Class 57 Rail Tours - Tail Loco Not Functional?

[jstange]

Hi,

I came across one problem with the class 57 rail tours scenarios: there's no smoke coming out of the tail class 57 and it looks to me like the loco is not doing anything at all... I tried to uncouple it during my trip and I did not notice any change in train performance.

Is there anything that needs to be done to have the tail loco controlled by the primary one? Something like ZDS in virtualRailroads products?

Thanks a lot for any answers!

[phat2003uk]

I imagine it's been set to be dead as in reality, the rear loco would not be able to work in multiple with the front one unless the rolling stock had been modified accordingly.

[jstange]

I imagine it's been set to be dead as in reality, the rear loco would not be able to work in multiple with the front one unless the rolling stock had been modified accordingly.

OK, so you think this is the way this product was meant to be played, right? No real second loco...?

Could someone with this add-on please confirm they also have the tail engine "dead"?

[sundog]

I know we're talking about the tail-end loco here, but at the end of the manual under Features, it says: "Fully functional multiple working for double header locomotives", so maybe the tail loco is supposed to be dead? I know what you mean though and I spotted it too last night.

[AndyUK]

Yes the loco on the rear is dead for me as well. As has been pointed out the rear loco can't be controlled from the front one in these situations in reality so it's entirely correct. If assistance is required from the rear loco then it needs its own driver to control it.

Andy L

[deltic009]

The rear loco on these charter trains are provided for 2 reasons. A backup loco should the loco upfront fail, and to avoid difficult shunting or stock movements at journeys end, particularly termini. Most of the Uk rail network no longer retains the necessary trackwork to perform these maneuvers so it makes operational sense.

[dp123]

The tail loco is protypically dead. 57/0 do not even have mutiple working fitted as standard, with notable exception of the currently operated DRS examples - the standard type working in multiple is unprototypical. For a rear loco to be powering, the locomotives must obviously be first fitted with multiple working equipment, and the coaches must be fitted with the appropriate cabling and pipework depending on MW type.

If you want to get really pedantic, it's more unlikely to have two 57/0's on a train as no ETS can be provided, except if a generator coach is in the rake. Most WCRC charters with a 57/0 tend to have an ETS fitted 47 on the train also.

[jstange]

Thanks a lot to all. Quite clear now.

[Kariban]

Well, it looks like the ETS 47 from a distance, eh

Top & tail is not the same as push-pull, so you'd only expect one functional locomotive at a time.

[faedundee2]

The tail loco is protypically dead. 57/0 do not even have mutiple working fitted as standard, with notable exception of the currently operated DRS examples - the standard type working in multiple is unprototypical. For a rear loco to be powering, the locomotives must obviously be first fitted with multiple working equipment, and the coaches must be fitted with the appropriate cabling and pipework depending on MW type.

If you want to get really pedantic, it's more unlikely to have two 57/0's on a train as no ETS can be provided, except if a generator coach is in the rake. Most WCRC charters with a 57/0 tend to have an ETS fitted 47 on the train also.

Or 57601 attached at one end, especially on The Stateman jobs(the chap who runs that tour company prefers to have 57s(001/006/601) on the train)... Would be good to have the Statesman set and 57601 available, would be appropriate for the headboard fitted to the 57/0... In T&T jobs there is a requirement for a driver to be in both locos due to fire safety regulations(if there is a fire on either loco the driver of the loco can set the fire bottles off), I like how as in real life the tail gunner(rear loco) isn't powering or even banking but it would be good if it was possible to make the loco power up if you reach a tricky hill...

[Kariban]

Well, sorta doable - you have to work out how to decide if the front engine is in trouble though, that's not easy in a game. ( Try and solve that for every hill! ). Being able to call the rear crew on the radio & ask for power is probably asking a bit much of this particular game...

[faedundee2]

Well, sorta doable - you have to work out how to decide if the front engine is in trouble though, that's not easy in a game. ( Try and solve that for every hill! ). Being able to call the rear crew on the radio & ask for power is probably asking a bit much of this particular game...

I was thinkin of more having it so the code can tell when the throttle is open yet speed is dropping, the code realises theres a speed drop despite the throttle being open(say 75%) and the brakes being off this would trigger the rear loco to start powering until the front loco shuts off the power( I know probably asking too much of the code available)...

[Kariban]

No, that's not really too much - you can also detect if it's a particularily steep hill too, the game will tell the loco - it is a bit complicated and I think tuning it would be a nightmare though. I've done traction control with an autosander going off if the engine thinks it'll stall if it reduces power instead of increasing grip, which is almost exactly the same thing if you think about it, and trying to come up with a sensible set of rules for that is crazy. You think you've got it perfected and then some new route just makes it go nuts.

Wouldn't be able to do it with random stock either, most don't have the scripting passthrough you'd want.

[davejc64]

I have read this thread with interest, But isn't it an operational requirement in real life, that all trains have to have a tail light showing?

[AndyUK]

Yes it is but how is that relevant to this discussion?

Andy L