Another Broken Coupler Story

[docol]

I got "Activity Ended-Coupler Broken" and since it was a single locomotive in a test consist, I applied Otto's slack coupler fix

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 8e4N/m 4.5e6N/m )
Damping ( 2e6N/m/s 2e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.1e7N 5.1e7N )
r0 ( 0cm 2cm )
)
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)

It didn't fix it...so now what ?

[lelandfletcher]

> I got "Activity Ended-Coupler Broken" and since it
>was a single locomotive in a test consist, I applied Otto's
>slack coupler fix
>
> Coupling (
> Type ( Automatic )
> Spring (
> Stiffness ( 8e4N/m 4.5e6N/m )
> Damping ( 2e6N/m/s 2e6N/m/s )
> Break ( 5.1e7N 5.1e7N )
> r0 ( 0cm 2cm )
> )
> Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
> )
>
>It didn't fix it...so now what ?

Dear docol,

Never have a non prototypical coupler break again. I discovered this from testing and I've used it for over 3 years, this works!

Break ( 1e10N 1.78e6N )

Yours truly,
Leland

[rpicardi1]

Likely, the problem is not the coupler or your driving unless you are driving a long heavy freight and apply too much power at once. It is bad track nodes in the route.

You can visually see this if you drive slowly over the bad node. The car will jump several feet when it hits the bad node. In extreme cases, your engine can be teleported up to 10 miles down or up the route.

Sometimes, the consist just blows up for no reason with cars flying in all direction. Other times, the coupler breaks and derails the train.

In Explore, if you don't derail, you suddenly find that you are missing a chunk of your consist.

SRV Ron

[lelandfletcher]

Dear Friends,

1e10N is specifically tested for Node problems. It was discovered as a "cure" for the notorious Marias Pass 3.1 Cutbank node problem. It doesn't "fix" the node, but the train will successfully pass the node.

Since I found it by testing 3 years ago it has been used successfully by myself and others with no coupler break problems since. It also doesn't have any observed effects on the other physics values of the coupler.

Yours truly,
Leland

[burgerbern]

I can vouch for Leland's statement i use 1e10 on all my couplers and have not had a coupler break with it since Rogers Pass route was released which is when i started to use it on everything

[sniper297]

"since it was a single locomotive in a test consist", how do you break a coupler if you're not coupled onto anything?

[docol]

AHA ! maybe someone is on to something...that's the point..
when I start the Activity, it immediately says "Activity Ended...
Coupler Broken"...even when the engine is not coupled to anything..
so instead of all the testimonials about the "coupler fixes" work,
I'd like to hears some creative thinking out there

[sniper297]

Hmmm, well, creatively I think we need some details. In the absence of information people will usually offer generic blanket fixes that might or might not apply to the situation.

For example, this activity - is the single engine in the test consist the one and only piece of rolling stock in the activity? "Activity ended, your train derailed" is a message you get even if YOU didn't derail, it was two AI trains colliding with each other. If an AI train breaks a coupler, same thing - YOU didn't have a broken coupler on YOUR train, but the game isn't smart enough to figure that out. Could be happening miles away down in a tunnel where you can't see it, game still says YOUR train broke a coupler. So - AI traffic, loose consists? If so, that's where you should start looking, the default MSTS 1.2 "SD40-2, Dash 9, 25 mixed" consist will break couplers under certain conditions unless you remove the rigid coupling statement from the US2freightcement car. Same thing with Otto's MP3cons.zip, rigid couplers cause cars to whip across in a single string coming thru trailing point switches.

So, need more info, anything else in the activity? Which route and where? If it's just the engine, which engine? Zip up the ENG, .s, and .sd files and attach to a post, maybe someone can figure it out.

[docol]

Here are the facts...straight and simple.

I created a one consist activity and used a single locomotive to test it...not an AI..just a plain AC44. Immediately on opening the
activity got the error messsage "Activity Ended-Broken Coupler"
I adjusted the various coupler settings using Otto's (and others' )settings but got the same outcome.


I then tried several different locomotives in the consist,one at a time, and got the same result...so I doubt this has anything to do with the rolling stock

The route was Marias Pass but it opened on flat terrain. The engine did not "derail" but sat there quietly while the error message was presented .

My guess is this has something to do with the activity..but I can't figure out what...or how

[sniper297]

"tried several different locomotives", hee-hee, that pretty much eliminates the coupler settings unless they all have the same bug. Couple things to try:

Create activity on same route, different starting point. Maybe the path is AFU.

Create activity on different route, see if same engines do same.

Create activity using default GP38 (by default, I mean the one KUJU made, not one of the enhanced versions. Process of elimination requires eliminating as many variables as possible.)

If everything you have does this, check your default.wag file - there are several variations floating around, some of them ain't so good. If you have PO&N10, the \Portogden10\1Maps&Docs&Hacks\Hackeng\DEFAULT folder has the original and one extra crispy default.wag in it.

[bob hahn]

Are you using 'bin'?

I got one the other day I'd never seen before... I drove through a trailing point switch that was set against me. As soon as the lead loco passed, the rest of the train teleported onto the other track. MSTS reported this as a broken coupler. I doubt any amount of resistance would have held things together.

Any chance you're waking up on a switch?

[sniper297]

Bob, you're either using the default MS/TA cement hopper or Otto's MP3cons, both have rigid couplers that will cause that "whip". not BIN related. Pics down in post #4 on this one:

http://forums.flightsim.com/ts/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=157044

Demonstrate what's happening. Fix is to open the wag files and comment out the rigid coupling line.

[drjoe]

Or use double coupler lines with only one section having the "rigid" statement ( no "rigid" statements in locomotive's with double coupler lines if you are using BIN ).

[sniper297]

Heya Joe! Curious, you played with Otto's MP3cons yet? I was gonna get rid of the rigid couplers and fiddle with the damping and stiffness on those, but got sidetracked with PO&N 11 problems. Otto used the rigid couplers to keep the slack action from separating the cars and stop the rolling back-and-forth oscillations when you stop, but I think more stiffness and/or damping would work better. I don't use Otto's default.wag cuz that 2cm coupling distance only works with cars that have been tweaked, throw in a car that has the Bbox a little bit off and it won't couple on at all.

"no "rigid" statements in locomotive's with double coupler lines if you are using BIN", unnecessary or problematic?

Anyway, don't solve the original poster's problem, how do you break a coupler when nothing is coupled?

[bob hahn]

These are passenger cars. I thought passenger cars were supposed to have rigid couplers.

[sniper297]

Hee-hee, yeah, but passenger cars ain't supposed to go thru trailing points set against you!

MSTS limitations, gotta compromise somewhere - want to go thru trailing points set against you, gotta get rid of the rigid couplings.