[steamer_ctn]

Hi,

Whilst I haven't seen this feature in action yet, it sounds like a good addition. However, in reality, I would expect that the amount of superelevation will vary from route to route depending on route speed limits, railway design practices, etc.

Therefore is it possible to set superelevation values on a route by route basis?

One possible way to do this might be to add a new parameter(s) to the trk file (outside the last bracket) which will be ignored by MSTS, but read by OR.

The two options are:

i) Parameter which sets the maximum value to be used in the route, eg - SuperMax (3.0)

or

ii) A series of statements that define the superelevation to be used for principle curves in the route, eg Super ( 300, 3.0 ) - where the 1st figure is the curve radius in metres, and the 2nd figure is superelevation in degrees. Curves outside the values defined would use the nearest value defined.

Thus some level of route individualization might be possible without upsetting core MSTS operation.

Is this a possibility?

[gpz]

I think the problem is that the superelevation varies curve-by-curve, not route-by-route. There might be different curves in a single route with and without any superelevation as well.

[captain_bazza]

This is fascinating work.

Cheers Bazza

[Csantucci]

I made some advertising about the superelevation feature in the italian Trainsimhobby forum, and responses are very positive. Some further picture was posted there. But an attentive member noted what JiJun has stated from the beginning, that is that up to now the superelevation is computed track element by track element, so that sometimes superelevation in a long curve does not have a standard behaviour.

[dennisat]

gpz, on 13 March 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

I think the problem is that the superelevation varies curve-by-curve, not route-by-route. There might be different curves in a single route with and without any superelevation as well.

Not only does it vary curve by curve but also by speed limit. If your route is limited to 50mph there's no point having superelevation for 100mph - you'll get a lot of inside rail wear and flange wear. There's also the problem of transition - you can't switch to superelevation abruptly, your passengers will end up at one side of the train or you may even derail it. This would be particularly acute on reverse curvature. There's obviously a maximum - a train must not fall off a curve when it's stationary! The minimum is of course no superelevation; curves in freight yards and complex station layouts would have no superelevation because of the difficulty of arranging different rail levels between points and crossings.

To be authentic, and rail enthusiasts are nothing if not nitpickers, the route author needs to specify the superelevation when the route is built.

Dennis

[markus_GE]

dennisat, on 13 March 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

The minimum is of course no superelevation; curves in freight yards and complex station layouts would have no superelevation because of the difficulty of arranging different rail levels between points and crossings.

To be authentic, and rail enthusiasts are nothing if not nitpickers, the route author needs to specify the superelevation when the route is built.

Dennis

I agree - although this does not mean anything positive for any old and also not-so MSTS route...

But as of what I understand the current code would also superelevate curves in yards, which would look kinda odd to me...

Maybe, however, I see a solution: Im no luminary concerning MSTS route building or trk fles, but must not switches and crossings and that stuff be defined as those in trk file? Thus, could´nt OR possibly read from the trk files, if a curve belongs to a switch, crossing or whatever and not just "straight" to a curve?

[Genma Saotome]

IMO the right way to do is to build the capability into the route editor and let the route designer decide where and how much, recording his decision in the world file. Guessing what to do at run time is an interesting experiment -- for one it means figuring out how to tip the cars in a way that they remain perpendicular to the track -- but it should not be the long term solution.

[James Ross]

Genma Saotome, on 13 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

IMO the right way to do is to build the capability into the route editor and let the route designer decide where and how much, recording his decision in the world file.

Absolutely agree; IMHO track should be defined purely from vectors with variable radius curves in 3 axes (yaw, pitch, roll) and then track profiles define the visuals from that.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Just like in Railworks, where only the most recent routes are laid out with superelevation from the start.

But then, what are the chances of really new OR-only routes?

What track should they use? ScaleRail, DB Tracks? IMO these features make best sense with modern slim profile high detail track.
I haven't built any routes myself, so don't know for sure, but don't ScaleRail and DB Tracks only come in fixed pieces, much like a model railroad track set?

That way, an extra variable could define the proper amount of superelevation for each speed range. It will require cooperation from their authors.
The problem of easements in and out of the superelevated curves still persists but could perhaps be automated or set to a certain length of adjacent track.

Is there also a flex track equivalent in SR or DB? Then some automatic setting of the s-e parameter must be programmed into the route editor.

[Lindsayts]

I don't know if these may help but..............






AAR rules limit cant to 6 inches.

Lindsay

Lindsay

Attached thumbnail(s)

•