Mojave Subdivision

[Bananarama]

If you did any scenario work, remove the InitialSave.bin and InitialSave.MD5 files from the route's scenario folders. I find these cause crashes more than anything else.

[amtrack505]

What about

Scenario.bin.MD5
and
ScenarioProperties.xml.MD5?

[Bananarama]

No, just the InitialSave files.

[amtrack505]

I found out what was crashing the game!
The track was corrupted in that area so just a quick redo and it should be back up and running!

[amtrack505]

Ok a little bit of bad news but nothing terrible. Instead of the max gradient being 2.2 its going to be 3.0 (AT SOME AREAS) due to terrain.
Its a minor problem but it only messes up trains and if they stall.

[Bananarama]

Instead of the max gradient being 2.2 its going to be 3.0 (AT SOME AREAS) due to terrain.

Uh - you didn't use a track chart?

[amtrack505]

I dont think that would have made a difference, if I did I would of had to change the terrain drastically

[glenn68]

Still useable?
I would love to run a few BNSF swoosh's across the desert. If I can recall one of the Trains Magazines from 2011 had a article called route 66 running. I would assume this is the same sub?
http://www.socalrailfan.com/subdivision ... #timetable
Glenn

[amtrack505]

Still useable?
I would love to run a few BNSF swoosh's across the desert. If I can recall one of the Trains Magazines from 2011 had a article called route 66 running. I would assume this is the same sub?
http://www.socalrailfan.com/subdivision ... #timetable
Glenn

Yes the route will be useable, just a little more difficult to get across the pass
Yes it is the same route.

[Bananarama]

I dont think that would have made a difference, if I did I would of had to change the terrain drastically

If you follow the data you'll find that things will line up very nicely. The challenge is in understanding the different way SP (UP) and ATSF (BNSF) write the same information. Everything is there, including critical elevation data to help you navigate from one milepost to the next. The latest satellite imagery isn't enough - some of it's good, and some can be off - even as far as showing curvy track were there is none (due to distortions in the picture). Using the Google history imagery function can help in determining if the current data matches what you see in the sim and what you see in the profile data.

[amtrack505]

I dont think that would have made a difference, if I did I would of had to change the terrain drastically

If you follow the data you'll find that things will line up very nicely. The challenge is in understanding the different way SP (UP) and ATSF (BNSF) write the same information. Everything is there, including critical elevation data to help you navigate from one milepost to the next. The latest satellite imagery isn't enough - some of it's good, and some can be off - even as far as showing curvy track were there is none (due to distortions in the picture). Using the Google history imagery function can help in determining if the current data matches what you see in the sim and what you see in the profile data.

Well its not to late.
Whrere can I find this data

[glenn68]

So both UP and BNSF use this subdivision?

[Bananarama]

Whrere can I find this data

There are several sources, none that are free, however.

ATSF (1960s Barstow to Oakland)
UP (2002 LA Service Unit)
ATSF (1995 Western Region)

I found that the ATSFRY site above provided all the needed info, as the alignment hadn't changed all that much to today (this is pre-quake info - I had to adjust Bena, Ilmon, Allard, and tunnels 3 through 6), and at $7 it was well worth getting. There are a few other sources out there, but unless you know someone willing to send a BNSF or UP copy, or perhaps find a free source online, then you're stuck paying the fee.

[GSkid]

So both UP and BNSF use this subdivision?

Yes... both use it.

UP owns the tracks over Tehachapi Pass (because of buying original owner Southern Pacific), but Santa Fe had a long standing trackage rights agreement with SP and still retains it to this day as BNSF. Over Cajon Pass, UP has long had trackage rights with Santa Fe over it and still does to this day with BNSF. But UP also has SP's Cajon Pass single track to Palmdale as well... again... thanks to the merger.

Overall, Union Pacific has the clear advantage in California from an ownership and trackage rights point of view. They own the Feather River route (from buying out Western Pacific RR), Donner Pass (from buying SP), Tehachapi Pass (from buying SP) and Cajon Pass (owns the SP tracks, has trackage rights on BNSF's line). They still have their route to Las Vegas and .... thanks to SP... the Sunset Route to Arizona. Oh then there is the SP route up to Oregon and of course the Coastal Route as well.

Although BNSF has a lot of traffic in and out of the state, Union Pacific has all their bases covered and then some. That helps explain why they are the largest railroad in the USA.

[glenn68]

This would add real nicely to the Cajon route. Just recently..... I finally had started to run some of the scenarios on the Cajon and I have had the simulator since April 2010. The only additions was the super elevation addon and a few cloned and modified scenarios I made up. Growing up in Pittsburgh Pa. I am more prone to run routes and scenarios from my home area but found that the Cajon is enjoyable. Sherman Hill is also nice, have the donner pass but will not run the route until it is fixed.


Glenn