What Diesels would you like to see next in Railworks?

TimSYoung40145 · Post by **TimSYoung40145** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:19 am

How about 33/1 & 33/2, but if you had 33/1s, then you need 4/8 TC Stock for nostalgia.

Kariban · Post by **Kariban** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:44 am

RSC 33 should have those, iirc.

swtcn91 · Post by **swtcn91** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:42 pm

We already have the Class 170 and the 171, so how about the 172 (including the Electrostar-style corridor version)? On the same subject as Bombardier diesels, do you reckon a Meridian could be done, and perhaps the future bi-modal variants of the Voyagers/Meridians once the PTSOs are built?

Jimmerz · Post by **Jimmerz** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:48 pm

Is there any difference in performance between standard and bi-modal variants of the Voyager?

Cheers,

James

TimSYoung40145 · Post by **TimSYoung40145** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:51 pm

Class 185 DMU would be nice.

Kariban · Post by **Kariban** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:59 pm

Jimmerz wrote:Is there any difference in performance between standard and bi-modal variants of the Voyager?

Cheers,

James

One exists? bad performance if it's not built

An electro/diesel-hydraulic would be a fun and bizarre creation... that's quite a redesign to make an electric one.

Tankski · Post by **Tankski** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:04 pm

I don't think it's even possible to comment on that, seeing as the news about XC being told to conduct a survey into them has just come out recently, so no designs will have been made (and as a result, no specs on their power!) but from the designation, which is lacking the 'M' in the name, suggests the power would remain the same.

swtcn91 · Post by **swtcn91** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:51 pm

Kariban wrote:
Jimmerz wrote:Is there any difference in performance between standard and bi-modal variants of the Voyager?

Cheers,

James
One exists? bad performance if it's not built

An electro/diesel-hydraulic would be a fun and bizarre creation... that's quite a redesign to make an electric one.

The Bombardier Voyager family (including the Meridian) are actually diesel-electric, meaning that the diesel engines drive the traction motors rather than a transmission box, so a conversion would be easier as the PTSO will just add a pantograph, an IGBT and other components you'd normally find in an EMU, and obviously, the existing traction equipment will be adapted to dual mode.

As for design, I expect that it would just be an MSO with a pantograph well added, and the undercarriage carrying the electric equipment.

Kariban · Post by **Kariban** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:26 pm

Huh, so they are. I have no idea why I thought they used the usual voith transmissions...

I can't see why they'd be any more or less powerful on the wires then. Maybe their continuous rating might be a bit higher.

swtcn91 · Post by **swtcn91** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:04 pm

Kariban wrote:Huh, so they are. I have no idea why I thought they used the usual voith transmissions...

Maybe it might have been because they sound similar to the Class 158/159s, given that some of them use Cummins engines like the Voyagers/Meridians. I've been accustomed to hearing them since the many times I've ridden out of my home station, Basingstoke (hence the SWT part of my username), even though most of the time, I ride on the Desiros, but sometimes, I do ride on the odd 159. Even so, I do hear the Cummins engines all the time, and even near my house at my uni home, which is situated right next to Plymouth station, where there are a lot of CrossCountry trains.

Kariban · Post by **Kariban** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:40 am

Ah nope, it was because the Adelantes are D-H & I got mixed up between high-speed DMUs. I've bumped into a large number of DMU types around Exeter so it's nothing to do with associating engines.

Ironically I've done a ground-up rewrite of the 158/159 physics using the D-E model and virtualised engine audio so it sounds right...

Makeone · Post by **Makeone** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:48 pm

Hmm, wasn't Railvision making Adalante (180), 175 and 185, to name a few of his projects. BUT, where did he disappeared? I mean, one time he was posting renders almost daily and then...nothing. Or have i missed something (Railvision seeing the 'light'...

)?

jp4712 · Post by **jp4712** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:02 pm

I'd love to see a class 17 Clayton - and there is an operational one (D8568, Chinnor and Princes Risborough Rly) to get the sounds from. Perfect for the Port Road and okay for WCML North with a bit of artistic licence.

A Metrovick would be totally mad - but it would be great... I wonder what they sounded like?

In DMUs I'd like to see a class 107 or 108; or a Cravens; or a Derby Lightweight; or 117, which would look good on any route based on the Western Region.

Although 73s don't float my boat, I accept that it represents a gap.

Paul

ashgray · Post by **ashgray** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:53 pm

jp4712 wrote:I'd love to see a class 17 Clayton - and there is an operational one (D8568, Chinnor and Princes Risborough Rly) to get the sounds from. Perfect for the Port Road and okay for WCML North with a bit of artistic licence.

Agreed, with the proviso that they are more reliable than the real thing...

A Metrovick would be totally mad - but it would be great... I wonder what they sounded like?

Hopefully Chris Baily's team will have an answer to this before too long if they can get D5705 up and running.

Ash

black8 · Post by **black8** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:24 am

jp4712 wrote:...A Metrovick would be totally mad - but it would be great... I wonder what they sounded like?

Yes Paul, I wonder what they sounded like too. Does anybody know if they can be 'heard' on an internet site or so?
Jos

Atomic Systems