan’ thunders through Loughborough at 81mph. Almost like two bookends.
Great run Lamplight mate, I did have a go yesterday but got held up by a wrongly routed 8f in the scenario so had a bit of a rage quit: I were already fuming after having FIFA do me over before as well! I am back at work now but I should be able to slot in a run with the amended scenario tomorrow when I get home to give my side of the story on the run. Looking forward to it now!
Just curious if we found an answer to that question regarding the 8F and running speeds on passenger trains? As of the 8Fs smaller running wheels Obviously freight was limited depending on the era, so was running light engine and running in reverse I believe?
Looking through a number of sources it seems that 60mph was the top speed due to the small wheel diameter. West Coast Railways limited their's to 50mph I believe to reduce wear and tear. Obviously it could go higher but it would be very uncomfortable for the crew, wreck the motion and track beneath and possibly be quite dangerous.
Great run, Lamplight, and very consistent with the efforts of Hogue back in 1958. Working on the basis that your true departure time from Leicester was about 17:07:30, your time to Borrowash, with the same load, was virtually identical to that of Hoad, which is very satisfying (beyond that Hogue’s run was affected by signals, so not comparable). I can’t claim the use of 29 reg 19 cut-off came from anything other than trial and error! It does seem to work well on the higher speed routes. I agree the fast running on that first section before Sheet Stores feels great, gradually building up the speed mile after mile. The second section from Sheet Stores to Derby is more of a challenge, working out how to get the best out of the loco on the gently rising grades. It’s a nice combination. That first picture of Duncan kicking the snow up as it thunders through Loughborough is superb.
Satisfying indeed. We’ve had a lot of runs now on here that fall short of the logs or timetables by a couple of minutes or were extremely hard to somewhat match. This run really made me feel that it’s all worth it given that we actually managed to match the performance in the log and pretty consistently between us, too. Tell me about it! Hitting 60 was nice, but then watching the speedometer slowly tick further - 70, 75, 80, 85 - and slowly creep towards 90… Just exhilarating. True. I just stuck to 29 reg, 19 cut off since I was amazed at how well it works (kept me steadily between 71-75mph on the gentle gradients), but I’m sure you can squeeze more out of the old girl if you try. Thank you I think the snow kick up is really hit or miss with the way it interacts with light sources, but it looks really nice in static pictures. I also liked the signal reflecting from the mk1s.
Something else I would like to bring up regarding the (to my mind significant) change in performance on the lower cut off settings. I don’t know if everyone reading this thread is aware and also for the benefit of future readers, this was posted in another thread: Essentially, it would seem that the indicated cut off position is almost completely disjointed from the actual cut off used for the simulation. The scale is not linear, so there’s going to be a lot of difference in the actual cut off setting between our usual range of 15-25%.
Yes, I saw that. I’m not sure what the basis of it is, but if correct I think it just reflects that the TSW physics are poor, and DTG have fiddled the cut-off displayed because the ‘real’ cut-off required is clearly unrealistic (if we were running at high speed at 45% cut-off that would be ridiculous). In a sense, I suppose it’s similar to us fiddling the damper setting to make the performance more realistic. Having said that, I completely disagree with the opening statement of the post that the 4F behaves as it should and generates the right amount of steam, so I’m not sure how much weight to place on the rest of the post on that basis.
As far as I’m aware, the poster works for DTG, so it’s as good as it gets in terms of a look inside (happy to be corrected if I’m remembering the poster wrong though). I completely share your sentiment regarding the 4F though. I’ll be the first to admit that I know very little about steam engines. Diesel and especially electric locos I’m far better versed in. But something just doesn’t add up. When I put it to the test, the 4F outperformed the 8F significantly. Was it because of the weird cut off input values? I doubt it. I ran the 8F around 20% cut off while the 4F happily pulled the same train faster in 75% cut off(!) while barely losing pressure. Was it because the 4F apparently starts hot and the 8F (I assume therefore) cold? Maybe - I can’t exclude that factor. Both engines were put through their paces up a 2% gradient immediatly after spawning in free roam. It’s possible the 8F would have fared better had I warmed her up before. As I said, I’m far from the best person to judge this, but something feels off.
The poster seems very critical of DTG so I'd be surprised if they are an employee. I may be wrong though. In some ways, I'm not too concerned if odd things are going on 'under the bonnet', providing the end result comes out reasonably realistic. Unfortunately, as you say, in this case it doesn't. I also make no claim to be an expert on steam locomotives, but I do know that if the real 4F performed like the one in the game, the train companies would never have bothered to make any bigger locomotives!
I think you woefully overestimate what the 4F is doing, the 4F at most will sustain about 600hp or thereabouts which is enough to maintain 50mph and no more really with 12 coaches on the level. To be honest 50mph is a push, but lets get some numbers because we all love numbers... Here is a graph of me accelerating the 4F with 12 coaches on a perfectly level oval track up to 50mph. Time is on the X axis and Power in HP is on the Y axis. The regulator was set wide, and the reverser was adjusted as best as possible to maintain constant pressure, to put it mildly the 4F struggled to get to 50mph and you can see me trying to sacrifice boiler pressure for speed at points 531 seconds to reach 50mph. That performance is pitiful. For comparison a Class 20... a Class of loco not excactly known for their turn of speed or power and probably a rough equivalent replacement to the 4F... reach 50mph in 166 seconds, and continued and reached 60mph in 273 seconds. Now a Class 20 is 770hp at the rail, so the 4F taking over 3x as long to reach 50mph with the same is indicative that as show from the graph it is noticeably less than 770hp at the rail. But what about the Jubilee... Now I will attest I am not the best of drivers of the Jubilee as I haven't practiced like some folks seemingly have in here, but on the same train graphing to 50mph the power output same as before. Now I will attest I struggled at the start and went very easy on the engine until it warmed up, the lowest the pressure got was 150psi thereabouts, once it started to climb I let it climb to about 215psi before giving it the beans (about the 220 second mark). Now I actually lied, the graph is to 60mph... it reached 50mph in 296 seconds and 60mph in 440 seconds. I suspect I could have gotten it a lot quicker to 50mph if I really wanted to, I also found towards the end my fireman was incompetent so I dismissed him. I don't actually know what power the Jubilee will sustain... but it is a lot more than 600hp that much is sure. oh I also slipped a couple of times which didn't help matters. Now in theory a Jubilee should put down about 1200-1400hp. So a reasonable anology to a diesel is a Class 31 with its 1170hp at the rail... the bonus being a Class 31 are known sometimes for being unable to pull the skin off a rice pudding. So I think it goes without saying that... well 140 seconds to reach 50mph and 213 seconds to reach 60mph... Now I don't think by any real metric can the 4F be classed as more powerful than the Jubilee.... or its peers. I think the main difference lies in the fact the 4F is raring to go when you spawn in with a red hot fire... the Jubilee starts cold and has a pesky fireman not helping matters entirely. As such being a lighter engine helping as well, it can charge away much more fiercly than the Jubilee with its dodgy fire can without loosing all its pressure. At speeds above 75mph the Jubilee goes haywire and the less said about that the better, but at low speeds it could be seen to be actually underperforming to what it should be. It should be able to give the 31 a run for its money, hell it should certainly be able to give the Class 20 a run for its money and it just well... doesn't.
Thank you very much for your input. It’s much appreciated. Could you have a look at the test I did and share your thoughts? Here: I tested the 4F and 8F with the same train on MSB up a brutal gradient with the caveat that, according to what you say, the 8F was cold and the 4F hot. In that instance, the 4F did seem to outperform the 8F. Would you say that the difference in performance is accounted for by hot vs cold start (and, of course, my inexperience in driving steam locos)?
Oo i love a challenge. So In this test I created an Alpine test circuit which is a flat area for the train to spawn on followed by a 2% gradient. For this test I used a train of 7 ICI hoppers (497 metric tonnes) Starting with the 8F, this was a bit of a struggle to get her to behave. Starting off cold really didn't help matters, so when I hit the gradient my boiler pressure plummeted and it took a while for me to recover, but I gradually managed to bring her around and crticially kept the boiler pressure high I got her up to 12mph in 7000. I did slip once which when I dared to try turning the sanders off so I lost a bit of speed there. However I got her to climb with full regulator and full reverser in the end. I suspect if i had actually had a sizeable run up and got the loco hot before hitting the gradient It would have flown up. So first up X axis is distance in m, Y axis is speed in MPH This one is Power in HP on the Y axis, distance in M on the Axis (guess where I slipped) Boiler Pressure on the Y (PSIG) and Distance M on X Finally Fire Temperature in Celcius vs Distance As Can be seen from the latter, it took an absolute biblical age for the fire temperature to come up, the fire on the Jubilee/8F requires you to absolutley hammer it. It also suffers from the problem of the fact if you add coal... if you continue to work it hard, it never actually gets added to the core firemass so you can run out of coal... despite the fact you've been adding it for the last half hour. The only way on the Jubilee/8F you can get them to merge is by effectively shutting off and letting the fire temperature drop so the two temperatures meet and the firemass you've added merges with the core firemass. As such adding coal is actually counterproductive on long inclines like this, eventually you will run out of fire but well it lasts a long time. Ordinarily this isn't a problem as most of the time you aren't running 20+ minutes without easing off. Oh and the other thing is the blower basically doesn't do anything useful for maintaining temperature, I did think to sit on the start line with it roaring to bring the fire up to temperature, but all it succeded in doing was my fire temperature dropping so I charged off before it got too low. Now I'm guessing your original train the 500T included the weight of the 4F... so the actual weight was 410 tons, as with this 500T train I slipped to stand very quickly. Indeed I've had to make the sanders erm, work (oops) to get it to climb at all. After all of that though... well... Speed in MPH on the Y axis, Distance in M on the X axis... Well that disappointing, the 4F stalled due to the weight of the train. Almost like it is a 4F not an 8F! Wasn't out of pressure (blowing off), regulator and reverser were max, it just doesn't have the go to do it. Continued in another post
Anyway, take 2, dropping a hopper so the train is now 426T. I curtailed this after 2400m as I was bored and it was clear nothing interesting was going to happen. Speed vs distance Power (HP) vs distance Boiler Pressure And finally fire temperature Not really much else to say, the 4F starts hotter than the 8F does after all that thrasing and it stays hot.... apart from that with 71 tonnes less it could only sustain 5.5mph give or take depending on the safeties blowing. The 4F just can't do any more which is well to be expected. Its just weaker than the 8F full stop. The only real difference is the 8F takes a while to get into is stride but once its there it is quite mighty.
Interesting analysis, thank you. As you'll see earlier in this thread we had some fun trying to match a real life timetable taking a Jubilee from Leeds to Man Vic with 10 mk1s (a heavier load than was hauled in reality, but it made for an interesting challenge). The toughest section was the climb out of Huddersfield, which averages 1 in 100 over a long distance, so I thought I'd see how the 4F gets on - 10 fully loaded mk1s up a sustained 1 in 100, from a standing start. I found that, using as much power as I could get out of it, speed balanced out at 25mph on the climb, sustained all the way to the summit. Now, I doubt that a 4F could achieve that in real life, but I accept that I don't have the evidence to back that up (logs of 4F working on heavy loads are understandably in short supply!) so if someone can show me evidence that the real thing can achieve something comparable, I'll accept that (and be duly impressed!) The thing that stood out, though, was that in all of that climbing, using high regulator and cut-off settings all the way up, the boiler pressure remained right on the maximum throughout, with the safety valves lifted most of the way. Virtually whatever I did with the regulator and cut-off, I could not get the boiler pressure to fall. I don't believe it's characteristic of any steam engine anywhere, that you can work it as hard as you like, and the boiler pressure will never fall. I was interested in your comparison of steam and diesel hp outputs earlier, but the big difference is that diesels can achieve those power outputs continually, where steam engines can achieve them in short bursts. The 2000hp Class 40s were able to match the performance of the biggest of BR's express passenger locomotives over long journeys. The steam locos could put out more than 2000hp, but they couldn't sustain it continually, whereas the diesel could.
Side notes going back to the 8F, you can see at points I intentionally sacrifice speed for boiler pressure (I wound the reverser right back), once at about 1500m and once at 2100m and again at 2400m. Reason being that boiler pressure has a major impact on tractive effort (and resulting power). Since the force acting of the cylinder is directly proportional to the boiler pressure, if the pressure drops to 175psi then the engine is physically only going to be able to put down 78% of the force it could be doing. You have a point about sustained outputs, howeve the values I quoted of 1200-1400hp for the Jubilee at 600 for the 4F are values that should be more than sustainable indefintiley. The Jubilee which sadly never got a turn on the BR rugby testing plant as far as I'm aware, but probably could put down 1800hp for brief periods of time. Now admittedly this is for a B1 (Class 5) but these powers the locomitve were sustained on the test rig indefinitley. The boiler in this case could sustain nearly 1450hp at 50mph, granted at around 40% cutoff but not dissimilar to what has been achieved here. There is a side note I should bring here with regards to the 4F and the 8F/Jubilee. There isn't really any water consumption as such you don't get the effect of dumping 2000 odd gallons of cold water per hour as far as I'm aware which would have a noticeable effect on your steaming ability. However even with that said, steam locomotives are fascinating things, and really they should not be being fought for hours before they start to obey you, otherwise they'd be of little practical use.
Thank you so much for your input, DominusEdwardius. The two points that really stood out to me were: (emphasis mine) In many of our runs, we actually were pushing the 8F/Jubilee very hard for very long times, which might have then interfered with the fire temperature. Based on what I can see in your data, the 4F just doesn’t have this problem since she starts in the state you (apparently) need to work very hard to get to on the 8F/Jubilee. The cold water not having an effect then exacerbates this difference. All very interesting food for thought, certainly.
I must say I had a read through what DominusEdwardius said on my mobile in my break and although didn't get a chance to reply have found it very, very interesting to read so thanks for your input of knowledge mate. Another thing I didn't get round to doing was reporting back on my run last night, so here I go: Leicester - Derby, Jubilee No. 45721 'Impregnable' and 10 (I'll explain) MKIs. Attempt 1: As I said above I set myself up a scenario for the route and so had 5 minutes to sit there with very little to do and whilst making the scenario I put this there to give me time to set up in the cab and most importantly uncouple the two spare MKIs. However I totally forgot to uncouple those and so did the whole run with 10 of them trailing behind: A great start! Anyhow, 16:07 soon rolled round and so I set off without a fuss getting up to 10mph very quickly and continuing to increase it as I pulled away. The speed continued to gain and as I flew past Syston using 60 on the regulator and 17% cut off I had reached 63mph with the pressure down to 160 PSI. At this point I did think to myself quickly that this seemed significantly slower than what had been achieved in real life, but just brushed it off for the time being. I then adjusted to a 70, 16 arrangement to try and gain some boiler pressure. This didn't particularly work as by passing the Mountsorrel sidings I were doing 64mph and pressure had only gone up to 170. And so I adjusted myself again with 40% reg and 18% cut off as I continued towards Loughborough. Passing through Loughborough at 16:21, 14 minutes after departure, I had my speed at 70MPH and pressure at 175PSI. This is when I smelt something a bit fishy... ...I knew that this method had done me much better in the past and so as I cruised along I had a think and then a sudden realisation that I had forgot to uncouple the two MKIs at the start. Bullocks, or something like that was said! So I continued muttering a variety of words to myself towards East Midlands Parkway, which I passed at 16:27, with a speed of only 72 MPH, which had been my maximum along the whole of the MML, and pressure back up to 210PSI. From here to Derby there was nothing particularly spectacular to report until I needed to start braking as again I could only reach 73MPH along there with pressure sitting at about 180PSI. My braking for Derby was perhaps some of the best braking I have done in a steam loco ever, meeting the speed limits and only dropping a couple of mph below after finishing the braking. And so still rather frustrated at myself I rolled into Derby coming to a halt at 16:15.54 ha I wish, it was actually 16:35.54. Still not a bad run but I will have to give it another go remembering to do the uncoupling at the beginning! Spoiler: Screenshots!
Very respectable run given the heavy load I don’t quite know how you got to Derby in just about 9 minutes though Thanks for all of the details on cut off and regulator setting. While I’m enamoured with 29 reg, 19 cut off, I’ll try to give yours a try as well when I get the chance for another run. Nice work on the screenshots. I particularly enjoy the second one with the interesting grass angle and the forth one featuring the bridge at sunset.
It's been one of those days! Give me a minute and I will seamlessly edit it as if nothing happened! Thanks though mate.
Really interesting run, Matt. I’m glad someone else attempted it with 10 on, even if it was by accident (I did it because I didn’t even know at the time that it was possible to split off and delete coaches!) Your maximum speed before Sheet Stores was a fair way below mine (which was 83mph) but you reached higher speeds on the final section to Derby and our overall times were very similar. I love the shots with other steam locos in them. I’ve never got into building scenarios (sounds far too much like hard work…) but maybe I should give it a go.
Thanks mate, I am going to try and give 8 a go today when I get home but actually like you say it has given an interesting comparison. I am glad the shots are liked, the scenario only took half hour to bash together including fixing the mistake I initially made, though I don't find it as enjoyable as it was in TSW3.
I decided to spend New Year’s Eve by doing something I’ve come to really enjoy - running another one of our runs. Joining you, lcyrrjp and matt#4801, I also tackled the 10 mk1s run on MML. lcyrrjp, think you’ll have some déjà vu when you see my stats Set up was the same as on my 8 mk1s run. This time though, it’s a New Year’s Eve railtour instead of a christmas one Here we go (station: time; speed): Don’t ask me why I can’t manage a timely departure. Last time, the tail and saloon lights distracted me. This time, I was all ready to go - it’s just that I forgot to open the ejectors. Oops Anyways, pretty much all of the run up to Sheet Stores Jn was done with 29 reg, 19 cut off, which served me nicely. My top speed before braking for the 70mph restriction was 83mph. My max speed on the climb to Derby afterwards was only 71mph. On that last leg of the run, I started to experiment with 17 cut off again. I did have the feeling that the loco was climbing a bit better with 40 regulator, 17 cut off compared to 29 reg, 19 cut off, but I think that was more of a hunch than fact combined with me not going above 29 reg for 19 cut off (which I probably should have here). All in all an acceptable run, I think. I could have handled that last climb better but looking at your runs, it doesn’t seem like that would have had a major impact. Onto my last shots for this year Spoiler: Final Flourish 45604 ‘Ceylon’ fights the heavy load amidst some industrial scenery. Just doing some routine signal maintenance when I suddenly… … catch something extraordinary in the corner of my eye. 45604 ‘Ceylon’ and the New Year’s Eve railtour sit in Derby after the non-stop run from Leicester.
Great run Lamplight, and a minute inside the 30 minute schedule, with a heavier than booked load. As you say, the speeds are virtually identical to mine. You got to Sheet Stores Jn slightly quicker than me, then I was a little quicker on the second section. You could probably have afforded to work it a bit harder on that section, although with time in hand there was no need. Great pictures too - very artistic use of the signal!
A New Challenge: Birmingham New Street to Bromsgrove Another log from Brian Basterfield's 'loco performance' website caught my eye - on 4th April 1960 Black 5 73135 had 10 mk1s on the 06.10 Derby - Bristol Temple Meads; the 07.55 from Birmingham New Street. There are a number of logs of steam locomotives on the route, several of them of Jubilees, but this one caught my eye because it had a booked called at Bromsgrove - enabling us to recreate it on DTG's Cross-City route without having to give up the train at speed. I believe the Jubilee's advantage over a Black 5 came mainly at higher speeds - which (as you will discover) are not a characteristic of this section of route (certainly not with such a heavy load) so it remains an interesting comparison, even though it's not the same class of locomotive. I wondered whether such a short run - just 15 miles - might be rather uninteresting, but I need not have worried - there's plenty of challenge and interest here. To set up the run (if using Free Roam), select as your starting point any platform at New Street which allows departure towards Five Ways, and as your finish point select platform 4 (the most Easterly platform) at Bromsgrove. No waypoints are required. Select 10 mk1s (fully loaded). There are certain locations on the route where the PSR was lower in the 1960s than on DTG's modern route, so for comparison purposes I suggest complying with the speed restrictions of the day: Birmingham N.S. - the short section of 15mph PSR present today was 10mph - i.e. keep your speed at 10mph until you reach the 20mph. King's Norton - the 45mph PSR on the curve was 40mph. Blackwell - where the 75mph PSR commences today it was 30mph through the (now closed) Blackwell station, until the top of the incline. Lickey - the maximum permitted speed down the bank was 50mph. The gradients of the route are what makes it so interesting. The below profiles are from 'Gradients of the British Main Line Railways' by Ian Allan. This short section of route is on no fewer than 3 different profiles, so sorry it's a bit untidy! As you can see, it's a steep climb out of New Street, followed by undulating - but still mostly rising - gradients to King's Norton, then a steady climb to to Barnt Green, before descending the Lickey. Onto the run itself, and 73135's 1960 effort was noted by the author for it's struggle on the climb out of New Street on wet rails, repeatedly losing its footing, meaning that, even with fairly typical running thereafter, it was 2 minutes late into Bromsgrove. Of note is the maximums of 52mph and 53mph respectively in the dips at Bournville and before Barnt Green, and the rather broad view which the Driver took of the 30mph PSR at Blackwell (the only Driver to do so, of all the logs on the site). As usual, speeds restricted by PSRs are marked with an asterisk. My first attempt, with 45613 'Kenya' is shown alongside. I confess, I took advantage of the 15mph PSR leaving New Street - only realising afterwards that it is a recent increase from 10mph, and this (along with not having 73135's adhesion difficulties) explained why I passed Five Ways almost 2 minutes quicker than the Black 5. At this point I was confident of a right time arrival at Bromsgrove, but this proved premature. My fast start on the steep initial climb had cost me boiler pressure - down to 155psi already by Five Ways, and I paid for it all the way to Barnt Green. On the difficult grades, I was slower than 73135 through Selly Oak and Bournville, and there was no need to brake for King's Norton (although I should have eased off slightly to be more strictly within the 40mph PSR). The long section of 1 in 301 beyond prevented any real acceleration, and only the dip before Barnt Green got me up to 47mph, still significantly slower than 73135's 53mph. I didn't release the brakes early enough approaching Blackwell, and undershot the 30mph PSR, but acceleration down the Lickey was rapid and I was on the brakes the rest of the way down. I was over-cautious into Bromsgrove - worried about over-running the station at the bottom of the steep descent - and lost more time, with the result that I had lost almost all of my early gains, and arrived 1 min 40 secs late. On the face of it - considering this outcome was despite not complying correctly with the 10mph PSR leaving New Street - it may be that this challenge is impossible. On the other hand, there is no disguising that this was a pretty poor effort on my part. I gave up too much boiler pressure on the initial climb out of New Street (which is the one thing all of our experience so far with the Jubilee tells us is a fatal error) and my braking at both of the key locations was poor. I think there's plenty of time to be had here - but is there enough to achieve a right time arrival, while complying with all PSRs, and using no more than 25% dampers? Over to you.
A couple of pictures to (hopefully) whet the appetite. I suspect you'll do better... Both are Jubilees, and both are at Bromsgrove. There the similarity ends!
Ah, dang, another route I don’t own Careful there, lcyrrjp, you’re beginning to sell routes to me better than DTGs’ marketing Looks like a very interesting run with some high speed climbing (compared to something like NTP). You did outperform the real driver, but as you said, they had adhesion problems and I assume a Jubilee should (slightly?) outperform a Black 5, but you know more than me about that. So it does look like the schedule was quite tight with you still being one minute late. That being said, you recognised it yourself - the boiler pressure might have played a big part. In my experience, it felt like the Jubilee is essentially dead at 150psi. I’ve really taken to not letting her drop under 175psi with the aim of staying closer to 190-200psi. Certainly worth exploring how she performs on this run with more pressure in the kettle. Still, good effort on sticking through it all with only 150psi. And thank you for spending the time to find these new logs for us and documenting it all in such an easy to read style in your tables Lovely pictures, both of them
Thanks, Lamplight. I eagerly await my commission from DTG, but I think I may be waiting a long time! Cross City comes up very cheaply in sales from time to time, and I’d recommend it - not just for steam, but because the 323 is very well done, and the route as a whole is well built and interesting. I’ve also enjoyed using Free Roam to recreate cross country services between Lichfield City and Bromsgrove (as used to occur during weekend diversions) using HSTs and 47s. In TSW3 there was also a mod which enabled us to run the 101 on the stopping services in place of the 323 (as used to happen in the early days of the 323s, when they were very unreliable) but I don’t think it’s made it to TSW4. I did some hunting for a steam schedule for the other half of the route from Lichfield City to Birmingham NS, but the only ones I can find are for stoppers, for which we don’t have a suitable locomotive. I’m going to keep looking though - there have certainly been periods when faster trains have used that route between Derby and Birmingham.
Let me know if they prove troublesome. I’ll send them my bills to make sure you get your due There are some ridiculous offers on PlayStation right now (CCL and HBK for 6€ each!), so here’s hoping! I personally don’t really like modern MUs if I don’t have any real world ties to them. I’ll admit that this has led me to not paying any attention at all to Cross City when it was announced. Maybe I’ve been missing out. Anyways, I’ll keep en eye on it I’ve been meaning to look through the data as well to see if I can find something of interest. Can’t get enough of these runs Didn’t have the time yet, though.
