[copperpen]

After a lot of digging in various books and trawling the internet, the only figure I can find is for steam usage of the small ejector of the Gresham & Cravens Dreadnought which is given as 300lb steam per hour. However, as the ejector could be varied over a small range to maintain a vacuum, the average for a train of the 1930's in Britain is stated as about 400lb per hour. The large ejector would of course use a lot more, but was not in continual use. The there is the mechanical pump used by the GWR in particular which was driven by the crosshead and maintained the vacuum in the trainpipe. The pipe itself was of 2 inch internal diameter pipe and the system was almost as fast in application and release as the air brake systems.

Given the above, it can be reasonably assumed that the figures for steam usage of ejectors in various MSTS eng files can be taken as about right. On that basis the other figures for the vac system in MSTS files should not be far from what is required.

[steamer_ctn]

Version #3600 now includes the capability to specify train air brake pipe leakage rate.

To enable this capability the following parameter must be entered into the ENG file.

TrainPipeLeakRate ( 0.0833 )

The default unit of measure is psi/s. Other units can be bar/s, inHg/s or kPa/s.

Normally the train air pipe leakage rate accepted by most railways was around 5psi/min.

In most brake positions the air leakage will be replaced instantaneously with air from the main reservoir to maintain the set pressure. However, in older braking systems, such as the A6ET system, the train brake pipe was isolated from the main reservoir when in the LAP position, and thus the pressure in the brake pipe could reduce, thus applying the brakes.

Most modern locomotive brake systems had a self-lap position which maintained the set brake pipe pressure regardless of the train pipe leakage.

[Icik]

Hello Mr. Steamer_ctn,

I found a bug when in options the language set to Czech language, then pipe leakage is from main reservoir but not from brake pipe.

Please fix that.

[steamer_ctn]

Icik, on 09 August 2016 - 02:41 AM, said:

I found a bug when in options the language set to Czech language, then pipe leakage is from main reservoir but not from brake pipe.

Can you please explain why you think that there is a bug.

Depending upon the brake controller setting, train pipe leakage will cause the main reservoir to drop in pressure over time.

What symptoms are you getting?

Thanks

[Icik]

When I set the language to English, the leakage is just from brake pipe (controller is in lap position). Compressor is off, just triple_valve go to apply and begin to brake.
When I set the language to Czech, the leakage is just from main reservoir (controller is also in lap position). Compressor is on, triple_valve is in release position.

[Icik]

It is not problem just in Czech language. I´m trying also German(Deutsch) language and make it the same.

[ATW]

Can this brake code system be reverted back to the last original for units in train not equipped with the train leak rate parameter? I am seeing a change where my long freight trains BP an EQ are releasing/applying at the same rate of speed staying the same in cab an in HUD. The only time they are not the same is if an angle cock is open on a end where EQ is staying where it's set to while BP drops to 0... but attaching to a cut of long cars as well as closing an angle cock back on a end the BP in a eye blink gets back to the EQ rate with not enough charge time like originally.


Edit: The leak parameter is a good parameter as it is but issue I see is a change in BP performance keeping at same rate as the equalizing reservoir unless Main Res leaks under BP. Controlling units not equipped should use previous Brake code or simply fix an revert the BP performance since leaks work mainly with Main Res leaking? Leak parameter just comes into effect when in controlled equipped unit an not trail units equipped which should come into effect also.

[steamer_ctn]

Icik, on 09 August 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

It is not problem just in Czech language. I´m trying also German(Deutsch) language and make it the same.

Ok, I can see the problem, and will look to do a patch shortly to fix it.

ATW, on 09 August 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

Edit: The leak parameter is a good parameter as it is but issue I see is a change in BP performance keeping at same rate as the equalizing reservoir unless Main Res leaks under BP. Controlling units not equipped should use previous Brake code or simply fix an revert the BP performance since leaks work mainly with Main Res leaking? Leak parameter just comes into effect when in controlled equipped unit an not trail units equipped which should come into effect also.

I don't quite understand.

It should only apply once along the length of the train, and not multiple times for each locomotive. The leakage figure quoted of 5psi/min is for the total train length regardless of length.

Is this a double headed train?

Can you describe the scenario and the problem that you are seeing so that I can attempt to duplicate the issue.

Thanks for the feedback.

[hroch]

Hi
I am starting OR with locomotive and wagons in explore mode. When uncoupled any wagon OR always crased in Windows.
I am testing in version 3601.
Here my Openlog.
 OpenRailsLog.txt (619.32K)
Number of downloads: 727

[QJ-6811]

hroch, on 10 August 2016 - 02:17 AM, said:

I am starting OR with locomotive and wagons in explore mode. When uncoupled any wagon OR always crased in Windows.
OpenRailsLog.txt

I had a similar problem recently.
If I disconnect a wagon, ORTS crashes.

Because I was busy with the "size" of my locomotive (other problem), I found out that if the value of "InertiaTensor" was smaller than in "size", this was caused. (?)

After the value was made equal (or higher), the problem was over.

example
Size ( 3.2m 3.896m 16.13m )
InertiaTensor ( Box ( 3.2m 3.99738m 15.0m ) )

to
Size ( 3.2m 3.896m 16.13m )
InertiaTensor ( Box ( 3.2m 3.896m 16.13m ) )

Perhaps an bug, or it should be so?

Maybe also your problem?

[ATW]

steamer_ctn, on 09 August 2016 - 11:00 PM, said:

I don't quite understand.

It should only apply once along the length of the train, and not multiple times for each locomotive. The leakage figure quoted of 5psi/min is for the total train length regardless of length.

Is this a double headed train?

Can you describe the scenario and the problem that you are seeing so that I can attempt to duplicate the issue.

Thanks for the feedback.

I got video footage but will upload later but I can point to something as a tip to see the problem an difference.

Use steps bellow using X3586 & then X3902

1. Run the default Dash 9 on a long huge freight train close to at least 7000 feet.

2. Release the train brakes completely charged 90PSI.

3. Set them back up to continues service putting the handle quickly to it an watch both how the EQ/ER an BP perform even when you release them.

You should see what I mean unless I get the video uploaded when I get home of both experimental test videos with option "Correct questionable braking parameters" un checked in English.

With or without parameters in Engine section using ORTSBrakePipeTimeFactor or ORTSBrakeServiceTimeFactor I don't get the delay time like before.

[steamer_ctn]

Icik, on 09 August 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

It is not problem just in Czech language. I´m trying also German(Deutsch) language and make it the same.

Hopefully this has been resolved in #3603.

Please check and confirm.

Other issue is still being investigated.

Thanks

[ATW]

Here are the videos an what I am pointing to as I am looking to have a way to keep the performance as X3586 along with various flow rates offered by ORTS Time factors even though both these videos are just of a regular train with no OR Parameters.

X3586 BP/ER Test

X3602 BP/ER Test

[copperpen]

ORTSBrakePipeTimeFactor and ORTSBrakeServiceTimeFactor do not seem to exist in the OR manual, so I am just wondering where they came from, and how they are used.

[Icik]

steamer_ctn, on 10 August 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

Hopefully this has been resolved in #3603.

Please check and confirm.

Other issue is still being investigated.

Thanks

It seems to be working fine.

Good job!