Transport Tycoon Forums

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Let's try to solve this mess.

About high running costs for Borsig: maybe you have older version, it was bug in RC indeed, I fixed that AFAIK, so try to download set again. If that could not help, please report me again.

Yep! I had an older version.
I've downloaded and installed the latest and all is well.

Wile E. Coyote wrote:About basetunnels: that could cause big problem... I still have no idea how to solve this. One way could be to re-code whole NG set as Monorail vehicles, and it that way set could be used with unifiedmaglev 1, but it's bunch of job. Any other proposition?

from eis_os' readme file:

As the enhancetunnels feature until now doesn't support maglev properly,
the grf does only support unifiedmaglev set 1 in the ttdpatch(w).cfg .
Useing the grf in other ways is not possible,

Wile E. Coyote wrote:EDIT: Strange, Canset is using unifiedmaglev 2 too AFAIK. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

from the Canadian Set Quick Start Guide -

NG Track System and 'unifiedmaglev' switch : it is no longer necessary to have 'unifiedmaglev' switch set to 1; any setting will do (v0.2f)

On another note, your readme says that the set is compatible with the Nuclear chain set. Has one been done and if so, do you have a link to where it can be downloaded?

Wile E. Coyote wrote:About high TE for Borsig: I had no TE for this loco (maybe Michael could help? ), so I left it default. It's highly powerful locomotive with big weight, so default TE is big (probably too big). I've heard one interesting legend of this loco's power, but I don't know is it true: before building Djerdap power station, there was railroad on Danube coast. One locomotive falled in Danube, and they used Borsig to pull loco from river.

Impressive!
That might well be possible, after all it's a 150-type locomotive so I guess it must be quite strong. Still, 492kN sounds way too high. We should find some data like adhesive weight and/or technical data (boiler pressure, cylinder dimensions, driving wheels' diameter) to have a more sensible estimate. Based on my experience with the French set, the TE could be somewhere near 300kN.

Snail wrote:Still, 492kN sounds way too high.

Wile, I´ve missed that.

Probably you mean this one?

type 30
axle scheme 1'E
dr. diameter 1350 mm
cyl. diameter/stroke 550x660 mm
pressure 16 atm
adh. weight 90 t

Max TE for this engine would be 192 kN.


[edit]

I´ve taken the technical data for the "Borsig class 30" from this page:

http://orion.math.iastate.edu/jdhsmith/term/sljujzh.htm

class 30
driving wheel diameter 1.35m
cyl. diameter 0.55m
cyl. stroke 0.66m
boiler pressure 16 atm

Calculation yields 192kN for max tractive effort. Seems to be a typo in your data (492 -> 192).

To be sure, I´ve tested the calculation against some german steamers with the same axle scheme, for which I have the relevant official technical manuals of the DRG at hand, namely:

BR42 by Schwartzkopff
1925
85,5t
239kN

calculation by me gives 242kN


BR44 Henschel
1925
99,4t
285kN

calculation by me gives 288kN


BR50 DLV
1925
75,3t
217kN

calculation by me gives 220kN


BR52
1925
75,7t
217kN

calculation by me gives 220kN

which are all very well in line. From these results I´m convinced the 192kN for the Borsig class 30 seems to be OK as well.

The reason for the smaller TE (against the comparable german steamers) seems to be the smaller cylinder diameter (0.55m) versus 0.6m.

[/edit]

regards
Michael

wallyweb wrote:Yep! I had an older version.
I've downloaded and installed the latest and all is well.

Glad it helped.

wallyweb wrote:

Wile E. Coyote wrote:EDIT: Strange, Canset is using unifiedmaglev 2 too AFAIK. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

from the Canadian Set Quick Start Guide -

NG Track System and 'unifiedmaglev' switch : it is no longer necessary to have 'unifiedmaglev' switch set to 1; any setting will do (v0.2f)

So I was wrong. Still stays problem how to solve it in less painful way.

wallyweb wrote:On another note, your readme says that the set is compatible with the Nuclear chain set. Has one been done and if so, do you have a link to where it can be downloaded?

It is, but it's only done by cargo table, as stated for cargos in Wiki. Chain is not done yet (don't ask me, I'm not author of this chain. )

michael blunck wrote:Probably you mean this one?

type 30
axle scheme 1'E
dr. diameter 1350 mm
cyl. diameter/stroke 550x660 mm
pressure 16 atm
adh. weight 90 t

Max TE for this engine would be 192 kN.

What to say? Thanx to living encyclopedia! Now I could only welcome you to set team, altough you allready helped with many advices! Could you please look in sets tracking table, if some data are incorrect too?

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Could you please look in sets tracking table, if some data are incorrect too?

Berliner Maschinenbau 01 - 115kN
Berliner Maschinenbau 05 - 156kN
Berliner Maschinenbau 06 - 212kN
MAVAG 11 - 156kN
MAVAG 17 - 107kN
Henschel 33 - 220kN
MAVAG 51 - 83kN
Henschel 61 - 72kN

HTH

regards
Michael

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

wallyweb wrote:

Wile E. Coyote wrote:EDIT: Strange, Canset is using unifiedmaglev 2 too AFAIK. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

from the Canadian Set Quick Start Guide -

NG Track System and 'unifiedmaglev' switch : it is no longer necessary to have 'unifiedmaglev' switch set to 1; any setting will do (v0.2f)

So I was wrong. Still stays problem how to solve it in less painful way.

It is only basetunnelsw.grf that is affected so it is not critical. My current game continues. I just miss a handy feature but I can live without it.

I am not a coder so I am not familiar with the available coding tools, but it would be nice if they were able to do batch adjustments for situations such as this.

In the meanwhile, the next time you update your readme file, perhaps add a note such as "Not compatible with basetunnelsw.grf".

Michael: thanx! I have some accurate data for NG wagons too, so I'll release new Hotfix ASAP.
Wallyweb: yes, this is thing which is mandatory to state for now in readme.

Michael, before I release new Hotfix, I miss TE for 3 locos:
MAVAG 126 (standard gauge)
Krauss "RAMA" (narrow gauge)
Skoda 25-27 (narrow gauge)
I haven't found data to calculate TEs, so I hope you'll recognize those locos by photos...

Wile E. Coyote wrote:I miss TE for 3 locos:
MAVAG 126 (standard gauge)
Krauss "RAMA" (narrow gauge)
Skoda 25-27 (narrow gauge)

Wow! These are very small, ancient and exotic engines. I nearly doubt that they have TE at all.

- MAVAG 126
Shouldn´t that be a NG engine? Because ex-Yugoslavian steamers for NG had three digits (beginning with "1"), but SG had two digits only?

- Krauss & Skoda
These ones?

Well, no.

-> Krauss
1873, IV 1, Bn2t, 760mm
Hügel & Sager, Wien "2" /1879 Bosna-Eisenbahn /19xx Eisenbahnmuseum Belgrad /19xx Schmalspur-Eisenbahnmuseum Pozega "RAMA"

-> Škoda, Plzen, Ceška, 1947. "Škoda" 25-27, tip Ct-2n, ex coal mine Banovici?

That´s all. No data. Sorry.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:- MAVAG 126
Shouldn´t that be a NG engine? Because ex-Yugoslavian steamers for NG had three digits (beginning with "1"), but SG had two digits only?

Not all. There were SG steamers with 3 digits too. (example)

michael blunck wrote:- Krauss & Skoda
These ones?

Well, no.

Yes, those two.

michael blunck wrote:No data. Sorry.

No problem.

Well, what to do. Probably to estimate TE.

Wile E. Coyote wrote:Well, what to do. Probably to estimate TE.

Yes.

The Krauss and the Škoda engines have no carrying axles, only driving axles ("B" resp. "C"), so we could assume the max force transferable at all (or use deliberatly less in case these are very weak engines). Do you know the weight of these engines?

And what´s the axle scheme of the MAVÁG? And it´s weight?

regards
Michael

Wile E. Coyote, you're gonna love me for this
Two more problems: A name that is too long and a life that is too short:

@ Michael: I'll take a look in afternoon and post needed data.
Meanwhile, here is explanation of YU locos nomenclature and some SG and NG data in Serbian railway fans society site. Unfortunately, site is partially under construction and English and German version are not working. So, you can contact me and I'll translate to you everything you are interested.
One interesting thing: "Skoda" loco is now renewed and it's now in exploatation on "Sargan eight".

@ Wallyweb: problem about long name I don't know how to solve. You can't resize purchase list window like in OTTD (or I don't know how to do that?) and there are few more locos and wagons with too long names. And about lifetime, I told somewhere that this loco was experimental and I put short life intentionally. Maybe to extend it a little. Any proposition?

Use the number of years the engine can be operational, rather than how long it was operational IRL.

Well, ordinary 01 series locos are still in exploatation today, but I don't believe locomotive construction will support high speed for such a long time. But no traces of that loco are founded after WW2...

@Wile

[Berliner Maschinenbau-Actien-Gesellschaft]

> problem about long name I don't know how to solve

Why not use the usual acronym "BMAG" resp. "B.M.A.G" as it´s done in railway literature?

See http://www.werkbahn.de/eisenbahn/lokbau/bmag.htm

regards
Michael

Not bad idea!
Only thing is to check if that fits together with it's popular name:
BMAG 01 "Leteci Beogradjanin" (Steam)

Only thing is to check if that fits together with it's popular name:
BMAG 01 "Leteci Beogradjanin" (Steam)

Or drop the builder from the name of the engine and put it separately in the building window like I do ("Hersteller" = builder)?

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:

Only thing is to check if that fits together with it's popular name:
BMAG 01 "Leteci Beogradjanin" (Steam)

Or drop the builder from the name of the engine and put it separately in the building window like I do ("Hersteller" = builder)?

regards
Michael

I think the name might fit when using BMAG. Also the short life makes sense now and I suspected that to be the case. Perhaps a note like "Experimental - short life" could be added to the building window?

Maybe Michael's idea to drop manufacturer's name down isn't bad, but maybe Wallyweb's proposition is better. Anyway, I'll experiment a little. And maybe I'll extend lifetime to 10 years? 5 years is really unusable, nevertheless it's more historical than usable locomotive (same as NG "RAMA").

@ Michael:
Here are data for locos:

MAVAG 126:
Power: 1200 hp
Weight: 80 t

"RAMA":
Power: 150 hp
Weight: 15 t

"Skoda"
Power: 400 hp
Weight: 40 t

I hope that's enough for estimating TE.