[rickloader]

Hi Rob. A while ago we discussed the problem of tender locos running round. I just wanted to raise it again, in case the issue gets overlooked.

roeter, on 31 August 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

The problem is that a tender is classified as a "wagon", not as a "locomotive". Only within the data is it defined that it is a tender, but 'tender' is not a 'class'. Presently, the code only looks at the classification, and only detaches the items classified as "locomotive".

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

Will this issue remain with the new attach/detach functions being developed? I think it very desirable that the tender be considered as part of the loco or power unit, and be indivisible from the loco.
Thanks for your trouble, rick

[roeter]

rickloader, on 24 April 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

Hi Rob. A while ago we discussed the problem of tender locos running round. I just wanted to raise it again, in case the issue gets overlooked.

Will this issue remain with the new attach/detach functions being developed? I think it very desirable that the tender be considered as part of the loco or power unit, and be indivisible from the loco.
Thanks for your trouble, rick

For detach, the tender is assumed to belong to an engine. If the tender is found first, then the next engine is also detached. If the engine is found first, followed by a tender (or more then one tender), then the tender(s) is (are) also detached.

Say, for instance, that the 'front power' unit must be detached.
If the first unit is a tender, and the second an engine, then both are detached.
If the first unit is an engine, and the second a tender, then again both are detached.
If the first unit is an engine, the second is a tender and the third is also a tender, then all three are detached.
And when in doubt (e.g. the third tender belongs to the second engine which happens to run in reverse - odd, but who knows), it's always possible to detach a given number of units.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[rickloader]

Splendid news! Sorry to have troubled you, and thanks for the detailed reply.
rick

[oliver2]

Hello Everyone,

I thought to share my experiences about the attach and detach function now available for ORTS timetable mode.

I chose Harlowton station of the Milwaukee Road. This is the east end of the MILWs electrified system, so incoming westbound trains have to switch power from diesel to electric.

A test timetable created as shown below:



According to this, there's an arriving westbound train to Harlowton Track #1 td1_in with 2x SD45 power, while 2x EF-4 "Little Joe" electrics t1e idling at Harlowton Track #4. To make it easier, separated consists used for the stock (30box).

After arrival, the diesels detach the train, leave the 30box consist as static, then pull out and reversing to Harlowton #3 as train t1d.



Meanwhile, the t1e Joes start and reverse to Track #1 and pick up the static 30box. It forms the t1e_out and heading west.





The diesels form t2d and wait to an incoming eastbound train t2e_in, to switch traction again, now from electric to diesel.



Notes:
#1: train obs is just a single engine, idling at Harlowton #8, which chosen to play while examining the train movements (so-called "observer")
#2: as You can see, there is 2 column in the TT with the same data, the static 30box consist (column D and J). This is because the westbound and eastbound train have the same stock and the same arrival location, so the later-arriving eastbound has to set-out exactly the same static consist as the westbound did. I was afraid that the program won't like this, but everyting went well. So, situations like this need just one path for static consists, no matter how many trains switch power a day, even with consist names are the same. Very Cool :)
#3: As seen in the last screenshot, switched off engines pulled almost out the siding, stopped just before the switches. It doesn't match its path harl_out, as its end point is around the centre of the siding. I don't know the reason of this issue, but anyway, the process works fine.

Peter

[oliver2]

Meanwhile I tested the transfer command too.

A freight arrives from a branch line, the power cuts off and heads to the shed. After that, a switcher pulls back to the arrived string of cars, picks up 5 of 10 wagons and take them to another siding, where attaches them to another cars. Then, the switcher heads to the shed too.

I noticed that in contrary of my post above, detached static consist need not to define as $static in the timetable! Splendid.

Although, I think it should be reported as maybe-bug that a reversing train stops at end-of-siding rather that its path's endpoint (as shown at the last screenshot in my post above).

[m61]

Open Rails Timetable for Polish Routes

http://forum.trainsi....php?board=23.0

https://forum.msts.c...p?threads/5131/

[roeter]

oliver2, on 11 September 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

Although, I think it should be reported as maybe-bug that a reversing train stops at end-of-siding rather that its path's endpoint (as shown at the last screenshot in my post above).

That's not a bug but a quite deliberate feature. In timetable mode, paths are always extended to their 'logical' end, i.e. the next signal or switch.
It would require additional qualifiers to alter that in specific situations.
I can put that on my list, but I'm afraid that due to other commitments, it's unlikely I will be able to do any actual programming until early next year.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[oliver2]

roeter, on 12 September 2017 - 05:00 AM, said:

That's not a bug but a quite deliberate feature. In timetable mode, paths are always extended to their 'logical' end, i.e. the next signal or switch.
It would require additional qualifiers to alter that in specific situations.
I can put that on my list, but I'm afraid that due to other commitments, it's unlikely I will be able to do any actual programming until early next year.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

Thank You roeter! It'll do for now, I guess placing platforms to each siding could solve this.

[rickloader]

Hi Rob, In $pickup, transfer etc I can`t get normal stop signals to clear when the active train has to pass the stop signal to access the passive or static train.
The pickup is usually at a platform, but the signal still won`t clear if the command is at the #dispose field.

Is this intended behaviour? ( I had thought that signals would automatically clear to trains having callon )

I have found that if the stop signal script is modified by including callon, then signals will clear. I have used the following statement taken from the manual.

else if (block_state == #BLOCK_OCCUPIED && TrainHasCallOn() )

I have explored this in such detail as my limited understanding allows

http://www.elvastowe...up-and-signals/

I would be grateful for some guidance, please, rick

[Driver]

Is there a place where I can find all the up to date, working commands that can be used in the timetable editor? I've been away for a few months. Arma 3 sucked me in badly. 15 years of train simming nonstop, no other sim or game could keep me away, but arma 3 did it! Need to get caught up with OR again.