[copperpen]

Lindsayts, on 21 February 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

One has to be carefull here, in locomotive specs as specifed usually for machines of USA origin,there are ____TWO_____ Maxbrakeforce figures, the ones thats specfied as a percentage of locomotive weight is the total CYLINDER force on the brake shoes.

Two brake force figures usually quoted, one for train brakes and one for independent which is normally the higher of the two.

Quote

As specfied in other posts the total brake force for standard rail vehicles cannot far excide 10 percent of the axle load, IMPORTANT NOTE, THIS MEANS YOU. This is not some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, its limitation enforced by nature and as Dr Feynman said, NATURE CANNOT BE FOOLED.

ARE YOU REFERRING TO ME????

The 10% figure is normally used in context with poor standard rail such as is found on secondary lines and yards. On good dry well maintained mainline track this can go as high as 25%, but is never used. Always use the lowest denominator. But one must remember that we are talking about the wheel/rail interface here which is also affected by the weight on the axle, we are not referring to the brake force applied to the wheel by the brakeshoe/s

Quote

Most hoppers as they vary so much in weight are fitted with a device in the brake system that senses weight and the hopper switchs to a higher brake force when loaded so such vehicles ALWAYS require to wag files with differing brake forces. For 100ton hopper a Max brake force of say 50Kn when loaded and say 10Kn or less unloaded.

50kN for a 100ton hopper is 50% which is a bit too high. 30kN loaded and probably about 12 to 14kN when empty, depending on weightwill be much closer to where it should be..

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

LOL - my head is spinning from trying to get a working train...
:)

My cars are still broken - I'll mess with this some more when I get more time...

Appreciate the input - seems like it's still difficult to get a well behaving train...

Thanks !!!

Regards,
Scott

[gpz]

scottb613, on 21 February 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

PRR BROKEN HOPPER - ORIGINAL "PLAINSMAN"

    Friction (
        100N/m/s        1        -1mph        0        1
        5.1N/rad/s        1        -1rad/s        0        1
    )
 
 
    )
 
    BrakeEquipmentType( "Handbrake, Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
    BrakeSystemType( "Air_single_pipe" )
    MaxBrakeForce( 50kN )
 
    MaxHandbrakeForce( 35kN )
    NumberOfHandbrakeLeverSteps( 100 )
 
    TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
    MaxReleaseRate( 15 )
    MaxApplicationRate( 25 )
    MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 5 )
    EmergencyResCapacity( 7 )
    EmergencyResChargingRate( 5 )
    EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 90 )
    BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 50 )

In this quoted eng part you have one extra closing bracket after Friction(), that is not needed. It may brake the further parsing.

[atsf37l]

I just caught one of those in a set of ATSF F3's. MSTS recognized the engines but OR wouldn't. Took hours to find. AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH! :lol2: :rotfl:

[Tyler Bundy]

Good catch, Peter! I noticed that as well. Scott, your modified wag may be finishing/closing in the eyes of the game before it reads the brake information. If the sound entry is below the brake info, like many wag files, the cars would likely be quiet as well.

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

Dang nabbit - 5 pages of discussion and countless hours testing for a lousy close parens...
:bigboss:

BINGO - Peter wins - that FIXED my strange problem...

THANK YOU SO MUCH...

I'm totally embarrassed but still - I learned much from this thread and the process - really appreciate everyone's help and assistance on this...

Regards,
Scott

[copperpen]

Now that extra bracket is kind of interesting. With that in place there should in fact be zero brakes, no data to read. Instead we get something that stops on a dime. Same thing with couplers. Remove or comment the complete coupler statement from an eng or wag file and you should have no couplers. It does not work that way. Stock without couplers can still be used exactly the same way as stock with couplers. Technically therefore, in OR brake and coupler lines are redundant.

[scottb613]

Hi Mervyn,

What's even stranger - the brakes seemed to work fine in MSTS - only ORTS had any symptoms...

Regards,
Scott

[gpz]

copperpen, on 23 February 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Now that extra bracket is kind of interesting. With that in place there should in fact be zero brakes, no data to read. Instead we get something that stops on a dime. Same thing with couplers. Remove or comment the complete coupler statement from an eng or wag file and you should have no couplers. It does not work that way. Stock without couplers can still be used exactly the same way as stock with couplers. Technically therefore, in OR brake and coupler lines are redundant.

OR sets default values everywhere. So they are only redundant only in case you want to set the same parameters as the defaults are. In this case you may omit them, obviously.

[gpz]

scottb613, on 23 February 2015 - 03:53 AM, said:

What's even stranger - the brakes seemed to work fine in MSTS - only ORTS had any symptoms...

ORTS is not derived from MSTS code base in any way, so there is nothing strange in this fact.