Railworks America

Ever since the birth of this simulator, we've been stuck without complete sets of FSA and FTA container wagons. This is what has been available until now:



... only the "outer" wagons. In order to place these correctly in a consist, they had to be arranged as in the above screenshot, with their low ends together and their high ends, which match the bumper and coupler heights of engines and other wagons, apart. That was easy enough to do in a fixed consist, but when the wagons were shunted getting their ends mixed up was all too easy.

Now, with the Class 70 add-on, we have these:



... adding the "inner" wagons, low at both ends, to make a complete set of inner (FTA) and outer (FSA) wagons. The new FTA wagons do not exactly match the design of the old FSAs, but could be used with them, I suppose.

New loads are also included:



The only downside is that scenario writers cannot use the new FSAs and FTAs without obliging players to buy the Class 70 add-on, but perhaps RSC will soon make an FTA compatible in appearance with the older FSAs and add it to standard stock ("Hint, hint; nudge, nudge; know what I mean?").

why do these wagons have a high and a low end? I noticed this when I placed them yesterday and wondered why they did not match up. I just glibly blamed the RSC Model team for getting it all wrong. (Sorry RSC Model Team, looks like I'm the goose!).

So what is the idea behind the design that means I have to place them in a certain order to couple them up?

These wagons have been out since the class 86 pack was released.

Glen

Yep, exactly the same wagons as the 86 pack. The Mk2s from there made it into core with RW3, so maybe in time...

They have a high end and a low end in real life, along with small wheels and a noticeably lower than normal floor. The reason is that modern containers wouldn't fit on a normal height flatcar and still remain within the very restrictive UK loading gauge. The high end is provided so that the wagons can be coupled to locos with standard drawgear equipment.

Well, that's embarrassing! Especially since I own a copy of the Class 86 Add-On and I'm pretty sure that I read its user manual when I purchased it. Why I haven't noticed those FTA wagons whilst making scenarios is beyond me.

Thanks for the information about why the FSAs have a low and a high end.

Marleyman wrote:why do these wagons have a high and a low end? I noticed this when I placed them yesterday and wondered why they did not match up. I just glibly blamed the RSC Model team for getting it all wrong. (Sorry RSC Model Team, looks like I'm the goose!).

So what is the idea behind the design that means I have to place them in a certain order to couple them up?

According to the information included in the Class 86 (ahem!) and Class 70 user's manuals, these wagons were coupled in sets of four: FSA - FTA - FTA - FSA, although surely a set of three (FSA - FTA - FSA) would also make sense. The point is that the bumpers on the low end of an FSA are lower than those of any engine or other wagon. I wonder whether bumper height mismatches could cause consist tilt errors or derailments in RW?

I just set up a train with these FSA's. I was quite impressed with myself as I sat there doing it all proper like I even knew what I was doing. So obvious when someone points it out to you!.

So, thanks. :)

Old Prof wrote:I wonder whether bumper height mismatches could cause consist tilt errors or derailments in RW?

Nah, buffers aren't functional by themselves - the vehicles have collision boxes, you can test that by turning on "couple anything to anything" ( I don't remember the actual name ) and shunting US & european stock at the same time. Coupler height on the other hand does matter, I think.

In Britain, since 1968, nearly all Freightliner trains ran in universal sets of 5 wagons, coupled together, each comprising of an FTA-FSA-FSA-FSA-FTA, there were drawbars between the FSA wagons to keep them permanently coupled as per the Companies' policy, which negated having to do any loose, or, hump shunting, turning them around, etc, which was prohibited with these types of wagons. There were occassions, when an FSA wagon was damaged, it would be extracted from the set, leaving only 4 wagons intact, which was quite a burden on the train makeups, as you lost 60ft of revenue earning space for several weeks, and often these sets of wagons would be taken off the heavily laden port and docks container traffic services and put on the domestic routes, until the FSA wagon was repaired, re-coupled and the complete 5 set could be entered back into the major daily route services. I worked at the Nottingham Freightliner Terminal, and we were the first depot on the network to run a timetable scheduled daily train of 30 wagons ( 6 x 5 wagon sets ) on our consist up north to Newcastle, Edinburgh and Coatbridge Freightliner Terminals, the wagons being split off from the train at the marshalling yard at York.
Nowadays, as the company seeks to compete with the road haulage market in the movement of containerised transport, even though approx. 85% of all maritime shipping containers is transported on the long haul journey by rail anyway, newer wagons have been designed similar to the well cars operated in North America, and the European compliance to enable wagons to go through the Channel Tunnel into mainland Europe.
I thought RSC were creating, or, going to create, some newer wagons for our Freightliner services, especially, now they have released the Class 70 locomotive, although, I haven't seen anything advertised, or, released, as yet.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

Wonderful and useful information: thanks, ex-railwayman! I'll say again that I wish RSC would make an FSA to go with the FTA wagon included with the simulator. I hesitate to use the ones included in DLC packages in scenarios, since I prefer not requiring payware for my freeware scenarios. Your explanation of the 5-wagon set gives me an idea for a scenario, however.

Regards,

Sorry, I got my wagon codes mixed up a bit, I was in a hurry to get my lunch......

These are the relevant wagon codes used by Freightliner Ltd, past and present.

FGA (outer) & FFA (inner) - Original Freightliner wagons operating in fixed train sets first introduced during the 1960's. Containers up to 8' 6'' high can be loaded onto these wagons.
FSA (outer) & FTA (inner) - Standard Freightliner wagons operating in fixed train sets introduced in 1991. Containers up to 8' 6" high can be loaded onto these wagons.
FLA - A low platform wagon introduced in 1991 and capable of carrying containers up to 9' 6'' high, operating in fixed sets. There are two types both with the same code, the inner wagons can handle containers up to 45 feet long, the outer wagons can handle box containers up to 40 feet long.
KFA - Introduced in 1998 these 60 foot wagons operate singly but can only carry 8' 6'' high boxes
KQA - The 'Pocket wagon' introduced in 1998 and capable of carrying containers up to 9' 6'' high, these operate as single wagons.
IKA - A low platform wagon introduced in 1999 capable of carrying containers up to 9' 6'' high on certain cleared routes, because of bridges, etc, operating in fixed two wagon sets.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

Old Prof wrote:According to the information included in the Class 86 (ahem!) and Class 70 user's manuals, these wagons were coupled in sets of four: FSA - FTA - FTA - FSA, although surely a set of three (FSA - FTA - FSA) would also make sense. The point is that the bumpers on the low end of an FSA are lower than those of any engine or other wagon. I wonder whether bumper height mismatches could cause consist tilt errors or derailments in RW?

Wouldn't be much of an issue as they are always coupled with the low ends facing each other. The reason they are like that is, as already mentioned, to get the loading floor as low as possible in order to fit the containers within the UK loading gauge, which despite the UK using standard gauge track, is much smaller than in continental Europe, and miniscule compared to North America.

The perils of being first to do anything, you make everyone else's mistakes...

There is a fair bit of W10 gauge around now, I think it's mostly height issues which haven't been helped by ballast beds getting ever deeper.