[Fablok]

It's OK. But if You have will and time You can close a distance a little bit , that those rubber guards will touch eachother :) In att polish cars. So You can play with them :)

[steamer_ctn]

 Fablok, on 11 September 2018 - 08:02 AM, said:

It's OK. But if You have will and time You can close a distance a little bit , that those rubber guards will touch eachother :) In att polish cars. So You can play with them :)

This is a classical example where the visual appearance in OR (and MSTS) does not match the train physics.

In reality the rubber guards (and the couplers between the freight wagons) would be able to move to to absorb the slack movement in the train.

For good physics operation the train should have a certain amount of movement in the coupler, for example a knuckle coupler could have up to 150mm of movement in it. Whilst passenger cars would have lesser movement, there would still be some movement in the coupler. As the guards are "fixed" in the model any movement in the coupler will potentially pull the guards apart.

So until models can be produced which cater for movement of couplers, and the rubber guards, the choice is to set up the cars:
i) purely for visual effects and ignore the physics,
ii) or purely for the physics, and ignore visual effects
iii) or alternatively try and compromise between the two.

For example to go for the purely visual effect, and ignore the physics - set the coupler as rigid (prevents nearly all movement in the coupler, though not realistic physically ), and adjust the x parameter of the R0 statement to say about 78cm (adjust as appropriate). This should lock the guards together.

[Fablok]

You are real expert :) So leave it how it is now. Here example from real life. Coupling beetwen 2 sectrions os ET41 locomotive.

https://zapodaj.net/images/1a9bcabd912d0.jpg