Elvas Tower: x2381 and later tractive effort not correct - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

x2381 and later tractive effort not correct Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   engmod 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 1,791
  • Joined: 26-February 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eltham, Victoria, Australia
  • Simulator:ORNYMG
  • Country:

Posted 06 August 2014 - 01:11 PM

Hi Serana,

Whatever changes you made have lowered the tractive effort of diesels (dash9, sd40-2).
Activities that ran ok on x2380 will now not work on x2381 and later.
Diesels are no longer able to climb hills, they stall with wheelslip.

#2 User is offline   Serana 

  • Conductor
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 21-February 13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Cyr l'Ecole (France)
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 06 August 2014 - 04:45 PM

Does the problem appear in revision 2394 ?

Edit : Found no problem on LGVMed with a CC72000 diesel locomotive rescuing a failed TGV in a steep slope.

#3 User is online   engmod 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 1,791
  • Joined: 26-February 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eltham, Victoria, Australia
  • Simulator:ORNYMG
  • Country:

Posted 06 August 2014 - 09:57 PM

I will check 2394.

#4 User is online   engmod 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 1,791
  • Joined: 26-February 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eltham, Victoria, Australia
  • Simulator:ORNYMG
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:54 AM

The wheelslip alarm comes on (dash9) in notch 1, so not fixed.

#5 User is offline   copperpen 

  • Executive Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 3,144
  • Joined: 08-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS & OR
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:56 AM

I have run a couple of different diesels, 3xsd70Ace hauling 4100 tons up a 2.5% grade, and a default dash9 autorack consist on Crawford hill. No wheelslip alarm on either engine, even at full throttle. Using X 2394

#6 User is online   engmod 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 1,791
  • Joined: 26-February 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eltham, Victoria, Australia
  • Simulator:ORNYMG
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:29 AM

Could you post one of your sd70ace eng files please.
I will try and see what the differences are.

#7 User is offline   Matej Pacha 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 571
  • Joined: 08-December 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovakia
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:39 AM

Hi guys,
just checked the latest version - someone rearranged the startup code and forgot about the Mass data copying. The first locomotive in the consist is OK, but all the helpers (of the same type) will tend slip because of the wrong MassKg value (10 tons is the default value). I have a patch, but can you please make a record to the launchpad?
Thanks

Matej

#8 User is offline   copperpen 

  • Executive Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 3,144
  • Joined: 08-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS & OR
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:45 AM

View PostMatej Pacha, on 07 August 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Hi guys,
just checked the latest version - someone rearranged the startup code and forgot about the Mass data copying. The first locomotive in the consist is OK, but all the helpers (of the same type) will tend slip because of the wrong MassKg value (10 tons is the default value). I have a patch, but can you please make a record to the launchpad?
Thanks

Matej


I compared performance between an old version of OR I used back in January for steam code testing and X2394 using the same train. Performance was identical. Consist is 3xsd70Ace + 41x100ton wagons. This is running up a 2.5% grade. If my two helpers only had a mass of 10 tons there is no way that train would make it up a 2.5% grade.

Derek, eng file attached

Attached File(s)


#9 User is offline   Serana 

  • Conductor
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 21-February 13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Cyr l'Ecole (France)
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:36 PM

Should be fixed in revision 2396.

#10 User is offline   copperpen 

  • Executive Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 3,144
  • Joined: 08-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS & OR
  • Country:

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:24 PM

Strange thing is here, I am now getting more power out of my three engines than the Al Krug calculator says I should. For my test consist I should be climbing a 2.5% grade at about 15mph. This was the case pre X2396. I am now climbing the same grade with the same train 1.9mph faster than the calculator says I should be able to go. This means I now have to reduce the max power of my engines to get a matching speed.

EDIT. This is no bad thing. It actually makes engine tuning easier. Al Krug states 13.4mph @80% engine efficiency, so I reduced my maxpower to 80% of full HP and hit the 13.4 that was forecast.
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users