Railworks America

Hey guys I'm not sure if any of you play with some of the UK stock, but I will shoot the question for those who may know the Locomotive.

I was running some test and I found it odd that It took me to Notch 3 or 4 to move the train that was couple to 4 of Dave's Amfleets. Are the real life ones really that weak? Or is this a issue in RW and how do I edit the traction so it won't look so horrid?

Thanks!

You know European stuff isn't as powerful as American.

(But it seems a bit weak if there are only 4 coaches, you're right.)

lol! you guys have a need for speed with the Euro Autobann and the TGVs. I guess we like power with the big giant Diesels. Some of the 67's stuff is close to the F40PH except for the traction which I'm trying to change if I can find the right line for it. Got to have more power if I plan on using these on the upcoming Talgo Cars. 16 car-Consist with both engines on opposite ends.

The 67 has the same engine as the 66, which is pretty much the same unit as '90s EMD passenger diesels. We don't run enormous freight over here, so no need for anything enormously powerful.

( and anything bigger than a speeder should pull 4 amfleet cars :P )

Sith Murcielago wrote:Are the real life ones really that weak? Or is this a issue in RW and how do I edit the traction so it won't look so horrid?

As has been mentioned above, the 67 has the same prime mover as the 66 - also a very similar unit to the F59PHI loco. However it is geared for higher speeds and lower tractive effort than the 66, so this has a big impact on hauling power.

We really don't do big trains like you do!!

Eh yes, it is geared for 125mph+, but that's not going to result in it not hauling 4 lightweight passenger cars :). I suspect brake system mismatches.

Kali wrote:Eh yes, it is geared for 125mph+, but that's not going to result in it not hauling 4 lightweight passenger cars :). I suspect brake system mismatches.

Ah, I hadn't spotted that bit - you're quite right!! There's something seriously amiss there!

Interesting replies. Nonetheless I'm trying to find the line or anything that will modify the 67's traction power. I can't find it anyone can help me out?

RW doesn't quite work like that, and what you have to modify depends on how it was set up too. There is a graph which limits tractive effort at a given speed, there is a MaxPower figure which is the power at rail in kW, and there's the possibility it's all done in script. Adding more power will not help drag anything if the brakes are locked on... it's got 3000+bhp already.

I can't tell you how to fix up the actual 67 because I don't have it. You could use the simulation files from a SD40, perhaps... no guarantees the scripting won't complain though.

I did see something with Maxpower, but it really didn't make a difference. I wonder if those files labeled:

Throttle vs Traction.DCSV
Speed vs Traction,DSCV


Have something to do with this.

The problem won't be with the 67's power; stick 10 UK carriages behind it and go test it. The issue is going to be elsewhere.

I tested 8 US Amfleets, I don't have any UK MK 3 Cars since I deleted them all. It struggled to pull them at low speeds. I'm trying to match the power or traction to the LRC Locomotive.

And once again, you can have all the power in the world, but if the problem is elsewhere it's not going to help. I went and checked the amfleet cars, and as expected the problem is the 67 not getting the brakes off because UK brake pressures aren't the same as US ones. But sure if you feel like driving around with the brakes on, give it quadruple the HP.

oh I see, well the main reason i'm asking about this is that I plan on drafting the 67s to the Talgo 7th Generation Trainsets. So I'm doing some testing. Coz I have a 16 car layout for this train.

UK brakes release at 72.5psi, while those Amfleets are setup to release at 90psi, to match the default US stock. As Kali says this means the car brakes will always be stuck on. I'm actually suprised you can move at all. You don't need to modify the 67's power, but the 67's brake parameters in the simulation blueprint. Try replacing all occurances of 72.5 with 90. Naturally you should do this on a copy of the files.