67001 + GNER 225. No Power!

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:37 pm

Hi Folks. I've searched the forums, and haven't managed to find the cure for this one yet.

I'm doing a 'Thunderbird' activity, whereby EWS 67001 has to rescue a failed GNER 225 set.

I've got the couplings working OK, and I have modified the .eng file of the 67 so that it uses the same braking system as the 91, but I seem to have another problem.

The 67 is fine running on it's own, but as soon as it's coupled to the failed 225, it has no power. I can get up to all of 6mph at full throttle!.

It's also the same if I uncouple everything but the 91 loco itself from the rest of the train.

Any ideas as to what the problem could be?

Cheers

Gary

petermakosch · Post by **petermakosch** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:40 pm

Which 221 Set are you using?
I did a test with 67010 coupled to a 225 set and got it going okay.
Pete

jimbob · Post by **jimbob** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:40 pm

yeah the 67 is not powerful enough!

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:52 pm

I'm using Ben Laws GNER 225 set.

I'm suprised that the 67 isn't powerful enough, as GNER use EWS 67's as rescue locos on the ECML in real life.

n863dwt · Post by **n863dwt** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:55 pm

i have used 67's for the same thing and the main problem i have is that the power caris one of the heavier items.
if the loco ie. class 91 could be changed into a .wag then it should serve the purpose.

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:26 pm

I've just had a play around with the .wag suggestion (of a sort).

I used 67010 (Pete's GNER skin) and I removed the 91 from the 225 consist, and replaced it with the failed 91 wagon. Worked just fine

Now to get to work creating the traffic...... aarrgghh!!

Thanks for the tips folks!

Gary

micksasse · Post by **micksasse** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:13 pm

I'd have thought that using a .wag file for a failed loco is in any event the better idea, i.e. more realistic, as that way you're getting a 'proper' dead loco. Anyway, glad it works and good luck with the AI traffic!

47522 · Post by **47522** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:57 pm

its to do with the couplings... you need to download a front coupling fix
I think MS did a ts update or something which inclued this fix

Regards
Matthew

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:30 am

All these .eng and .wag file editing, surely if you release this activity, noone but urself is going to have any of those changes? So the activity wont work on anyone elses machine.

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:33 pm

I can't see that it's a front coupling problem; AFAIK that only surfaces if you couple with the front coupling of the player loco; if you're using the player's rear coupling onto the front of anything else, it's OK.

It still sounds to me like a braking mismatch somewhere, but ISTR several other instances of this happening, which is why DIT versions of a lot of locos appeared.

It's just another MSTS-Kuju bug.

But Lucs has a very valid point about all the .eng and .wag file edits - you need to keep everything as close to standard as posssible.

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:14 pm

Regarding the .eng and .wag changes.....

In actual fact, only one change is needed, as I would just include an appropriate consist with the activity (a DVT or failed 91 loco wagon is included with Ben Laws' GNER 225 set)

I would also be happy to include the modified 67 .eng file, with the authors consent of course.

Besides, I'm still a long way from uploading this activity, hence I am asking questions before uploading, rather than waiting for things to go wrong for everyone else.

The other option (and forgive me for being blunt) - don't bother downloading it.

Thanks for all the feedback though folks

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:29 pm

Anonymizeruk wrote:Regarding the .eng and .wag changes.....

In actual fact, only one change is needed, as I would just include an appropriate consist with the activity (a DVT or failed 91 loco wagon is included with Ben Laws' GNER 225 set)

I would also be happy to include the modified 67 .eng file, with the authors consent of course.

Besides, I'm still a long way from uploading this activity, hence I am asking questions before uploading, rather than waiting for things to go wrong for everyone else.

The other option (and forgive me for being blunt) - don't bother downloading it.

Thanks for all the feedback though folks

Well, it's difficult at a distance to know precisely what you'll finish up doing, so we try to figure out as much as we can, and see as far into the future as we can based on past experience. As always, that's a pretty inaccurate science.

And as most of the problems don't surface until the activity is actually run, how would we know whether or not to download it in the first place?

Backfoot2002 · Post by **Backfoot2002** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:39 pm

I dont see what all the fuss is about. With the zip that includes the packaged activity, just add a the .eng or .wga that you need simple just add this information in the installer. Not exactly hard, copy and paste.

If it mean the activity working, then I dont really mind. One thing is though, when people do, locomotives, its nice if they use the correct .eng files for couplings and speed etc. Last 67 I drove was the Royal One (67005), and that went off like a shot. Since then not tocuhed a 67 at all.

Thirdly are incorrect .eng files the cause of incorrect AI traffic behavour? I noticed a while ago when doing some activies on thames Mersey, that the Silverlink 321 (from UKTS), runs very slow as AI traffic, well below the speed limit. On the same line behind it a 66 was running at the correct line speed, so ti wasnt the route.
Then I decided to drive the 321 and noticed that it took off like a shot for some reason and was hard to control, to try and not go too fast.

Now I did a totally new activity and used the Commercial 321, which im sure you all saw in the MT forum before it was wiped. Same sections of line though between Northampton and Euston. Now using that 321 with the .eng of the 319 from LBE, the train ran smoothly as a player train aswell and AI traffic it was running at the proper speed.

So im thinking that as the AI cant think like me, using the freeware Silverlink 321, and the .eng file being incorrect, it couldnt handle the train properly and so kept it a low notch with low speed? tbh honest when I past it, it must have been doing about 40mph in a 80mph area...

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:55 pm

AI trains have problems if they start in a section with a lower speed than the rest of the route. They seem to be restricted to that lower speed all the way along. Some authors have been known to make use of that to insert an abnormally slow service just to screw things up a little.

As for .eng files being incorrect, the purists would say that there's barely a correct one anywhere, but yes, many are incorrect for the loco they're installed in ,as they're often just lifted directly from a default loco - a small tank engine with around 1200hp isn't quite realistic, for instance...

Backfoot2002 · Post by **Backfoot2002** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:15 pm

thenudehamster wrote:AI trains have problems if they start in a section with a lower speed than the rest of the route. They seem to be restricted to that lower speed all the way along. Some authors have been known to make use of that to insert an abnormally slow service just to screw things up a little.

Ah but the same strech of line, same path infact, but different train. The freeware 321 has the error and runs slow, but when replaced with the BRE version, it runs fine. Nothing to do with the route wise. I did add any temp speed zones at all. I dont even think that the path crossed my line...