Railworks America

This doesn't really "break" my scenario, but I'd rather understand what's wrong instead of ignoring it. I'm trying to create a scenario on the GN Cascadian route. I'm using Dovetail's Empire Builder add-on for the player train. When I try to set the arrival time for the load passengers objective it will accept nothing but 03:34:56(first image below). If I add even a second it turns red (second image below). The train is already sitting at the platform, so there's no distance to cover at the start.

It's supposed to be:
-scenario start
-load passengers
-depart

There is only one other AI train in the scenario (for now), and there are no conflicts with it. I even created a new scenario on the same route with no AI, the same "arrival time not achievable" problem occurred. The "Oriental Limited part 2" scenario that comes with the route does exactly what I'm trying to do here, so I don't get why it wont work in my scenario.

Hi,

you can usually ignore these red timings in the timetable editor. All they tell you is that the RW dispatcher wasn't able to calculate a way to achieve a timely arrival to that destination Quite often such tight timings can be achieved by the player, test running the scenario is the only way to find out for sure as it could also point to a pathing error somewhere (like the path leading the train through a slow siding where it shouldn't).

In the special case of a pick up instruction turning red on the very first instruction, like in your example, that is usually because the dispatcher would start and move the train to the very end of the marker before starting the un/loading process, whereas the player can just remain stationary and press that T button.

Using the preview function in the scenario editor (little buttons in the lower right corner) can help clarify some of those potential issues.

Also, on many routes (including the Cascadian), the use of (especially historic) real world timetable data can lead to varying results. Causes might be differences between the line speeds on the route and reality or in the locations of the stations. The farther back in time a route is set, the worse this "problem" potentially becomes. In the case of the Cascadian, I can tell you that we took some educated guesses or used BN/BNSF data to fill in gaps where historic data was impossible to find.

Cheers
Michael

Sometimes with this editor, sometimes...

Anyways thank you for that explanation, I really appreciate it! Here's hoping everything else goes to plan!

So after some time editing I believe I am close to completing my scenario. But I have some questions since it will be my first upload.

Should I contact Golden Age of Railroading about using their GN SD7 models in my scenario? The file library page has warned that people are using models without permission. I don't imagine permission would be necessary since the engine is freely available, but the last thing I want is to upset anyone.

Also when packing the scenario into a .rwp file, do I need to include the following?
CurrentSave.bin.MD5
InitialSave.bin
InitialSave.bin.MD5

Lastly as a bit of a discussion point, should I have scripting in my scenarios? I don't script currently but am interested in learning more about it. As far as I know, a scenario can still work without it.

Hi,

Should I contact Golden Age of Railroading about using their GN SD7 models in my scenario?

I think that clause in the file library is meant for repainters so they don't accidentally clash with somebody else's rules and copyright. With uploaded scenarios, simply don't include anything but your own files (the scenario folder from the route). Then the equipment you use is entirely up to you and no extra permissions can be required from you.

Also when packing the scenario into a .rwp file, do I need to include the following?

I recommend creating .rwp files for scenarios and include the whole folder for the scenario. Those small .md5 checksum files are (mostly? only?) needed for the Career scenario system, but why complicate things and filter out files for each upload.

should I have scripting in my scenarios?

That depends on what you want to do. I find that scripting is unnecessary to create good and entertaining scenarios, but it opens up new possibilities that aren't available with the in-game editor. You can do fun things like pop up html messages (with pictures), manipulate the player's camera, check and react to the player train's state (speed etc.), or even manipulate the player train's controls (throttle, brakes, etc.). It can get complicated quickly but it's your only option if you want to do things like I just mentioned.
Here's the official reference guide: https://sites.google.com/a/railsimdev.c ... -reference

Cheers
Michael

GreatNortherner wrote: or even manipulate the player train's controls (throttle, brakes, etc.).

On some locos, after getting a scripted emergency brake application in a scenario, the brakes stay on at about 5-6% application.

I've gotten interested in the GN Cascadian route again so development on this project might continue. (I'm starting a new job soon so I can't promise dates.)

But there's something I've been wondering and figured I'd ask the community:

What makes more sense from an operational standpoint?

• Empire Builder leaves Wenatchee pulled by diesel and stops at a spur before the Cascade tunnel to gain its electrical units.
• Empire Builder leaves Wenatchee pulled by electrical units and meets new diesel units in Skykomish at the end of the electrical line.
• Empire Builder leaves Wenatchee pulled by electrical units with its diesel units in tow.

I can set up any one of these consists, I just can't decide which would be typical for GN. All I know for sure is nothing goes through Cascade tunnel unless it's electrical.

Also now might be a good time to clarify something. This scenario is going to use Dovetails Great Northern F7 Empire Builder pack. I am aware that this pack may not be available outside of the US. If enough people are interested I can consider making a freeware version using available assets from RWA.

M0T0RM4N wrote:
What makes more sense from an operational standpoint?

• Empire Builder leaves Wenatchee pulled by diesel and stops at a spur before the Cascade tunnel to gain its electrical units.
• Empire Builder leaves Wenatchee pulled by electrical units and meets new diesel units in Skykomish at the end of the electrical line.
• Empire Builder leaves Wenatchee pulled by electrical units with its diesel units in tow.

I can set up any one of these consists, I just can't decide which would be typical for GN.

https://www.gnrhs.org/documents/RS_sample.pdf - This is a link to a fantastic article by John F. Strauss for the Great Northern Railway Historical Society focusing on the 1955-1959 Empire Builder. It indicates that the diesel power was removed from Westbounds at Wenatchee, and a different set of diesels would be waiting at Skykomish. I don't know if this resulted in a single A-B-B-A set being 'captive' between Skykomish and Seattle for both EB and WB Builders, or multiple sets.

Below is a photo by David W. Salter of an Empire Builder set between Skykomish and Scenic in 1954

M0T0RM4N wrote:All I know for sure is nothing goes through Cascade tunnel unless it's electrical.

This is correct. Not until 1956