Cheyenne 1869 extension

Post your FREEWARE 'Works in Progress' here!

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby gtw5812 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:09 am

I must say.....this is great work, and what we have so far is OUTSTANDING! Running "Smokebox's" locomotives and equipment along here is one of my favorite pastimes! Thank you so much for your hard work and efforts on this....at least from this "old fart"!!

Best Regards,

Galen
User avatar
gtw5812
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:33 am
Location: Millington, Michigan

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby DanSSG » Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:51 am

buzz456 wrote:I have run several double headers where the smoke works just fine. About the only thing I have noticed is that when feeding coal in usually the back loco never turns black. Someone has this figured out.


When I run a quickdrive scenario everything is fine with the smokestacks of both locos. I've noticed this primary in free roam scenarios where it doesn't matter if the two locos are already coupled together or not.

gtw5812 wrote:I must say.....this is great work, and what we have so far is OUTSTANDING! Running "Smokebox's" locomotives and equipment along here is one of my favorite pastimes! Thank you so much for your hard work and efforts on this....at least from this "old fart"!!


Thank you Galen !*cheers*!
DanSSG
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 5:40 am

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby DanSSG » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:36 pm

We're slowly climbing up the Simpsons Ridge

Screenshot_1 Cheyenne 1869 Extension Carbon County_41.85848--106.41446_18-38-22.jpg

Screenshot_1 Cheyenne 1869 Extension Carbon County_41.85689--106.42608_18-39-51.jpg

Screenshot_1 Cheyenne 1869 Extension Carbon County_41.85113--106.43349_18-41-21.jpg

Simpson.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DanSSG
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 5:40 am

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby wopflyer » Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:05 am

It's cool how you can still clearly make out the track roadbed in the photo of the real location after all this time.
User avatar
wopflyer
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:46 am
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby gtw5812 » Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:37 am

Maybe someone could help me? What do I have to enable to use the "!880's" snow simulation on other routes?

Thanks!

R/
Galen
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
gtw5812
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:33 am
Location: Millington, Michigan

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby DrTrenchcoat » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:58 pm

try assets/SSG/Cheyenne1869 that's what RW_tools is saying
If we do not acknowledge flaws and make our voices heard, nothing will ever change.
"Why moderate responsibly when you can be toxic on the forums instead" -an admin, probably.
User avatar
DrTrenchcoat
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:34 am
Location: South of a different border.

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby Gravest2 » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:45 pm

I downloaded stage two of this route. I own everything except union pacific 119. There are no tracks and no scenery. All i get is the missing texture. I own the promatory summit route that i bought seperate from 119. How important is the 119 ? If thats not the issue im lost as to what i did wrong installing this route extention. I wanted to run the idaho and omaha on this route.
Gravest2
 

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby mrennie » Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:47 pm

Gravest2 wrote:I downloaded stage two of this route. I own everything except union pacific 119. There are no tracks and no scenery. All i get is the missing texture. I own the promatory summit route that i bought seperate from 119. How important is the 119 ? If thats not the issue im lost as to what i did wrong installing this route extention. I wanted to run the idaho and omaha on this route.


Promontory Summit is a stand-alone route and doesn't reference any assets that are in the 119/Cheyenne DLC (otherwise you would have needed to own that DLC already in order to be able to see tracks and scenery in Promontory Summit). In fact, even the assets that look similar between the two, such as the tracks, telegraph poles and some buildings, have been improved in the Promontory Summit route, so they're not actually the same in the two routes.

Cheyenne 1869 Extension is based on the short Cheyenne 1869 route included in the UP 119 DLC, so you do need to have that DLC to be able to use the extension.
User avatar
mrennie
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby Gravest2 » Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:24 pm

Ok thankyou. I will download the 119 then and give it a whirl
Gravest2
 

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby Gravest2 » Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:26 pm

New problem with career scenarios. Every time i start a scenario i get track.bin error. How do i resolve this issue?
Gravest2
 

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby mrennie » Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:49 pm

Gravest2 wrote:New problem with career scenarios. Every time i start a scenario i get track.bin error. How do i resolve this issue?


Go into the scenario editor, select any railroad car so that the 3D double-ended arrow appears above it. Click on that arrow, so that the car flips direction. Press F2 to save the edited scenario. In most cases, that's enough to fix the tracks.bin error.
User avatar
mrennie
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby Gravest2 » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:55 am

Strange little bug. When i get home here in just a few minutes i will try it. Thank you!
Gravest2
 

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby Chacal » Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:32 pm

Just to be clear, it's not the action of reversing a car that solves the problem, it is just a way of making a change in the scenario so that hitting F2 will save the scenario.
Saving the scenario fixes the problem.
Over the hill and gathering speed
Chacal
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6479
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby M0T0RM4N » Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:40 pm

So there's a track rights question that has been on my mind,

Did Central Pacific engines and rolling stock ever find themselves on Union Pacific tracks, and vice versa, in the real world during the 1860s? Some of the Promontory Summit scenarios I've played suggest that UPRR and CPRR engines would make their final stop at Promontory and then hand off the train there (and not cross onto the other railroads track.) Would anyone be able to clarify on this?

To make a long question short, would CPRR have a presence in Wyoming during this route's time period?
M0T0RM4N
 

Re: Cheyenne 1869 extension

Unread postby trainboi1 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:45 pm

Motorm4n,
I know it's been a while since you asked, but the short answer to your short question is no. The CP and UP didn't even formally interchange rolling stock until 1883 due to the strong-armed policy of the Pullman Palace Car Company, which forbade passenger services of Pullman-affiliate roads from interchanging onto roads that used any other sleeping car service. (It is likely that freight started interchanging earlier, but I have not seen evidence that that happened en masse until the 1880s either). Engines from the two companies wouldn't really run through until 1904, when Sparks was founded in order to allow the UP's Oregon Short Line to operate the CP from Ogden to Sparks, and the SP to operate the CP over Donner.
A slight note, also, based on what you've said. Despite how many scenarios are playing it in this game, Promontory was never a transition point. Even before the lines were completed, the US government brokered a deal between the two roads that the line from Promontory to Ogden would be sold to the CP upon completion, allowing the exchange to happen at an existing town. So a westbound train would be originated on the CP at Ogden, and would run through to Toano, NV, where it would have an engine change, meaning that engines like Jupiter or Whirlwind would rarely go over Donner Pass once they had been delivered. Similarly, it would be unlikely (though still more accurate than CP stock) to see 119 and its sisters in Cheyenne, as they were assigned to the UP's Utah Division and based out of Wahsatch (as it was then called). Omaha and Idaho both operated primarily in Nebraska, but Idaho at least would likely have at least climbed Sherman Hill regularly.
Hope all this helps, and don't take it too seriously - we only have so much stock to use here, so it's more important to use what is available than to use nothing at all.
trainboi1
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Freeware WIP

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest