So I happened to make "Introduction to Sherman Hill" my first scenario. It's seeming this might have been a very bad idea. I have run the scenario and completed it on my first full attempt (my second run, will explain in a moment). The mission, as is known, involves taking a HUGE train out of Laramie and driving it to Cheyenne. The problem is that, as I'm driving along not doing anything and minding my business, the PCS suddenly trips. I was looking at something else the first time, hence didn't know what it was and didn't know how to fix it. On my rerun, I managed to catch the alert because I knew to look for it. The alert happened in the exact same spot. I was taking video - both times. I'm going to run it again Sunday and see if I can, once again, get video of the train PCS tripping. I had to ask another player I fortunately had online on Steam how to go about fixing the PCS problem and learned that putting the brake to full power, then releasing it back to 0, resets it and you can carry on your merry way. So I carried on. Later, I got another PCS trip, again not having any idea what caused it. This time, I reset and again carried on. Later, I reviewed the tape and noticed that the train was breaking up for strange reasons. The first case of PCS tripping resulted when I added a notch to the acceleration and the last few cars of my consist vanished from the back of the train. I actually noted in the lower panel the train had shrunk slightly, which I did not see during gameplay. The second case was something possibly more stupid: I applied the dynamic brake, which should only be used for a solo locomotive and not to stop an entire train; I did not notice the trip at first, but I did notice that I slowed down a lot. On the tape, I observed that more than half of the remaining train from before had peeled off; I had 23 cars left behind my engines. I am aware that the Gas Turbine most likely has the same braking setup as the trains that come with Sherman Hill (including the SD60), described in the manual for that turbine. Meanwhile, all of the threads I'm pointing at point to problems mainly with the first scenario; people who tried driving the train "harder than normal", according to a Steam forum discussion thread, didn't have issues (assuming they used the introduction scenario here). So it seems some people always have the problem, and some people never have the problem. One reports having train breaks on other US routes like Donner Pass, Feather River Canyon, Marias Pass. So back to Sherman Hill. Is there a bug with the ES44AC and other trains scripted in this fashion, or more perhaps with the couplings of the cars that keep breaking and falling off? Should I be reducing the train's braking setup to an easier difficulty to not fully simulate the breaking of trains on the route? And, in order to make for a smoother ride, should I just leave two thirds of my train on the track where I start the introduction scenario? LOL I do have the check mark, I'm just trying to figure out what to do to make a smooth ride. I still have career scenarios to attempt and, according to others from 2016, I should just play in Standard and avoid Career. Any tips on things to watch in the cab would help, but I have come to determine I probably can't drive beyond 30 miles per hour on the route in general, which on a downhill gradiant makes for a bit of a challenge. EDIT: Just ran it a third time after posting. I had the throttle set to 12.5% from the beginning and didn't touch the controls. The PCS randomly tripped and five cars fell off the train. I know because I went back and took footage of them. This scenario cannot be consistently completed, and a fix needs to be made to this introduction scenario as I'm sure many a player who started here, particularly in 2016, was a bit thrown off (I wonder if there were even refunds) when this just randomly happened. I will be sending the video to Support.
Yes, I already did, along with the video of the incident (always have your dashboard cam on to report bugs, kids). I plan to continue tests with the Cajon Pass ES44AC, and then may put the SD70 on the consist instead of the ES44AC; finally, I'll put something that I know doesn't have advanced braking (maybe even from the UK) on the consist. My suspicion is a problem with the scripting of the advanced braking as I know of a user who has issues on Peninsula Corridor (based on my read, though, that's a different system), and I'm aware Feather River Canyon also has given people headaches with the same scripted braking (including one who literally quit playing for months because of it). So if my guess is correct, the bugs in the scripting need to be worked out or the scripting needs to be removed and trains allowed to run normally, and I intend to try multiple cabs on the same scenario to see if I can isolate that as an issue. If I'm right, removing the inconsistent system can only serve to improve workshop content, as well, and I doubt it would ruin anything, but this is something I would happily test for them if a fix is attempted. I have 7-10 days, apparently, before I will be able to get any response, so I might as well use the time and forget working on my yet-to-launch Youtube channel for a while.
Hi Cyclone, thank you for the detailed feedback this will be helpful, will pass this on to the team for you.
Thanks Jamie. I am also doing my own testing right now involving the first scenario. I am about to run the scenario on a different computer, with a fairly fresh 2020 installation void of all DLC except the Cajon Pass and fictional routes from the 2012 edition plus all of the routes that came with 2020 (it's realistic to assume those are installed on the test, and I can try again without them if needed). If I can manage a clean run on Introduction to Sherman Hill on that laptop, then I will be able to conclude it's an issue with a DLC, and I have ideas in mind for trying to tackle which DLC it is. I'll work on that on my end.
I bought Sherman Hill yesterday during the Halloween Sale, and I am having the exact same issue, on the exact same scenario. My train keeps braking up too. But never in the same spot. The first time it happened, I lost the last 5 cars. I didn't notice it at first, and ended up leaving them behind (I forgot what PCS was). The second time, the last half of my train cut away. Then, the third time, the train split between the third and fourth locos. Then it happened a fourth time (see link below), where I lost the back half of my train again. https://www.twitch.tv/buffalosportsfan/clip/BlushingBelovedRaccoonHotPokket And it wasn't because I was doing the same thing. The first and fourth time, I had just put the throttle into idle to coast. The second time, it just happened randomly, I was pulling the train uphill in notch 2, as I had been doing for the last 10 minutes. The third time, it was right after I turned off the dynamic brakes to coast.
Came across something on this thread... https://forums.dovetailgames.com/th...merican-rolling-stock-pack.29588/#post-199730 In the third post (from Cyclone), it is the intermodal cars that are bugged. So I guess I could replace those with the cars from the US Loco & Asset pack and it should work fine.
Ironically, this is also my thread. LOL All I will say is I created two proof of concept tests trying first a community fix, then my own whimsical attempt to fix it. Both tests worked. So it's up to DTG to take the video evidence and determine the best way to fix it. All I know is that it will fix it.
I didn't even realize that you were the original poster! lol . I certainly hope it gets fixed soon. Makes me nervous about trying the other scenarios.
Well, the point I made (I won't quote the conversation post I made) is that the DLC is used all over the place, since 2012. And, if the DLC was properly tested and the scenario worked out of the gate, then it would all be fine. But no one has fixed this for eight years. And since it has been out for eight years, the cars in question are now used all over the place. What is the argument? The fact that, because the couplers are weak, any train using just these cars - in ANY scenario - is liable to break over time, and repeatedly. Strengthening the couplers - which has one specific setting that does so in the XML script - is a very easy thing to do that, even if not realistic in some aspects, prevents very obviously unrealistic things in all scenarios that use these cars. I'd rather have the connections made of tungsten than of wood. It's a no-brainer fix that should not need the DTG team looking at it for two weeks. I have the entire route already disassembled; just have me test it and I'll report back with video and commentary as I play. It's literally free feedback. I've already given information on what exact changes led to the video tests I submitted, so let's hope it gets something done.
Right, but in the Workshop the cars are used. The reason I know it's the Sherman Hill cars are, if you were to unpack the AP file (advanced user stuff, I won't describe it here), the exact file for the cars would go into a folder you can currently see in a folder within Steam\steamapps\common\RailWorks\Assets\RSC\ShermanHill\. In other words, when the AP file is NOT unpacked, the folder structure looks like there is nothing in it, and you might think eh, there are blank folders, let's clean this up. NO! If you were to do the advanced user stuff and unpack the AP file, the file needed for this car would go into that folder. I've edited that file and proven that the scenario works with the edits. For obvious reasons, I am not putting details of that here in case someone happens upon this searching for a fix to the scenario and screws up their game. What I am hoping is that DTG can take what I've attempted and finally fix the cars. I've proven it works as a concept.
My random desktop image just became this, so it reminded me. This is from the official SD60M scenario supplied for Sherman Hill. I ran it 3 times (my usual habit), 1 was definitely successful, 1 obviously not, 3rd I don't remember. I recall this spot (easy to recognize from the rejoining track and the signal ahead) had a tendency to split on the intro as well, and overall this is about the area where my shenanigans started, give or take a few miles per attempt.
So you're saying the same problems happened for you with the SD60M. I can definitely say one thing: if the scenario for the SD60M causes the cars to break apart, then it's either, again, a problem with the cars themselves...or a problem with the track as it addresses those cars. And it always seems to start around the area between Colores and Hermosa, though one started for me around Dale. It's interesting that, in the shenanigans with the PCS tripping and possibly recovering the cars in "Introduction to Sherman Hill", you never get to see the intended red at Granite - yes, that was news to me, too, when I tried one of my edits and suddenly came upon that. My reaction was akin to "THERE'S A RED HERE?!?"
I completed this scenario but took several tries. It is all about train handling. Try using blended braking. dynamics and train brakes. I find a sweet spot where I am in control of my train and use ± on the dynamics to speed up or slow down. You must be smooth in the application and allow plenty of time for your train to react.
Twice my train split while I was coasting, no brakes, no throttle. And one time it happened as I was pulling up hill in notch 2, I was doing the same thing I'd been doing the last 3 minutes and I didn't change a thing.
Dude, I can relate.... When I saw the approach, I thought ," Nah. Can't be a red coming up! Must be a glitch." But I rounded the curve at Granite, ".......oh crud."
Does not matter where you are if you get a signal warning of a Red ahead then you should expect to find a Red.
By this point, I had played several scenarios with the same double yellow elsewhere and all it stood for was a track diversion alert. Very rarely did I come upon an actual red in official scenarios. I'd also played Intro previously with the train breaking apart and been clear all the way since I never got to the yellows while they were - ahem - yellow. In the described case where I first saw them, I had slowed down at the double yellow and then had to PCS trip to try to stop in time, and slid past the red anyway, but not into the junction. I continued on my merry way after the train passed. The second time, I came to the conclusion that the train is too heavy to stop in the short distance given unless you hit the brakes long before the double yellow is actually met by the train (i.e. seen in the distance). I tried to back up and caused the game to lose its mind and abort by doing so. It's also worth noting that playing the double yellows correctly, assuming a stop is ahead, actually stops you from getting high scores in the included scenarios. A major oversight in the design of the scenarios, and moreso given Laramie is impossible to reach by 12:14 a.m. in The Midnight Magnet! Playing the scenario the proper way at the double yellows and with the huge uphill struggle getting up to speed (and failing), 12:24 is the best case scenario. I managed 12:20 just rushing through the signals as fast as the train was capable on the hills and avoiding speeding; my perfect timetable to that point, and 700+ points, got dropped to -3K in a hurry on the final stop.
Decided to revisit Sherman Hill as back in 2016 I didn't take nice shots of the route. Had a good run until I didn't This is a location / kind of issue I didn't have before, this also triggered PCS and it appears the rear of the train did separate, as it seems shorter than the 0.9 mi judging by the HUD. As far as any claims of rough handling nonsense - I was driving in notch 1-2 flipping between 38 and 40mph. I didn't use air brakes at all. I used 5-15-25% dynamic brakes during the descent from Hermosa, then applied 6% here, then increased to 14% as more of my train got on the descent. Not sure how long it took between the application and the derail, but there are 20 seconds only between the two shots. Will give one last ever try in a few days, will add my very last report on this specific scenario, either of success or another shot. Note that this is scenario / consist specific as I've just ran a whole bunch of scenarios successfully over Sherman over the years, GWD320 M-GRNY most recently. That one I could also complete with dynamic brakes only, about 50%.
During this run I also had a double yellow, which indeed is for the red/green diversion. Might be a red/yellow at that point, no difference. The warning of danger would have been yellow/red or red/yellow. There was a train passing me and I was routed to track #2 on the right. That train may have come from track #3. I do remember getting a yellow and not believing in it, only to find a full red (danger) soon afterwards. Doing the math, I could have been 60-90 seconds faster and thus encountering said train at a farther location.
Introduction to Sherman Hill, correct? Yes, it seems to be specific only to that scenario. The entire scenario needs to be rebuilt from scratch and reattached to the scenario pack. This is the most broken and consistent thing I've seen thus far, and this route was bundled in a new release in 2020 without being fixed. Pretty bad to leave that bug in there, especially since it's the first scenario on the line! The red BTW is around Granite. Double Yellow seemingly can be either for diverging routes or for a danger signal. I've seen it represent both. And driving a scenario properly when you see such a signal, you will make a good score impossible responding to double yellows by slowing down. Heck, there is a case where a train gets routed in front of you on scenario 4 and you're expected to come to a stop within 0.03 m of the red light to pick up your timing goal. It might be doable, but it requires extremely precise braking. Not realistic at all. In fact, the dispatcher is an idiot, routing the train into the siding as you approach. then back in front of you to cross tracks. It should have just continued down the track normally instead of going into the siding. Genius! (Also, the issue I still believe is related to the boxcars. I'd love to see Intro tested with a different car used. This would leave no doubt.)
Double yellow in the US can be an advance approach. Meaning the next signal is yellow and the one after that is likely red. It can also be an approach slow (which is what it appears to be here?) meaning the next signal is red, and trains must not exceed slow speed (about 20mph). This indication can be used when the dispatcher wants to slow down you train (like for a speed restriction) or if your train will be taking the diverging route, and will then hit a red signal (like when you take a siding to let a train pass).
Yes, I've seen the same double yellow used to represent either a slowdown or a junction. Some manuals are clear about the fact that both variants exist, but some are not. In fact, for Cajon, I found a flashing red not covered in the manual and to this point don't know whether that should mean go 15 from the signal (which I do even though the speed limit does not show it) or whether it means stop and then proceed at restricted speed. I never get marked for passing the red on that. This flashing red means go into the siding, at a minimum, like the lunar red that mandates 20 MPH maximum on Sherman.
I mentioned earlier this has nothing specific to do with Sherman but I didn't care hunting for new proof nor had old shots anymore. Think I'll just use this thread for PCS tripped screenshots This was an actively pushing loco with a compressed coupler, Donner official 2b: Skipped sharing a Sherman shot from a now hidden workshop scenario, having lost the trailing SD70M under mild dynamics. It would be nice if somebody would explain the cause for these separations. Just for fluff. During these runs I also encountered what I'd best describe as gravity change. I'd suddenly need a higher notch for the same grade.
Phew. My 50 cents, Cyclone. Had to try that of course, my train broke apart twice between Dale and Buford, and there is a section that's pretty rough with a sudden strong cab shake. Well, then made a quick freeroam for testing, starting at Dale with the exact "Introduction" consist (4 GEVOs+65 Stacks). I treated it so bad that the couplers SHOULD HAVE BROKEN but... they did not. Unusual is that they put a value of 1000 in the coupler blueprint whereas 150 (!) is the usual value for Buckeye Type E coupler strength. It seems the developers noticed something already back then. I will add a little reasonable slack (which is missing) in the coupler blueprints (0, 0.1, 0.05) and see what happens. Unfortunately it'll take a lot of time finding the cause. What TS is lacking is a debug overlay, kinda like the Alt+F5 hud OpenRails has. You can see everything from brake cylinders pressures of each car, force on the couplers, adhesion etc... GREAT for debugging. In TS we are blind. Might add that couplers breaking is surely not a bug per se. For example using Dynamics only on a downhill section with such a train is the worst thing you can do - thousands of unbraked tons pushing the frontmost couplers and only 4 locos braking. Somewhere I read that the dynamics only work in the driver's engine as they are not really MU'd in TS. Always use blended braking (84 psi on the brakepipe + dynamics as needed). Any real life engineer reading? Would you rather have DPU's on such a consist/route?
Sounds like a joke but to be honest, I wouldn't mind an automatic dump (...) whenever a coupler breaks. The F5 HUD could show the relevant section of the last separation, and then we could screenie it for analysis. Then again, question is, would DTG want to fix it. My suspicion is that one of the cars proceeds a mismatching distance, and it either counts as separated (SP loco above) or crashed (Sherman above), the latter causing consist explosion. I usually mention Donner's Daily Grind Over the Pass, it's a full Roseville-Sparks with stock UP ES44AC 3+2 and autoracks in between; it would always climb to the Summit successfully (about 4 hours) and always break downhill (up to 9 times during those 1.5-2 hours), including while coasting. Once I finished with just one loco :-D I've seen several videos with coupler failures and it was always under pulling power. (Never heard about a compression failure of a Janner. I have thoughts on why. Guess it can happen just unlikely.)
That was not a joke. The OpenRails hud (multiple pages) lets you see nearly all forces in realtime that work in the simulator, absolutely useful for debugging. Second, I highly doubt DTG would fix it. Maybe because they don't have manpower but considering the many issues that require only simple corrections (found by the community and delivered to them on a silver tablet) were never being fixed, although they promised to "look into it", I suspect they don't even have the knowledge. IMHO they are more marketing people than software engineers. Good example is the broken brakes on DTG\ES44AC_BNSF (Tehachapi Pass) which got finally fixed by someone on RWA. Concerning the coupler brakes on Sherman Hill, I will try with my modified coupler blueprints. But it will take some time. Btw Run8 teaches you how to handle large trains in a good way. If it breaks there, it'll break in real life. You have to be very careful with trains that have pulling power only in front, especially when going over a hill with the front half of your train already going downhill and the back part still climbing ub which is dangerous without a helper on the back. But yes there's definitely something wrong with Sherman, no doubt. Though I can't recall a coupler break with the Big Blow GTELs, having played all scenarios.
Didn't have to wait long for the next! Scenario: Colfax Depot. Took the relatively underpowered manifest, but only 40 cars for 2xGE at front and 1xSD40 rear, so theoretically well within safety. A little after Emigrant Gap I got a really bad kick in the cab (shortly after entering the cab from a screenshot)... The last 8 cars separated with the loco and stayed nicely on the rails: While the first section rippled, with some cars dancing around, most couplers visually detached but the entire train slowly climbing:
Well, let's try editing the corresponding coupler blueprints. Add minimal slack and play with strength value. I remember there was a huge consist break issue with MSTS back then on Marias Pass, reason was the track layout was just awkward. Community updated this route. But then... as it seems to be very time consuming fixing stuff like that, can't we just have a Gameplay option "Allow coupler breaking"?
Seems that was the issue. Missing slack causes weird things to happen, which shows one thing: that the physics engine in TS is quite good and if you feed it with bad parameters it acts bad as well. Having no slack in the couplers leads to forces travelling through a heay train in a very different way. In some cases it leads to coupling tasks not being recognised, or the breaking issue. I changed the parameters to make the train just a little more elastic. Also reverted to standard strength of 150 instead of 1000. Just finished "Introduction to Sherman Hill" for the first time without couplers breaking and PCS tripping. I've attached the fix for Sherman Hill's rolling stock. Will look at Donner Pass then. Please use and help testing. (delete blueprints.pak before using)
Thanks, will take a look. Probably the weekend as I want to finish some things yet As for Donner, it may use Classic US Assets randomly. What's curious - and may help - that I had a fair share of issues with the classic hoppers (UP yellow and Santa Fe red) on the earlier All Aboard routes, all three of them. Also the autoracks on Cajon. But I had no issues whatsoever on Ohio Steel, which is a faster route and 30 scenarios. However, it uses different hoppers, the ones in various colors (grey, brown, red...). My intention with posting these shots is to kindly guide DTG towards releasing a fix, possibly yours. Regular customers cannot be expected to change the files, especially being .bin ones. I used to fiddle with modding Red Alert 2 back in the day
triznya, there are problems wit the official Donner scenarios but I have not had those train breakups. Except for one. I wasn't paying attention when I had to go 30 in a 25 to meet the ridiculous timetable in scenario 3a and realized, as I came to a stop, that half my train was still on the mountain. Guy still offered me a beer.
Cyclone, please try the fix I provided. So far I haven't got any couplers break any more. If it works, edit the thread title to "[..] SOLVED". Thanks.
What fix? I've done a fix for the cars before, but on another scenario, I found the train suddenly derailing. The best fix is to change out the rolling stock and use something else. For this reason, certain Career scenarios are not doable, but you can edit Standard scenarios (like one I had to delete an AI train on because it refuses to move and there's a collision).
What? Absurd. It is the buckeye coupler blueprint. I tested for 3 hours and the problem is solved. Now I am going through my assets and adjust all buckeye couplers blueprints (not cars!) that have zero slack. And I used existing values of rolling stock that work without issues. Sad to see you're not appreciating help.
Thanks, took that file as well. Should I recreate the folder structure like this, right? ...\RailWorks\Assets\RSC\DonnerPass\RailVehicles\Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E\ As I found the same file here: ...\RailWorks\Assets\RSC\DonnerPass\DonnerPassAssets.ap\RailVehicles\Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E\ 3 hours is good but not definite, I've driven 2a-2b-3a-3b (8 hours) with just one break. This was the first time I got to finish 3b. (Probs 2nd run lifetime, having done career.) But that's why we're here, test test test There is a lot of stock from 2011-2013 which doesn't suffer this issue, most notably the Canadian Mountain Passes. I can attach the coupler bin if you don't have it and want to check. I also noticed how excessively elastic the couplers on old DLC is (Cab Forward, SD70). Might be related. And of course, Sherman 01 is a quite obvious test! I wonder why some people have this issue a lot while others say it must be driving error. Intel vs AMD? CPU speed ranges? V-Sync? Also, I don't recall having this issue ever with UK or German stock.
Thanks Andras. I have all North American Routes. Canadian Mountain Passes has exactly the same slack values I use (it's the same coupler technically anyway), hence no issues. European routes don't have heavy trains like North America. Not comparable. Some people automatically say it's driver error, I even saw a comment on Tehachapi's (now fixed) ES44DC defect brakes by someone who said it works if you know how to brake. Ignore them. Cab Forward looks ok. SD70 too. For me the thing is fixed now. Edit: Andras: I already created the folder structure. The Railvehicles folder is created in the same folder the .ap archive is. TS is merging that in memory upon loading, and uses the file with the newest date, the fixed coupler. Structure: RailWorks\Assets\RSC\ShermanHill\Blueprints.pak RailWorks\Assets\RSC\ShermanHill\ShermanHillAssets.ap RailWorks\Assets\RSC\ShermanHill\RailVehicles\Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E\buckeye_type_e_coupling.bin RailWorks\Assets\RSC\ShermanHill\RailVehicles\Couplings\ES44AC_Buckeye\Type-E\buckeye_type_e_coupling.bin
Oh, I know it's the Buckeye Coupler. The same thing is the problem on Sherman Hill. And DTG hasn't done anything to resolve it. So technically, this remains unresolved until something official is updated on the DLC and everything works there.
Good luck waiting then. Even Matt Peddlesden played Marias Pass on Youtube with the broken wiper But I see this forum here is not the place for community fixes. Think I'll move over to RWA.
Please don't be disheartened. Cyclone is right in the sense that ultimately DTG should include a fix for the community at large, if it's as simple as replacing this one file in this one zip... just have to push them. Nicely. But if this fix does work on the long run, and especially if DTG learns from it and updates affected DLC thanks to you, then it's really worth it! ... Yes, submitting to RWA is useful regardless. At one point many of us offered testing and fixing participation, for some reason they ignored it. Quite possibly because of TSW being in the works and the dreams about it being a dominant successor. I wish they'd allow a few trustworthy community members to submit fixes to their repository or even to Steam (pull request, to be approved), small stuff like NS Coal District or GTEL 15.
If I would have to wait for a fix from DTG this game would be unplayable for me. And sorry... Sherman Hill is 9 years old! And the software is sold AS-IS! They probably have a lot of work to do with the bugs submitted for Strasbourg-Karlsruhe and Chatham Main Line. I see the point you're making. But then we just have to create tickets and not search for solutions ourselves. If you want to get dissappointments - there you go. The thread should therefore have ended with the second post from Peter 749006.
I am happy to try it out. I will try and give "Introduction to Sherman Hill" a whirl tonight and let you know feedback. I know I have had the consist fall apart in the past too.
Yes. And it is no work of magic or brilliance. A Buckeye stays a Buckeye, it's not something new. I just chose the parameters that are known to be working fine with the engine, parameters which RSC already used in most of their DLC. And the issue is gone. Just can't understand why Cyclone thinks it is easier to swap rolling stock, but then everybody's free to do with their game as they please. I'm happy to have fixed a lot of issues in hundreds of asset files and like to share that, and I have an almost bug-free game for me now. I've grown up with the Commodore Amiga and started modding and coding my own utilities for games back then, it's just something I enjoy. Anyone has the DTM SD45-T SP pack? Well if you don't have the GP35 installed you'll be missing a coupler texture. Was reported on Steam user reviews. Reason is just a wrong reference in the coupler's GeoPcDx file, as the DLC actually has the texture delivered but not used. They never fixed it, as the "official" solution was to buy the GP35. Lol. Bought it anyway... Edit: Just be sure to to delete blueprints.pak after installing the fix. Standard routine when changing assets...
I plan to post a summary and tag DTG once my tests are exhaustive. Just didn't want to keep spamming I ran Colfax-Sparks with 40 container wells without trouble (3h 45m). I forgot to delete cache but it had some unusual slack action so I think it worked. It is promising but don't want to jump the gun. Had a (bad) joke running in my head... Terrible, now I have so many screenshots to check, it wouldn't happen if my train broke down. You are to blame! In other works, good job, thanks.
