[copperpen]

I have checked this behaviour in OR using the same engine/tender with an MSTS eng file and an OR eng file. In both cases the fue/water levels remained at 100%.
The MSTS file has the IsTenderRequired line and the OR file does not. Open Rails would appear not to need or read this line.

My default Flying Scotsman also remains at 100% if tender is uncoupled.

[SP 0-6-0]

Which locomotive did you use?

I used the default flying scotsman on it's default route in MSTS with BIN 1.8 installed.

When the tender seperates from the locomotive the coal and water level drops to 0%.

The point is ORTS does not actually read the tender fuel or water levels and therefore correct tender perimeters cannot be setup in ORTS. As the tender fuel is depeleted the weight of the tender and it's pyhsics also change. The steam locomotive also changes as the weight of the tender and load on the locomotive changes.

Those same perimeters ORTS neglects is also the starting point for the useage of Aux tenders.
If this future does not work in ORTS then how can ORTS be a 1 one 1 copy of MSTS?

Granted, Diesel and electric locomotives are easier to simulate in a computer program. But, Steam locomotives require a bit more attention to detail

I realize there is a lack of information on the MSTS 1 code. The Eng/Wag file manual is pretty good but does not cover everything.

ORTS needing to poke, prod, and push all the levers and buttons in MSTS some more to see what happens.

I want to believe in and support the ORTS community. But right now I just keep finding these little nagging short comings of ORTS. Can ORTS do all these MSTS features? Surely if they are eventually programmed into the ORTS engine.

Robert

[SP 0-6-0]

I have done some more digging and can confirm the options for tenders is hard coded into MSTS and not the engine or wag file of the tender.

So what ORTS engine code needs is something that goes like this,

IsTenderRequired(0)_ The locomotive is a tank locomotive.

IsTenderRequired(1)_Main engine fuel tender. (Water & Coal)

The pyshics of ORTS would need to be adjusted to account for the mass of the tender and the varying amount of water coal or oil that is on board the tender.

Then we could have say up to a total number of tenders being 4. This would allow for ORTS to use water tenders and register the extra water capacity.

This would then also have to be added and adjusted in the Eng file of the locomotive.

So,

IsTenderRequired(2)_Main engine tender and 1 aux water tender in the consist.

IsTenderRequired(3)_Main engine tender and 2 aux water tenders in the consist.

The only railroads that I have personally seen use two or more aux tenders is Union Pacific with #3985 & #844.

The only other being the C&O 614 on the ACE3000 coal train test in Jan 1985.

Robert

[copperpen]

If the tender options were hard coded in MSTS there would be no need for specific lines in an eng file to say tender is required, or even what the fuel and water levels should be. The Original MSTS only had two drivable steam engines and both carried that information in the eng file. The tender wag only has the intake points.

What you suggest though is valid and could probably be incorporated at some point in the future. This really should be part of the Wish list thread. It could in fact be taken further for diesel locomotives to include an oil fuel tanker or LNG tanker as have been used in the past.

[espee]

In general... most auxiliary tenders for steam locos would have water only, although oil/water could have been carried as both liquids are easy to transfer. Extra coal if carried in the past, I believe would have been in a separate coal wagon and transferred when the train was stopped. We still use diesel tenders on our transcontinental freight trains most probably to control costs/contracts and not having to maintain refueling points 1000's of kms from anywhere. Quite a few diesel tenders were used in the US as well as LNG as copperpen said.

Personally I would stick to just liquids in auxiliary tenders as I doubt coal would have been transferred while in motion ?

[SP 0-6-0]

copperpen, on 11 October 2015 - 01:48 AM, said:

If the tender options were hard coded in MSTS there would be no need for specific lines in an eng file to say tender is required, or even what the fuel and water levels should be. The Original MSTS only had two drivable steam engines and both carried that information in the eng file. The tender wag only has the intake points.

What you suggest though is valid and could probably be incorporated at some point in the future. This really should be part of the Wish list thread. It could in fact be taken further for diesel locomotives to include an oil fuel tanker or LNG tanker as have been used in the past.

There is only one specific line in the engine file. That is the IsTenderRequired line. I can find no lines specifically for whether a tender is required in the wag file of the tender. And the only line in the engine file is IsTenderRequired. MSTS must have some hard coding regarding the usage of tenders on steam locomotives.

The idea would also apply to gas turbine locomotives as well. They all used tenders in later years.

Robert

[ShortNorth]

In New South Wales (Australia), many rural lines had watering facilities at extended distances, and if you didn't have a suitable loco with a large capacity tender, you had to attach a "Water Gin' between the loco and the stock - the water gin was a semi-circular tank on a bogie flat wagon, with connecting pipes and pump to the loco tender - the water gins had a capacity of 7000 gallons. Most rural trains had water gins attached because the lighter rural lines were commonly served by older and smaller low power superannuated locos with small capacity tenders.

I have accommodated this in both MSTS and OR by setting up a 'second' copy of a suitable .eng file where the tender water capacity was increased by 7000 gallons - the .eng file name had WG appended, so I could easily select the larger capacity when making up consists. The required consists had a water gin model attached between the loco and the trailing stock.

I've found this to be good for the longer rural runs and in doing so, I've never run out of water before reaching the provided watering facilities, where I could replenish the full water amount before continuing. The only downside for realistic operation, is that the weight of the water gin does not diminish as the trip unfolds.

Regards, Brian

[ATSF3751]

Many steam locomotives in the USA use water tenders like was said earlier. Here is a list I have come up with with locomotives in Excursion service that have used or do use water tenders. Both past and present

Flying Scotsman
Milwaukee Road 261
SP 4449
UP 844
UP 3985
N&W 611
Southern 4501
Southern 630
ATSF 3751-Does not own one but has used SP4449s water car before for long trips
CP 2816
SP&S 700
Reading and Northern 425
C&O 614
N&W 1218
FRISCO 1522
Pere Marquette 1225
NKP 765

I know there are more but just cant think of off the top of my head.

[SP 0-6-0]

Hmm, Frisco 1522.

Robert

[ATSF3751]

what do you mean by Hummm, Frisco 1522? Yes Frisco 1522 did have a water tender!