Wireless traction or wireless rail

I am in the process of building my first tramway/traction route which will be combined with a rail route.
I have the usual problem of which will be wireless.
At this point I have set the wire height at 18' (5.48m) which was the original height of the NZ system I have decided to simulate.Preliminary work has involved setting up a rail/tram test bed within the RG extracted route to examine the relationship between the two systems.
The rail section branches into the city and will operate very closely with the tramway.
All is promising so far but roads indicate the need for a bit more thought mainly as to using retextured default roads or painted roads directly onto the terrtex.The decision re wire or not persists and as the rail section will be considerably longer than the tramway I will probably go for no wire and use gantries only on the tramway.
As I pondered all this I recalled a post by Tim Muir where he had built a street section complete with poles and wire?Tim, if you catch this - where did you get with this?
I am very interested in pursueing this as an option and can see the feasibility in this particularly if it is possible to limit the track sections used thereby lessening the need for to many different sections to be modelled.
Cheers

Nocturnal Flightless Bird

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, Swissie, Mar-02-04, 04:12 AM, (1) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, brooksy, Mar-02-04, 08:05 PM, (3) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, tryagin, Mar-02-04, 10:57 PM, (4) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, Swissie, Mar-03-04, 07:41 AM, (5) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, tryagin, Mar-02-04, 07:18 PM, (2) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, dvdhoven, Mar-03-04, 12:18 PM, (6) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, Swissie, Mar-03-04, 12:30 PM, (7) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, brooksy, Mar-08-04, 04:20 AM, (8) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, Swissie, Mar-12-04, 04:09 PM, (9) RE: Wireless traction or wireless rail, brooksy, Mar-14-04, 01:03 AM, (10)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-04 AT 04:22 AM (EST)

Hi BrooksyWith regard to electrified and non-electrified track in one route: You may have not have noticed my post in the route builders forum, see http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/11439.htmlI am working on a heavily re-scenitized & electrified version of one of the default routes, the Orient Express route (see posts "MountE" or "Mountain Electric" in this forum). It will be set to NEC wire height for a change. It has a number of spurs where I did deem a catenary out of place, such as under the intermodal crane, the saw hoppers, in the oil dock etc. Furthermore, I added a ca. 2 mile long transfer track - supposedly connecting my ficticious route to the outside world - which I also considered to be dieselized. Finally, I also had a ca. 1/2 mile section of "abandoned" track on the trolley/interurban system in the route, paralleled by a new, improved track. I wanted this abandoned track section free of wires, too. I was never satisfied with the looks after just taking the gantries out in those areas, as this left the wires "floating" over the track. Now after studying the world files, and after realising that one could have wireless "dummy track" using the same shape files as the ones used for the "real" track, I realised that their must be a way to have electrified and non-electrified tracks in the same route. And there indeed is one approach that works, although it might have an important limitation which I have not tested yet.The trick was to lay all the tracks as one normally does, all the way through the eventual .tdb rebuild followed by the adding of all interactive objects. Once the trackwork including the interactive objects was complete, I took notes of all the track sections I wanted to have "de-electrified". With that list in hand, I opened the world files in question, searched for each one of these track pieces, and simply changed its classification according to this sample:trackobj (
UiD ( 4692 )
FileName ( A1t10mStrt.s )
StaticFlags ( 00200180 )
Position ( 649.974 593.577 -950.169 )
QDirection ( 0.000710812 -0.990729 -0.00518749 0.135752 )
VDbId ( 4294967294 )
)toStatic (
UiD ( 4692 )
FileName ( A1t10mStrt.s )
StaticFlags ( 00200180 )
Position ( 649.974 593.577 -950.169 )
QDirection ( 0.000710812 -0.990729 -0.00518749 0.135752 )
VDbId ( 4294967294 )
)The effect is as desired: With the change in classification, the track sections in question lose the overhead wire. Important thing is
a) to do these changes at the very end of the route building process, when you are 101% sure that you will not need to change anything to the tracks nor the interactive objects,b) not to change anything but the word trackobj to static. The track database of the route is unaware of that specific change as long as you do not accidentally highlight it again in the RE (another reason why I suggest you do these changes at the very end, when you do not even have to open the route in the RE anymore). The track thus remains fully driveable, you can even use such a track section to place loose consists or to start a player/AI train from, and the interactive objects do also work normally. There are only two limits inherent in that approach: a) You cannot attempt a .tdb rebuild after these changes have been implemented. Or at least I would not dare to do it! With the classification changed over to static, the RE would consider the affected sections of track as "dummies", and would not add them to the rebuilt .tdb file. With more errors if the section in question also contained interactive objects (well, after all, a .tdb with interactive objects present is no wise idea, anyways).b) I have tested it only on spurs so far, involving track end nodes, but I have never tried to implement the de-elctrification at a switch node. The reason why I am hesitant to even try it is as follows: In the .tdb file, switches are referenced with the world file they are located in, and their UiD number within the .w file. See this example:That is the entry of a switch in the -05696+14708.w-file :
TrackObj (
UiD ( 5094 )
SectionIdx ( 218 )
Elevation ( 0 )
JNodePosn ( -5696 14708 -17.7587 575.483 -938.585 )
CollideFlags ( 551 )
FileName ( A1tPnt10dLftMnl.s )
StaticFlags ( 00200180 )
Position ( -17.7587 575.483 -938.585 )
QDirection ( 0 0.609376 0 0.792881 )
VDbId ( 4294967294 )
)And this is the matching excerpt from the .tdb for the switch in file -05696+14708.w, UiD 5094:TrackNode ( 1504
TrJunctionNode ( 0 218 1 )
UiD ( -5696 14708 5094 0 -5696 14708 -17.7587 575.483 -938.585 0 1.83104 0 )
TrPins ( 1 2
TrPin ( 1500 1 )
TrPin ( 1503 0 )
TrPin ( 1499 0 )
)
)The reference which I think could become critical is the line that starts with UiD ( -5696 14708 5094 ...as this obviously refers to the .w file and the UiD of that switch. Thus I fear MSTS is bound to crash upon loading the world file with the switch turned to a static object - or "dummy switch" when it realizes the track node it is looking for does not exist (because it is no longer a trackobj). If you dare to try finding out if the approach also works with switches (as you say your non-electrified route is even longer than the trolley route), I suggest you create a small test route - I did not want to risk messing up my re-vamped route with a .tdb error from a missing switch node after weeks of installing interactive objects.I'd be interested to learn, and I will test it out myself - after completing the MountE route, and on an isolated test route...Lukas a.k.a Swissie
Edited for the odd typo

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-04 AT 08:08 PM (EST)

Hi Lukas,
Thanks for the reply but Wow what a job to go through about 60 miles of main line to change the track.
I will need more time to study your method but feel it will be beyond my time and patience.
I also believe that the turnout node issue may defeat the method as the mainline will be full of turnouts. I might be reading your post wrong but it seems beyond what I intend.
I will experiment with the short section of test track laid and see what happens.Tim, thanks for your reply and although I don't know about the "could" and "authority" would like to have a go at utilising your TSM files and see how I go. If not to big can you e-mail the files. I am limited to 1meg received files.Cheers

Nocturnal Flightless Bird

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Sure thing, Neville. It is in the mail. I hope you can do something with it.Timtimmuir@wcn.net

Street and Interurban Electric Railway Models
Sumpter Valley B&B Gang
Willamette Valley Route
(No timetable for release)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Brooksy,> Thanks for the reply but Wow what a job to go through about 60 miles of main line to change the track.Well, on tiles that only contain the mainline tracks, you could simply search and replace all "trackobj" with "static": Hit ctrl+h in WordPad to bring up the window for searching and replacing.Only caveat: Road sections are also classified as "trackobj" in a .w file. So I would not recommend hitting the "search and replace all" button, but to go through the entire file and click ok to replace with each section of track you find.But I agree if it translates into manually going through each single entry, then it is an endless process.With regard to the turnouts: I will have to see what happens if I changed one... I just didn't dare so far. But MSTS has no problems with the end nodes, so maybe it would also work with turnout nodes...The other approach is to put the default catenary high up into the sky or under the ground, and place individual shape files for the overhead wire of the trolley as scenery objects. Would translate into having to build an assortment of overhead wires, but actually you could just create straight wires of 4-5 different lengths. As the overhead is never "bend" prototypically, you could built it from short straight stretchs reaching from span to span, even over curves. Lukas a.k.a Swissie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Neville,>>"As I pondered all this I recalled a post by Tim Muir where he had built a street section complete with poles and wire?Tim, if you catch this - where did you get with this?"<< your quote Neville.I never went beyond that stage. I was and am too involved with other aspects and felt that such a project would require all of my time. I still believe it to be a worthy idea to pursue, and I am willing to surrender my TSM files to the authority who could make it work.Timtimmuir@wcn.net

Street and Interurban Electric Railway Models
Sumpter Valley B&B Gang
Willamette Valley Route
(No timetable for release)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi,At a French download site, you can find gantries with cantenary attached to it as one object.Look at this site:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mr_train_sim/Look for Support avec caténaire.
May be, it can help you.Dutch route builders have some experience with it. On a Dutch MSTS Forum is some help to find, but it is in Dutch.
If needed, I can translate it.Dick van den Hoven

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Dick,merci / thanks for the interesting link.Lukas a.k.a Swissie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I've been away for a few days so just caught up with this thread again.
Many thanks for the replies and for the link Dick, it looks very interesting and yes I may come back for translation. My little understanding of German helps somewhat.I have received Tim's street project files and will have a look at them but I have 3 choices to experiment with.
1) Tim's complete street/catenary model.
2) The info from Lucas.
3) Catenary and wire modeled.It's just a matter of seeing which I can handle the easiest and is the least complicated.Probably be a regular on this forum as I progress and head into unknown territory.
Cheers

Nocturnal Flightless Bird

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Brooksy,just a little update here. Before realising what I was about to do, I placed an interactive object (G-style permissive signal) on a section of "static" track today - no hick-ups, no error messages, no problems after saving. MSTS simply updated both the world tile and the .tit/.tdb files correctly, and the new signal on static track works like a charm. That makes me think way more positively about the method with regard to switch nodes - I may dare to try it soon. I would still not recommend to try to do a .tdvb rebuild, but it seems that MSTS considers track sections defined as static in the .w file still to be tracks and not simple scenery, without complaining or going bersek. Would anyone have expected that from our grumpy old MSTS RE?Lukas a.k.a Swissie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Lucas
Thanks for keeping me/us up to date with your progress with this method of clearing wire from view.
I have not given up on your method nor decided which way I will go as yet.
I can afford to wait at least until track laying is completed before tackling the overhead wire issue.
Who knows, by that time you may have got right on top of your method and it may well be the way for me to go. I'm no expert with TSM so have a learning curve there as daunting, or at least as time consuming, as going through 60 miles of track to declare it all as static.Cheers

Nocturnal Flightless Bird

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.