[longiron]

Any tips on the set up of articulated locomotives? In MSTS, most ENG files were set up as two, equal locomotives - each representing 50% of the tractive force, weight and fuel. Others were set up 90/10, where the lead ENG file represented the overwhelming majority and the trailing (AI) ENG really did not much. Love to get your perspective.

chris

[steamer_ctn]

longiron, on 09 December 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

Any tips on the set up of articulated locomotives? In MSTS, most ENG files were set up as two, equal locomotives - each representing 50% of the tractive force, weight and fuel. Others were set up 90/10, where the lead ENG file represented the overwhelming majority and the trailing (AI) ENG really did not much. Love to get your perspective.

At the moment articulated locomotives are not "allowed" for in OR.

I have been giving them some thought, but at the moment I am not confident about how to program them in OR, it would be necessary to "combine" parts of two locomotives into one.

Given the fact that the power of an articulated locomotive is the important thing to model, I would suggest that at this time the two ENG file approach is the best, with a cylinder set described in each file. Once the cylinders are set in each file, then tractive force will be calculated from them, thus probably giving a 50/50 split of power. In fact given that OR calculates power off the cylinders, it will not be possible to split the power in any other way, unless you play with the actual cylinder sizes.

The down side of this approach is the fact that steam production and firing would appear in both locomotives, and may not be a truly accurate representation of what is happening. So maybe the steam production can be split across the two file, by dividing some of the parameters by 2. Adhesive weight may need to be considered as well, seeing that tractive effort is split across two files.

Cheers

[AuzGnosis]

steamer_ctn, on 08 December 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:

Hi Chris,

The current version of OR does most, if not all the calculations that the spreadsheets did.
For example, I have attached the basic steam specifications for the above locomotive (from the locomotive help file).

<SNIP>

Comment  ( *****************  OR Parameters - Engine Section ************************)  

Comment ( *** General *** ) 		
Type ( Steam ) 		
WheelRadius ( 37in )        
 NumWheels ( 3 )        
 Sanding ( 1e11mph )  	Comment ( Not sure what this does in a steam locomotive. ) 		
ORTSDriveWheelWeight ( 145376lb  )  Comment ( Weight on Drive Wheels - 64.9 tons uk )          	

To focus in the Comment "Not sure what this does in a steam locomotive." after the Sanding. I've noticed in few engine files in relation to "Sanding" which according to the link file http://www.coalstonewcastle.com.au/physics/or-parameter-std/ Sanding is meant to document "Maximum speed at which sand will be applied to the track." Speed - m/s, mph, kph, km/h, kmph, kmh. That all is straight forward until except for the value somewhat ambiguous value given; 1e11mph while the "mph" ending in clear I at first suspected the 1e11 was some exponential number form used in C#. If so it was a strange value for miles per hour that sand was applied at, especially when consulting webpages about C# 1e11 is cited as reserve-word in C# code for a Internet Explorer!

Where exactly, or what happens in the code evaluation of this line???

Many thanks, W'Shawn

[captain_bazza]

Ie11 is InternetExplorer11 in C#, used for coding in IE11 somehow.

1e11 is a mathematical equation. (I lost the webpage, which had an explanation, when I attempted to copy the URL.)

But even to my non-mathematical brain the 'result' makes no sense in the context of a sanding value. MSTS was full of such strange values, none of which were documented.

Cheers Bazza.

PS Apologies if I am stating the obvious! :)

Errors corrected.

[steamer_ctn]

I think that it means 1 x 10⁷.

Obviously a very large number in this context.