Panamint Crossing Update

[Bermúdez]

Hello.
What is the length of the route?

It looks great.

[OldProf]

... And now on to siding markers... with the new TS2012 "stopping point" object, which allows a train to move to a point certain, what is the effect of "long" siding markers? Are they needed? What would be an ideal length?

Pax,
jK

As far as I know, RSC invented the Stopping Point marker to indicate a precise stopping point within a long siding marker. Essentially, it shows the driver of the player train exactly where to stop. It can also be used -- sometimes -- to instruct an AI train to stop at a precise point within a long marker (this works in Timetabled scenarios, but not always in Standard scenarios). It cannot be used to instruct an AI train to make a drop-off at a precise point within a long marker, however.

Siding markers serve to indicate the route builder's name for a particular siding. Their length only matters to scenario writers. For example, the best way to make an AI engine to stop or perform a drop-off at a particular point on a siding is to place a scenario-specific short siding marker at the spot, but this cannot be done if the siding already has an end-to-end marker, because siding markers cannot be overlapped. Using short, scenario-specific markers, a scenario writer can instruct an AI engine to make multiple drop-offs or pick-ups at specific points on a long siding: thus an AI engine pulling 3 tankers could be told to drop them at a point near the east end of a siding and then to drive to the west end of the same siding and pick up 3 boxcars there.

Ever since RS days, I've been waging a losing battle against long siding markers. RSC and the route creators they hire almost inevitably place end-to-end siding markers on anything that even remotely resembles a siding. Most independent route creators do the same thing, presumably following the pattern established by RSC. There is absolutely no good reason for doing so!

How long should a short marker be? I think that I already suggested the length of a standard steam-engine with tender or of two or three freight cars will do nicely.

[Paragon]

The information on sidings is perfect, and much thanks! I will go back and adjust the Panamint Crossing sidings to reflect what I have heard. One of my goals is to make it as easy as possible for Scenario Authors to make the most of the route.

[Chacal]

This is good news for people like me who will install a route only if there are standard scenarios for it.

[VITORMARQUES]

This route needed superelevation on curves, please. With so many curves, it would be amazing to have that effect on simulation

[Paragon]

I had laid out most of the route before super elevation came out, and I did without easements. Because of the scale of it, it's going to have to wait for some future version, unless there is some quick and dirty way to replace curves, which I tend to think would be a severe challenge, given the easement requirement.

So, put me down for "coming eventually."

In the meantime, we're putting up industry!

AlkaliFlatsIndustry-02.jpg

[Paragon]

Hello.
What is the length of the route?

215 miles of line track and let's say about 100 sidings, 4 yards, and 19 distinct depots. Plus an odd number of Partidges in an unquantifiable number of Pear Trees.

AlkaliFlatsYard-06.jpg

[Paragon]

This is a loading depot for fine aggregates. The rail loader building is an actual loader infrastructure object. There are 10 depots in all, with different size and color of aggregate.

AlkaliFlatsIndustry-04.jpg

AlkaliFlatsIndustry-03.jpg

[Paragon]

If you're going to move piles of dirt around a hot, empty desert, you're going to need one of these. Or something like it. Notice the wheeled hand crank in case you thought if the engine broke down you were done for the day. Seats 2. Meanwhile, processing infrastructure rises in the background.

Real Life sucking a lot of time just now. Plodding along as best we can.

RockElevator1.jpg

RockElevator2.jpg

[Paragon]

Hello!

Here we have a weathered pumper in a desert setting. And while it's clearly animated, the tics and palsies introduced by my "computer" are quite evident. The model and animation was done in Blender and exported to the rail sim, including a sound I found of a pumper in action. They come in three flavors: Beat, To, and Crap. Also included is a flatcar model re-using the default US double-stack car as a base. Two pumpers are on the flatcar, taken apart and ready to go.

The animation was tricksy. The worst was the bloody cables. The upper two cables, the part where they connect to the head, are actually many small cables that bend into the head to "disappear" as the head lowers, only to reappear as the head rises.

The model is available for download, including a complete Blender source package for all five models.

YouTube : http://youtu.be/qIBzG56KvaA
Download: http://panamintcrossing.blogspot.com/

OilPumper01.jpg

OilPumper02.jpg

OilPumper03.jpg

[Chacal]

Awesome.
I like that you are modeling in Belnder and sharing your source files.
Thanks!

[OldProf]

You're building some very impressive structures and machines and I particularly like the fact that you're also creating the latter as flatcar loads.

Having weighed in at one point about track markers, I'd like to offer a comment about portals from a scenario writer's point of view. It's very simple: the more, the better. The only place that a portal might not make sense is at the closed end of a dead-end siding. Otherwise, anywhere that a spur of some kind heads off into nowhere, a portal is called for. But they're also useful along main-line tracks as places where AI traffic can gracefully exit without having to traverse seemingly endless miles of track (in the editor, that is) to an end-of-the-line portal. Despite what some folks think, I've also found that portals can be used to hide AI trains from view before they enter the "stage". One thing that really puts me off is opening the 2D map while running a scenario to check on a destination or the progress of the train I'm driving and seeing AI trains sitting around waiting to begin their runs. I come from a theater background, and no sensible director has actors lounging around the visible area of the stage waiting for their characters to enter into the action. Thanks for considering this proposal.

[OldProf]

If road engines are comeing [sic!]into the yard to drop than your siding markers should be long enough to handle 3 or 4 engines and 4 cars. If it is switch engines, then long enough for 1 engine and 3 cars should do it.

Siding and destination markers do not have to be long enough to accommodate the entire train instructed to stop at them. As long as some part of a train stops on or passes over the marker, the instruction will function. (I'm speaking from experience, not in theory, by the way.) Just take a look at the miniscule markers favored by Rich Garber along mainline tracks: they're tiny, but functional (of course, I have to point out that, in my opinion, he errs terribly by placing end-to-end siding markers.* I'm not sure about desirable lengths for platform markers, since I've never yet created a passenger scenario; perhaps passengers only appear along the marker?
===============================
* While driving some of Rich's scenarios for his new Heavener route, I've noticed another bothersome aspect of these end-to-end markers: they make it difficult to see the path when setting switches in a yard because they completely cover up the thin blue line that indicates it.

[Paragon]

Thanks for the valuable feedback on markers!

Here is a before/after showing traditional end-to-end markers and my proposed shortening. One thing I like about the new TS is the marker name label orientation follows the tracks. Makes it much neater and more readable, IMHO.

The point about portals is also well-taken, as the heavy grades of this route mean things are not going to be moving very fast to begin with. Being from the stage myself, I sympathize with having things only visible that are part of the story.

SidingMarkers.jpg

[OldProf]

Your markers look ideal, Paragon, and I definitely agree about the new marker label orientation in TS2013. There's one more "trick" you might consider, which is staggering those short markers so that they appear like this ...
---------------------------------Marker 1---------------------------
---------------------Marker 2---------------------------------------
--------Marker 3----------------------------------------------------
... rather than like this...
--------------------------------Marker 1---------------------------
--------------------------------Marker 2---------------------------
--------------------------------Marker 3--------------------------- .
To my eye, staggered markers are easier to read in both 2D and 3D views.

Many thanks for taking these suggestions into consideration!