Train Simulations MRL Mullan Pass Available!

[generalpalmer]

Hello;

Just wanted to say what a great route this is. Been following the progress since it was announced here many years ago and great to see it finally released. Some of the touches that make this a standout route in particular are the correctly numbered individual signal number plates, the wildlife, (I've seen a Bear and and mountain lion so far), photo textured distant mountains and the scale rail track.

A couple of questions:
The two westbound signals on the gantry at the Carter Street Control point coming out of the new yard seem to continuously show restricting (flashing red) aspects. Is this correct or, being absolute signals should they show stop (red) as their most restrictive aspect?

There are no speed reduction warning signs (the ones with the angled numbers) in the westward direction for the speed restrictions at MP36.5-41.4 (45mph) and MP41.4-44.6 (35mph). There are warning signs in the eastward direction and the start of the restrictions are marked as normal in both directions, all other restrictions have warning signs. Is this prototypical?

There are no 'yard limits', begin/end ctc/abs etc signs on the route is this intentional?

Some findings regarding saving/re-loading:

Earlier in this thread there were a couple of posts about loading re-saved activities causing signalling issues. I have found that when re-loading, the simulation ends up in 'Node' mode with 'MXD' displayed under authority in the F5 display; so OR 'thinks' there are no signals - suspect this is an OR bug and not a problem with the route. This seems to only happen in automatic signal territory (between sidings). If you save when you're in a siding approaching an absolute signal things seem to save and re-load correctly. Going to and from manual mode works otherwise but can cause an opposing AI train to get a clear signal if there is one waiting to enter the single track you're on the instant you press Ctrl+M. (I had a head-on with an empty grainer on the Horsepower Hour activity after doing this!) Hope this helps anyone having issues.

Congrats to the TS team on a great product, I hope it brings more interest to the OR platform as intended. Already got ideas for activities, freight car repaints (repaint kits would definitely spur creativity in the community) or maybe even an OR timetable... who knows.

All the best and stay safe.

-Paul

[dedwa15237]

Just simply make a Mini route... I never use my "C:\ Program Files x86\MSTS bla bla bla" to store all my OR and MSTS routes. I just create a whole bunch of mini route folders with each routes, Just try to create a new miniroute folder to put in just for OR only like RUEL in one folder, BNSF in the other and Mullan into the other. All in each separate folder Not an issue there. Here is my screenshot of my MSTS miniroute in my separate SSD drive,,, Then my OR miniroute on my other separate drive... Easy!

Miniroutes.JPG

F / MSTS / Routes (where I have Mullan and all other Routes, including Seligman OR).

[geepster775]

The OR-only Trainsimulations routes don't HAVE to be mini-routes, they just HAVE to be segregated away from any MSTS-era routes.

You can combine all 3 OR only routes, Seligman ORTS, Ruel ORTS and Mullan ORTS into the same installation, and they can all share the same common Global folder and the same shared Trainset folder without any problems. This allows you to pepper Mullan and Seligman consists with some Canadian rolling stock, and vice versa. You can also add all the OR-Only trainsets like the MILW pack, the NS Heritage Ace packs with the slab train and coil steel cars, too, to also increase rolling stock diversity.

You cannot install any of those 3 routes without big bold splash screen warnings telling people to not mix them with legacy MSTS routes, and yet it boggles my mind that people still try and succeed in mixing them with legacy MSTS stuff and creating a clusterflop on their hard drives.

People also need to be aware that Sherman Hill contains an experimental version of ScaleRail and ScaleRoads (version 2, instead of 1.77 or whatever). Sherman Hill is an outlier, and when you add that to any existing set of routes, the global folder for Sherman overwrites and stomps on much of the older ScaleRail and ScaleRoads shapes needed for other routes. Sherman Hill cannot even coexist in the same installation with Feather River without doing the same damage to the roads in Feather River.

I was able to replicate Curt's problem when I ran the installer for Sherman and added that route to the ORTS-only Trainsimulations installation containing Seligman, Ruel and Mullan.

[generalpalmer]

Regarding post #111

The two westbound signals on the gantry at the Carter Street Control point coming out of the new yard seem to continuously show restricting (flashing red) aspects. Is this correct or, being absolute signals should they show stop (red) as their most restrictive aspect?

It seems the patch available earlier in this thread has fixed the carter St issue. I purchased the route on the day the patch came out and the texture on BNSF 5228 was correct in my version so assumed I had the latest one but must have just missed out one the other updates.

-Paul

[ldavidson1]

Question for the DEV team,

I notice a lot of these engines only show 80% of their available horsepower when topped out at run 8. I also notice that Open Rails then reduces the power another 6-8% at the wheels. For example an SD40-2XR (Rated at 3000 HP In real life) shows 2408 HP at run 8 on the far right in the F5 sub menu for engine info and ~2280 on the left side of the same info screen. I was always under the impression that these engines actually ran around 90% their advertised HP values at the wheels (in the case of the SD40-2XR this means ~2650 HP at the wheels which makes a large difference when going up a 2.2% grade) Are these values correct or do then engine values need to be upped to reflect their actual value in real life? Thanks for a wonderful product for sure!

[deltapooh]

I am really impressed with the Route pack. IMHO, it breaks away from other Streamline/TrainSimulation routes by giving us a modern active route. You have auto traffic and plenty of opportunities to interact/inconvenience life along the line. There are plenty of crossings to keep you busy when the train is moving along at Notch 8. The activities are the most complex I've played in a LONG time, and takes advantage of OpenRails.

However, I must admit it comes at a price. OpenRails has always been intensive on the hardware. Back in the day, I use to watch the fans on my GPU throttle up every time I started an activity. Now its my CPU. My i7 4790K has crashed twice. Both times were when I switched views. The most recent is when I switched to the rear view (3 Key) while the back end of my 230 car grain train was passing through a tunnel.

All in all, I think the route is worth the price. I do wish TrainSimulations would release the new locomotives. Maybe we can get an NS Et44AC before they disappear. lol

[generalpalmer]

I notice a lot of these engines only show 80% of their available horsepower when topped out at run 8.

I have nothing to do with the development of this product but think I can help with your question:

I believe the figures shown on the left on the HUD are what open rails calculates as the available horsepower when determining the tractive effort for a given speed. However the locos that come with Mullan pass have custom tractive effort curves implemented, therefore this figure is ignored and the tractive effort is taken directly from the values entered in the custom curve in the .eng file. I did a quick test and sure enough the SD40-2XR in the sim produces around 82,100 lbs of tractive effort at around 11mph. As per quoted specs for the 40-2. This actually equates to around 2408HP at the rail from 11mph up to maximum which looks to be value TS used in calculating their tractive force curve.

The figure on the right in the HUD I believe is the total power the diesel engine is putting into the the Alternator. This is set too low, looks like they used the at rail value of 2408HP, it should be about 3000 (Gross power of the turbo 16-645 is around 3200-3400HP but some is lost in powering auxiliaries etc.) However because the locos have custom tractive force curves this figure does not impact the pulling power of the locomotive.

In short the pulling power of the locomotive in notch 8 matches published specs of the prototype at least in the low end part of the speed range. The effects of back EMF reducing power/force as speed increases along with transition are not modeled.

Hope this helps;

-Paul Burton

[wwhall]

I've been begging for ET-44 Whaleback locomotives in all the liveries (NS, CSX, CN, BNSF, UP, etc.) using the current generation TrainSimulations models (fully detailed cabs, OR physics, etc.) ever since the whalebacks came out. It seems strange to me that TrainSimulations wouldn't jump on this--the hood and exhaust are the main differences from the already existing models and the ET's would be a successful seller, I would think. Or maybe someone with modeling expertise could build and FA for the whalebacks using the current generation TrainSimulations models. I know there are some that I've seen around in screenshots, but they appear to use older models that aren't as well-detailed as TrainSimulations latest models.

[ragtimer]

For those interested in the question of tractive effort vs horsepower,see this http://hm.evilgeniustech.com/alkrug....acts/hp_te.htm

[ldavidson1]

Paul, This helps a lot! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting cheated with a dreadfully slow climb "without helpers" in the HP Hour Scenario. Thanks for your insight.