[ATSF3751]

I have been testing out the new parameters for Open Rails when it comes to Coal usage and its way off. Within 15 Min 5 steam locomotives that I have tested that I know worked just fine before the new code now goes through coal like its going out of style. For instance my Milwaukee Road 261 locomotive went down to 84% after only running for 15 Min. The same happened to Allens Pennsylvania M1 that I am testing out for him. It went down to 70% after running for about 10 Min while both locomotives had there water not even budge and was still at 100%. Before the new code the locomotives would be down to about maybe 97 to 99% after running that long depending on throttle and cutoff. I would really suggest you put the old code back in and leave it the way it is. It was much better before. The real Milwaukee Road 261 does not go through that much coal in that short of time I know that for a fact as I work on the real one. The other steamers I tested were the SP GS2 from Derek and also the CB&Q Hudson locomotives and all had the same result.

Brandon

[vince]

Brandon,
You must expect to see results like this in experimental code changes but that's no reason to revert! http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/goodnight.gif
I see wonderful progress here. Brandon, just keep posting the meaningful feedback with data to backup your observations.
This is how OR is becoming a world class train sim, by testing by you and others; A very good thing I'd say!
Microsoft didn't let you do much of that, did they? With OR, you are shaping the Sim. Good work!

best regards,
vince

[ATSF3751]

Thanks Vince and yes I do expect that with the experimental version I was just shocked to see it go down that quick. I had F5 opened up and was literally watching the coal drop down about 1% every min or two and was shocked and was thinking that does'nt seem right. Sorry I put that we should revert to the old code I just think it needs to be looked at and tweaked. Hopefully it can get ironed out but I also found it odd that the water level stayed at about 99% to 100% the whole time as well when running. Usually you run through water quicker then you do coal. When I run again I will post some screen shots of what I mean.

Brandon

[copperpen]

I am one of the steam code test team, and have just taken one of the test locomotives for a run to check coal consumption with the latest code set. It is no different than before, using 2% of the coal in the tender over a 10 minute period. Nothing wrong with the code.

There are several factors that will affect how much fuel is used. Incorrect eng/wag file data, specially the Davis resistance figures. Getting those wrong will dramatically affect fuel and water usage.
Heavy handed use of the reverser will also drive up fuel and water usage, although I see that you are not using any water. That in itself suggests that there might well be errors in the eng file. Could you also post the eng file you are using so it can be checked for possible errors.

[steamer_ctn]

Hi Brandon,

ATSF3751, on 26 October 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

The same happened to Allens Pennsylvania M1 that I am testing out for him.

Have you tried the Niagara found on the CTN website. This is one of my test models used for checking the code. Does it exhibit the same symptions as you are describing?

Also do you or anybody else have access to the full test reports for the PRR M1 or other locomotives, as I would like to get a copy so that I can use it for testing.

Thanks

[ATSF3751]

I will see what I can find. My Milwaukee Road 261 4-8-4 that I am working on I do have access to and knows how it runs. From one of the crew members that I know very well and he knows how the engine performs and runs from my calculations I have done he said its acting just like the real one before the coal usage got switched. I have been needing to contact him as he has more info that I could put in as well. I also have the original diagrams from the ALCO of the S3 class that the 261 is from.

Brandon

[steamer_ctn]

ATSF3751, on 27 October 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

I will see what I can find.

Thanks for that.

If you are able to find the full PRR test report or the full test report for the Milwaukee Road 261 4-8-4, I would be interested in seeing it set up as a demonstration model.

Thanks

[ATSF3751]

I did happen to come across this! Might be of interest to the Open Rails team!! https://books.google...0report&f=false

[ATSF3751]

I just ran a few locomotives and they seem to be running much better now. I did figure out what my issue was and have fixed it. I have just contacted one of the main crew members of the 261 who has more info to send me. I have also asked him about water consumption for the 261 so once I get that info it should be a lot more accurate.

Brandon

[steamer_ctn]

ATSF3751, on 01 November 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

I just ran a few locomotives and they seem to be running much better now.

Glad to hear that it is now performing for you.

ATSF3751, on 01 November 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

I did figure out what my issue was and have fixed it.

What were the issues?

ATSF3751, on 01 November 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

I have just contacted one of the main crew members of the 261 who has more info to send me. I have also asked him about water consumption for the 261 so once I get that info it should be a lot more accurate.

I suspect that the larger more modern US locomotives will not perform well with a BASIC (out of the box) configuration, and instead that they will need to have some of the ADVANCED parameters set. Ideally a test report would be very helpful to accurately set these parameters..

I have been negotiating with the Hagley Library to obtain a copy of the M1a test report produced by PRR test station. However there is a cost associated with sourcing it, and as I don't normally model US stock, and strictly speaking don't need a copy of it, I am wondering whether some members of the community would be prepared to contribute towards the cost of this resource? It would be useful to demonstrate how to define a steam locomotive accurately within OR. WDYT?

Thanks