Donner Pass scenario 5] Grade crossing (bad weather)

[NDORFN]

More realistically, edit the scenario and add a couple more engines at the head end.

You can't edit career scenarios. It works with the standard scenario though.

[arizonachris]

I don't use career scenarios to compete with anyone, I use them to see if I can complete a scenario with a positive score. So far I've managed about negative 1500! I'll keep trying. I think I could hit the hill with a little more speed and pick more up on the few flats before the main climb.

You have to speed like heck and use sand like heck where you can on this one. Speeding penalty points are not that big compared to other penalties. The one that ticks me off is the excess fuel usage.

You're doing good at -1500, I used to get in the minus 10k's all the time trying career stuff. Guess I stink at driving a real train.

[NDORFN]

You have to speed like heck and use sand like heck where you can on this one. Speeding penalty points are not that big compared to other penalties. The one that pee me off is the excess fuel usage.

You're doing good at -1500, I used to get in the minus 10k's all the time trying career stuff. Guess I stink at driving a real train.

I've managed to get alot further now with better throttle control. About 2 miles off Boca and still no points lost (sitting on 150 and ETA is bang on) but on the last climb I'm getting nailed by fuel usage. I don't understand this throttle Vs amps thing. There seems to be a sweet spot where I'm using less throttle and getting more power. Can anyone please explain (to an ignorant wanna-be train driver like me) how the amps actually work and how to manage them to produce maximum power?

[GaryG]

Hi

Well, there is a definite problem with their their calculation for the failure of a "dodgy" loco.

I finally got the logging to work so I could see the print output. Google and "http://mikerenniesmodels.blogspot.com/p/railworks-tips-and-tricks.html" to the rescue.

Within the first twenty minutes of this scenario, all four "dodgy" locos had crapped out so there is absolutely no way the big grades could be climbed.

The logic for a failure looks at a random number and if it is greater then 0.95 the loco gets killed. This logic runs about once per minute and looks at all running "dodgy" locos.

I think there was an idea to apply a ratio to this number but as near as I can tell, the series of numbers being tested looks like a fully inclusive set between zero and one so the odds of a failure are 5/100 (> 0.95) or one in twenty for each "dodgy" locomotive every minute the activity runs.

I have included a trimmed and commented copy of the log file. I also lined up the random numbers for easier viewing. It certainly looks like the numbers appear to be a normal zero to one set of random numbers. We need someone with the right skills to figure out what would give a better result than odds of one in twenty per minute for a "dodgy" loco to fail - in this Scenario with four locos we have a one in five chance overall for a failure each minute this activity runs! What are the chances we will have more than two locos still giving power when we finally start the big climb more than sixty minutes after we start?

We need skilled volunteers for this fix. I definitely like the idea of failing locos but a lot more randomness is needed. Once a solution is found, we must get RailWorks to include it in an update as well.

GaryG

[NDORFN]

That must be what the bell is! dern. This is gonna take alot a saving and reloading!

[MikeK]

Hmm ... 95% chance that the loco is OK? And the calculation gets run every minute?

So for a scenario that is 240 minutes long, that means the probability of the loco going the whole scenario without dying is 0.95^240 = 0.0000045: that means the odds of it surviving the whole scenario is 1 in 222,222. In other words, the loco is just about guaranteed to fail during the scenario.

Is that really the calculation?

Do locos restart after a minute, or do they stay broken for the rest of the scenario?

[NDORFN]

Hmm ... 95% chance that the loco is OK? And the calculation gets run every minute?

So for a scenario that is 240 minutes long, that means the probability of the loco going the whole scenario without dying is 0.95^240 = 0.0000045: that means the odds of it surviving the whole scenario is 1 in 222,222. In other words, the loco is just about guaranteed to fail during the scenario.

Is that really the calculation?

Do locos restart after a minute, or do they stay broken for the rest of the scenario?

They appear to stay broken. Making it through the scenario now by quiting and reloading when an engine fails. Got the hang of train slack now but I'm getting absolutely nailed for fuel efficiency. How can it be more fuel efficient to throttle back and lose momentum? Not getting it here

[GaryG]

Hi

Once broken, the locos do stay broken.

Slack action and wonky speed reactions... All you need to do is look at the couplers between two coal cars when the activity starts and apply power, perhaps Run five and watch what happens. The front of the train can be moving nicely but the back hasn't even started moving. Reduce power and the back of the train starts being pulled forward by all those rubber bands between cars. Guess where the virtual cab speed is measured ... the tail end of the train. I guess you can understand why you're seeing such wierd slack action.

The train slack problem is a lousy coupler definition with springs that can stretch enough to pull completely out of the pockets and leave additional air space between cars, perhaps as much as six extra feet.

The coupler problem is fixable, you just need to replace all the "buckeye_type_e_coupling.bin" files, which do appear in quite a few places, perhaps twenty-five or so depending on what has been installed. I've included the version I'm currently using. I based it on settings posted in the longer trains thread a week or so ago. It has slack action but no spring action and seems to work ok on the coal activities we've been trying to use. Of course, updates will replace these files, hopefully RailWorks will fix their definition. The majority are in various Kuju Asset and RSC Asset directories, look for North American rolling stock and if there is a Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E directory you'll find the file to replace.

A disclaimer - SAVE THE ORIGINAL FILE and remember the locations you changed just in case you (not me) break it!

This evening I ran the good weather version of the coal scenario. It appears to also have failing locos but I think but only two fail as far as I can tell, haven't looked at the actual consist but I made it to Nordon.

GaryG

[NDORFN]

Thanks Gary. I've almost finished the good weather version after having reloaded each time a loco fails until I reached the summit. The trailing Dash9 was the one failing. Running downhill I let it fail and carried on no problems. Thanks for the coupler bin. I'm going to finish the scenario, install them, then run it again. All-in-all I think now that you've discovered the random failures, the bad weather version should be possible. Funny, the whole time I was attempting it I thought that bell was a good thing!

[NDORFN]

Unbelieveable!!!! After 4 1/2 hours of hard toil on the good weather version, I'm routed into an oncoming train about 2 minutes shy of Rocklin... I WANT MY MONEY BACK!