Coupling Problem w/Bin 1.6.1

[pinpuller]

Has anyone else had the problem of the rear coupler sticking on most any loco when using the Bin 1.6.1 patch? I have noticed that it takes several clicks to uncouple and sometimes it won't uncouple at all. It's always the car or engine directly behind the lead loco. One or more cars or engines away and there is no problem. I have tested this on several engines and in different routes and get the same results. I like the front coupler finally being able to work with crashes.

Regards,
Pinpuller

[sniper297]

Try this:

http://forums.flightsim.com/ts/user_files/112215.zip

Download, unzip, read readme, try it, give feedback good or bad.

[pinpuller]

Thanks Jim, I used the 1102 and it works great! I tried it in all sorts of engine configurations and it works like a breeze. What a pleasure to have the couplers perform as they should. One more step to realism.

Thanks again and best regards,
Pinpuller

[Turbo Bill]

I'm posting to get a confirmation with the couplers and the Bin patch. I'm upgrading my fleet to Otto's mpk3 coupler standards. I noticed that the engines use two coupler regions but the cars only use one. Will the difference in the two styles effect the performance of the couplers in the sim? Should I add a second coupler region to the railcars to match the engines? It would not be difficult to do I just want to make sure I do the right thing as we are talking a lot of cars. So far things seem to be working well but it doesn't hurt to double check.

[drjoe]

All of the below refers to MSTSBin:

Jim Ward's ( Sniper ) hack to the default.wag file aids the sticky couplers. I use a slightly different one that sets the coupling speed just a bit lower, and have no problems, but I have coupler settings with much lower values than the default equipment ( you can check my settings in the physics forum at 3DTrains. The double section in the .eng files helps with some MU locomotive coupling problems. I haven't proved any value yet to using double sections in the .wag files yet other than improved appearance in "slack action" ( which is reason enough for me to stay with it for now, at least until I am able to improve on them, which I think will be possible with MSTSBin ). The settings that Otto has in his "collection" work quite well. Even the default.wag setting he has seems to work almost as well as Jim's, especially with his coupler settings. Otto has diligently tested and tweaked and then compiled very satifactory values, and graciously grouped and hosted them for us.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

As Joe kindly mentioned, all my coupler settings in the: www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/downloads/mp3kcons.zip
work perfectly with all coupling manoeuvres and different coupler settings in wagons do not seem to affect their couplers efficiency as long as all of them have this CouplingHasRigidConnection (1) line where shown below !

Also make sure their Damping ( ..... ) lines show N/m/s their ends !

The presence of buffers is arbitrary and their absence seems to make no difference when "Rigid" couplers are being used, as is the second coupler section in locos ! But as the presence of the latter seems logical, used in steam locos where there is another coupler type connecting one to a tender and works also in other locos, I am leaving them in. "If it works then don't change it" ! :7

The only problems found with coupling were the occasional loco or wagon which had a Bounding Box covering the coupler knuckles !

O t t o

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/112695.jpg

[Turbo Bill]

Thanks for answering Joe and Otto. I am using Otto's coupler values for upgrading the Cascade and North Western VR to Bin standards. I just noticed that the cars had one coupler section and wanted confirmation that this is indeed the intended plan. Also Otto, I'm cutting and pasting your actual coupler regions into the eng/wag files to make sure all are exactly alike. This has helped to cure the swinging accelerometer problem we talked about when helpers are on the rear of the train. It now shows Rock steady with movement mirroring exactly as the train is doing. Like I said we have had no issues in testing so far but I just wanted to be sure I hear it from the pros in this area. I will continue with the 300 or so wagons we have. Can't wait til the members get to play our game with the outstanding Bin upgrades and new activity possibilities. Again thanks Joe and especially Otto for helping me clear a couple of high hurdles on this project.

[OTTODAD]

You are welcome, Bill !

And thanks for helping me with the invisible sound wagons idea, teaching me a few things on sounds, which triggered my "Going-over-switches" sound sources ! :7

Take care, O t t o.

[Turbo Bill]

Most welcome Otto!!

Now I have another question. The C&NW has a passenger fleet as well as a fleet of Roadrailers as we model western railroading based on traffic patterns I observed in my carreer as engineer from 93 to 2002 running into Brooklyn yard in Portland Oregon and Eugene Yard in Eugene, Oregon and traffic departing and arriving Portland eastbound out the Columbia Gorge. I've watched the Southern Pacific many a time assemble the Swift trailer train bound for Southern California out of Brooklyn Yard and was amazed at the fact that 40 trailers only had six inches of slack in the whole train. This fact was confirmed by carman that used to assist with assembling the train as both crafts, carman and Conductor worked in conjuntion to load the trailers on the bogies and then assist with the airtest. I want to mimic this absence of slack in our trailer train equipment as well as our passenger equipment which also prototypically has virtually no slack. Can someone give me some coupler parameters to work with the Bin parameters of Otto's mp3kcons.zip files, which I am updating our entire fleet to, but with no slack action in the train? Otto's values in his freight cars does have slack action but again as stated above I want to eliminate the slack action from the passenger cars as well as the roadrailers. Now granted these consists will see little switching action so perfect coupling and uncoupling performances can be compromised some to achieve the desired slack results.

[drjoe]

Post the coupler section from those trailer cars. I will try to give you a setting that has little slack action after looking at what you have now.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

The slack action in the mp3kcons rolling stock got eliminated by the CouplerHasRigidConnection (1) line, I am now also applying to the *.wag files of this Italian 32 coaches set:

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/112730.jpg

which is said to now have Ctrl-7/9 opening doors, but has not yet, but the exteriors and interiors are excellent, day and night ?

I added the Rigid Couplers mainly to stop wagons bunching up too close and in some instances intruding into the next wagon, their Bounding Boxes having been set incorrectly and by doing so also benefiting the reliability of all couplers ! ;-)

O t t o

[jerrym3d]

When player engine is coupled to a MaxiStack consist (BNSF MaxiStack1 or a derivative) it cannot be uncoupled. If any equipment (.eng or .wag) with regular couplers is connected between the player engine and the MaxiStack consist coupling and uncoupling is normal. Orientation, front or rear coupling is not a factor.

The MaxiStack consist must be properly oriented (AEDCB). The A unit has a knuckle coupler on the front; the B unit has a knuckle coupler on the rear; units are connected to each other with bar couplers.

Don't know if this is a Bin issue or an equipment issue.

[Turbo Bill]

Hm, that's odd cause on a 60 car coal train, there indeed is still slack action in the train. Quite realistically actually. About halfway down the train with an outside camera view you can see each car stretch out and start to move. I didn't check to see if it does it every time or just the first time but it appears to have slack on all moves I was looking for it.

Thanks for the offer Joe. I will post a wagon file for you and Otto as well since I'm using his values. Actually I will post two. One before the coupler regions are swapped with Otto's and one after so you can see the difference in the before and after version. I put them in a zip file to save page space on the thread.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

Did a test with a 4-DASH-9 + all the 31 US2Freight wagons consist and the caboose at the rear started moving at the same time as the loco in front.

The before CNW_sl_sleeper.wag has 2 coupler sections, the second one I don't think it needs and also has no "Rigid Coupling" lines. The other one with my wagon coupler settings should have no slack ! Make up a 20 cars consist using just it and check for slack !

Have not done my Italian passenger cars yet, waiting for news about where the opening doors versions are supposed to be !

If one of your trains still has slack then it could be that one or more of it's wagons/cars have no "Rigid Coupling" line ?

O t t o

[drjoe]

Try this file and let me know if it works for you.

[Vince]

Check the bounding box size. If it too close to the couplers it will make uncoupling difficult.

Also search the threads. There are discussions about this that have been covered.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Joe !

Looking at your front coupler section I noticed that you did not reverse it's values, suggested by SWISSIE and others, I am using in all my front coupler sections.

What are your views on that subject ?

O t t o

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/112738.jpg

[drjoe]

Swissie's report was about work that James Titus did with the coupler sections. My testing showed that the values did not need to be reversed, just give the velocity the negative value in the "front" coupler. As a programmer, I reasoned that most of us, when setting variables in a "function call" would "place" them in the same position in the data ( for consistency of reading them ). That led to only changing the velocity, which in vectors and forces, would give a 180 degree change in the forces, which seemed "right" for the front versus rear coupler. You will notice that my damping value is the same in both values ( and in both sections ). This was based on the "real world" in that the damper in the couplers on real cars has a "centered" position and the "shock absorber" works the same in both directions. Then I chose Stiffness values that worked for correct slack action but were at as low as possible. Leland Fletcher had determined that because the coupler was modelled as a spring, high stiffness values pushed the cars together and apart more than did low ones, and resulted in coupler breaks more frequently ( just watch the default values as they go over the infamous "node" at Cutbank in MP3.1 ) I was also attempting to get as low a break value as possible, and adjusted the stiffness to go with the break values, picking the minimum stiffness values that would give a good "appearance" and function to the couplers. Then I made the damping just greater than the stiffness, and finally, the break values just bigger than that. Then I found, by changing only one at a time, that the only break value that needed to be increased to go through the node at Cutbank was the one you see with the "e7" value ( the others look similar, but they are "e6", 10 times less than the "e7" value ). I was hoping to have break values closer to the real world strength of couplers, and thus get breaks when "driving" too hard with powerful locomotives. Unfortunately, MSTS ( before Bin, anyway ) only breaks couplers on compression, not extension. That is why only that first value ( the compression value, the second value being the extension value ) in the rear coupler needs to be higher. I am hoping that since George has changed how MSTS sees direction of a car that I can create break values that will break couplers if you try to pull too hard up a hill, or don't throttle back when cresting a hill. Read Krug's stories and explanations of breaking couplers. I was hoping that double sections could be eliminated, because they add complexity, but Jim Ward has proven their usefulness in locomotives and coupling problems with MU locomotives. I am going to stay with double sections for now in all my stock, and try to create breaking couplers on extension under overload, and thus create greater reality in MSTS.

[Turbo Bill]

Wow, thanks for the replies. Your both correct as the cars I was using still had the non Bin coupler regions. I would like to keep the slack action in the railcars but eliminate it as stated above in cars that shouldn't have slack. But I also want Otto's great coupler reliability and functionality with the Bin patch (read no recoupling upon uncoupling and other front coupler issues prior to the Bin upgrades). I also would like to have a little higher coupler holding strength then Rw physics for the simple reason the C&NW route is quite undulating in some areas and lesser experianced simmers will be busting trains apart all over the place. So I need some compromise in there somewhere. Can you give me a set of coupler regions that will work as well as Otto's do with the patch and still have some slack action on freight cars without coming apart on every dip by an inexperianced hogger. I don't mind them coming apart if one blatantly mishandles his train just not hair trigger breakage parameters. Like I said, I only want to have to do our large fleet once. And again, thank you gents for the help in this area. I only want the best gaming experiance for our members.

[drjoe]

Bill, the ones I included won't break as far as I know. They go through the Cutbank Node without a break. If you use a double section and include the "rigid" statement in BOTH sections, you should get the limited slack. In addition, the values I showed will have less movement because the r0 values are smaller. Think of the r0 as the distance of compression and extension. That's not exactly correct, but close in function. In MSTS, the coupler is modelled as a dampened spring, when in real world it is a physical connection of limited length ( front to back movement ), with a shock absorber system to dampen the forces of that movement.

If I am successful in acheiving couplers that break realistically, then it will be a simple matter to just change the break values to create "easy" and "realistic" couplers for experienced simmers and newbies.

[OTTODAD]

Yes, all good and valued points, Joe !

But I, like many others, do not like to have couplers break no matter what the real world reason could be ! ;-)

The Cutbank and Essex problems I solved in the MP3K by adding more nodes towards Shelby and at one particular nasty hump re-aligned the tracks to make them more level and also raised the lower edges of all bounding boxes, you also recommended a long time ago.

Take care, O t t o.

[Turbo Bill]

Thank you so much gentlemen. I will insert Joe's values on some equipment and give them a whirl. The engine coupler regions of Otto's work like a charm. If I can employ the best of both of your parameters and still maintain that great front coupler functionality and still have at least some slack. I will be very satisfied. With the activities we have at the C&NW we need those couplers to not recouple when the player is doing 10mph kicks and flying drops. Otto's values allow that with either end of the locomotive. If I can retain some slack action with the aforementioned functionality, I will be really grinning. These are exciting times for this old game, isn't it?

[OTTODAD]

Yes, we have been making an enormous amount of progress with MSTS since George released the first MSTSBin patch and there is more to come yet ! :7

I think what you are after is a marriage of my reliable loco couplers with equally reliable couplers on wagons, allowing a certain amount of slack, but still resist breaking unless real excessive handling of trains takes place.

Joe is the man to take care of that ! ;-)

I have done nothing to the wagon couplers, other than adding the "RigidCoupler" line to all and making sure they all have [/b]N/m/s[/b] at the end of their Damping ( .... ) lines and the lower edge of bounding boxes have been raised to avoid contact with raised anything between the rails !

O t t o

[Turbo Bill]

I am presently testing your engine coupler regions with the file Joe posted for me for the wagons. The neat thing is that I can use your wagon coupler regions on the passenger fleet and roadrailers getting the desired lack of slack for these unique items that exhibit no slack in RW trains. I think this will be the ticket to perfect coupler action and flawless coupling and uncoupling. Now if there was program that would swap out the coupler regions on all the wagon files I have with one click then that would be great. I have all the engines done, just a ton of wagons to do now.

[drjoe]

Engine Mod is the program to do that for you.

[buttercup]

I think that Route Riter's latest update 6.4.43 (needs premium code) will do that also. http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?t=61591&sid=1ff158c78f6eacb0f9247d0e92d7eb39

Regards,

Eric

[Turbo Bill]

Thanks guys, will check them out. I am using an older version of Route Riter as it does the few things I need it to do, namely checking activities for missing stock and a few other things like compressing and decompressing shape files. I one of those guys that hangs onto the stuff that does what I need and get behind on the newer versions. Guess I'll be upgrading my Route Riter.

[chameleon]

Deleted. Duplicated answer.