|
|
| Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. (581487) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason. |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Mar 5 23:30:30 2008, in response to Re: Re :(Speed ) TA is obsessed with CBTC, and ''New'' tech for no reason., posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 5 22:26:43 2008. I've run "experimental high performance stock" in BVE, and a savings of 20 minutes is to be expected on some lines, like the A. At least Ten minutes or so savings on the E. Ten minute savings on the C.Note: i followed speed restrictions on curves (Went slower than what some operators take curves at to make time), and dwelled in stations longer than necessary on some regularly "unpredictable", or holding light stops. Also, the dwell times(door open) in bve seems to be set to 19 seconds, which is especially long for local stops along the C. I've been on trains that stopped, opend doors, closed doors, and started to move again in 10-14 seconds consistently, saving MORE time. I wasn't gunning it either, being reasonable. I know where curve timers are, and pretended they were there, especially wheel detectors after switches(10 miles). I wrapped around on long, straight express runs though, and hit 60 in tubes, which IS REALISTIC. Though if there were "timers" on straight aways, i would ignore them, but they would add maybe a few minutes all together. Also, i kept the trains with less than 2.5 mph/s accel to 20 miles, which then linearly drops off to about zero at 50-55 miles; no accel at 60 miles. VERY realistic performance. Easy to come by. No 79 mile an hour runs, or PCC acceleration. I ran the "experiments" reasonably. I would save even more time had i used, say, washington metro stock with 80 mile top speed and 3mph/s accel. I kept it more MTA style though. Lots of way to improve efficiency for MTA. CBTC and new cars NOT Required. |
|
|
|