simonjackson1964

Hi Goetz Of course I'm happy for you to have a look at it, I was just concerned about uploading the whole layout just to resolve this one issue. If that is what you need, then please say so. Hi Doeg The coupler on the one tender being disabled is necessary, but the point is that both locos reverse in to the bay platform, the same and the other loco is sitting at the buffers the same. The problem with your suggestion is knowing when to uncouple the engine. It's simply easier to do the moment the train stops because it activates an event by stopping. (And yes, I know, I forgot what they were called and couldn't be bothered to fix it, it's cosmetic) Hi Brummi I'll have a look at that. Thanks Simon

Hi Goetz It's a mystery. There is no reason whatever for one loco to behave differently. I'd upload the layout, but it's kinda big, this is just part of module 1 you're looking at, and it's migrated from V6. I'm considering just replacing the BR 01-118 that is misbehaving, or at least creating another clone of the one that isn't and swapping them out, just to see what happens. I've checked the settings, I've checked the code, I've checked the routes, and everything is the same apart from the names. So my best guess is there's something in the underlying code that isn't working properly. I'll try and capture a video of it happenning, but I'm not sure if that will help. The only other suggestion is that we can somehow get on a collaborative chat like MS Teams over the weekend and I can demonstrate, and you can tell me what you need to see. Cheers Simon

It's the second loco that does it BR 01-118. BR 01-112 2 behaves properly!

The reason Tender a's rear coupler is inactive is because the train is coupled to the other loco.

Hi folks This was a mystery at V6 and continues to be a mystery at V7 I have a bay platform that has a shuttle service running out from it and onto a branch line. In this age of steam, I am using two locomotives that are identical in every respect except I added an "a" to the end of the name of one and also added an "a" to the name of it's tender. This is still standard practice at terminus stations for trains hauled by a separate locomotive, be it diesel or electric. The inbound loco sits at the end of the platform, uncoupled from the "front" of the train and the new loco couples to the "back" of the train, then when ready, it pulls out of the station off to wherever it is going. The old loco is now free to shunt out of the platform. In reality it would probably head for an oiling or coaling line or possibly for a shed. Steam locos would be turned first. And this is what my loco does. It goes to the turntable, is turned around and then heads back to a head-shunt on the same track as the bay platform to await the return of the shuttle train. Rinse and repeat! So far so good. But when the loco is reversing into the platform to pick up the train for it's next run, there is weirdness. The locos are identical have identical variables, identical tenders, and follow identical EV code. But one of them stops the moment it soft-couples to the train, the other pushes the train back until the loco at the other end is against the buffers. I cannot see a reason. The only difference I can think of is that the coach is technically the other way around. I am trying that now - I have reversed the "last" coach on the train, so the tender couples to the same end of it in both cases. Waiting to see what happens.... {a few minutes later} Nope, that made no difference. I cannot see any reason for the locomotives to behave differently! Please help? Simon Hallo Leute Das war bei V6 ein Rätsel und bleibt bei V7 ein Rätsel Ich habe einen Bahnsteig, von dem aus ein Shuttleservice auf eine Nebenbahn fährt. In diesem Dampfzeitalter benutze ich zwei Lokomotiven, die in jeder Hinsicht identisch sind, außer dass ich ein "a" am Ende des Namens von einer und auch ein "a" an den Namen ihres Tenders hinzugefügt habe. Dies ist an Kopfbahnhöfen für Züge, die von einer separaten Lokomotive gezogen werden, ob Diesel- oder Elektrolokomotive, immer noch gängige Praxis. Die einfahrende Lok sitzt am Ende des Bahnsteigs, wird von der "Vorderseite" des Zuges abgekuppelt und die neue Lok kuppelt "hinten" des Zuges ein, dann fährt sie, wenn sie fertig ist, aus dem Bahnhof, wohin sie fährt . Die alte Lok kann nun frei aus dem Bahnsteig rangieren. In Wirklichkeit würde es wahrscheinlich zu einer Öl- oder Bekohlungslinie oder möglicherweise zu einem Schuppen führen. Dampfloks würden zuerst gedreht. Und das macht meine Lok. Es geht zur Drehscheibe, wird gewendet und fährt dann zurück zu einem Head-Shunt auf dem gleichen Gleis wie der Hallenbahnsteig, um die Rückkehr des Shuttle-Zuges abzuwarten. Spülen und wiederholen! So weit, ist es gut. Aber als die Lok rückwärts auf den Bahnsteig fährt, um den Zug für die nächste Fahrt abzuholen, kommt es seltsam. Die Loks sind identisch, haben identische Variablen, identische Tender und folgen identischem EV-Code. Aber einer stoppt, sobald er weich an den Zug ankuppelt, der andere schiebt den Zug zurück, bis die Lok am anderen Ende an den Puffern anliegt. Ich kann keinen Grund sehen. Der einzige Unterschied, den ich mir vorstellen kann, ist, dass der Trainer technisch anders herum ist. Das versuche ich jetzt - ich habe den "letzten" Wagen im Zug umgedreht, also kuppelt der Tender in beiden Fällen an das gleiche Ende. Abwarten was passiert.... {ein paar Minuten später} Nö, das machte keinen Unterschied. Ich sehe keinen Grund für ein anderes Verhalten der Lokomotiven! Bitte helfen? Simon

You are welcome and I'm glad it worked.

Hi Pete To get rid of it manually, just click the target selection icon on the car's properties tab. This should clear any current target, and a second click will request a new one, to which you just cancel. To get rid of it automatically, well, there are two ways: the first is to assign the vehicle a new target. The second is to use an action "Set vehicle target" with the vehicle selected either hard coded or as a trigger, and leave the "target" field set to "Empty", which is a universal way of clearing a property or object store. If something is notworking, my first suggestion is to make sure your "triggers" all refer to the correct class - the trigger object for a contact activation can be "vehicle" or "Track Contact", and I'm for ever forgetting to change it! Thanks Doug I've been thinking of something like that. But the biggest problem happens when two vehicles are both backing out at the same time, or one starts backing out just as another has finished and "heads for the exit". The problem is that there is no loop available to delay the one vehicle until the other is clear. About the only way I can see to do it is to have a list of vehicles waiting to move and process them in order. Or somehow use routes which would handle it all automatically! Cheers Simon

F5B4206E-F3E6-47FB-A1DD-427F0AEAA3DC Draft layout showing that it works. (Well, with one car!) Entwurfslayout, das zeigt, dass es funktioniert. (Na ja, mit nur einem Auto!)

So, the point is that you need to set a new target whenever the vehicle reaches the current target. In the circumstance you describe here's what I would do: On the vehicle create a variable, type "List", and fill the list with objects, each one holding the next target track contact in sequence. Call it "route" or some such. (doig that will enable each vehicle to have it's own route) On contact 3, put an event: Set the vehicle to Trigger: Vehicle. Then set the target to "Variable (extended)", select the object as "Trigger: Vehicle" and the name as the name of your list. This should set the route through the streets to take you back to where you want the vehicle to be. Cheers Simon

In fact, you have to have the vehicle already moving in the other direction and off the last target to assign the new contact. This works: This doesn't:

Hah. Cracked it! After setting the vehicle in motion in the reverse direction, delay execution for half a second and then set the target. I've got a vehicle doing a waltz around the large 4-way crossing to prove it! Simon

There is something that puzzles me about it though: When track contact 0 is triggered it sets the target for the vehicle. I did some jiggery-pokery with variables to "lock" the routes, and that seems to work. But when the vehicle arrives at Contact 1a, 1b, 1c or 1d, it stops, waits and reverses, but doesn't set the target as contact 2a, 2b, 2c or 2d. Good old "Contact is triggered" still works, but it seems you can't set a target that requires the vehicle to actually reverse. I've tried every combination I can think of. It's possible this is either a bug, or an oversight in the design.

Mhhhh Well it works, the problem I have with it is that the cars all crash into each other when reversing out. (So pretty realistic I suppose). It was a bit more complicated than I had anticipated, but if you can handle the traffic control, something I'm not that good at, then it should work!

I think the solution lies in having different targets. Contact 0 would normally have code to decide which bay to go to... If no vehicle on contact 1 set target to contact 1 else if no vehicle... etc. When the car hits contact 1, we stop it, wait, then set Contact 2 as its target and set its speed to a negative value. Then when it reaches contact 2, which is only active in the reverse direction, we set speed 0, set the target to contact 3 wait a second and set the speed to a positive value. I put a portal on either end of the test track just to make it easy to test, but on your layout, Contact 3 should decide where the car goes next. Hope that helps? Simon (I'll pit a bigger and better version together to prove the theory. I did test it with one car, but I want to see what happens with more cars.)

Okay, so I took people's advice. The result is uploaded to play with... CA78A3E7-AFFE-4015-962F-1ADD2E1591CE Okay, ich habe den Rat der Leute befolgt. Das Ergebnis wurde hochgeladen, um zu spielen ...

CA78A3E7-AFFE-4015-962F-1ADD2E1591CE A very simple timer controlled layout, mostly an exercise in creating mountains and other scenery at V7. If you watch for long enough you might see the local shepherd taking his flock to pasture... Ein sehr einfaches zeitgesteuertes Layout, hauptsächlich eine Übung zum Erstellen von Bergen und anderen Landschaften in V7. Wenn Sie lange genug zuschauen, sehen Sie vielleicht, wie der örtliche Hirte seine Herde auf die Weide bringt...

Right, thanks. That makes more sense.

Just to add... it does let me take one of the pre-made panels, add it to a bkank baseboard and absorb the pre-made one into the empty one. Is that the actual purpose?

What I think it ought to do is align the height of panel B with panel A where the two are overlapping and join the two panels together. What it seems to do is delete panel B after changing the contours of panel A to match the overlap...? I can honestly not see a use for this! Before: After (1) After (2) So what is it supposed to do, and how does it do it?

Oddly I'm still trying to figure traffic lights and traffic control out, mostly because I prefer to concentrate on the trains. Right now though I'm rapidly loosing patience with V7.

I think I have the solution: Create the landscape in V6 and save it as a height map, then import it into V7.

On the English version it names it as "iter".

Hi Goetz Hmm, no, actually, I didn't try that. I'll give it a go.. Thanks Hi Pete Actually that's pretty much how I created hills and smooth slopes at V6. Was hoping I wouldn't need to at V7. ... On a related to[ic, it's good to see that the landscape can now have a negative Z-value, otherwise I would be complaining about the inability to put rivers in - previously have raised the entire surface of the baseboard by 100mm in order to create a depression, or put a smaller baseboard underneath and raised the sides...

And it is not a gait that the rider rises to. That is only the Rising Trot...! I do feel a bit weird discussing this on a model railway forum though...!

Also if you want to be really realistic, the trot is Front-Left + Hind-Right, then Front-Right + Hind-Left. Your horse is doing Front and Hind together on the same side, which I think would result in the horse falling over! I'm just being a perfectionist, because honestly I couldn't do anything like that if I tried! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gait Might be of help?