<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<cCSVArray xmlns:d="http://www.kuju.com/TnT/2003/Delta" d:version="1.0" d:id="1">
<CSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="2">
<X d:type="sFloat32">0</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">280.25</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="3">
<X d:type="sFloat32">10</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">280.25</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="4">
<X d:type="sFloat32">20</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">280.25</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="5">
<X d:type="sFloat32">30</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">215.55</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="6">
<X d:type="sFloat32">40</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">161.6625</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="7">
<X d:type="sFloat32">50</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">129.33</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="8">
<X d:type="sFloat32">60</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">107.775</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="9">
<X d:type="sFloat32">70</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">92.38</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="10">
<X d:type="sFloat32">80</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">80.83</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="11">
<X d:type="sFloat32">90</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">71.85</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="12">
<X d:type="sFloat32">95</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">68.07</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="13">
<X d:type="sFloat32">100</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">64.665</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="14">
<X d:type="sFloat32">110</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">58.454</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
</CSVItem>
</cCSVArray>
While the following is the HEP locomotive's TE file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<cCSVArray xmlns:d="http://www.kuju.com/TnT/2003/Delta" d:version="1.0" d:id="1">
<CSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="2">
<X d:type="sFloat32">0</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">280.25</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="3">
<X d:type="sFloat32">10</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">280.25</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="4">
<X d:type="sFloat32">20</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">252</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="5">
<X d:type="sFloat32">30</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">168</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="6">
<X d:type="sFloat32">40</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">126</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="7">
<X d:type="sFloat32">50</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">100.8</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="8">
<X d:type="sFloat32">60</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">84</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="9">
<X d:type="sFloat32">70</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">72</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="10">
<X d:type="sFloat32">80</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">63</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="11">
<X d:type="sFloat32">90</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">56</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="12">
<X d:type="sFloat32">95</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">53</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="13">
<X d:type="sFloat32">100</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">50.4</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
<cCSVItem d:id="14">
<X d:type="sFloat32">110</X>
<Y d:type="sFloat32">45.6</Y>
<Name d:type="cDeltaString"></Name>
</cCSVItem>
</CSVItem>
</cCSVArray>
Both TE curves were calculated using the formula Kilo-newtons = Power(kW)*3.6 / Velocity(km/h), with the Non-HEP unit's power set at 2873 kW (3850 hp) and the HEP unit's power set at 2240 kW (3000 hp), inherently assuming a ~400 kW HEP load. Also, I successfully replaced the original steel bell with the standard E-bell. Dynamic brake effort curves for both locomotives are identical.
Current parameters not previously mentioned for the Non-HEP loco are as follows:
RPM range: 200-1047
Fuel consumption range (gallons per hour): 4 - 198 (http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... ?4,1871287)
Amp rating: 8000 (at alternator; 1798 per motor); set at 8k so the in-cab ammeter displays properly
Fuel capacity: 2200 gallons
Mass: 130 metric tons (fully loaded locomotive)
Parameters for HEP locomotive:
RPM range: 900-901 (needed to be two different numbers in order to work)
Fuel consumption range: 37 - 172 (http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... ?4,1871287)
Amp rating: 8000 (at alternator; 1798 per motor); set at 8k so the in-cab ammeter displays properly
Fuel capacity: 2200 gallons
Mass: 130 metric tons (fully loaded locomotive)
Once this is released, the setup for building a standard consist will be as follows: the non-HEP locomotive will be the one with the engineer and conductor, and is simply labeled as the GE P42DC Amtrak. The HEP version will be the one with no engineer or conductor, and is simply labeled GE P42DC Amtrak-NC.
With this adjustment, I can say that I am 98% done with the P42DC physics mods. Hopefully, any sound mods that are being developed take into account the two different P42DC versions I have generated. There would need to be a constant 900 rpm chug, obviously, but there would also need to be the less commonly heard low idle sound, and spool up from ~300 rpm to 1047 rpm.
The sample videos are currently processing; I will post them as soon as Youtube spits out a preview thumbnail.