Elvas Tower: BrakePipe charging and discharging. 395-style - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

BrakePipe charging and discharging. 395-style Rate Topic: -----

#11 User is offline   Weter 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 6,934
  • Joined: 01-June 20
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Simulator:ORTS
  • Country:

Posted 27 October 2020 - 07:33 AM

It is interesting, thanks...

Quote

As a bit of history the USSR at one time developed a twin pipe system for freight trains.

Have never heard about it before.

Well, I made a copy of ER2 EMU train to find experimentaly a proper tokens and settings for right EP function, but BP pressure dropped there.
The only benefits I have (what was looking like real) are fast apply (rising of BC pressure) and graduated release.
There was an artifact too: the pressure in BP jumped sometimes during returning handle to Hold position

When I will be able, I'll show you a code or send files.

You understood me a bit incorrect: when I mentioned "reductor" I meant an ability to adjust BP "normal" or, as here called "releasing state" pressure, wich then maintained at Running position (system max BP pressure - in MSTS terms) as a real 394(5) valve has a separate control, of the BP feeding device, served to adjust it for different train types (passenger 5,1; freight - till 6, and at hilly terrain-till 6,5 bar)

I experimented with brake controller of passenger diesel, as such diesels use EP IRL- I told a little bit about that... The pressure dropped too, looking like self-lapping way.

Quote

I had assigned "EP Apply" at 0,4 of the handle's way and it applies about half of max pressure to BC.


So continues service is used after self-lapping notches and works exactly like full service, right? (constantly releasing air from BP till 0 bar) is it only different name to display in HUD?

Is separating by Hold between EP and regular ranges compulsory? (395 doesn't have special notch for it)

#12 User is online   darwins 

  • Superintendant
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 1,238
  • Joined: 25-September 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 27 October 2020 - 09:51 AM

Quote

So continues service is used after self-lapping notches and works exactly like full service, right?


No, continuous service is instead of notches it is not the same as full service.

For a brake that is not self-lapping OR Full Quick Release / Release / Hold / Full Service / Emergency = IRL Release / Running / Lap / Apply / Emergency

For a brake that is self-lapping two choices either
OR Full Quick Release / Release /Continous Service / Emergency = IRL Release / Running / Initial>>>>>>>>Full Service / Emergency
or
OR Full Quick Release / Release / EPApply / EPApply / EPApply / Emergency = IRL Release / Running / Notch 1 / Notch 2 / Notch 3 / Emergency

Sorry, my examples may be a bit confusing because the EP brake in the second one is self-lapping (and has graduated release) but the air brake is not self lapping (and does not have graduated release).
The hold is needed in that example for the air brake - if the air brake for your emu is self-lapping then you do not need hold.

Looking at your first two examples (and relying on Google translate)
The 394 controller -

I = Release = FullQuickReleaseII = Running = Release
III and IV - I am a little confused - because the system is fed or not by something being translated as "Surge Tank" ( уравнительном резервуаре ) and I am not sure if that is equivalent to the main reservoir.
It sounds as though both III and IV are variations of Lap or Hold possibly this is what the OR Running token is for and you use Running for III and Hold for IV - just a guess, not sure at all.

V = Apply = FullService
VI = Emergency




#13 User is offline   sim-al2 

  • Hostler
  • Group: Status: Active Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 27 October 2020 - 05:28 PM

Quote

For a train that has an EP system the train pipe pressure should not drop in normal operation.


That's not really the case though, there's implementations of EP going back quite literally to the 1890s that were merely overlaid on the existing air system, and indeed most implementations until the mid 20th century worked in parallel with the conventional valves, or alternatively were used to perform functions not easily done with a single pipe system such as holding brake cylinder pressure while charging the brake pipe.

That said, for newer implementations like "ECP" where the mechanical valves have been replaced with electronics on each car, there's no longer a need for brake pipe pressure to drop in parallel with a brake command. These systems come across as something like WABCO's various experiments with straight air like SME and SMEE where the conventional brake pipe no longer does much except for emergency functions, but suitable for longer trains.

Open Rails currently has only a basic EP implementation, with no support for the later and nothing at all for fully electric "brake-by-wire" systems like Westcode where there's no (conventional) brake pipe left, just a main reservoir pipe that serves a dual function as air supply and protection.

#14 User is online   darwins 

  • Superintendant
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 1,238
  • Joined: 25-September 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 27 October 2020 - 11:06 PM

Hi Sim-al2
Thanks for the additional information.
Are you able to point me towards some sources of information about the older EP brakes that you mention? Since EP brakes were not extensively used in Europe at that time I was not even aware the existed at such an early date.
In UK the first introduction of the EP brake was the Westinghouse A type which was fitted to London Underground "Standard Stock" and District Line "F stock" in the late 1920s and early 1930s. (Some discussion here.) From the late 1930s the D type (self-lapping) EP brakes were used on all new London Transport stock. Bullied's experimental double decker trains were the first main line EMUs to have EP brakes and from 1950 onwards all new British Rail EMU stock had EP brakes. For both the A type and the D type the brake pipe pressure does not drop when the EP brake is used - only when the air brake is used.
So how to model them in OR? I understand that in general the policy is to code for the common variations of brakes and not to attempt to cater for all possible variations. On that basis there are a huge number of MSTS and OR models of trains from all around the world that have EP brakes where the brake pipe pressure should not drop. So this is definitely something that needs to be looked at.
Are there many models of trains having the older type of EP brakes that you have described? If there are not many it may be a variation to be considered in the more distant future.
There are half a dozen variations of braking systems that I would like to see included in OR - but with only one person AFAIK writing brake code at the moment then most of them are not likely to see the light of day.

Quote

That said, for newer implementations like "ECP"...

ECP is not really a variation of EP, it is as far as I can see something totally different - although to use your words it is "overlaid on an air brake system" - there is a good description of ECP on the Railway Technical website:


Quote

Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) brakes

A new form of electrical control of air braking is currently being tested by a number of railroads in the US. It is known as ECP and uses modern electronic techniques to overcome the problems of air braking on long freight trains.

The pure air control brake system invented by George Westinghouse in the 1860s and still used by almost all freight trains in the US and in many other parts of the world suffers from two main problems. It takes a long time for the air messages to travel along the train and there is no graduated release. For example, the delay for a reduction in train line pressure to travel from the leading locomotive to the rear of a 150 car consist can be 60 seconds. Also, you have to fully release the brake and wait for the supply reservoirs to recharge before you can reapply. Electrical control can overcome these difficulties.

ECP refers to Electronically Controlled Pneumatic brakes, key word being "Electronically" as opposed to "electrically". Older systems fitted to passenger trains (see above), use several train wires to operate individual valves or variations in switching of the wires to control brakes. Most of these systems use a second train line for main reservoir air supplies and they do not have the built-in two-way communications that ECP systems have. A car in an ECP brake train can do a self-diagnosis and report the information to the engineer and it only requires the standard train line pipe.


In summary

EP - electrically controlled - overlaid on twin pipe air brake system (modern versions replacing the the train pipe with an electrical connection) - used on passenger trains - particularly electric multiple units - used all around the world today.
ECP - electronically controlled - overlaid on single pipe air brake system - used on freight trains - particularly long freight trains - used in USA.





#15 User is offline   Weter 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 6,934
  • Joined: 01-June 20
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Simulator:ORTS
  • Country:

Posted 28 October 2020 - 05:38 PM

Quote

Looking at your first two examples (and relying on Google translate)
The 394 controller -

I = Release = FullQuickReleaseII = Running = Release
III and IV - I am a little confused - because the system is fed or not by something being translated as "Surge Tank" ( уравнительном резервуаре ) and I am not sure if that is equivalent to the main reservoir.
It sounds as though both III and IV are variations of Lap or Hold possibly this is what the OR Running token is for and you use Running for III and Hold for IV - just a guess, not sure at all.

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=desAkvBhNKE
I = Charge is connection the BP to MR directly, so the pressure in BP can raise quickly and approach to MR pressure ( overcharge)
So, instead of FullQuickRelease, this causes overcharge of BP to almost MR pressure or less - depending of time, the handle was holden here before returning to Running.
This is used for quick recharging of BP during train's departure, in downhill or after coupling to a long train or for guaranteed releasing all triple in train, as some of them could freese, stick or fail to release for other reasons.
II = Running, when the pressure in BP is maintained according to the reductor setting, adjusted by the driver; if overcharged, it will decrease by stabilizer, and then the feeding of BP compensates any leaks.
The driver sets this pressure, adjusting the reductor's setting manually. This is for travelling with breakers released or for soft smooth release of brakes. Up to 3-5 minutes is need for completely release all brakes in long train this way.
III= Lap. The leaks in system are decreasing BP pressure slowly, as BP feeding stopped.
This used for test the leak rate of train before departure, the condition of break equipment and for safe breaking before terminal stations, where occasionally release of brakes may occur if use "Hold with feeding" causing collisions.
IV= Hold <that is not "surge tank", that is equalizing reservoir actually :) > so the pressure in BP is maintained to be equal to that ER pressure by feeding BP from MR. Used for test leaks from ER itself.
VA either can be
-"soft application" (freight 394 variant) when discharging performed at minimal rate, so triple walves of all train reacts only to pressure, but not to its drop rate, and this way, the application during all train lenght is more synchronous-this saves couplers of long trains of stress;
-or "EP apply" (passenger 395 variant) BUT in this case the pneumatic system remains like at IV (hold with feeding) position, but electric valves in each car connects BC to BP and AR directly, so them charged with compressed air and BP feeds AR, being supplyed by MR itself. We have single pipe system.
So it works exactly like V- the time of handle holden here determinates the BC pressure, no multiple notches or smooth range! But only one notch.
V=Full service ("full" means rate of discharge, because pressure drop depends of time, the handle was hold here by the driver)
Because the pressure drops quite fast, the triple walves in each car reacts on it and opens their own chanals to atmosphere. So BP discharges at each car and it goes faster, than during "Soft apply" this is regular braking sequence. The longer hold of handle-the higher pressure in BC.
But for driver not to concentrate on waiting for desired pressure reached in all train, he actually watches to ER manometer's needle, then returns handle to Hold and further discharge of BP automatically stops when it reaches pressure of ER.
VI= Emergency. As additional channel opened to discharge BP, the rate is 3-4 times faster, than at V.

#16 User is offline   sim-al2 

  • Hostler
  • Group: Status: Active Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 28 October 2020 - 09:38 PM

Hi darwins,

In the US subway cars were being delivered with EP control in the mid 1900s, though these early cars had EP and air-only control as separate positions on the brake valve much like what our friend wants to do here. However, the cars were modified over the next few decades to perform both functions simultaneously as any problem with the EP system would tend to result in overshooting stop points as it took the operator a few seconds to notice when the EP function didn't operate properly. A relevant paragraph from nycsubway.org:

Quote

The braking system was automatic, electro-pneumatic also, but a newer type. Brake valve was the ME23, which was an improvement as electric and pneumatic positions were at the same places. On the earlier ME21 there was an electric range and a pneumatic range and if the electric brake failed the motorman would have to move the handle to pneumatic service. On this brake valve, the ME23, if the electric feature failed air would already be exhausting from the brake pipe at the valve and a brake application was being set up. Perhaps time was not allowed in such instance to make a perfect stop but much time was saved over the older system. Air brake schedule for these cars was AMUE. Triple valves were replaced by "Universal" valves, in this case the UE-5, in which electric and pneumatic features were combined in one control valve. With the exception of some few BMT cars, this ME23 brake valve and AMUE system would be used entirely on the Interborough, Brooklyn-Manhattan, and Independent lines through 1940 for all new car construction. Additionally several "steam railroads" used this system on their electric commuter cars.


The modified brake schedule (AMUE) is a lot like what is implemented as EP in OR, but I don't think the real NYC cars had a main reservoir pipe.

I honestly don't like to use ECP to describe specific features because it's very catch-all. For instance, "ECP" on American freight railroads is more of an overlay to the existing single pipe system. Compare this to Westcode, the "Electric Command Brake" systems on basically all modern Japanese trains and others where there the brake commands are transmitted by analogue or digital signal exclusively, and special arrangements have to be made to tow them with conventional locomotives. I'm not familiar with progress on locomotive ECP in the EU either, but it seems to be developing in multiple directions at once, whereas the US has been extremely conservative on this front until recently. In the 1930s, American passenger trains began to feature "EP Hold" with a single pipe system to facilitate charging the brake pipe while holding brake cylinder pressure for making station stops and while stopped at stations, but in the Amtrak era this largely disappeared from mainline use in favor of the twin pipe system that most Amtrak trains use.

There's not much English coverage but Japan has made much further progress in EP and ECP systems, like the "Electric Command Brake" type of system (similar to Westcode really but extended further on modern MUs). Various "high speed" freight train rolling stock feature EP to allow 110 km/h operation with very short allowed braking distance, and basically all JNR electric multiple unit trains featured SMEE, a form of EP control but with straight air synchronization as opposed to automatic, including the 0 series Shinkansen. Late in the JNR era trains began to feature ECB with fairly simple analogue control, which saved a vast amount of complexity over SMEE but later implementations feature more advanced control that maximizes the amount of braking that is done by the motor cars versus trailer cars.

#17 User is online   darwins 

  • Superintendant
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 1,238
  • Joined: 25-September 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 28 October 2020 - 11:06 PM

@sim-al2

Interesting reading.

If you can find a "plumbing" diagram for the older NYC cars we might know more about how they work.

On semantics I am going to stick with the railway technical website definitions - Wescode and similar systems are EP brakes - not ECP - the command is given by an electric circuit - the replacement of a train pipe by a fail safe wire does not make their operation different to earlier EP brakes. As you might predict systems such as this are becoming increasingly common in Europe. You rightly say that it makes rescue difficult using older locos - newer locos with PBL 90 type systems can work modern EP brakes as well as older air brakes. (That all could lead to another discussion of coupler compatibility and how far we want to worry about that in OR).

Perhaps what is needed in OR are some things like the following:

ORTSEPbrakereducestrainpipepressure ( ) - for which I would suggest a default of 0 - as your older subway cars must be in the minority of all EP braked stock.


Elsewhere there has been a lot of discussion about putting something like:

ORTSairbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( ) - because this is a property of the braking system and not something that you should tick on the options tab to apply either to all trains or to none.


To cover EP brakes separately would also need:


ORTSEPbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( )


In which case we would use four variations


Older US subway stock would use


ORTSEPbrakereducestrainpipepressure (1 )ORTSEPbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 0 )ORTSairbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 0 )

The Type A EP brakes would use

ORTSEPbrakereducestrainpipepressure ( 0 )ORTSEPbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 0 )ORTSairbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 0 )

The Type D EP brakes would use

ORTSEPbrakereducestrainpipepressure (0 )ORTSEPbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 1 )ORTSairbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 0 )

Modern EP systems such as Wescode or PBL 90 would use
ORTSEPbrakereducestrainpipepressure ( 0 )ORTSEPbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 1 )ORTSairbrakehasgraduatedrelease ( 1 ) - needed only if the system has an air component!

As far as I can see SMEE is not covered by any existing OR brake model and would need to have its own separate model. As far as I can tell from a quick read the main points are:

Service brake pipe - straight air brake - increase in air pressure increases brake force and also actuates dynamic brakes.

(In OR dynamic brakes integrate well with automatic air brakes - but it might be a challenge to integrate them with straight air brakes - I tried integrating with vacuum brakes and can not get it to work!)
(When it comes to straight rather than automatic brakes a long time ago someone on the forums asked about an Eames brake - which was a straight vacuum brake.)
(Most locomotives today have straight air brakes for the independent loco brakes rather than automatic air brakes - perhaps work on manual brakes and steam brakes will help to develop these.)

Emergency pipe - automatic air brake - loss of pressure causes rapid emergency brake application.

Again it would be nice to have such a thing one day but I am not sure how many MSTS / OR models would need such a brake.

I would definitely prioritise the Twin Pipe Vacuum brake above SMEE as there is a huge collection of British diesel railcars for MSTS/OR that have twin pipe vacuum brakes (plus some South African electric multiple units). Also it would probably be easier to set up as it is very similar to the existing single pipe vacuum brake model.





#18 User is online   darwins 

  • Superintendant
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 1,238
  • Joined: 25-September 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 29 October 2020 - 03:20 AM

@Weter



I think this is your brakes controller - tested in OR today - everything that can work in OR at the moment works as described:



Brake_Train ( 0 1 0.1 0.2
NumNotches ( 6
Notch ( 0	0 TrainBrakesControllerFullQuickReleaseStart ) Comment ( RELEASE )
Notch ( 0.1  0 TrainBrakesControllerReleaseStart ) Comment ( RUNNING )
Notch ( 0.2  0 TrainBrakesControllerHoldLappedStart ) Comment ( EQ RES disconnected - test for leakage )
Notch ( 0.3  0 TrainBrakesControllerRunningStart ) Comment ( LAP )
Notch ( 0.5  0 TrainBrakesControllerFullServiceStart ) Comment ( APPLY )
 Notch ( 0.9  0 TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyStart )))



Position I - RELEASE = Using TrainBrakesControllerFullQuickReleaseStart will hopefully allow overcharge when this becomes possible in OR - the release rate is determined by TrainBrakesControllerMaxQuickReleaseRate( ) and should be set to the rate required in the train specifications. For UK this is typically TrainBrakesControllerMaxQuickReleaseRate ( 46psi/s ) - this is what I would use to represent connecting the train pipe to the main reservoir either directly or via a reducing valve - IRL it allows the train pipe to overcharge whilst the EQ res remains at the normal max pressure.



Position II - RUNNING = TrainBrakesControllerReleaseStart will always create or maintain the required train pipe pressure when running - a slower rate of operation can be set using TrainBrakesControllerMaxReleaseRate( ) to represent the system now being under the control of the EQ res. IRL - if the train pipe had been overcharged before departure this position would allow the pressure to return to nornal within 2-3 minutes.


Position III - EQ RES disconnected - test for leakage = TrainBrakesControllerHoldLappedStart - this token in OR allows the train pipe pressure to fall due to leakage - if you set a high value such as TrainPipeLeakRate ( 1.00 ) you will see the leakage from the train pipe using the F5 HuD - the maximum allowed leakage is probably a lot less - usually specified in railway company rules.


Position IV - LAP = TrainBrakesControllerRunningStart - interesting to work this out but Running is the OR token for Lap (with compensation for leakage) if the EQ reservoir is connected. HoldLap represents a lap position with no compensation for leaks (i.e. without the EQ reservoir) In this position if you move the brake to the next notch to Apply and then back it will hold the reduced pressure.

Position V - APPLY = TrainBrakesControllerFullServiceStart


Position VI - EMERGENCY = TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyStart


Interesting that at least 4 out of 6 OR brake token names are different to those that might appear on the controller.
Whilst I understand that token names used in the eng file must be the same for everyone (and they are more or less in English), I think it would be good if we could have different names appearing on screen - which could be in different languages as well.




Two things not possible - (i) overcharge (ii) adjusting TrainBrakesControllerMaxSystemPressure from the cab/controls. I think the second one will be like having different brake application rates for passenger and freight service - you will have to use different eng files.

#19 User is offline   Weter 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 6,934
  • Joined: 01-June 20
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Simulator:ORTS
  • Country:

Posted 29 October 2020 - 05:03 PM

Darwins, thank you. For the job you've done.
First, to say, my own experiments lead to the same result, exept I have chosen SelfLapStart or HoldStart for the IV position.
I didn't expect, the RunningStart token will work here. At first-to not confuse the player with its name using it in place of holding.

Second- I will try to upload the text to translator and then review and correct it to give You exactly meaning, but this will require some time, that I have no for now, so let's wait.

Third-about Eq.Res:
It doesn't control BP pressure at II position, the reductor and stabilizer does.
It isn't disconnected from BP at III position, but one-way valve doesn't allow it to be charged from BP, so the pressures there and in BP are equalized at III position and then they are drop together, following system's leaks.
Its pressure is actually controlled by the driver on Hold(IV) position to referent BP pressure either at holding brakes applied or graduately released: it's volume is about 20 liters and it has it's own manometer to see the pressure of air inside it, so the driver sets EQ pressure to desired (this is done quite quick) and then it automatically will be set in BP (as it require some time more) so the driver can see it by the BP manometer's red needle position.

The adjusting of max system pressure needed to make reserve of BP pressure in hilly terrain operations for brake exhausting prevent for instance.
But the triple walves have 2 thresholds by pressure and for apply brakes, it has to be lowered to first threshold (below MaxSystemPressure) so during operations at plain terrain or with passenger trains, wich are short and has EP, there's no need of excessive pressure in BP

I should translate to you the triple valve working description, because sense of driver's valve's actions is not clear without it.
At last "train brake controller" is triple valve and driver's valve working together.

Very good idea-to refer some "display names" for positions of brake controllers along with each token string in eng-file.

The question about VA position is answered only partially now:
I see, we Can combine EP and pneumatic brake actions for single lever in OR, but what about BP discharge in "soft" rate/ what is "MinimalReductionStart" token meaning and minimal reduction statement in eng-files?

#20 User is online   darwins 

  • Superintendant
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 1,238
  • Joined: 25-September 17
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 30 October 2020 - 01:16 AM

Quote

what is "MinimalReductionStart" token meaning


Excellent question. It does not seem to be a very useful token in OR. In MSTS it was very widely used as people copied and pasted to every diesel and electric locomotive and all their friends regardless of the brake controls on the real locomotives.

It was very confused because the older air brake controllers in UK were marked as follows:

Davies & Metcalfe: RELEASE / RUNNING / INITIAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FULL SERVICE / EMERGENCY / NEUTRAL

Westinghouse: RELEASE / RUNNING / 1st SERVICE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FULL SERVICE / EMERGENCY / SHUT DOWN
I had at first thought that MinimalReductionStart should be used for INITIAL or FIRST SERVICE in these brakes - if you do that it does not work at all well.

Rather than Release / Running / Minimal Reduction / <<<<<<< Continuous Service >>>>>>> / Full Service / Emergency
The correct OR tokens are in fact Full Quick Release / Release / <<<<< Continuous Service >>>>> / Emergency Whenever you use Continuous Service (or Vacuum Continuous Service) it will always at first give the minimal reduction specified in TrainBrakesControllerMinPressureReduction ( x )

Sorry this is a very long post and I have not yet given a positive answer. As far as I can see MinimalReductionStart is a particular feature of the Westinghouse 26 L brake controller - it is described on the Coals to Newcastle website.
Not all of the controllers described there are fully functional in OR yet. So I decided to try this one out. On the website Peter seems to suggest that it should be either
Brake_Train ( 0 1 0.1 0.3
NumNotches ( 6
Notch ( 0	0 TrainBrakesControllerReleaseStart )
Notch ( 0.1  0 TrainBrakesControllerMinimalReductionStart )
Notch ( 0.3  0 TrainBrakesControllerFullServiceStart )
Notch ( 0.5  0 TrainBrakesControllerSuppressionStart )
Notch ( 0.9  0 TrainBrakesControllerNeutralHandleOffStart )
Notch ( 1.0  0 TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyStart )))

or more likely perhaps
Brake_Train ( 0 1 0.1 0.3
NumNotches ( 6
Notch ( 0	0 TrainBrakesControllerReleaseStart )
Notch ( 0.1  0 TrainBrakesControllerMinimalReductionStart )
Notch ( 0.2  1 TrainBrakesControllerFullServiceStart )
Notch ( 0.8  0 TrainBrakesControllerSuppressionStart )
Notch ( 0.9  0 TrainBrakesControllerNeutralHandleOffStart )
Notch ( 1.0  0 TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyStart )))


Neither of the above achieve what is described in terms of operation for the Full Service position:

Quote

Full braking effect applied - The farther the handle is moved into the service zone, from Minimum Reduction to Full Service, the greater will be the brake pipe pressure reduction (which is controlled by the equalizing reservoir). The handle is moved to such that it reduces the equalizing reservoir to the desired amount and then stopped. The valve will then "lap" itself stopping the reduction at that point. The brake pipe pressure will then reduce a like amount and the maintaining feature will then maintain that reduced pressure allowing air to flow into the brake pipe to compensate for leakage, if necessary. If a release is desired, the handle should be moved all the way to the left to release position.

To achieve this in OR you need to use a Continuous Service token rather than a Full Service token - so you can use:
Brake_Train ( 0 1 0.1 0.3
NumNotches ( 6
Notch ( 0	0 TrainBrakesControllerReleaseStart )
Notch ( 0.1  0 TrainBrakesControllerMinimalReductionStart )
Notch ( 0.2  1 TrainBrakesControllerContinuousServiceStart )
Notch ( 0.8  0 TrainBrakesControllerSuppressionStart )
Notch ( 0.9  0 TrainBrakesControllerNeutralHandleOffStart )
Notch ( 1.0  0 TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyStart )))


As explained above - when you use a Continuous Service token then a Minimal Reduction token is not required. So this could be replaced with
Brake_Train ( 0 1 0.1 0.3
NumNotches ( 5
Notch ( 0	0 TrainBrakesControllerReleaseStart )
Notch ( 0.1  1 TrainBrakesControllerContinuousServiceStart )
Notch ( 0.8  0 TrainBrakesControllerSuppressionStart )
Notch ( 0.9  0 TrainBrakesControllerNeutralHandleOffStart )
Notch ( 1.0  0 TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyStart )))
As far as I can see the above gives a fairly good representation of the 26L controller. Although at the present time TrainBrakesControllerNeutralHandleOffStart does not seem to function - as in this position the train pipe pressure does not drop to zero at all - it should slowly drop to zero. So at the end of all this my opinion is that TrainBrakesControllerMinimalReductionStart does not need to be used in OR and is probably best avoided - even for the 26L controller!

Quote

but what about BP discharge in "soft" rate
I do not think this is possible in OR at the moment. We have two lines to determine the rate of brake application
TrainBrakesControllerMaxApplicationRate( 3.0psi/s )
TrainBrakesControllerEmergencyApplicationRate( 48psi/s )


Very likely there would need to be changes to the code so that there could be a third different rate of brake application. This is interesting because I also recently wanted a third rate of application to be available for TCS applications in older British trains - where the brake application rate was less than full service either to give the driver time to respond to a penalty application or to try to make sure the train did not stop too far in advance of the next signal or both.









  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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