Conrail Indy Route

Has anyone experienced many broken couplers and derailments on this route? If so could you state what you did to fix these reoccurring problems.My coupler values are already high but that doesn't seem to matter.Could this also be a problem with the bounding box values of the cars and the switches.?Any help would be appreciated.

Alert | IP

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

RE: Conrail Indy Route, Coonskin, Jan-05-03, 04:25 PM, (1) RE: Conrail Indy Route, Claude350, Jan-05-03, 04:31 PM, (2) RE: Conrail Indy Route, griffinmt, Jan-05-03, 04:52 PM, (3) RE: Conrail Indy Route, TrainFreak, Jan-06-03, 03:52 AM, (8) RE: Conrail Indy Route, griffinmt, Jan-06-03, 10:52 AM, (9) RE: Conrail Indy Route, Coonskin, Jan-05-03, 04:52 PM, (4) RE: Conrail Indy Route, Claude350, Jan-05-03, 06:17 PM, (5) RE: Conrail Indy Route, griffinmt, Jan-05-03, 07:40 PM, (6) RE: Conrail Indy Route, Coonskin, Jan-05-03, 10:48 PM, (7) RE: Conrail Indy Route, Claude350, Jan-11-03, 10:41 PM, (10) RE: Conrail Indy Route, derekmorton, Jan-12-03, 01:24 AM, (11)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Does a broken coupler happen after a long stretch of track with no switches?Andre

Alert | IP

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

It happens at the switches.The cars also jerk violently as they are passing over the switches that causes the broken couplers.

Alert | IP

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

Yep, that sounds like the same old problem that Andre was referring to.I'll bet that just prior to that switch there's a good long stretch without any switches or crossovers.The quick fix (bypass) is to place one or more switches along those long switchless stretches. If you paths are directional, arrange the switch so that it won't get accidentally thrown (and don't make it the manual type). Attach at least one more piece of track to it then do with it as you want.Martyn T. Griffin
griffinmt@mindspring.com

Alert | IP

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

The quick fix (bypass) is to place one or more switches along those long switchless stretches. If you paths are directional, arrange the switch so that it won't get accidentally thrown (and don't make it the manual type). Attach at least one more piece of track to it then do with it as you want.

Have you tipped the Marias Pass 3.1-guys about this?

Alert | IP

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

There have been several long and lengthy threads on this whole subject area in the recent past. Like most, I was the benefactor of the work done by others to understand this issue, and if my memory serves me correct (not too often these days!) the initial complaints where based upon Marias activities.Martyn T. Griffin
griffinmt@mindspring.com

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-03 AT 04:53 PM (EST)

My fault, I wasn't clear in what I was asking.Is the switch causing the jerks the first switch after a long stretch of uninerupted tracks? i.e. you've just come through a 6-10 mile section of track containing no switch, and now the train is jerking over the first switch it comes to after that long unbroken section.If so, this is the "switch node" problem that seems to work in conjunction with a timing bug in the MSTS. Small timing faux paus are recalibrated at a node (such as a switch). The car's positions are then corrected (i.e. the jerking). The longer the unbroken length of track (no node for the sim to calibrate with), the more pronounced the jerking/recalibration at the next node it passes. If the correction is severe enough (jerk enough): The couplers break. At this point, the known solution is to place a switch in the middle of the long unbroken stretch of track.Most of us route builders are now going back over our routes and checking for this.Andre Ming

Alert | IP

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

That's exactly what's happening.Guess I have some work to do.Thanks for the info.

Alert | IP

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

One quick word of caution.About half way, lets say you locate a simple 100m or 500m straight section, delete it and plug in a simple switch and enough straight sections to make up the difference.Be prepared for 1) the last section to fall short by several inches or 2) the rails to be offset to the left or right of the target rails or 3) both of the above.This is all part of the same issue that causes the track to bump you at the far switch. Rounding calculation errors.An approptialy placed piece of DT will compensate, or a different combination of track pieces sometimes.Martyn T. Griffin
griffinmt@mindspring.com

Alert | IP

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

Good point Martyn. I too have just learned that the hard way on my narrow gauge wye problem. Claude: Suggest you find a place where the least amount of change is needed AND straight track. A 50m straight, for example. If memory serves me correctly, you can plop in a 10d manual w/a 10m straight and match the gap vacated by the 50m straight. I've done such several times with no match up problems.Andre

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-03 AT 10:46 PM (EST)

Thanks for all the comment and suggestions.This is an excellent route but with all the coupling breaks and derailments I'm afraid that it'll find its place on the shelf real soon.Railfan727 if you're reading these comments you may want to consider a fix for the these problems.You built an excellent route and I'd hate to see it pushed under the rug.Just my opinion.

Alert | IP

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

Hi Claude,Download EngMod from the file library, and adjust ALL of your "Break" values to '5.5e7n 5.5e7n' and see if that improves things.Derek EngMod@sgrail.org

Alert | IP

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