Eng & Wag files for OR

**peterman** · 02-04-2017, 22:05

Gerry...

SP SD45R 7400 is a payware locomotive from MLT.

Peter

**R. Steele** · 02-05-2017, 13:01

Originally posted by peterman

Gerry...

SP SD45R 7400 is a payware locomotive from MLT.

Peter

Thank you, Peter.

**R. Steele** · 02-05-2017, 13:03

Here's me loosing control in the part2 of the activity. Emergency brakes had to be applied, did not stop until one signal short of Gilluly.
Eventually I made it to the end of part 2. This is a good set of three activities to check adhesion, coupler values, and heavy load hauling characteristics. Fun too.
bandicam 2017-02-04 22-54-06-186.jpg

**R. Steele** · 02-06-2017, 17:50

Here are the wag files used in all the player consists for the 3 Rio Grande BGWCC activities (soldier_summit_94-95.zip and soldier_summit_94-95_fix.zip). These are the wag files only, no shapes/textures, you will need the SoldierEquipment pack that comes with the route. Eng files will be posted in this thread in a day or two.

Wagons have been modified for Open Rails use only. Make sure you back up your current files.

After you have backed up your current files, copy&paste these into the SoldierEquipment folder and allow to overwrite.
You will need to change the Sound line in the wag file to match your current files.
Wags.zip

**klsc85** · 02-07-2017, 05:18

Wow. When I developed that activity (and the others in the 94-95 pack) I never imagined it would become an OR guinea pig. I can't wait to load those OR wag and eng files and learn train handling on that route all over again!

Uncle E

**R. Steele** · 02-07-2017, 19:07

Originally posted by klsc85

Wow. When I developed that activity (and the others in the 94-95 pack) I never imagined it would become an OR guinea pig. I can't wait to load those OR wag and eng files and learn train handling on that route all over again!

Uncle E

Wow yourself, thanks for posting Uncle E.
Eric, thanks for the activity set. From my short experience making a few activities I can appreciate all the WORK that went into this fine package. I would appreciate your observations and feedback after making the runs with the modified equip. Your experience with the design, testing and running of the activity in MSTS would be welcome in determining how best to make it run well in OR. You're in a unique position to gauge how well the activity (all three parts) performs in OR...does it match the expectations and performance you had in mind for MSTS, where does it fall short, where it matches, where it exceeds.

I'm trying to determine how to make it run as prototypical/realistically as possible in Open Rails. I'm just looking for the right numbers (data) to plug into the eng and wag files to get as close as possible to real world. (close as present code allows - who knows about future improvements?) In other words, a hard activity should be hard to perform in OR, it should also perform realistically.

As I said, I welcome your feedback, if you wish to participate.

From the Activity Notes: "BGWCC Banning, UT to Creal, CA (California Portland Cement) coal loads (3 parts): Start with 45 loads from the Banning truck-to-rail transfer, and fill out with more loads at Mounds. Part 2 is the helper-assisted climb to Soldier Summit. Part 3 completes the run to Provo (did I mention that it’s monsoon season in Utah?)." my emphasis

When running the activity in OR use Alt + = (increase precipitation) to MAXIMUM. [I don't know how many times you gotta hit the keys to reach maximum??]
We need to generate as much monsoon as possible.
Cheers, Gerry

**R. Steele** · 02-07-2017, 19:51

Locos.zip
Here are the eng files, nothing else. You will need both the MLT Soldier Summit and MLT Casscades Crossing routes for the equipment.
Back up your default folders or files anyway you think appropriate. Copy and Paste these engine files into the correct folders...finding those folders is strictly the users responsibility.
Allow to overwrite
You may have to change some of the Sound lines and CabViews to your preferences. Check each file.

Anyone attempting these activities should be aware of the following items:
1. There is quite a lot of AI traffic in this set, I did not change or see if they are all running or running at the right time. My entire focus, once I saw what the activity was about, was hauling this heavy load up the hill without massive wheelslip, loosing control, or stalling (all of which happened, disastrously)

SO in OR...the traffic may not run on time or run at all...don't care at this time.

2. This exercise will require a certain level of understanding...about Open Rails, about MSTS folder-file structure, and real life train ops. I'll help a little with the first two issues, but I'm not holding any hands, and besides...most of you nuts know a lot more about this than me anyway - especially the Train Ops part...I'm still a piglet.

**R. Steele** · 02-07-2017, 20:15

Okay, one last item for today.
Please use OR version1.2 - common platform - common sense.

If you find a mistake in one of the files...NOT POSSIBLE - Yeh Right, I was careful, and checked my work, but something might have slipped past me. Let me know, please. pm or this thread, your choice.

I am not attached to the data in these files, so I'm looking for the best numbers. I have some criticism/doubts of some of the data I'm using. I'm going to do a line-by-line dissection of what the data is and what the line means...few days or so. I'm not at all satisfied with some of the numbers.
Here's a quick example:
You'll notice in the eng/wag files this line
Comment( == Assumptions -LocoDiesel-Electric, speed - 65mph (105km/h), Roller Bearing, 6 axles, frontal area - 16.1m2, Weight - 184.6 ton (metric) == )
This comment provides the input numbers for the FCalc2 utility that was used to arrive at the ORTS Davis A,B,C figures. Credit for format of this line goes to >>> http://www.coalstonewcastle.com.au/physics/ (ctnsteamer) I completely lifted it from steamer's files.

Notice the underlined - "frontal area - 16.1m2"

From the FCalc2 docs - "frontal area is used for virtually everything except
TOFCs, COFCs, and spine cars. This is to better estimate aerodynamic drag as a larger vehicle
will obviously have more drag whether it is in front of the train or in the middle. The best way to
accurately measure frontal or cross-sectional area is from a scale drawing of the car in question,
or from a scale model if available. The size of the bounding box can also be a guide, provided it
coincides exactly with the top, sides, and bottom of the vehicle. The area of rectangular body
shapes is easily calculated if the height and width are known. More complex shapes may require
laying out a front view on graph paper, counting the number of squares covered, and converting
the result to meter2. Absolute accuracy is not required, but it is a good idea and fairly easy to be
within a few percent of the true value. In the absence of data, the program will suggest defaults
of 10.2 meter2 for freight cars, 11.2 meter2 for passenger cars, and 16.35 meter2 for autoracks.
Do not use the suggested values unless you lack better data. Chances are if you made the 3D
model you already have what you need to estimate frontal area to a high degree of accuracy. In
cases where a certain type of car is known to have a larger amount of aerodynamic drag than
most cars of similar size, a value of frontal area larger than the true value can be used. You can
adjust the value up or down until you get the desired results."

The value I used for this locomotive's front area 16.1m2, is my best Guesstimate. These figures can be improved upon.
I have no access or don't know where to find scale drawings of locomotives...so I used ShapeViewer, the bounding box numbers, a thrown together grid on the screen...to make my best estimate. Need some help here.

**R. Steele** · 02-07-2017, 20:22

Whoops...one last and very important item:
Everything I'm posting has been picked up from the Open Rails Manual, from accessible web sites, other forum posts, emails, and some offline reading. There is just this very fine, open community of train sim folks with all this information...Thank you.

**R. Steele** · 02-08-2017, 12:01

To recap, here's the activity information for this thread
soldier_summit_94-95.zip in the file library here.
Activities - 3 parts
Rio Grande BGWCC Part 1.act
Rio Grande BGWCC Part 2.act
Rio Grande BGWCC Part 3.act

Part 1 starts with Player stopped...if you like a running start use the following example to change this service file
Rio Grande BGWCC Part 1.srv, change StartingSpeed (in bold) to 6.3331, that will give you enough time to assess the situation and apply dynamics.

Code:

Service_Definition (
	Serial ( 1 )
	Name ( "Rio Grande BGWCC Part 1" )
	Train_Config ( "Rio Grande BGWCC Part 1" )
	PathID ( "Rio Grande BGWCC Part 1" )
	MaxWheelAcceleration ( 0 )
	Efficiency ( 0.95 )
	TimeTable (
		[B]StartingSpeed ( 6.3331 )[/B]
		EndingSpeed ( 0 )
		StartInWorld ( 0 )
		EndInWorld ( 0 )
	)
)

There are plenty of threads about braking in OR, many of them concerning the time taken to set, apply, and recharge the brakes. This is one task that takes plenty of time in the real world, however, realtime becomes problematic in the sim ... So here are some sample brake parameters for both wags and engs. Again, these are starting points and for comparison. Clearly, experimentation is okay. These are derived from freeware, payware (primarily DW and SLI-TS) and documents on braking. These are for modern diesels and wagons, I would seriously verify these parameters before using for older equipment, steam, narrow guage, and other than North American equipment.

Eng Brakes

Code:

        Comment ( fast brakes orts )
	BrakeEquipmentType ( "Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
	BrakeSystemType ( Air_single_pipe )
	MaxBrakeForce ( 140kN )
	TripleValveRatio ( 2.5 )
	MaxReleaseRate ( 40 )
	MaxApplicationRate ( 40 )
	MaxAuxilaryChargingRate ( 35 )
	EmergencyResCapacity ( 10 )
	EmergencyResChargingRate ( 30 )
        EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure ( 110 )
        EmergencyResVolumeMultiplier ( 1.461 )
	BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce ( 70 )
	
	Comment ( default-slow-brakes )
	BrakeEquipmentType( "Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
        BrakeSystemType( "Air_single_pipe" )
	MaxBrakeForce ( 179.1kN )
        TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
        MaxReleaseRate( 2.27 )
	MaxApplicationRate( 1.717 )
	MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1 )
	EmergencyResCapacity( 2.604 )
	EmergencyResChargingRate( 1 )
	EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 90 )
	EmergencyResVolumeMultiplier ( 1.461 )
        BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 64 )

        Comment ( prototypical brakes msts? )
        BrakeEquipmentType( "Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
        BrakeSystemType( "Air_single_pipe" )
	MaxBrakeForce( 112.1kN )
        TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
        MaxReleaseRate( 0.49 )
	MaxApplicationRate( 0.93 )
	MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 0.28 )
        EmergencyResCapacity( 8.7 )
	EmergencyResChargingRate( 0.24 )
	EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 110 )
	EmergencyResVolumeMultiplier ( 1.461 )
	BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 64 )

Wag Brakes

Code:

 
        Comment ( Standard Brake settings )
	BrakeEquipmentType( "Handbrake, Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
	BrakeSystemType( "Air_single_pipe" )
	MaxBrakeForce( 45kN )
        MaxHandbrakeForce( 55kN )
	NumberOfHandbrakeLeverSteps( 100 )
	TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
	MaxReleaseRate( 1.86 )
	MaxApplicationRate( 0.9 )
	MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1.684 )
        EmergencyResCapacity( 2.604 )
	EmergencyResChargingRate( 1.684 )
	EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 90 )
	BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 50 )

	Comment ( FastBrakes )
	BrakeEquipmentType ( "Handbrake, Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
	BrakeSystemType ( "Air_single_pipe" )
	MaxBrakeForce ( 45kN )
	MaxHandbrakeForce ( 55kN )
	NumberOfHandbrakeLeverSteps ( 100 )
        TripleValveRatio ( 2.5 )
 	MaxReleaseRate ( 18.6 )
 	MaxApplicationRate ( 18.6 )
 	MaxAuxilaryChargingRate ( 1.684 )
 	EmergencyResCapacity ( 2.604 )
 	EmergencyResChargingRate ( 2.603 )
        EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure ( 90 )
        BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce ( 70 )

**R. Steele** · 02-08-2017, 14:54

Another note - the FRED should be removed from the end of the player consist in Part 1. No mods made to FRED. Don't think it makes much difference, can't be 100% sure of that, though. And it does look non-realistic to have a FRED stuck in the middle of the consist.

Put a FRED on the end of the loose consist that the player picks up at Mounds, if you wish.

**R. Steele** · 02-09-2017, 15:39

Some feedback from Uncle E ("four slippery SD's" and "Put down enough sand to cover a beach" ) provided a laugh and got me to thinking - reviewing the eng files, specifically the following section:

Code:

ORTSAdhesion (
            ORTSCurtius_Kniffler ( 7.5 44 0.161 0.7 )
        )
        ORTSAdhesion ( 
            ORTSSlipWarningThreshold ( 33 ) 
        )

What the numbers refer to in the Curtius_Kniffler parameter: (my new understanding)
1st number 7.5 constant

2nd number 44 - loco or wag weight (metric tons)

3rd number 0.161 adhesion factor (increase number = increased adhesion )

4th number 0.7 (according to manual 8.1.3 page 78) used in advanced adhesion model and always set to 0.7

First, appears that all the locomotive Curtius_Kniffler statements are using wagon weights - too low.
Second, by increasing the 3rd number perhaps we can reduce the "slippery" SD40s

To that end, I'm running the first part of the activity again with new (and hopefully correct) Curtius_Kniffler values.
ORTSCurtius_Kniffler ( 7.5 186 0.861 0.7 ) weight adjusted for each loco, raised #3, this is perhaps too high for these types of engines.

Anyone else game for testing download these: Adj_AdhesionLocos.zip )
Note - In the HUD Force Information you should see an increase in loco&wagon adhesion.
No wag files were adjusted, locomotives first.

I'll post back here with the results.

Oh yes, I changed the format of the lines, due to my incomplete understanding of the concept of nesting...I now know it doesn't make a difference...so ORTSAdhesion ( ORTSCurtius_Kniffler ( 7.5 44 0.161 0.7 ) ) will be accepted by OR. (this statement is also considered nested)

**R. Steele** · 02-10-2017, 14:43

From post#13:
"To that end, I'm running the first part of the activity again with new (and hopefully correct) Curtius_Kniffler values.
ORTSCurtius_Kniffler ( 7.5 186 0.861 0.7 ) weight adjusted for each loco, raised #3, this is perhaps too high for these types of engines."

The above values stop wheelslip entirely, also the power output (ammeter in one instance, HUD force info in the other instance) are very erratic. So these values swing too far in the other direction.

A summary of the Curtius Kniffler values used so far: [ SD40T-2's and SD45R locomotives ]
1.) 7.5 186 0.161 0.7 - High wheelslip
2.) 7.5 186 0.861 0.7 - No wheelslip, erratic power readings
3.) 7.5 186 0.261 0.7 - Moderate wheelslip, power reading appear normal
4.) 7.5 186 0.315 0.7 - Moderate wheelslip - slightly better than 0.261

Currently using #4 in all the engines...these locomotives >>> C-K_0.361.zip

Evaluation: difficult for me, because I have no real experience if any of these values represent real-world behavior for these engines.

Here's the consist details...maybe someone with real-world knowledge and /or experience will weigh in - (and I know there are many of you in this forum).
From OR HUD Consist information:
Length: 4807ft; Weight: 11989.3stn; Tonnage: 11194.6stn

From ConBuilder:
Length: 4768.2ft; Weight: 12183.26 USTons; Mass: 10877.91; 84 Wagons; 4 Locos

Calculated HorsePower: 12200HP
Route: Soldier Summit from Mounds to Helper
Grade: 0.0% to 1.6% primarily upgrade all the way.
Weather: Hard Rain, precipitation set to Maximum in OR

Questions:
1.) With this train and load configuration would these locomotives be able to deliver the load to Helper without an instance of wheelslip? Major ("enough sand to cover a beach") wheelslip? Moderate Wheelslip?

2.) Is this train configuration under or over powered? Or power is correct for load? (note - I have looked at and used three different load calculators...looking for some knowledge derived from experience.)

3.) How does this train configuration compare to actual trains from Mounds to Helper in this time period?

4.) What needs to be adjusted to make the this train configuration run correctly in OR?

5.) What are the Curtius Kniffler figures for these locomotives...are any of the ones posted in this thread anywhere close to the actual numbers. Perhaps there are no set of numbers...just a calculation by OR that gets one close, depending upon many other factors (many of which I am not aware of, perhaps)?

**baldwin** · 02-10-2017, 15:35

Before deciding on a set of figures and giving test results, what are your settings for adhesion in the Experimental section?. I always use 100%, no random factor change, and tick the weather box. My Numwheels in the engine section of the eng file is always set to 2.