briman94 Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Good news! I already figured out the junction crash. Here's a train crossing over at the interlocking near Armitage, junctions visible and working! (Remember folks, Red Line trains inconveniently rerouted every weekend for seemingly pointless work in the subway) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrunswickBowler Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Good news! I already figured out the junction crash. Here's a train crossing over at the interlocking near Armitage, junctions visible and working! (Remember folks, Red Line trains inconveniently rerouted every weekend for seemingly pointless work in the subway) That looks awesome! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Good news! I already figured out the junction crash. Here's a train crossing over at the interlocking near Armitage, junctions visible and working! (Remember folks, Red Line trains inconveniently rerouted every weekend for seemingly pointless work in the subway)..... Between that and the bumper posts at the end of the track, you've got the O'Hare crash all mapped out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.cta85 Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Good news! I already figured out the junction crash. Here's a train crossing over at the interlocking near Armitage, junctions visible and working! (Remember folks, Red Line trains inconveniently rerouted every weekend for seemingly pointless work in the subway) You sir continue to blow my mind!! Your progression is amazing keep up the fantastic work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garmon757 Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yep. Basically, the third rail is a separate object in the game. There's a tool called "Offset" that lets you offset an object from another, so once I finish a major section of track, I'll go and "offset" the third rail from the main track. Makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briman94 Posted February 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Between that and the bumper posts at the end of the track, you've got the O'Hare crash all mapped out. Now I just need to model O'Hare and I can make a full recreation! --------- Oh, by the way...I did it 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garmon757 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Now I just need to model O'Hare and I can make a full recreation! --------- Oh, by the way...I did it YES!!!!!!! MY GOODNESS THIS IS AWESOME!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTRSP1900-CTA3200 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 ...Oh, by the way...I did it ... This is literally the BEST thing I saw today and I'm kind of jealous I don't know how to do this stuff. You're really making progress! I can't wait to see the undercarriage modeled. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrunswickBowler Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Amazing! Absolutely mind blowing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briman94 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Good news, everyone! Dovetail Games (creators of Train Sim) just updated the game on Thursday which added a plethora of development documents to the install directory. I can now actually learn how to properly make stuff instead of having to try random people's suggestions online until something works! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyerMCI Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Awesome! Keep uo the good work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Good news, everyone! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Good news! I already figured out the junction crash. Here's a train crossing over at the interlocking near Armitage, junctions visible and working! (Remember folks, Red Line trains inconveniently rerouted every weekend for seemingly pointless work in the subway) How did you make that???? That's impossible! How could you make the model for the 7000-Series, because those specs are top secret and you made it to a "T"(train that hovers a few feet above the tracks and collects electricity from the third rail using a special electrical conduit under the body which can get the power by being a few feet away like a Apple iPhone being used for Apple Pay). You got one of these in your garage? j/k: I know the model is still glitchy and needs to be worked on still(you still need to get the doors visible and functional one day). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briman94 Posted March 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 How did you make that???? That's impossible! How could you make the model for the 7000-Series, because those specs are top secret and you made it to a "T"(train that hovers a few feet above the tracks and collects electricity from the third rail using a special electrical conduit under the body which can get the power by being a few feet away like a Apple iPhone being used for Apple Pay). You got one of these in your garage? j/k: I know the model is still glitchy and needs to be worked on still(you still need to get the doors visible and functional one day). LOL, I wish the 7000s hovered...I've been procrastinating on modeling the underbody and bogies because of how much detail I'll have to put into them in order to get them to look right. I'm going to do the doors soon because they'll be fairly easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 How did you make that???? That's impossible! How could you make the model for the 7000-Series, because those specs are top secret.... Actually they aren't, but I don't recall hovercraft in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briman94 Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 I was just reading through the specs for WMATA's newest railcars (7000s, incidentally), and I just found out that when the driver is controlling the train, the maximum speed is 15 MPH. Not only are the new trains fully capable of automatic control, but they require it to operate in service... EDIT: Nevermind, apparently the 'B' cars have a secondary control panel which is restricted to 15 MPH. The main control panel in the 'A' cars appears to have full speed control. Interesting reads though...the ATC system sounds like something the CTA needs to implement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 I was just reading through the specs for WMATA's newest railcars (7000s, incidentally), and I just found out that when the driver is controlling the train, the maximum speed is 15 MPH. Not only are the new trains fully capable of automatic control, but they require it to operate in service... EDIT: Nevermind, apparently the 'B' cars have a secondary control panel which is restricted to 15 MPH. The main control panel in the 'A' cars appears to have full speed control. Interesting reads though...the ATC system sounds like something the CTA needs to implement! Is there something that indicates that WMATA makes up its trains ABBA* so that it usually does not run a B as the lead car? CTA sure doesn't do that. On automatic control, besides the one case where the operator couldn't stop the WMATA train and died, one can assume, with such inexplicable events as the 2 Blue Line crashes, which happened despite all the safety systems in the current cars, you know that CTA would find a way to screw up something like that. *Apparently does not give a Swedish builder an advantage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTRSP1900-CTA3200 Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Is there something that indicates that WMATA makes up its trains ABBA* so that it usually does not run a B as the lead car? CTA sure doesn't do that... The 7000s are meant to be put in 4-car sets, but can be moved around as 2-car sets. The car with the limited cab Briman94 mentioned has headlights and tail lights like the car with the full cab, but doesn't have the designated cab space and front end style the car with the full cab does. A similar concept can be found for London Underground trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyerMCI Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 The 7000s are meant to be put in 4-car sets, but can be moved around as 2-car sets. The car with the limited cab Briman94 mentioned has headlights and tail lights like the car with the full cab, but doesn't have the designated cab space and front end style the car with the full cab does. A similar concept can be found for London Underground trains. They've moved on to testing them near where I go to school. They've done coupling and decoupling exercises in Brentwood Yard (Skokie Shops here) with 4 and 6 car trains. Is there a particular advantage to ABBA over ABAB? *What CTA needs to get from WMATA is pulling the train up to the end of the platform more often for better predicatibility and crowd control, but that's another issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briman94 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 Is there something that indicates that WMATA makes up its trains ABBA* so that it usually does not run a B as the lead car? CTA sure doesn't do that. On automatic control, besides the one case where the operator couldn't stop the WMATA train and died, one can assume, with such inexplicable events as the 2 Blue Line crashes, which happened despite all the safety systems in the current cars, you know that CTA would find a way to screw up something like that. *Apparently does not give a Swedish builder an advantage. All of CTA's issues in the past couple years have been operator error. Be it falling asleep, parking the train wrong, cleaning the train wrong, they're all caused by a person making a mistake...modern ATC/ATO technology would be immeasurably safer than human drivers if implemented properly. They've moved on to testing them near where I go to school. They've done coupling and decoupling exercises in Brentwood Yard (Skokie Shops here) with 4 and 6 car trains. Is there a particular advantage to ABBA over ABAB? *What CTA needs to get from WMATA is pulling the train up to the end of the platform more often for better predicatibility and crowd control, but that's another issueFrom the reading I did last night, it sounds like ATO only works when an A car is leading, and full-speed manual operation is only possible from an A car. That would mean that for a 4-car train, it would have to be ABBA, an 8-car train would be two 4-cars coupled together (ABBAABBA), and a 6-car would have to be either ABABBA or ABBABA. I don't know how it's done in practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 They've moved on to testing them near where I go to school. They've done coupling and decoupling exercises in Brentwood Yard (Skokie Shops here) with 4 and 6 car trains. Is there a particular advantage to ABBA over ABAB? *What CTA needs to get from WMATA is pulling the train up to the end of the platform more often for better predicatibility and crowd control, but that's another issue The issue isn't so much ABBA vs. ABAB, but with CTA having so many crossovers and saying that the wheels go flat if there isn't a crossover at one end and a loop at the other, such as on the Blue Line, one can't assume that a consist would be in any particular order. Currently, the only difference between a CTA A and B car is that one is missing a seat so that there is a place to store the emergency plank. There is the requisition for the berthing system (see that topic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 All of CTA's issues in the past couple years have been operator error. Be it falling asleep, parking the train wrong, cleaning the train wrong, they're all caused by a person making a mistake...modern ATC/ATO technology would be immeasurably safer than human drivers if implemented properly.... It is easy enough to say that operator error is a proximate cause, but then one could say that CTA may as well go back to the situation between 1892 and 1975 when most everything was basically "on sight." Stuff like the deadman, and especially the cab signal systems are supposed to stop the train in case of operator error. In the case of the Harlem-Forest Park accident, I'm sure the NTSB will eventually figure out how a train could start by itself without someone depressing the deadman and how it could reset at each red signal, but stuff like that still happened. By the same token, I don't think it was ever reported what caused the WMATA accident, but I don't know of any computer that can overcome a mechanical problem (such as if the brakes were defective). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briman94 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 It is easy enough to say that operator error is a proximate cause, but then one could say that CTA may as well go back to the situation between 1892 and 1975 when most everything was basically "on sight." Stuff like the deadman, and especially the cab signal systems are supposed to stop the train in case of operator error. In the case of the Harlem-Forest Park accident, I'm sure the NTSB will eventually figure out how a train could start by itself without someone depressing the deadman and how it could reset at each red signal, but stuff like that still happened. By the same token, I don't think it was ever reported what caused the WMATA accident, but I don't know of any computer that can overcome a mechanical problem (such as if the brakes were defective).What I read about the Oak Park incident was that the train wasn't parked correctly and the master controller was in the "Max Service Brake" position instead of the "Off" position, but the person who cleaned the train got water in the relay box. This caused the front two cars to act as if they were under power, when the two behind it still had brakes. Every time it hit an emergency brake trip, the brakes would apply again but the lever was in "Max Brake" so the e-brake would reset as soon as it stopped and the whole cycle started again.In regards to the WMATA accident, I don't know a whole lot about it but apparently one section of track went dead and transmitted a "0 MPH" command, stopping the first train that went over it. Because the track was dead, however, the moving-block signal system thought it was clear (instead of defaulting to occupied, who knows why) and the next train ran into the one that was stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 What I read about the Oak Park incident was that the train wasn't parked correctly and the master controller was in the "Max Service Brake" position instead of the "Off" position, but the person who cleaned the train got water in the relay box. This caused the front two cars to act as if they were under power, when the two behind it still had brakes. Every time it hit an emergency brake trip, the brakes would apply again but the lever was in "Max Brake" so the e-brake would reset as soon as it stopped and the whole cycle started again. In regards to the WMATA accident, I don't know a whole lot about it but apparently one section of track went dead and transmitted a "0 MPH" command, stopping the first train that went over it. Because the track was dead, however, the moving-block signal system thought it was clear (instead of defaulting to occupied, who knows why) and the next train ran into the one that was stopped. I leave both to the NTSB. But reportedly in the WMATA case the operator tried to stop the train and died at the controls, instead of ducked. In any event, these incidents prove that nothing is fail-safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTRSP1900-CTA3200 Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 They've moved on to testing them near where I go to school. They've done coupling and decoupling exercises in Brentwood Yard (Skokie Shops here) with 4 and 6 car trains. Is there a particular advantage to ABBA over ABAB? ...From the reading I did last night, it sounds like ATO only works when an A car is leading, and full-speed manual operation is only possible from an A car. That would mean that for a 4-car train, it would have to be ABBA, an 8-car train would be two 4-cars coupled together (ABBAABBA), and a 6-car would have to be either ABABBA or ABBABA. I don't know how it's done in practice. Also, the operator wouldn't have his/her dedicated space to work. I don't think they could easily and safely operate a train while sitting in a longitudinal seat... In London, the former C Stock trains were essentially built as AB car sets (officially called DrivingMotor and Trailer), and were normally in service as 6 car trains on the Circle Line. They were ABBABA or ABABBA, like what you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.