[markus_GE]

12 MPH is critical, knowing you have taken an intermodal up the grade. I can say this knowing that intermodals usually are fast trains, and therefor powered by DC-driven diesel-electric locomotives.

hese have the advantage of being less complex and there for cheaper than AC driven diesels, but have the disadvantage of high heat output, especially in low speeds. You will also see the ammeter climb up high with throttle wide open. This means a lot of tractive effort, and heat, which could ultimately damage the loco. I read in a book in an interview real American freight engineers (title eludes me, gotta look for it) that as soon as speed up a grade on a DC powered train drops below 15 MPH, you got no chance to make it without damaging the locos (rule of thumb being you can keep amperage in the red area for 5 minutes - if that´s not enough to get amperage way down again, STOP).

Thus, 12 MPH seems critical, assuming you were using DC driven locomotives. You´d better add some more helpers to prevent the traction motors paying you a visit in the cab :rotfl:

In AC locos, speed would not be a problem. Same book as mentioned above gives an example of two SD80MAC climbing a 2% grade with a 100 car loaded coal drag at 0.1 MPH, without damaging anything else than the engineer´s patience :)

Cheers, Markus

Edit: It´s two books,
Modern Diesel Locomotives by Hans Halberstadt, 1996, Voyageur Press / MBI Publishing Co, St. Paul
Modern Locomotives, Brian Solomon, 2010, Crestline, New York / 2002, MBI Publoishing Co, St. Paul

[beresford]

Just completed activity 3DTS_TEH2_SP_2-L_MJ_MJ_2-08. I did the last two shunts in a different order (to the Work Order) and OR didn't recognise that the last shunt in the Work Order was complete until I went back to the siding and 'tagged up' to the coal wagons.

Just seen Markus's comment about the locos. In the scenario the train engines are SD70M diesel-electrics (not sure about the helpers). I think they are more powerful in MSTS (just tried MSTS as far as Bakersfield and the limiting speed with full throttle is about 40mph).

[markus_GE]

That´s well possible, that they are more powerful in MSTS, due to ORTS trying to simulate tractive effort curves as realistically as possible, and also not having access to the code MSTS used.

Cheers, Markus

[cjakeman]

Hi Beresford,

beresford, on 21 May 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

Just completed activity 3DTS_TEH2_SP_2-L_MJ_MJ_2-08. I did the last two shunts in a different order (to the Work Order) and OR didn't recognise that the last shunt in the Work Order was complete until I went back to the siding and 'tagged up' to the coal wagons.

Would MSTS have been any different, I wonder?

Emulating the MSTS activity events was one of my early tasks in OR. I do remember that the possible events are an odd collection with little consistency and often do not match their names. There's plenty of scope for creating a more regular set of events which could also be more flexible. Instead of dictating every movement, they could then recognise the player's initiative.

[R H Steele]

cjakeman, on 21 May 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

Would MSTS have been any different, I wonder?

Emulating the MSTS activity events was one of my early tasks in OR. I do remember that the possible events are an odd collection with little consistency and often do not match their names. There's plenty of scope for creating a more regular set of events which could also be more flexible. Instead of dictating every movement, they could then recognise the player's initiative.

Amen to that brother! Being a novice in all matters railroading and MSTS (1yr 6mos at Elvas, enjoying all of it) I have often thought that I did not grasp what was going on, when running an activity in MSTS. Not at all the case, MSTS was poorly put together, not at all logical or realistic in regards to railroading or well crafted digital simulations. I'm always wary of comparison between Open Rails and MSTS. I now have constructed (or reworked existing activities) that will not load in MSTS but run just fine in Open Rails. They offer more traffic, static consists, and realisitic situations that MSTS cannot load or run. I have corresponded with other people that are also attempting to push the boundaries of what Open Rails can handle with its version of logic -- regarding amount of AI traffic and railroading simulation.

I'm well at the bottom of knowledge and experience. Just think what will be possible when OR becomes fully realized and functional and people with experience and knowledge start making models, routes, and activities expressly to take advantage of all the features of Open Rails. The advance in the last year has been tremendous.

A note ... just testing the finishing touches on a reworking of "TEH2_MEET_AT_WALONG_NIGHT1" renamed "Night Freight over Tehachapi Pass". Converted all static train consists to active AI traffic. Starts at a yellow signal and immediate meet with traffic, a "wait in the hole" at loop tunnel entrance for two trains, a total of 6 traffic trains, activity extended to Edison, and added more static consists. It runs fine in Open Rails!

So a challenge -- how about you folks with experience in activity making and know what you are doing start reworking some of the classic MSTS acitivites for Open Rails.

[observation: I'm in no way denigrating the activities written by payware or freeware people for MSTS - they are products of their time and for a specific simulation. They took time, effort, honest labor and a love for railroading and I respect that ...'nough said ;)]

[markus_GE]

R H Steele, on 21 May 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

[...]

So a challenge -- how about you folks with experience in activity making and know what you are doing start reworking some of the classic MSTS acitivites for Open Rails.
[...]

Been doing this ever since I use ORTS - never have run any activity in ORTS before changing it first to get any flaws out and get accustomed to what I´ll have to do (this knowledge every real engineer would have).

Unfortunately, my MSTS installation is so heavily customized regarding stock and route folder names, that I would only be able to supply default equipment, if shared things worked at all...

Cheers, Markus

[R H Steele]

markus_GE, on 21 May 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Unfortunately, my MSTS installation is so heavily customized regarding stock and route folder names, that I would only be able to supply default equipment, if shared things worked at all...
Cheers, Markus

I don't see a problem with default equipment, easy enough to change out with a favorite consist program. If the activity was tested in Open Rails, especially one of the more current X versions and the user had the route and OR installed and running correctly all should be "No Worries" (I think that is a good default setting)

[beresford]

Completed the new Activity, good times apart from some silliness with 'wheel slip' near Cliff. Still got the consists with gaps in them, is there a recommended edit? Shame that OR can't be forced to put the player consist in the Siding at Walong, perhaps an invisible train which starts on the Main would do it. I wonder if eventually OR will require extra information about parallel tracks (Fast line, Slow line, Siding) in order to do this dynamic routing sensibly.

With recent updates I've noticed flashing horizontal bars on the TEH2 route graphics in cab view. These stopped before Bena, suggesting some correlation with the mountains. There is also a black horizon beneath the sky which is sometimes visible. On this route I've found there are a number of trees which not only overhang the track but are sometimes plumb in the middle of it.

[R H Steele]

beresford, on 25 May 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

There is also a black horizon beneath the sky which is sometimes visible.
On this route I've found there are a number of trees which not only overhang the track but are sometimes plumb in the middle of it.

Concerning the horizon line - this current thread - http://www.elvastowe...-a-crack-in-it/
Trees in the track, many threads about this -- here for starters: http://www.elvastowe...regions-in-orts

beresford, on 25 May 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Still got the consists with gaps in them, is there a recommended edit?

I believe you, but it's curious, I tested that activity numerous times, finally again yesterday and nothing missing in any consists on my rig. Curious. An experienced opinion/diagnosis is needed. I got other reports of the same phenom. Best thing I can suggest is make some substitutes with your available equipment until you find something that works. The default SD40's are no longer used in the consists. I don't believe it is a problem with OR, take at look at the beginning of this thread. Beyond my current skill set.

beresford, on 25 May 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Shame that OR can't be forced to put the player consist in the Siding at Walong

Probably because I wasn't too concerned with that aspect. Have a go at it yourself, to me that is part of the fun. There's probably a way to accomplish it.


Glad you ran it and had some fun. I found that by careful blending of the dynamic and train brake - keeping the speed between 18 to 19mph, that no wheelslip occured and the curve speed/dependent warnings do not appear. (If they are checked on the Options\Simulation tab. To me, that means this feature is working correctly.

[beresford]

R H Steele, on 25 May 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

I believe you, but it's curious, I tested that activity numerous times, finally again yesterday and nothing missing in any consists on my rig. Curious.

Player consist 'at start'.

Attached thumbnail(s)

•