If you've read my introduction post here on the forum you'll know that while I enjoy driving modern diesel-electric locomotives I love love LOVE to drive steam locomotives. As an American steam enthusiast I own all of the American steamers from the Southern Pacific GS-4 to the more recent Union Pacific 119 and Central Pacific "Jupiter" (the only exception being the S160). Of all the American steam locomotives none are more majestic and awe-inspiring to look at than the articulated locomotives, the Challenger, the Big Boy, and the AC 10-12 Cab Forwards. Of all the American steam locomotives none are more of a mess to drive than the articulated locomotives, the Challenger, the Big Boy, and the AC 10-12 Cab Forwards. Why is that? It goes back to a notion that's been around since the days of MSTS that for some reason articulated steam locomotives have to be built as separate engine units. What's the problem with that? That's how they're built in real life, so why not build them like that in Train Simulator? If you've driven steam locomotives in Train Simulator for any amount of time you more than likely know that Train Simulator, while it handles driving multiple diesels and electric locomotives in the same player consist well, does NOT like it when you drive multiple steam locomotives in the same player consist. The simulator displays conflicting information about steam pressure and the amount of water in the boiler between the F5 and F4 HUDs when multiple steam locomotives are in the same player train consist. In the case of an articulated steam locomotive in Train Simulator, each locomotive set is treated as its own stand-alone locomotive and so when both sets are put together Train Simulator interprets the articulated engine as two double-headed locomotives. Many a time a player charging down the line in an articulated locomotive using the F4 HUD has had the unpleasant surprise of Train Simulator ending the session due to the boiler running dry when the F4 HUD shows the boiler as being 90% full. In these cases most often if the player would have looked in the F5 HUD the player would have seen that the water level in the boiler was actually dangerously low. Another issue with articulated locomotives is that each section in the Simulation file are listed as requiring a tender. This means that each section is supposed to be directly connected to a tender. If you've been paying attention you'll see what the problem is here: the front engine unit can never be directly connected to a tender, and so has only a finite amount of water in the boiler and no real way of filling it since it's not connected to a tender. Essentially you're driving the equivalent of a deflating balloon on the front part of your articulated locomotive. G-Trax attempted to address this fault with the Cab Forward by making each engine set a tank engine in the simulation file with its own water and coal supply. That takes care of the fuel problem, but the problem of conflicting information among the HUD menus is still present. Notice that in all of Train Simulator there are only 3 articulated locomotives available for purchase: the Challenger, the Big Boy, and the Cab Forward. Since these locomotives were released there have been no releases of articulated steam locomotives despite the sheer number of articulateds available to model like the C&O 2-6-6-6 Allegheny, Norther Pacific 2-8-8-4 Yellowstone, or the N&W class A 2-6-6-4. I'm no expert but I suspect it's because of these inherent flaws in articulated locomotive design in Train Simulator. My question: why do we still build articulated locomotives the same way we did in MSTS? This isn't MSTS anymore, this is TS2018. What's stopping articulated steam locomotives from being modeled as one engine unit? And I'm serious because I really want to understand, why are we still modelling articulated locomotives like it's 2001? Is it a limitation of the 3D rendering software used to build the locomotive? Is it a limitation of Train Simulator 2018? It seems to me that building an articulated engine as one single entity instead of two engine units would clear up most of these issues. So why don't we build them like that? Now as well as proposing a fundamental change in how modelers approach building articulated locomotives, I also propose something equally as drastic: rebuild the Challenger and the Big Boy. These locomotives suffer from the common problems discussed above with conflicting boiler pressure and fuel amounts and several others. Each was modeled by IHH and not to speak ill of the dead but IHH was not known for having high standards of quality in their locomotives. In fact they were known for the opposite: broken physics and lack of good quality physical detail work. The cabs of both engines are less than functional, both have way too much starting tractive effort, both are too slow, both have spongy couplers, both have broken water injectors (you can't shut off the water on the driver side injector because the key command, L, is also mapped to the non-existent cab light in the input mapper preventing it from working properly), and both have incorrect values in their particle emitters which prevents them from displaying at all in-game. The cylinder cocks don't even work on either locomotive. For whatever reason the simulation file lists the simulation cocks as "automated", removing control from the player. They don't even open automatically. Why does this line of text in the simulation file even exist? I've written modifications for both engines a couple of times which correct the issues with the broken particle emitters, make the cylinder cocks manual, correct the spongy couplers, and corrects several of the issues having to do with the locomotive physics (you can see my work on RailworksAmerica.com), but I should not have needed to craft those mods in the first place. Specifically to the Big Boy the tender coal animation is set way too low and makes the engine look like it's about to run out of coal in a few minutes despite it being 100% full. The tender number file is set to the wrong number scheme (it's set to the Challenger's number scheme, and while historically the Challenger and Big Boy tenders were identical the numbering schemes were not). The water glass does not display the real amount of water in the boiler. There is no cab light despite what's in the input mapper so driving at night is a hassle. The windows don't open and you can't see out very well. You can't open the firebox door to look at the fire. The whistle sound is incorrectly looped. The Challenger, meanwhile, has a problem with its cab setup. The cab is set up to be an oil burner which is fine for 2 of the 3 variants (the ones with smokewings) but there is a coal-burning variant so it needs to have a different cab setup specifically for that variant. A few years ago a performance upgrade was applied to these engines, but I personally can't figure out just what was improved because all of the big deal-breaking issues are still present. I won't ask for a refund because I've owned both engines for a long time now so there's no point in requesting a refund. To address all of the issues present in each locomotive there needs to be more than a patch. There needs to be a complete rebuild so that the locos can be put back together properly and work correctly for the first time. It has been years since I drove either locomotive and enjoyed myself while driving. Every now and then I take a drive in one of them and instantly remember why I ignore them for the most part. The Challenger and the Big Boy are classics in the history of American railroads and should not be ignored in Train Simulator. Please rebuild them and fix them so that they have a reason not to be avoided in Train Simulator.
We could also get the restored versions (Big Boy #4014 and Challenger #3985) as well as the originals, plus some great UP rolling stock. Maybe an excursion passenger consist or UP Challenger or City consist could be included. Also, the Challenger could have the Greyhound livery like the FEF3.
I just took a look at the Big Boy users' manual, which provides specific instructions for placing that loco on a track: 1) place engine segment, 2) add front element, 3)add tender. The engine element is the only one that requires a tender. The Challenger is the same. The Cab forward, of course, is slightly different, since the tender attaches to the engine's rear component, which is placed second rather than first. The placement instructions for the Cab Forward also note that, "Since the forward, driven component has no direct link to the tender, it has been set up as a “tank” locomotive. For playing purposes, both fuel and water are contained in the forward locomotive and not in the tender. When writing scenarios, set the initial fuel and water quantities in the forward locomotive component, not the tender. Since fuel oil is not a supported option for steam locomotives in RailWorks, the locomotive parameters will be displayed as if it is burning coal." Perhaps this will help you? I hope so.
I've own the Big Boy since it was released in 2013 when Sherman Hill was first released and I have done more than look at the manual. I've mined through the files in order to adjust the physics of the engine. I know the inner working of the loco as presented in Train Simulator very well because of that. The Big Boy segments have separate simulation files and I can attest to the fact that each segment is set to require a tender. It's in the blueprints.
Well, they don't work as though each part requires a tender. I've had no trouble placing a Big Boy on track according to the instructions contained in the manual. While I'm not doubting your word, just saying that my experiences have been different.
Good idea, just a question, didn't Britkits/Dickyjim make another set of articulateds? With the USRA Mallets (2-6-6-2), the other USRA Malet (2-8-8-2) and the Baldwin Mallet (2-4-4-2). Maybe we could make him weigh in on this. There is also a Physics patch for both of them on RWA http://railworksamerica.com/index.p...8:big-boy-physics-update&catid=24:accessories https://steamcommunity.com/app/24010/discussions/3/492379159710135832/ http://railworksamerica.com/index.p...allenger-physics-upgrade&catid=24:accessories Also JT has made doubleheading work for their Advanceds, atleat with another advanced of the same type. Double heading can work if both locos are basically on the same level of scripting, for example if you have an old Kuju Black 5+a DT 4MT Tank engine, and both have their respective Steam Sounds Supreme soundpack, doubleheading works. But before the new 4MT Enhancement pack and Soundpack came out, it was a mess that didn't work.
