Thank you. So good to have this sort of info,
I’m just interested how a train simulator game compares. Always love learning about the real life units compared to how they are represented in the game.
Ah yes! If we're talking about the "base" 158s available, they're vaguely similar. If we're talking about the expensive add ons available from 3rd parties, they're closer to reality in some ways, but introduce a whole load of enhancements that give a vague implementation of systems that are present in the real world, yet they implement these systems in a way that makes the whole thing somehow feel less immersive, even if it sounds more like the real thing.
It's a bit like, if you got a simulator of your car and it drove and sounded vaguely like it if you squinted, you can live with the fact you have to squint to enjoy it. If you got an even more expensive version that drove and sounds exactly like your car until x/y/z occurs, then behaves in no manner resembling reality, it somewhat kills the immersion.
I hope that analogy summarises it in an understandable way - I suppose it's one of those first world problems that you'll only have if you've actually driven the real thing (privileged position to be in of course, I'd say!).
Would to know about level track acceleration timings, 0-60, 60-90mph etc etc. I know there’s variation in all units… just after an average really.
As I'm working this week, I'll see if I can help with that one. I suspect we'll have documents accordingly.
Edit - this information is actually available online somewhere. There's a chap who does recorded speed runs. I'm not sure if they're always the most accurate (a small gradient can make a big difference), but they're a good benchmark.
Edit #2 - I've done some googling and it's rail express who do the timings. According to a very old thread on this website, they give 158s as 98 secs 0-60.
Also emergency stop distance or the like. Any extra information would be greatly appreciated ( same for the Valenta HSTs, I’m sure the brake pressures for each brake step are slightly different to the modern MTU are they not ?
In terms of braking distances I can't really give much information for emergency as we usually do all we can to avoid using it (and when we do we're usually far more preoccupied with the thing that caused us to place the brake to emergency).
What I can say, is for a 158, if you hit a platform at 20mph, it would typically stop within around 75m using step 1 brake.
If you hit a platform at around 28mph, you'd get similar distances from step 2.
Take these distances with a rough 20m margin. They're just recollections from memory and I don't claim them to be exactly accurate.
Additional tit bits: every simulation I've seen doesn't model a 158 speedo accurately. There's a distinct lag (around 2 seconds) for the speedo to give an accurate reading. For instance, if you start moving down a platform, you'll somehow be doing so at zero mph for the first few seconds. As you shut off power, you somehow gain a few mph as the speedo catches up. It's very much unique to 158s (compared with most of its contemporaries, cant speak for DMMUs etc) and one of those little things you really notice.
WSP and wheel slide is modelled awfully in all commercial sims I have used so far. Trains don't go into uncontrollable slides in the snow in mid Feb every time the brake is applied. Snow causes minimal WSP behaviour except in EMUs as they accelerate (same as in rain).
No simulation can do justice to how cramped a 158 cab is. Drivers don't have knees or require lumbar support according to BREL.
Thats all I can think of off the top of my head
