Broken couplers and proper ettiquette

autonerd · Post by **autonerd** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 8:26 pm

hi all --

I'm working on an activity using Brit stock in Tokyo. Both the Class 205s and Class 37/Mk1 combos give me broken couplers. I searched the forums and it seems the fix is to up the coupler strength.

My question: I want to upload these activities and don't want people to run into problems. Should I include "fixed" .eng/.wag files, or should I contact the authors of the rolling stock to issue an update (or allow me to create one)?

Thanks!
Aaron

ianm42 · Post by **ianm42** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 8:31 pm

Well, I guess I am the guilty party for the 205 and the Mk1s (but not the 37).

I am never sure of the right thing to do. If people have already editted the .wag files to include the passenger views, your changes might remove them. If you add the passenger view section to the .wag files, people who have not downloaded the passenger views will be in trouble. The other alternative is to put instructions in the readme file, and make people edit their own .wag files (not a good solution as most people don't bother to read the readme file anyway).

What do people think? Should we have a poll?

saddletank · Post by **saddletank** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:49 pm

I'd include a note in the readme, but phrase it in fairly strong terms so that if the user chooses not to increase coupler strength, "this activity may not work".

Adding wag files to activities is not a good idea I think, for the reasons Ian gives.

autonerd · Post by **autonerd** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 11:04 pm

First off, Ian, your 205s are beyond reproach. Obviously you designed them properly; real 205s simply don't stay coupled in Japan!

Anyway, I tried editing coupler strength on the 205s. Changed to E7 and they broke again, this time between the 2nd and 3rd car rather than 1st and 2nd. Changed to E8 and not only did they break at the same point, but the rear car was sent flying back into the buffer!

With the 37 and a rake of 4 Mk1s (version 3), I'd be rounding a corner (not sure where) and the cars would just STOP, the first would spring back and telescope into the 2nd. Loco continued on her merry way.

So now I'm wondering if this is just a coupler strength issue...?

BTW if anyone wants to try to recreate this, I was leaving from Ebina with the NSE 205s, on the far-right platform (back against the buffer stops) as you head towards Shinjuku, with teh first set of points directing me to the left-side track (how's that for a technical explanation).

As for editing... what I think I'll do is include the instructions in the readme, AND a corrected eng/wag file, then the downloader can do as he pleases... what do you think?

The alternate idea is to give up and build an activity on another route (or with other stock)... but I don't wanna. AFAIK Tokyo-Hakone is the only one with signals and stations close enough to see the train ahead of you... part and parcel of this activity. And GP38s just don't cut it.

kevarc · Post by **kevarc** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:58 am

For my activities I include eng files so the end user has the same physics that I used to do the activity. Many of the ones I did for Cajon and Sandpatch would not work with the physics that came with the engines, no way to stop the train. I make it clear in the readme that they are there to use and the only thing you need to change is the sms and cabview lines, if you do not have the MLT Samdpatch route.

asalmon · Post by **asalmon** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:16 am

My policy is; if you have to change an ENG or WAG for an activity - get the author's permission; and make the new one have a different name (both internally and filename) so it doesn't overwrite anything and the activity will work - everyone is happy.

-Alan

alan2 · Post by **alan2** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:41 pm

I would like to add that the "Real" solution to this problem is covered by Mike Simpson, and route Riter can correct it.

but In case you want to try the solution, here it is.

Origional

Code: Select all

Coupling (
		Type ( Automatic )
		Spring (
			Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 5e6N/m )
			Damping ( 1e6N/m 1e6N/m )
			Break ( 1.1e7N 1.1e7N )
			r0 ( 20cm 30cm )
		)
		Velocity ( 0.1m/s )
	)

NEW

Code: Select all

Coupling (
		Type ( Automatic )
		Spring (
			Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 5e6N/m )
			Damping ( 1e6N/m/s 1e6N/m/s )
			Break ( 1.1e7N 1.1e7N )
			r0 ( 20cm 30cm )
		)
		Velocity ( 0.1m/s )
	)

It's in the dampening, apparently causes a funny side effect but cures the breaking issue. ? Not tried it yet though?

kevarc · Post by **kevarc** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:55 pm

Alan, it helps quite a bit. I still raised the couplers to 3.7e7.

micksasse · Post by **micksasse** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:14 pm

autonerd wrote: With the 37 and a rake of 4 Mk1s (version 3), I'd be rounding a corner (not sure where) and the cars would just STOP, the first would spring back and telescope into the 2nd. Loco continued on her merry way.

Just a thought: which class 37s were you using? Mark Shipman's or the (earlier) ones by James Hunt? Because the latter do have a problem going around tight corners, or rather they did when, as Sod's law would have it, in combination with Mark 1 coaches (a bit of a problem when I couldn't get out of the platforms at Inverness on the Far North Line!).

If you are using one of the old 37s, try one of Mark's, or indeed various other loco's. Just don't ask me why this happens!

tinsley · Post by **tinsley** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:08 pm

Just a possibility that the bounding boxes might be inaccurate and cause problems. The bounding box of engine or wag should be the length of the item LESS the coupling distance.. I use about 2' (0.60m less).
Just a quick check will tell you.!!!!

autonerd · Post by **autonerd** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:20 am

I'm not sure who wrote the engine... no readme file in the repaint, it's 37260.

All I know is it looks great, it's nice and dirty and has lotsa smoke... cool!!

The activity works well with the .eng edit (the train bounces on that one curev, btu stays together). I gotta play test it one more time then I will upload it. usually by the time I finish an activity I don't want anything more to do with it, but this one I can't stop playing.... er, testing. Hmm!

Aaron