Message Areas - "Couplers and low radius curves"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Couplers and low radius curves"

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences MSTS Locomotive Design (Protected) Original message
stationmaster (438 posts)
Apr-14-02, 04:59 AM (EST) "Couplers and low radius curves" I've been dealing with the front coupler problems for a couple of weeks now on my Timesaver switching route. I've installed the MSTS patch and "armoured" some cars with high DerailBufferForce settings. This combination seems to be fairly effective, but an additional problem has come up.The curve on one section of track is fairly sharp (one of the yard curve sections - can't remeber the name offhand). when pushing or pulling cars throught this curve using the front coupler, the consist often gets stuck (keep in mind that we're moving at 1-5 MPH while switching in tight quarters). It takes full throttle, and sometimes that's not enough to get through. I've watched this carefully quite a few times. When the end car reaches the edge of the curve resistance becomes very high and the coupler compresses and then bounces back - pushing the train backwards. If the throttle is notched up, the train will "Pogo" back and forth.As a work around, I've been playing with the coupler stiffness in the ENG and WAG files. Reducing the stiffness, for example:Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 5e6N/m )
was changed to:
Stiffness ( 1e5N/m 5e5N/m )This seems to work - the consist gets through even at low speeds. I'm thinking of including optional, edited WAG and ENG files for a few consists that I've designed activities for with this route. But I'm concerned that the changing the coupler stiffness may have other effects that might not be desirable.I'd appreciate any feedback on this issue and other solutions (besides changing the track sections ).Ron
stationmaster@railwaystation.com
http://www.railwaystation.com
Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Couplers and low radius curves rdamurphy Apr-14-02 1 RE: Couplers and low radius curves stationmaster Apr-14-02 2 RE: Couplers and low radius curves jtr1962 Apr-14-02 3 RE: Couplers and low radius curves stationmaster Apr-14-02 4 RE: Couplers and low radius curves rdamurphy Apr-14-02 5 RE: Couplers and low radius curves stationmaster Apr-15-02 6

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
rdamurphy (214 posts)
Apr-14-02, 02:39 PM (EST) 1. "RE: Couplers and low radius curves" Ummm, why not make the curves larger?Rob Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
stationmaster (438 posts)
Apr-14-02, 03:25 PM (EST) 2. "RE: Couplers and low radius curves" Because the route concept is to squeeze a switching layout into a small area with tight clearances. It's also beneficial to find solutions that work for all routes without placing restrictions on trackwork. It appears to me that the coupler physics are not realistic in this case - a train should not behave like a "Slinky" on curves.Ron Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jtr1962 (96 posts)
Apr-14-02, 04:24 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Couplers and low radius curves" Your solution of altering the coupler stiffness is probably the only one that will work, except for making the curves wider. Coupler stiffness is what is causing the "kinky" behavoir, not any calculations of curve resistance. In fact, I recently discovered to my dismay that MSTS doesn't bother calculating curve resistance at all, even though there is place for it in the friction parameter. I also agree that universal solutions that work on all routes are best. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
stationmaster (438 posts)
Apr-14-02, 06:22 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Couplers and low radius curves" If MSTS does not take into account added friction on curves, I assume that the "Pogo" effect that I'm seeing is related to the angle of the couplers.Ron
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
rdamurphy (214 posts)
Apr-14-02, 11:09 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Couplers and low radius curves" OK, well in that case, I guess you just have to go to the prototype for answers: The B&O Railroad built 0-4-0 switchers for just that reason: Tight curves and low clearance. I am familiar with the timesaver, since every model railroad layout I ever built had some variation built into it, and the concept is great, but you have to allow for the fact that restrictive trackwork brings restrictions, you may in some circumstances have to use a "handle" car, for instance coupling a 40foot box between the loco and an 86foot Autorack, or using a switcher, which have different couplers than road locomotives on the prototype. I realized Train-sim is not the real world, and does in fact have some incredibly strange things built into it, but those that remember some of the DOS Based Flight simulators know where we're at now. There are also some places that certain prototype locos just weren't meant to go, even today, the Moffat Tunnel can't clear double stacks. Though it's been tried.Rob Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
stationmaster (438 posts)
Apr-15-02, 04:43 AM (EST) 6. "RE: Couplers and low radius curves" Yeah, the GP-38 is not exactly the most nimble locomotive for the job. But I like to include some activities that only use default equipment when I release the route so everyone can check it out without having to download a bunch of extra files. But I don't want everybody to get frustrated right away with the front coupler bugs and give up.James Jendro's 45-ton switcher, Sean Lim's 60-ton boxcab and 25-ton GE "Hustler" are good choices for this route. The "Hustler" didn't have any problems at all, but I almost feel like it's cheating since it is so short - it's like adding an extra car length to every siding.I'll probably write some activities that use these locomotives and some of my favorite add-on freight cars too.Ron
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic