[steamer_ctn]

 ErickC, on 10 March 2020 - 07:18 PM, said:

I have adjusted the pivot to the pulling face of the coupler, still located 36.5 inches below the coupler centerline (maintaining the AAR standard height above the rail). I will do the first export tonight. I have done a quick and dirty demo of how the air hose movement could look:

Sounds good.

When you do the initial export, can you send me a copy so that I can see how they link into the coupler changes.

Thanks

[ErickC]

EDIT: I have figured it all out. Here is a Pullman-Standard PS1 based off my Larry Goss conversion kit, with Larry's original WP paint job. I have set up the cut levers and hoses as static freight shapes for position data.

 PS1_test.zip (1.81MB)
Number of downloads: 583

After testing, I have come to the conclusion that we will need to find a way to make the couplers rotate if we want to avoid couplers clipping through each other on curves (which is why I always slave them to the trucks).

[ATW]

 steamer_ctn, on 07 March 2020 - 05:59 PM, said:

Thanks for the feedback.

We would need to explore a couple of different scenarios to see what might be possible, either directly or via a possible work around.

I think that using a separate WAG file for each coupler would create major "confusion" for OR.

Yea it may be confusing but if a draft system breaks beyond knuckle strength what happens. Be glad to explore ways to getting the coupler faces having their own displacement distance in cushioned systems.

[Genma Saotome]

 ErickC, on 10 March 2020 - 07:18 PM, said:

This is with six inches of travel in either direction - twelve inches total - which is significantly more than the typical four to six inches total per coupler.

Typical freight knuckle coupler movement moving along on a tangent was, for most of the 20th century, about 1-2 inches between the two knuckles and about 3 inches in the draft gear. Cushioned draftgear changed that portion of hte movement, tho I do not know by how much. Tightlock couplers are now found on many tankcars as an aid to prevent a rollever as part of a derailment -- do they have any movement on hte longitudinal axis? Passenger couplers are something else too, probably some form of tightlock.

A good test would be to set up an overloaded consist on level terrain. Do a check to see if it's heavy enough to prevent the train moving and then backup for a bit to push in the slack. The consist should start forward now and if the code changes described in this thread are working as advertised you should be able to see one car at a time pull forward until the whole train is moving. All we'll need then is a clunk sound for when the key in the draft gear maxes out it's range of movement.

[Laci1959]

 darwins, on 06 March 2020 - 01:38 AM, said:

I have been able to get dimensions from RCH drawings.
The amount of slack with totally free movement in either direction (where no force is passed on to the next wagon) is 4.125 inches (105 mm).
With the chain extended and tension force being passed on to the next wagon the distance between headstocks is 40.125 inches.
With buffers touching and compression force being passed on to the next wagon the distance between headstocks is 36 inches.
I am going to estimate from the drawings that buffers will compress up to about 6 inches maximum (150 mm)
The draw hook and buffer diagram you have on your website seems to be for a screw coupling with buffers (UIC standard).
It seems reasonable to assume that the forces and distances for a three link coupling with buffers will be the same as for the screw coupling, but with the extra 105 mm of free movement on the tension side.
** That adds up to about 26 feet (8m) of slack in an 80 wagon mineral train (or about 2% of train length) **

https://i.imgur.com/Zb6eCJa.jpg

Which is not in the pictures. When assembling trains, the railways pull the carriages together with the screw clamp to the touch. It would be good to leave this opportunity open. I am very happy with the development and look forward to it.

[Traindude]

 ErickC, on 10 March 2020 - 11:02 PM, said:

EDIT: I have figured it all out. Here is a Pullman-Standard PS1 based off my Larry Goss conversion kit, with Larry's original WP paint job. I have set up the cut levers and hoses as static freight shapes for position data.

PS1_test.zip

After testing, I have come to the conclusion that we will need to find a way to make the couplers rotate if we want to avoid couplers clipping through each other on curves (which is why I always slave them to the trucks).

I did some tests with your kit but I don't see the knuckles "opening" during uncoupling and "closing" during coupling, even though separate "coupled" and "Uncoupled" coupler shape filesa are defined in the include files. I am using U2021.01.03-0652. What am I doing wrong?

[steamer_ctn]

 Traindude, on 03 January 2021 - 04:24 PM, said:

I did some tests with your kit but I don't see the knuckles "opening" during uncoupling and "closing" during coupling, even though separate "coupled" and "Uncoupled" coupler shape filesa are defined in the include files. I am using U2021.01.03-0652. What am I doing wrong?

This is very much an experimental change which has not been finished at this time, hence it is not documented yet. The packs in the above thread were for my use to try in the development of this feature.

If you are interested in having a look at it, try the attached experimental pack instead. It uses the NS stock on my site.

But any usage will be at your own risk, and no support is currently provided for it.

Attached File(s)

•  advanced_coupler.zip (34.98K)
  Number of downloads: 420

[steamer_ctn]

I have added some more changes to enhance the operation of animated couplers on a train. It will be in the latest unstable patch (> 31/05/2021).

See the above post for couplers and WAG file that needs to be added to the suggested test stock.

I am interested to hear if there is any interest in pursuing the development of this functionality.

So if you are interested in providing feedback, please run the suggested test stock first to get a feel for the operation, and then you can try your own if you wish.

[Laci1959]

 steamer_ctn, on 30 May 2021 - 09:06 PM, said:

I have added some more changes to enhance the operation of animated couplers on a train. It will be in the latest unstable patch (> 31/05/2021).

See the above post for couplers and WAG file that needs to be added to the suggested test stock.

I am interested to hear if there is any interest in pursuing the development of this functionality.

So if you are interested in providing feedback, please run the suggested test stock first to get a feel for the operation, and then you can try your own if you wish.

Unfortunately, this is very American. Maybe if you knew spring-loaded corner stops?

[steamer_ctn]

 Laci1959, on 31 May 2021 - 07:16 AM, said:

Unfortunately, this is very American.

Other countries other then America use "knuckle" type couplers. These modifications should suit any knuckle type coupler which has a single moving part.

The knuckle coupler was done as it is the easiest to model, as it only has a single moving part. The hook, chain and buffer coupler described in the posts above is much more complicated as the buffers would need to move independently of the chain. The chain also adds a lot of potential complexity as each individual link would need to move to really do it justice. If you can think of a simple way to model it, then perhaps it could be added.

 Laci1959, on 31 May 2021 - 07:16 AM, said:

Maybe if you knew spring-loaded corner stops?

I am not sure what you mean by this, perhaps you could provide some more detail.