Beiträge von Zaphr

I don't speak German so hopefully it is okay that I post this in English.

My knowledge regards mainly Swedish trains but since they use the same UIC system as German trains and German wagons (both passenger and freight) run through Sweden mostly without any modifications (locomotives need to install the ATC cab signalling system however), this may be of interest to developers that create German rolling stock.

Depending on what brake type is used (G,P,R) the application and release times will be different
Application time/Release time

G: 15s/45s
P&R: 3-5s/15-20s

Unfortunately the only sources I have for these numbers are in Swedish but perhaps someone knows of official UIC sources. From my understanding these numbers are for each locomotive/wagon which means that for a long train the application/release times will increase by the time it takes for the air signal to reach the end of the train. So for a long freight train in G-brake it might take over 20 seconds to apply the brakes on the last wagon. For example, the northern Swedish Iron Ore trains with 68 wagons can take around 23 seconds to apply the brakes and maybe up to a minute to release the brakes.

Another example: A 600 meter long freight train with wagons in P-brake will take 6 seconds for the signal to reach the end of the train and then the above mentioned 5 seconds for the brakes to apply resulting in about 11 seconds to apply brakes. The time to release the brakes would then be between 21 and 26 seconds.

It seems like almost all freeware/payware trains I have tested have too short timings for the brakes, especially the release timings. EP-brakes will eliminate the time for the signal to arrive but not the above mentioned application times since they are a function of the air brake system in a single vehicle. Perhaps the case is different in EMU/DMUs, I'd love to hear information about these differences.

When calculating the retardation value for a wagon/loco (the "weight"-value in the .bin-files) one cannot just take the "Bremshundertstel" = "Bremsgewicht"/"Gesamtgewicht" because this value will be too high. For historical/arbitrary reasons the real retardation value is a fraction of the BrH. I can give a full table of these values if people are interested but I don't have the file on this computer.

Some examples: If Brh = 100 the retardation will be about 0.8m/s^2, if it is 160 it will be around 1.4m/s^2.

One last point that is important. For some modern passenger wagons there will be 4 Bremsgewicht values painted. Mg,<R>, R and P. The Mg value is for the magnetic track brake and this is usually much higher than the R-value. If this value is input into the .bin-file the brakes will be too strong when using air brakes only because the fullbrake value will be the value gained from using magnetic track brakes which only apply in an emergency application. In my opinion it is more realistic to use the R-value unless the developer can script the rolling stock so that Emergency brake force is higher than the full service application force.

Hopefully this was of interest/use to someone. I'd love to hear feedback/opinions because my knowledge can certainly be increased.

Unfortunately this DLC is suffering from the same "bug" as the default freight wagons of RSN: The brakes are extremely strong, much much stronger than the real thing.

I'm uploading a Beta version of the fix, I am still undecided over what to do with the 160+ km/h speed changes and there are some cosmetic fixes I need to do (Sign placements etc).

If you find any faults etc, please tell me.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/ind…e_id=07344825139948615418

Frank: Yes, I know the signs you are talking about. I have left them as they were by default.

I have a progress update.

I am done with changing all the speed limits and I have placed all the speed limit signs, sometimes I had to "cheat" and make a small section of 160km/h so that I can use that for the Lf7 when Vmax went straight from below 160km/h to maybe 200 or 180km/h (I hope you understand).

Right now it is almost 100% possible (there are no hectometer signs of course) to drive the route without HUD with PZB or LZB, but if you want to drive above 160km/h without LZB, when the speed limit drops from 200/180 to 180/160km/h there will be no warning Lf6 or Lf7 visible and nothing on the HUD.

I think this is realistic, but if many of you want me to, I can add speed limit signs for 180-200km/h and lower them under ground. Do you want that?

Now "only" hectometer signs and 500hz magnets are needed to make this route drivable

William

Marcus: I sent a PM to you

Frank: I see, I will leave the PZB markers as they are then. Thank you.

If the Vmax is 140 km/h and then increases to 200 km/h, won't there be a visual speed signal then so that non-LZB locomotives know that they can increase speed to 160 km/h?

William

Hi.

With the help of a document from Giovanni here on the forum, I have been changing the speed limits to match reality (as of 2006). I have changed all the necessary speed limits and I am almost done with placing all the speed posts (Lf6/7 tafel).

I have a couple of questions:

There are numerous LZB-markers (LZB-Start) along the route but as far as I know, there only needs to be 1 start and 1 end-signal. Do these additional LZB-signals have any function or are they only visual (if so maybe I should delete them)?

If Vmax is 160km/h and Vmax changes to 180 or 200km/h, will there be a visual Lf7 post, or is it only visible in-cab on the LZB instruments?

If I would upload this "fix" (which I will if I'm satisfied with the results), do I only need to upload my modified track.bin file or will I need any additional files to make the changes to the speed-limit signs be visible for the users?

I unfortunately started working on this fix with the modified DBTracks Track.bin, so I think I would need to contact Markus Schöbel (?), does anyone know how I can get in contact with him?

William

Zitat von Benoki

Zaphr
The video you have is quite new. Dornbirn was rebuilt in ~2006 (if I have the right numbers in my head), now it's like in the video - before, it was like in the route... you had to slow down to 60 kph to enter the platform - sucked. Sadly, Google Maps did not show these changes in 2011, when the route was built.
That's why it's different then the original.

About the KM thing in Hohenems... did not understand what you mean. For me, the kilometers looked quite right.

I expected as much. It isn't a big deal for me anyway, I just have to slow down earlier; if stopping.

About the Kilometer-posts, what I mean is: About 1.5km north of Hohenems entry the km-post skips 1 kilometer and goes like: 288 to 300 (instead of to 290) this is then corrected directly at the north entry to Hohenems (going from 318 to 310, instead of 320). Hope you understand what I mean.

Regards,
William

Hi. I don't speak German so I hope it is okay that I write this in English. I enjoy the Three Country Corner very much, in fact it is one of my absolute favorites. I have however 2 points of feedback.

I was watching this

video and noticed something I think is a fault of the 3CC route. When entering Dornbirn (07:50 in the video) there is no middle track between the platforms, as in the 3CC, instead there are 2 tracks to the right vs 1 track in 3CC.

Is the Station layout in the video older or is 3CC Dornbirn different from the real life station?

I have also noticed that at Hohenems, Km-post 31:2 reverts back 1 kilometer to 30:2 and continues like that until Bludenz.
Looking at the video linked above at 13:30 the Km-post is 29:9 so maybe it jumped over a kilometer in the beginning (I haven't checked).

I tried to check whether this had been mentioned earlier in the thread but Google Translate isn't the most reliable so I apologize in advance if my post is redundant.

Gruss,
William