MSTS Bin Coupler Pack V1.2 Beta

[Turbo Bill]

Since the original coupler thread was growing very long I decided to start a new thread with the release of an updated coupler pack. I have researched many of the problems noted on other threads and hope this pack will cure some of the problems noted.

I have greatly reduced the coupler spacing that occurs when cushioned drawbar equipped cars stretched by high horsepower locomotives. Please note that a compromise had to be accepted in this area as high stiffness values cure the gap problem but node grabbing occurs on some switches with high values. I found what I believe to be acceptable middle ground between the gap issue and the node issue as well. With a big heavy train and four high powered diesel engines as small gap will appear in the lead cars when power is maxxed when starting the train from a standing start. The gap quickly closes once the train is moving and is only noticable if your camera view is placed perfectly to see it. In all other views and form cab headout views the gap is mostly unnoticable. I wanted to be upfront with you about this issue. If you find some cars to be excessive in the gap please post and I will look into each individually. Also some nodes will tug a little on some cars but this again is very neglegable. If you have a node that really grabs the train and will not let go then this may be a route issue. I tested all couplers with almost every car type and size out there on two yard switches both set for diverging paths which creates a tight S-curve that the cars must negotiate.

Please read the readme file accompanied with the zip file as it will give detailed explanations on how to use the coupler regions as well as how they were modelled after their RW counterparts. Also each eng/wag file has an detailed explanation in the file itself on how to copy and paste and where to copy and paste the needed info for your rollingstock.

I also want to thank Sharon Evens for her undaunting help in my research and willingness to update litterally hundreds of the C&NW vr's rollingstock for me. She has been a inspiration and constant thread of support and patience for the many changes I have made over the last few weeks. I swear I'm getting close to finalizing the vr's set for you.

Please remember that these couplers will exert very close to realistic slack on your train and trainhandling skills on the novice and up level is needed to prevent unwanted derailments. A "Pro Pack" version is soon going to be available for the hard core advanced skilled simmer who wants to really challenge his train handling abilities with a true to life set of couplers.

[tpilot]

Bill,

Haven't done any virtual real world testing, but some things don't look right:

Cushioned-Railcar-Coupler.wag does not reverse the R0 and velocity values for the front and rear couplers. 75+Ft_Rollingstock_Coupler.wag does. (Stiffness and Damping for these are symmetrical, so it doesn't matter if they are swapped or not). Pass-Roadrailer-Coupler.wag and Rigid_Railcar-Coupler.wag and all three engine coupler values all reverse only the velocity values, but not the R0, Stiffness or Damping values. I assume one or more of these is incorrect.

Specifically, I am guessing the first two (cushioned railcar and 75+ft) should only have the velocity values swapped and none of the others, but I haven't tested this to be sure.

***

Also, for those who want to experiment with this, if you save TB's files as .txt files, and comment the introductory text, version 4.49 of the donation-ware Route-Riter has been released and includes an option to "Manually correct coupler values" which lets you select any text file for a selected group of rolling stock.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

Applied your Large-Road-Engine-coupler to my DASH-9 and the Cushioned-Railcar-Coupler to two of the US2Freight wagons a friend had problems with and also noticed the not reversed Velocity ( 0.2m/s ) and other second coupler values lines in the latter.

Created a new consist lead by 4 DASH-9 and 15 of each US2Cement and US2Refridge wagons, all having had their couplers adjusted as per the above and all is working as it should..

The coupler slack releasing the brakes, accelerating and braking sharply, is reasonable and realistic all along the entire length of the train:

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113577.jpg

Realising that none of the second coupler values in the Cushioned-Railcar-Coupler had been reversed, I took the entire section out and also the Buffer ( .... ) section, which I believe does nothing for couplers any more and apart from the coupler knuckles now showing more movement, perform as well as the ones used above:

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113576.jpg

This would indicate that the MSTSBin 1.6.1 coupler fixes do not require some of what we thought they do up to now, but as mine and your's seem to work 100% would not want to change them.

If it works, then don't change it and if it ain't broke then don't fix it ! :7

Take care, O t t o.

[Turbo Bill]

Doggone it.....you know, you read things over and over and still small mistakes get by you. Actually I've found that the main entry in that second region is the velocity line and that would explain why I had some recoupling with the engine that had that coupler installed with the missing negative symbol. Thank you Tpilot for your second set of eyes. You are correct and I did have some errors. That is why it's called a Beta version so I can have eagle eyes help me see better. I have fixed the errors and here is the corrected version. Sorry.

[tpilot]

In second V1.2 File, pass-roadrailer-coupler.wag does not have R0 values swapped between first and second coupler sections. All other files do. I assume this is incorrect.

Thanks!

[Turbo Bill]

I don't think it matters because of the rigidline (1) is checked. Please check this with a set of Superliners or long passenger cars for me and let me know how they trail thru switches. I've been so engrossed with fixing the cushioned versions that I don't remember how well the close couplers worked. I don't think swapping the r0 values makes any difference as I had them both ways and there was no visible differences. The real line that makes the couplers work from both ends of the engine is the velocity line.

I will correct this though for the final version that will be released to the FL.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

I don't think that rolling stock other than locos require a second coupler section, none of my wagons or cars having one with the exception of steam loco tenders.

I think that the MSTS code has been written to use the one parameter in *.wag files for both couplers if no second coupler has been specified. Taking your second coupler and the Buffer ( ... ) section out of *.wag files made no difference, other than slightly increasing slack movements of coupler knuckles !

Not so with Locos. Took the second coupler out of the DASH-9 and it would not front couple !

Not reversing any of the values in your loco's front coupler section makes no difference either !

O t t o

[tpilot]

In theory, shouldn't reversing R0 in engine couplers make a difference?

I don't know which it should be, but I would think it should either be not reveresed and the negative velocity changes it, or reversed, but I wouldn't think that it wouldn't matter either way.

[Turbo Bill]

I tested it both ways. Once with the way Route Riter theorizes it and once with the way Joe explained it. I couldn't notice a difference and neither method made any difference on those damn centerbeams and autoracks. So I just copied what the upper region had on all lines but kept the r0, when I remembered, reversed since that seemed to be the predominant way I found it on dual coupler regions. I think Otto has a point on how little a role the second region plays but it does effect the train as he did notice a difference in the slack. Where it really comes into play is how the coupling and uncoupliing charecteristics are concerning the front and rear couplers. On the engine that didn't have the negative velocity line, the rear coupler would recouple to the train. It had me scratching my head why it showed up all of a sudden and when you pointed the error out, it made sense and since has not happened. I would believe you need the other sections of the second coupler region for the sim to recongnize a complete second set and incorporate that negative velocity figure in how the opposite coupler works. To play it safe in all my coupler adjustments, what I did in teh first region I would do in the second. I saw no difference in performance or coupler distance if values were reversed or not. This agina backs up Otto's theory that less of the second region is used with the Bin patch, but for flawless coupling and uncoupling, it still is needed. I also noticed that changing the damping values to the same and a little lower setting, really settled the cars down in the tight S-curve switch scenario I was using. MSTS was a quirky muddy water and over time the water had cleared and Bin now stirs up a little silt again. Fortunatley it's good silt as the couplers work wonderful now for once. I hope you enjoy the new couplers and let me know if you see any issues. I think we are getting closer to a final set.

[OTTODAD]

I am planning to use my N.&.J.C MINI route as a MSTSBin 1.6.1 "Switching" route and after placing a multitude of rolling stock consists from various sources facing in both directions into one of it's huge freight yards, will then use my DASH-9 with your settings, twin couplers and Buffer ( ... ) sections and no Rigid ( 1 ) lines in all to find out how that will work.

That should keep my busy for a while, but will be off to Salt Lake City on Monday to spend Christmas with my son and grandchildren.

O t t o

[Turbo Bill]

Enjoy your trip and make sure you fit some good railfanning in while here and you have a good holiday season my friend.

[Turbo Bill]

As promised here it the Beta version of the Pro-Coupler Pack v1.2. This pack contains coupler regions with slack settings mirroring the RW counterparts as closely as can be had within the MSTS framework. The physics these couplers exhert on your train in undulating and hill terrain conditions is very noticable and required an experianced hand at the controls. Proper trainhandling methods are required at all times to prevent derailments or unwanted overspeeds. With these coupler values the accelerometer and projected speed numbers will not be steady but fluctuate due to the forces being exerted on your lead locomotive. Knowledge of the gradient changes of your routes will aid greatly in keeping your train on the railhead at all times. I advise all to test these couplers with a set of road units, and enough cars to build a good sized train and then run it on your favorite mountain route to see if this is what you want your sim to be like before changing your whole fleet.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

Got it and am ready to test it in my new couplers test MINI N.&.J.C., stocked with all my US2Freight and 3D-Trains freight wagons.

Forgot what Mike Simpson told me to do to apply certain coupler parameters like your Cushioned-Railcar-Pro-Coupler.wag and can not find an option to do it with in the ROUTE RITER 6.4.46.

Can you tell me how to do it so that I don't have to bother him again ! ;-)

Below is the yard I am going to fill with loose consists and then using your latest coupler settings in my DASH-9 and all the wagons will try and find fault with them, doing a number of coupling exercises, before sending a long consist into the GOLD-SPIKE Marias Pass mountains !

O t t o

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113595.jpg

[Turbo Bill]

Otto, I use context editor with the MSTS plug in. I purposefully did the coupler files up as eng/wag files so context will open and read them. I then copy and paste the new coupler regions complete with the comment line (so you know which coupler you used for that car) in the eng/wag file of choice. I then do a save of all the files at the end. You can direct Context to open all wag files is a specific folder and then do them all at one time, save and move onto the next folder. You will find a list of what rollingstock uses what coupler type in the readme's and the files themselves at the top. Do not use EngMod as it will change files in other sections like the buffer and will replace reversed values with non reversed values. I just do the copy and paste thing that way I know I got what I want where. Route Riter will not distinquish between the various car types and sort the couplers to match them as far as I know. I look forward to hearing your results.

[tpilot]

>Forgot what Mike Simpson told me to do to apply certain
>coupler parameters like your
>Cushioned-Railcar-Pro-Coupler.wag and can not find an
>option to do it with in the ROUTE RITER 6.4.46.
>
>Can you tell me how to do it so that I don't have to bother
>him again ! ;-)

First, upgrade from 6.4.46 to 6.4.49 (unless Mike has a later one than that).

Next, copy Turbo Bill's files to a subfolder of Route-Riter\couplers\ and re-name as *.txt.

Next open each file and delete the introductory info, leaving only the coupler and buffer sections that you want to insert into your .wag files.

Start RR (Going from memory), Select Activities/Stock, Repair Eng/Wag files, Select Freight, check "Adjust couplers only", click or ctrl-click only the wagons you want to change, click the new "Change Settings Manually" button, select the appropriate Turbo Bill txt file, click ok.

[OTTODAD]

Thanks, Marshall, did not have the 6.4.49 version !

Mike beat you too it explaining and all wagons have now been updated with one of Bill's coupler/buffers files settings as you described, showing their SFV pictures while doing it. Neat ! ;-)

Will do some testing with them later !

O t t o

[tpilot]

>Mike beat you too it explaining

I thought that might have happened.

>showing their SFV pictures while doing it. Neat! ;-)

You only need to do the SFV thing one time for all the wagons. After you have run that once (fixes bounding boxes), you can check the "Only adjust coupler values" and it will only change the text files. (Much quicker).

[sixman]

Bill,

In the Pro-Coupler readme file you mention using the 'original' if the Pro-Pack makes train handling too difficult. Where is the 'Original Coupler Pack' located?

[Turbo Bill]

The first post has the original file but it had a couple errors in it. The fixed non-pro version is located just below Otto's post with the pictures about the fourth post down. If this set passes approval it will be uploaded to the FL.

[Turbo Bill]

I would add the comment line to the coupler region so you know which coupler type you used for that particular wag/eng file.

[tpilot]

>I would add the comment line to the coupler region so you
>know which coupler type you used for that particular wag/eng
>file.

Agreed - except THAT doesn't work well with Route-Riter.

I tried that initially, and then opened up a .wag file (after changine many times) and got:

Comment (Turbo Bill's V1.1 Coupler settings)
Comment (Route-Riter Bin Coupler settings)
Comment (Otto's Coupler settings)
Comment (Cushioned Coupler Settings)
Coupler . . .

Which wasn't very useful!

[OTTODAD]

O.K. guys, here are the results of my tests.

My DASH-9 got Bill's Large-Road-Engine-Pro-Coupler and using the Route Riter the 3DTS and US2 freight wagons the Cushioned-Railcar-Pro-Coupler.

First I did some switching in this N.&.J.C freight yard and in this sequence front-coupled onto consist A which faces the opposite way and then after collecting consist B which faces the same way as the DASH-9 then coupled the lot onto the 2 back-to-back DASH-9 C, switched the player to the rear one's front driver cab and with the former player DASH-9 now the helper at the rear proceeded to drive the train out of the freight yard.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113623.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113624.jpg

During all these manoeuvres the couplers displayed realistic slack and their knuckles not moving much in relation to each other, all coupling and un-coupling performing without a hitch !

Then I created a 4 DASH-9 + 47 3DTS-Freight + 32 US2-Freight + 4 DASH-9 consist and after adding my GOLD-SPIKE route to this couplers test MSTS MINI took it out for a spin from ESSEX to CUTBANK, this stretch of the MARIAS PASS having many tight curves and steep track inclines.

Again, perfect responses of the couplers to professional handling of this heavy freight train and no mishaps at any time ! ;-)

Well done Bill and thanks for letting us have your coupler settings ! ;-) The other options I did not use, no doubt performing just as well !

Take care, O t t o.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113625.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113626.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113627.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113628.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113629.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113630.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113631.jpg

[MikeSimpson]

Just a small comment here (pun intended)

Route Riter does have a problem with Comment lines in some .wag files.
This is for several reasons:-

1. Different .wag file authors use different formats for Comments
2. RR looks for certain key-words in the .wag file for the place to paste in the new couplers, i.e. it looks for Coupling then Adheasion and usually pastes the new section there. However if the Comments line includes something like
Comment ( Coupling (new version) used for steam loco)

Then it will stick the new section in the Comment and cause problems.

I have done my best to get everything parsed correctly, but in some cases it does not work.

Mike.

[tpilot]

Just to clarify: Route-Riter did fine modifying the coupler sections for me, it just did not replace the old comments when adding the new ones, so they became meaningless. But it did not put the data inside the comment line or anything, and it updated 150 files in some 5 seconds (if that).

Otto, and Bill - I don't think ALL the cars were supposed to use cushioned couplers, correct? (Although it is cool that it works alright that way).

[Turbo Bill]

You are correct Tpilot. Only a handful of the cars use the cushioned couplers. All 40 boxcars, older 50 foot boxcars, hopper cars, gondolas, older 40 and 50 foot flatcars, all tankcars of all sizes and eras, MOW cranes and all steam era cars should use the rigid couplers. These are the ones with no cushioned slack in the Pro version and will really exert forces on your train testing your mettle as a hogger. Also remember that you should not place really short cars such as cement hoppers with long cars over 70 feet in length such as centerbeams. This may cause a derailment on sharp curves at high speed just like the rw counterparts would. Put a train of mixed loads and empties and cushioned and rigid coupler equiped cars you will have a real experiance on your hands. Have fun my friends andif the rigid couplers pass muster then I will have someone help me upload the packs to the FL.

And thank you Otto and all for taking the time to test these for me.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

It was fun testing your couplers to see how pro-users of trains would like them to behave. But to be honest, I know very little about the different types of locos and cars used anywhere in the world and prefer all couplers to be of the same type, "Rigid" and "Automatic", so that they are interchangeable and I do not have to worry about what rolling stock I use when making up consists and when driving them in various routes.

Take care, O t t o.

[klsc85]

Bill, Otto, et al:

Sitting on the floor near my computer is an old copy of a Chessie System train handling rule book. I haven't cracked it open in awhile, but after running with the pro-style couplers on a KHP2 sulfer train for awhile last night, you'd better believe this old short line hoghead is going to take a refresher course. These new coupler values are going to seperate the hard core runners from the fair weather simmers in a big hurry! And speaking strictly for me, I can only say YEEEESSSSS!

My compliments to everyone involved on a job well done.

Uncle E

[trackrider72]

Hi all, hope that I'm not interrupting to say, thanks!
enjoying tinkering with the new settings. I've primarily used the ones that
you'd marked for heavy engine on my d9 and gp38 and the cushioned
ones for most of the rolling stock. I've found that MSTS shape viewer
is handy for comparisons. *My d9 (mapleleaf) and gp38 (ms/kujo default) have great discrepencies at coupler height, is this an entirely different matter?
** The other thing that I noticed is that even my problem kids on a particular problem curve on my home route are getting around the curve without uncoupling, <-that's a great bottom line :) tnks again, happy holidays, Lee

*** www.maggiemc.com/mudline12.html
a few test shots

[Turbo Bill]

I'm glad the couplers are working for all. I do want to clarify that the rigid coupler file in my pack is not the same as Otto's rigid couplers. Unfortunelty Kuju decided to use the word rigid for it's line value that eliminates slack in couplings on cars that have this line active in it's coupler region. In RW terms a rigid coupler is a coupler whos draft gear is rigidly connected to the car frame. Cars equiped with rigid couplers have between 6 to 8 inches of uncushioned slack. Most cars in the rw are outfitted with rigid style couplers. So in essence how Otto used a particular line value using Kuju's naming convention actually exhibits the opposite of what my couplers do. So if you use the pack, read the readme/s carefully and make sure you outfit your cars correctly for prototypical train operations. Otto broke the coupler ground by getting the Bin couplers to work flawlessly with his values. I took those ideas and with the help of Joe Morris and others was able to reintroduce slack charecterisitics into the Bin arena with still flawless coupler action. Otto's work is still required with his default wag file and I took his rigidline idea and created the passenger "close coupler" file for passenger and some other unique MSTS equipment.

Also remember that there are two types of road engine couplers. The large engine is for engines equalling or larger then SD40's/GE Dash 7 series six axle units. The small road engine couplers are for four axle units up to the SD24/GE U-boat series engines. Any engines between these sizes should be checked individually to see how they work on sharp curves etc.

Some things to keep in mind when using these couplers. RW physics now play into your train's charecteristics both on the mainline and in the yard so some real world train makeup rules should be considered.

These are based on the System Special Instructions of two Class 1 railroads and a very large shortline that I ran on.

Good Headend: This rule is employed anytime trains traverse mountain grades and undulating territory. This states that you must have at least ten loads on the headend of your train, unless the train is all empty cars. This prevents shoving the head cars out on curves when dynamic braking is used and or excessive slack happens enroute.

Long and short cars: As a rule railroads do not allow escessive length railcars to be coupled to cars measuring 40 feet or less. So coupling a centerbeam flatcar or long boxcar like the new GT autobox's to a short car like the cement or two bay hopper cars is a no-no. This could cause dereailments on sharp curves (and can sometimes occur with the new couplers released). If necessary a buffer car must be placed between the long and short car (usually a car in the 50foot length range).

Speed restrictions: As a rule empty bulkhead flatcars and empty centerbeams carry between a 40 to 45mph speed restriction on them due to wind currents actually picking these cars up off the rails. With the new couplers these empties do not like some curves when travelling over 50mph so beware.

Care when using dynamic brakes: You must be careful when setting your train up for dynamic braking situations. You should generally stay at or under 150 amps until your train is bunched up. Failing to do so could and many times will lead to some empties or lead cars being shoved out the outside of a curve so take your time. You can pre-bunch your train using some independant braking while you wait the ten seconds for the dynamos to fire up. This will also get some head cars bunched and save a poke out if you need to go after those dynamic brakes.


As a last note I am also looking that max brake force values for both loaded and empty cars and will post ideal values when I have concrete testing to back it up. The brake values on most cars is way too high and in many cases need to be lower. I will report my findings in that area on a new thread.

[OTTODAD]

This is all great info, Bill, some of it I could guess applying logic, but rules vary depending on many factors !

There are also helpers in and at the rear of heavy freight train introducing even more handling characteristics.

I remember watching a program on SKY TV a while about this heavily loaded freight train with 2 helpers at the rear which ran out of control coming down the CAJON and derailed into some houses at the bottom, fracturing a gas main too, but forgot the name of the town !

I think the average user like myself will be happy if couplers do not break for any reason, he would not know their cause of anyway and all couplers engage and disengage when they are supposed to ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[GaryG]

Hi TurboBill and others interested in coupler realism.

These comments refer to MSTS, not MSTSbin and some "old" coupler settings that I had tinkered with.

I experimented with breakable couplers on the Rogers Pass route. I had them set to break at a bit over the 400,000 pound value. I used a loco with a Tractive Effort gauge and similar HP ratings for the rest of the power. This allowed me to watch that I didn't exceed the magic number with the power. The train had similar helpers midtrain. Later, at the foot of the big hill, pushers were added.

It worked wonderfully; as long as I didn't move beyond Run 6 at low speeds there were no breakages, at Run 7 or 8 they would break at low speeds. It 'felt' completely prototypical on level track and on a steady hill or grade (ignoring the lack of slack action).

Where MSTS loco control showed problems was when topping a grade! Remember your throttle controls all locos in the train and on this one, I had midtrain helpers and pushers as well. I needed power to get the rear of the train up the hill but the front was now running down the hill so the front had front loco power pulling as well as gravity pulling but the power was necessary to get the entire train up and over. It would break in front of but near the midtrain helpers which was where physics would indicate the greatest forces were located so 100% accurate. A little thought did allow me to get around the problem - let the loco's independent brake suck up some of the headend power. About 30PSI of independent did the trick along with keeping speed low and as soon as the midtrain locos reached the peak of the hill I cut power and then let gravity and the front half pull the back half over. I also slowly applied dynamics to slow the acceleration until the entire train was over the hump keeping in mind that the back half had gravity and the rear locos now pulling back. Once the entire train crested, I then applied full dynamics to stay below the speed limit. Now no more problem, all downhill the rest of the way.

This method was successful because all locos and cars (one type only - a coal load) had the rigidconnection set. I initially missed this setting on one loco and as soon as it reached a switch, I broke a coupler. It was really interesting knowing that you're running on the edge of a pull-apart, actually keeping fingers crossed. :-)

I guess this just proves we could get more realism out of this sim but with the inability to control pushers/helpers separately, we still won't quite be fully accurate even with MSTSbin but we could be closer than we were. I haven't had the time to test these new settings yet. My settings did remove slack action which did kill some of the realism.

GaryG

[Turbo Bill]

I left the break values high for some of the reasons you mentioned but mainly the difficulty factor it adds on top of the realistic slack values and the fact that most routes have steeper grade changes then you will find out there in the RW. This is done unintentionally but in reality RW grades are not as severe as you find on many routes especially the original default routes. True the newer routes being released are better in depicting actual grades but the added difficulty of braking couplers on top of the slack physics is tough and will deter many from playing. I am looking at adding some realistic load and empty values for the max braking line and then will work with Joe Morris on the coupler break values. I'm just glad I got the couplers working realisticaly slackwise and will work from this point to complete the picture. I'm also learning as I go so bear with.

I would also like to converse with Bob Boudoin on how some of these braking values are used by MSTS and see if a standard for tonnage and brake shoe type can be achieved. The present cars that I have played with still have too much braking power and would like to get that closer to RW traits as well.

[ChrisS68]

Thanks for all of your work on these couplers Bill.
Looking at the pro files, I noticed a couple of things.

In the Rigid_Railcar-Pro-Coupler.wag you have this:
Stiffness ( 0 6e6N/m ) <-- "0" for the first value?

And in the Switch-Engine-Pro-Coupler.wag there's this:
Stiffness ( 2e1 6e6N/m ) <-- No N/m after first value.

Just wanted to give you a heads-up. I haven't started playing with the couplers yet. Not sure how these would affect things as it sounds like they've been working for people.

Chris

[Turbo Bill]

Yes, you are correct on that "0" value. Having zero removes all cushioning in that coupler set mimicking RW rigid couplers on cars equiped with this coupler. Like I've said elsewhere these couplers have some real unorthodox values resulting in very real coupler physics.

Also you are correct that eng value should indeed have the N/m designation added to that value. The FL version will have this fixed so go ahead and add this to the master file.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bill !

I don't think that this is your cup of tea as we say over here, but I found something puzzling uncoupling and re-coupling German ICE cars.

O.K. most train simmers would not want to split an ICE and rearrange it other than with the ConBuilder, but after breaking one into two parts could not re-couple them.

Checking the bounding boxes, they seemed to be too long and they also have no visible couplers and assumed that having made all AUTOMATIC with RIGID couplers should work with them the same as with other wagons ?

So I shortened all the bounding boxes and coupling was restored to normal, proving that there is more to correct coupler settings than meets the eye ! ;-)

O t t o

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113693.jpg

[Turbo Bill]

These ACE cars should be using the Close Coupler set in the coupler pack. This set removes all slack and should work with these cars. I do state in the readme that some bounding boxes may need to be adjusted by the end user. The couplers were made to work with as many examples as possible and some may need bounding box adjustments to work.

BTW, how do you get those red boudnig box lines to show in the sim? I forgot how to do that.

[tpilot]

Bill,

I appreciate all the work you have put into the coupler regions, and how closely they seem to model real trains. I haven’t run your values yet, but the results everyone else is getting sound pretty amazing.

However, I think I agree more with Otto on what I personally want. I am looking for:

1) Couplers that work regardless of where they are in a consist. (I don’t want to worry with putting an intermediate car between my cement car and my centerbeams, and if an activity wants me to go pick up a cut of cars, I don’t want to have to worry about whether the cut is compatible with the coupler values and editing it if not compatible.
2) More interested in couplers not breaking than breaking at realistic force levels.
3) Would like some slack action, even if not prototypical.
4) Would prefer to just have one setting for all my freight and one for all my passenger, so I don’t have to figure out how long a boxcar is and when it was made to know what settings to apply.

Are there any settings you could recommend to do the above?

[seern]

Bill,

Its either shift + or ctrl +. I never remember so I press one till I get the box.

[seern]

I think this is why Bill is coming out with 2 sets of values. Those who desire as close to RW as possible can use the 'pro' set and the rest can use the regular set. Those who don't want to fool around with either then use Otto's set which work well with bin, yet don't depend on car type at all.

As I have said before, this is the real beauty of George's work, we can get closer to RW if we want or we can do a little modification and all enjoy this rebirth of MSTS.

[OTTODAD]

It's Ctrl + guys, I got it written down in my MSTS-Tips.doc ! ;-)

O t t o

[OTTODAD]

Where is the 'Original Coupler Pack' located?

I think you can find pre-Bill coupler settings in the 6.4.49 ROUTE RITER's COUPLINGS folder.

The Bin-Coupling.txt is my working version of *.eng files couplers which have the Rigid lines.

The Bin-Coupling-Freight.txt is similar to mine but is missing the Rigid line in it's first coupling section and the second couplings section for the front coupler, if MSTS requires it which I do not think it does, has only the Velocity ( .... ) line with a reversed value, but should work the same as my version, having tested both with my rolling stock as well as with Bill's !

These files can be changed to anything you prefer to use, such as higher break and other values and then applied to selected or ALL files !

But before making any change it will be a good idea to BACK-UP your TRAINSET folder ! ;-)

O t t o

[Turbo Bill]

Thanks for the bounding box tip, I forgot how to get it to show and hit every key but the plus key. On the couplers, the reason I stated adding a medium car was that on sharp reverse curves at speeds above 50 mph you may get a derailment. All the couplers are compatable with each other in the pack. It's not that difficult to use the right coupler with the correct car. I have named all the car types that use each coupler in the readme. If your not sure then just use either the rigid if the commodity won't be damaged by excessive slack or the cushioned one if it will. The engine couplers are easy to figure out and then there is the long cars and the autoracks. If you use these correctly your train will work correctly and once you start you will soon get the hang of it and updating your fleet will be a breeze. When your train becomes more realistic you train maneuvers may require realistic patterns of operation. The reason the railroads use these placement and speed restrictions is because of the physics put on the train and if MSTS is now inducing these same physics then you will get the same results as the RW train crews get. In a sense we have moved MSTS closer to PIE's superspendy commercial version of their train sim they charge thousands for but you get it here for free. What your doing is moving your game closer to a similator and actually learning to properly run a train.

[bennycdn]

I have the latest version of Route Riter installed (v6.4.50)with these
coupler settings,how does that work to install these settings?

[tpilot]

>I have the latest version of Route Riter installed
>(v6.4.50)with these
>coupler settings,how does that work to install these
>settings?

Donation-supported version, I assume?

I just downloaded 6.4.50. It looks like Mike has just added in Turbo Bill's files above.

See the file "About the Coupler Files.txt", it says:


Help for manually entered Coupling files:-
------------------------------------------

These coupling files were prepared by Otto Wipfel, Joe Morris and Bill Prieger and are included with
Otto's kind permission. They are mainly intended for U.S. rolling-stock, but should work fine with
similar UK, Continental and Australian stock. Although designed specifically for set-ups using MSTSbin, they should be OK for most normal MSTS installations.

1. pass-Roadrailer-coupler.txt
No slack coupler values are for cars equipped with close coupled low slack type couplers ie:
passenger cars, roadrailers.

2. Large-Road-Engine-Coupler.txt
This coupler set is to be used on all RailRoad Engines from EMD SD-40 and GE Dash 8 six-axle and up
in size.

3. 75+_Ft_Rollingstock-Coupler.txt
These coupler values are for excessive length cars over 75ft equiped with cushioned drawbar type
couplers ie: 86foot Boxcars, autoracks, intermodal flatcars (TOFC only) and flatcars. Note: Use
regular cushioned drawbar couplers for Centerbeam and Bulkhead flatcars.

4. Small-Road-Engine-Coupler.txt
This coupler set is to be used on all 4 axle Road Engines and small six-axle road engines
up to SD24 and GE U-Boat in size. All larger Road units should use the Large Engine Coupler.

5.Switch-Engine-coupler.txt
Use this coupler set on all switch (shunter) engines of any type including the small GW "Tonner" type
engines.

6. Cushioned-Railcar-Coupler.txt
These coupler values are for cars equiped with cushioned drawbar type couplers ie: Centerbeam flats,
bulkhead flats, newer boxcars, newer flats, cabooses, and other common cars were freight durability
is an
issue. Note: Use MSTS Bin Long Cushioned coupler for Autoracks.

7. Rigid-Railcar-Coupler.txt
These values are for cars equipped with Rigid type couplers ie: Hopper cars, gondolas, tankcars,
older flatcars and boxcars.

See the Get your Rolling Stock Rolling Right Page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/virtualtrains/Route%20Riter%20Getting%20your%20Rollingstock%20Ro lling.mht

Select Wagon/File editor. Coaches all get the Pass-Roadrailer value, so select Coaches and then select all, and then manually correct values, and point to the Couplings/pass-roadrailer-coupler.txt file.

For freight, I like to make sure nothing is missed, so first do a select all, then manually change to the Rigid-Railcar-Coupler.txt settings. Then select freight, and this time manually select your long cars and then select the 75+_Ft_Rollingstock-Coupler.txt values. Then repeat for the cushioned couplers.

Same for the engines, I would first set all to large engine values, then select individual ones and modify.

[Turbo Bill]

Can someone thank Mike for me for adding my work to his program. This is really cool. Can you also remind him of the "Pro" version as well? Can somone pm me his email address so I can thank him myself?

[tpilot]

>Can someone thank Mike for me for adding my work to his
>program. This is really cool. Can you also remind him of the
>"Pro" version as well? Can somone pm me his email address so
>I can thank him myself?

His E-mail is right on his home page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/virtualtrains/

I'll let you explain the Pro packs to him, I think you have a better handle on it than anyone else.

[Turbo Bill]

Thank you TPilot. I have sent an email.

[Busdriver]

Where did you get Route-Riter 6.4.50 from? I can only find 6.4.49.

Thanks.

Bryce

[bennycdn]

Here is the link:http://members.optusnet.com.au/virtualtrains/

[Busdriver]

Thanks. I'm not feeling real bright right at the moment.....that was the site I was at, but I just didn't scroll down enough. When I saw at the top about all of the places that it can be downloaded, I didn't go any further and went to those sites.

Have a great holiday.

Bryce

[Turbo Bill]

There's also a 50a with the pro couplers added and Otto's DEFAULT wag file as the couplers need Otto's DEFAULT file to work properly.