Front Coupler Modification – Ends Phone Home

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-04 AT 07:29 PM (EDT)

I have just uploaded a document to the file library containing a modification that will significantly improve the use of the front coupler. To allow faster access right now, I am also attaching the file to this message.This modification was included in a beta upgrade package for Canton locomotives and is discussed ( along with the physics upgrades ) here: http://www.3dtrains.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=51&t=3990&s=0096016eaa1d7dd848afeb635b2f4ff7 http://www.3dtrains.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=51&t=4039&s=0096016eaa1d7dd848afeb635b2f4ff7Here is the file in text format (formatting is poor in text upload):

Joe Morris CRR #2
Senior Engineer
Vice President, Equip. & Physics, OVS
Gen. Manager, Canton Railroad
http://www.or4c.com/Canton/

Attachments
http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/4090380e2d8da808.txt

Alert | IP

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

RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, derekmorton, Apr-29-04, 02:15 AM, (1) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, kevarc, Apr-29-04, 09:30 AM, (2) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, heffed, Apr-29-04, 03:22 PM, (4) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, drjoe, Apr-29-04, 01:05 PM, (3) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, seern, Apr-30-04, 02:16 AM, (5) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, dforrest, Apr-30-04, 10:08 AM, (6) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, drjoe, Apr-30-04, 10:21 AM, (7) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, dforrest, Apr-30-04, 11:15 AM, (8) RE: Front Coupler Modification -- Ends Phone Home, drjoe, Apr-30-04, 12:05 PM, (9)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Joe,You are a life saver.
And its not there yet.......Derek

Alert | IP

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

Derek, I have been following the threads at 3dtrains and think they are really onto something. I think my break from MSTS may be nearing and end.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Cry havoc and Let slip the dogs of war.
It's fun being CRAZY!!!!!
Lone Wolf Activities Forum and Activity Packs are on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

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

This would be a great thing to see in the next EngMod release.
(if it's OK with everyone involved of course) -Jeff

Union Pacific fan.

Alert | IP

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

I had never "attached" anything other than a screenshot to a post in these forums. I apologize for not choosing the right format to post here. I have saved the file in an HTML format and am attaching it now.

Joe Morris CRR #2
Senior Engineer
Vice President, Equip. & Physics, OVS
Gen. Manager, Canton Railroad
http://www.or4c.com/Canton/

Attachments
http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/409135d870dea04f.html

Alert | IP

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

Ok, I have done some tests with the second coupling section in the eng file. I was using my 991 activity at Exshaw where front coupler work is required. Coupling with the front still seems to go the way it always has, you come in slowly, make the contact, then let the engine slowly drift away from the car. The F9 aid shows the completed couple as the engine moves away. Now uncoupling is much easier as long as the consist is at a complete stop when the coupler is clicked in the F9 aid. Once it is uncoupled, let the engine slowly move away from the uncoupled car and all goes well. Try to do it with the engine moving in reverse and you get a recouple every time, no matter how slow it is going. Also this does not cure the problem with the F9 aid only showing the 6 cars farthest from the engine. This is a great find. Like the DRP that allowed passing meets, it seems so simple once found, but has confounded us for a long time.

Sharon Evans
Glen Allen, Virginia
Activities are what makes MSTS run.

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-04 AT 10:09 AM (EDT)

Just two questions on implementation of this for steam locos.1. Should steam locos without tenders (tank locos) be treated as recommended for diesel locos?2. I assume that a steam loco tender should have the same settings as your steam loco settings but with the order of the two entries reversed. Correct?

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-04 AT 10:58 AM (EDT)

You are correct on both counts. So far I have not found a significant improvement in "doubling" the coupler sections in .wag files, but I have found that it does not cause any problems, and most tenders have two sections anyway, one for the rear coupler, and one for the front drawbar. Tank locomotives should be treated the same as a diesel. Remember, in the case of tenders, that the coupler that is used is a rear coupler, so the velocity is a positive number. I am not truly sure about a tender's drawbar, since it is not "used" for coupling/uncoupling, and may not even need a velocity setting. Using the negative value for velocity in the tender's drawbar section does not seem to have an adverse effect, and I use it for consistency. What I do differently for the drawbar is that I do not comment out the "Coupling has rigid connection ()" line, and the stiffness and damping sections can be very close or even the same value. Remember, this is a "rigid" connection, and the only "play" in the connection would be small movements of the bar on the pins holding it. I haven't done much of my coupler "research" with drawbar connections since they are not used in switching cars.

Joe Morris CRR #2
Senior Engineer
Vice President, Equip. & Physics, OVS
Gen. Manager, Canton Railroad
http://www.or4c.com/Canton/

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-04 AT 11:21 AM (EDT)

>You are correct on both counts. So far I have not found a
>significant improvement in "doubling" the coupler sections
>in .wag files, but I have found that it does not cause any
>problems, and most tenders have two sections anyway, one for
>the rear coupler, and one for the front drawbar. Tank
>locomotives should be treated the same as a diesel.
>Remember, in the case of tenders, that the coupler that is
>used is a rear coupler, so the velocity is a positive
>number. I am not truly sure about a tender's drawbar, since
>it is not "used" for coupling/uncoupling, and may not even
>need a velocity setting. Using the negative value for
>velocity in the tender's drawbar section does not seem to
>have an adverse effect, and I use it for consistency. What
>I do differently for the drawbar is that I do not comment
>out the "Coupling has rigid connection ()" line, and the
>stiffness and damping sections can be very close or even the
>same value. Remember, this is a "rigid" connection, and the
>only "play" in the connection would be small movements of
>the bar on the pins holding it. I haven't done much of my
>coupler "research" with drawbar connections since they are
>not used in switching cars. Thanks for you quick response. Just one other question. My interest is UK railways and I use mainly Chain couplings. Have you any advice on the suitability of this approach for these?I have posted a comment on your "findings" on the UKTS forum with a link to the html document here. If you are interested it is at:http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?t=29421

Alert | IP

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

I am guilty of not having any UK "stuff", other than what came with MSTS, so I do not use chain couplers. It is currently thought that the buffer section is not used by MSTS ( at least the United States version ). Most of us have left it in the .eng and .wag files in case it was implemented in either a MSTS upgrade or in MSTS2 ( of course that now seems unlikely with the apparent cancellation of MSTS2 ). Without the source code ( or hacking into it ), I cannot say for sure that the buffer section is not used, but there appear to be no ill effects if it is removed entirely. I suspect that the buffer section was designed to be used with chain couplers, and that what happened is that the values in the coupling sections are used for damping, etc. ( instead of the buffer sections ), for chain couplers. Logic says to me that the values for chain couplers should be somewhat different than for knuckle couplers ( maybe greater "play" than knuckles ?? ), but not having done any experimentation with chain couplers, I don't know. I am also guilty of not reading the UK Train-Sim forums, so I am somewhat in the dark about chain coupling. I will soon educate myself about this. Sorry I could not be more helpful at this time. I do think that placing two coupling sections in locomotives, using "good" values for chain couplers, and making the velocity a negative value for the front coupling section should make an improvement in the use of the front coupler.

Joe Morris CRR #2
Senior Engineer
Vice President, Equip. & Physics, OVS
Gen. Manager, Canton Railroad
http://www.or4c.com/Canton/

Alert | IP

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