ATSF Raton Pass

LAST EDITED ON Jul-25-02 AT 09:24 PM (EDT)

Got home from work, downloaded the route and installed it while I made a turkey and cheese sandwich. I wish everything in life was this easy. Thank You for spending your time in making this and then giving it to us for $0.00. I spent $20.00 on a route and this is better. Thanks again. fred...PS I have allready run 50 miles and have had NO problems....
Good Work.....

Alert | IP

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

RE: ATSF Raton Pass, sooner, Jul-25-02, 11:51 PM, (1) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, gdwrench, Jul-26-02, 01:27 AM, (2) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, amiekowski, Jul-26-02, 08:10 AM, (3) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, gdwrench, Jul-26-02, 09:44 AM, (4) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, sooner, Jul-26-02, 11:58 AM, (5) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, amiekowski, Jul-27-02, 09:16 AM, (6) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, plainsman, Jul-27-02, 06:56 PM, (7) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, plainsman, Jul-27-02, 08:33 PM, (8) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, landnrailroader, Jul-27-02, 09:02 PM, (9) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, plainsman, Jul-28-02, 07:46 PM, (10) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, robertreedy, Jul-30-02, 10:58 AM, (11) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, plainsman, Jul-30-02, 12:19 PM, (12) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, robertreedy, Jul-30-02, 05:08 PM, (13) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, plainsman, Jul-30-02, 05:44 PM, (14) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, robertreedy, Jul-30-02, 08:51 PM, (15) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, plainsman, Jul-30-02, 10:41 PM, (16) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, robertreedy, Jul-30-02, 11:37 PM, (17) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, ATSF, Jul-31-02, 09:01 AM, (18) RE: ATSF Raton Pass, bwaterman, Jul-31-02, 02:12 PM, (19)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

I've had good luck with it, too. But I just hit my first glitch. For some reason I can't get Sky!Conductor to run in Raton. I've been over and over the install - which of course is idiot simple - and unless I'm missing something really obvious . . .Anyone else had this problem? Yes, I installed S!C to the new route; yes, I re-selected skies before opening; yes, the kind of sky I selected (heavy) matches the sky I selected in MSTS (clear - i.e., no rain).

bud

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-02 AT 01:59 AM (EDT)

I am leaving Las Vegas at 1700 and Sky Conductor is working. I made a small change in the TRK file. This is a GOOD route. Fred...Second picture is heading for the pass around 1630 hrs.

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d40dd6141aa4765.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d40e4f759270b26.jpg

Alert | IP

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

Can someone tell me what changes need to be made to the TRK file to get Sky Conductor to work. I would appreciate any help. Thank you.Art Miekowski

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-02 AT 09:48 AM (EDT)

Somehow I lost my pic of leaving Las Vegas at 1700 hrs..
To get Sky Conductor to work go to the "atsfrp" main folder and open the TRK file with word pad. You need to remove the USA2 from all 12 environment file names so it will look like this( sun.eve ) and not (USA2sun.eve). Do not change the name just remove the (USA2) then load SKY Conductor as normal. It worked on my copy of ATSFRP...Note --this will also make "Marias3" work..

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d41503a51d9389e.jpg

Alert | IP

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

Thanks a million, GDWRENCH! I've been looking for a fix for this Sky!Conductor glitch since Raton came out - never got a response on the Sky!Conductor forum. A bunch of folks are surely having the same problem - I hope they see this string.

bud

Alert | IP

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

Thanks a lot for the fix to the Sky Conductor problem on Raton Pass. It worked for me.Art Miekowski

Alert | IP

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

Thanks Joe,
A pair of U30b with a load of lettuce for Kansas City meets another freight, and three GP35s stretch their long legs on the high speed portion of the route.
Really runs nice. Great Job!!
Bob

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d43245b1e47cb72.jpg

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d43246f1e7c490e.jpg

Alert | IP

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

Sorry Bob Wirth,
What a stupid mistake!!!!!! Thanks for your super job Bob, this really runs great! High speed out on the high plains, smooth realistic grades in the mountains.
Sorry for the error.
Bob Boudoin

Alert | IP

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

I have put together a rendition of the SouthWest Chief with consist similar to what was on it when I rode westbound over the pass last October. 32 cars in all, 10 supporting passengers, and 22 boxcars and road-railers carrying who knows what.I had no problem until about 1/2 way through the tunnel, got a broken coupler. Running real slow, so I suspect, I did not properly balance the train.A couple of things I noticed though in case ATSF comes out with a version two.
1. The crest of the grade is just east of the tunnel, about where the obelisk indicating the New Mexico State line is located. In this version, the tunnel is relatively flat, where as in the real world, it is descending westbound pretty steep.2. The north & south tracks, in the simulation, seperate for a mile or more and then come together again at Wooten. Not so. This is ordinary double track all the way up the hill, until DT ends at Wooten.One other thing, which seems odd, but may be correct is the placement of signals at the first crossover north of the tunnel. When crossing over from south track to north track, the indication is correct, but as soon as you reach the north track, you immediately have another signal, presumably protecting the 2nd crossover which is from north track to south track, and this one shows proceed. I don't think there should be a signal at this point. Universal crossovers like this have the home signals at the ends of the plant. However, placing the signal in this odd location may be a requirement of MSTS - I haven't worked with double track yet, so I am not sure.Please don't take this as being picky on my part, just as suggestions if a future revision gets in the works. Otherwise, this one is great as it is. As soon as I can perfect the simulation, which I will do with the Westbound SWC about 3 hours late, and the Eastbound SWC on time, so they will pass in this area, I will upload it for the group. It does not use any items beyond what is found in the MSTS file area.J. H. Sullivan, P.E. (retired from CSX,escaped from Southern)

Alert | IP

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

These SD26 (Santa Fe rebuilds of SD24s) are working the outstanding mainline.
I did find one problem spot, the switch Eastbound, coming into Colfax on the branch line. I ran it west and had no problem.
Thanks again for the route Bob Wirth!
Bob

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d4481992fc54522.jpg

Alert | IP

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

Bob, just a short, quick, prototypical question. (Aren't these the ones that always get us in trouble) I noticed you are running N8. 100%. In a real situation, how often and for how long can 100% be maintained without damage to the diesel engine or traction motors themselves. I noticed the amperage climbs rapidly when ascending a grade and was just wondering what the limits were or how to find the information.Beautiful picture of a beautiful route.btw, have to put a plug in here. If the ADFRR works this time, it's almost an extension East and North of where this one stops.RobertR

Alert | IP

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

Hi Robert,
This is not quite as simple as it seems. The speed at which this train is operating is 21 mph, well above the minimum continuous speed for a 6 axle locomotive. The amps above about 10-11 mph (the sim does not handle six axle design properly) on a six axle locomotive should enable operation without failure continuously at that speed or faster. Now on a four axle locomotive, this may vary between about 12-18 mph depending on gearing. Now on SD24s, the turbocharger was pretty problematic, probably would not have been stressed more than needed. The SD26, a rebuild using a 645 crank in a 567, would probably operate fine at full throttle for extended periods (long enough to get up the pass certainly), as long as the operating temperature was not exceeded. Modern computer controled designs, have temperature sensors which will automatically reduce power output if the temperature of safe operation is exceeded, either the temp of the TMs or the prime mover.
I would expect that Santa Fe would run this consist up the pass pretty hot, as the line is pretty busy, and a lot of high speed trains move across it, even though this would not be a priority train.
Now on a heavier train, where the speed would drop below 10 mph (12 mph is the minimum the sim will model), the TMs will have short time ratings. This corresponds to the amps moving out of the green zone. The ratings will allow a period of operation at these high amp loads, but they cannot be sustained. The time allowed varies with the amp overload, from about 30 minutes to a brief period (such as might be encountered just to start the train).
Thanks, and hope this helps,
Bob

Alert | IP

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

Very interesting and a big thanks. That 'minimum continuous speed' factor was what I was not sure on and now know where and how to look it up.One other question. What did you mean by (12 mph is the minimum the sim will model)? I'm not sure I follow. I've got a very unprototypical grade that has dropped down to 5mph at times for as long as 5 minutes. By minimum are you referring to accuracy in the gauges, possibly?Much appreciated! RobertR

Alert | IP

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

I did not mean to sound quite so dire. The sim will let the locomotive work all the way down to ~zero. TMs don't burn out in the sim. The problem with 12 mph, is that for locomotives like a SD7 for example, the minimum continuous speed is less than 9 mph (the amps should go into the green above this point). The sim will not honor this value, and will treat it as if it has a minimum continuous speed of about 12 mph (the speed at which the amp reading gets into the green).
Bob

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jul-30-02 AT 08:59 PM (EDT)

Once again, thanks for the explanation. It would be interesting if TM were more realistic, like the engines are in FS. I've lost more than a few very unlucky passengers that way.This may have answered another question I didn't even know how to ask. I designed an introductory run for my route and noticed the controller is almost continually cycling at slow speeds. I guess theoretically then, if you were required to go at a speed under the minimum continuos speed with any engine then you would have to somewhat cycle on then off. Very interesting!More food for thought.One last question, then I'll leave you alone After you have taken the slack out of a long train, say with a DD40 - how much amperage(percent of total maybe) should be applied to get maximum safe acceleration without breaking couplers. The reason why I ask is the DD40 I have must be 'geared awfully high' or I'm not doing it right, because it seems like it takes an extremely long time to get motivatingRobertR

Alert | IP

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

Regarding the DDA40X, this is a frequently misunderstood locomotive. The .eng file as done by the original designers was not even close. Set up properly, this locomotive should behave much like a pair of GP40s, which is essentially what it is. The twin engine design and D trucks (a pair of B trucks), combined with a long gearing, allow it to run at high speed on the long straight track available to Union Pacific. This was NOT designed to lug heavy freight, and it would perform much less effectively then a AC4400 pulling a unit coal train. Again, it is just 2 GP40s. While it was able to reach very high track speeds, it would not accelerate very well, particularly since it would be prone to wheelslip, unlike the newer designs. The adhesion on this locomotive was much less than even a SD60, and way below a AC4400 or SD70Mac (about 24% of weight for a DDA40X, vs about 28% for a SD60, and about 32% for the either AC version). Thus the force to get the train moving is reduced by the ability of the wheels to grip the rail.
Now about the couplers. The sim was forced to use a time step which was a little too long (in order to run on most computers). This results in acceleration which is not as smooth and even as in an actual locomotive. This causes the couplers to fail at forces that would not damage locomotives in actual operation. In order to compensate for this, the coupler break strength, dampening, and stiffness need to be adjusted from the values which came with the sim. It seems that the following best models a standard coupler:
Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 4.8e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.2e6N/m 1.2e6N/m )
Break ( 1.6e7N 1.6e7N )
and the following a heavy duty coupler:
Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 4.7e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m 1.3e6N/m )
Break ( 2.2e7N 2.2e7N )
Some problems on some routes will require break strengths much higher than this (5.4e7N). Generally, a locomotive takes a very long time to reach track speed, and the acceleration is actually slower than is modeled by the sim.
Hope this helps,
Bob

Alert | IP

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

I downloaded an improved .eng file for the DD40 (can't remember who did it at the moment), but they must have got it fairly accurate, because what you have said about it is true. I still enjoy getting a good sized container consist behind it and leveling the flats. Also, love those TA AC6000's that just came out. I believe they'd pull the yard if you could hook them up somehow I haven't looked at what the break strength is on most of my rolling stock, but hope it is fairly accurate. Don't want my route coming out and everybody breaking up on me. What a nightmare that would be! Especially since I've had very little problems with it.Thanks again for all the insight. I've saved this column for posterity.RobertR

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-02 AT 09:09 AM (EDT)

For clarification the route was built using track charts issued by the ATSF Engineering Dept in 1988-89 so the route is modeled for that era.1. Going westbound the tunnel has a constant upgrade of 0.518%. The east portal is at 7572.9 ft - the west portal is 7586.6 ft. - almost flat. The summit was where the sign is at 7587.8 ft on the New Mexico side. 2. In 1988 the tracks were separated as the EB and WB mile posts are on different pages - with different grades and curves. The original reason for the separation was the route used to be double track all the way to Raton. There is an abandond tunnel about a quarter mile from from the tunnel in use today. It carried EB traffic exclusively. The New Mexico side of the pass was single tracked in I think 1957. At that time they put in CTC and straightend out some severe curves. Anyway, I have 1955 track charts showing both tunnels in use and double trac all the way to Raton. That might be fun to model. There was even a greater separation of track on the New Mexico side as the alignment if the two tunnels is not the same. It differs by about 35 degrees with the portals being farther apart on the New Mexico side.Dont really know what the alignment is today - Built the route the way it looked in 1988.

Alert | IP

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

I have downloaded the Raton Pass route and enjoyed runnning it so far. Your reply about what era the route was modeled from explains some of the differences between the current Raton Pass and what has been modeled. One question, did you consider completing the Colorado & Wyoming branch line out of Trinidad to the mine?

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.