Changing Safety Valve Volume Level
- Thread starter c38nsw
- Start date
Why? To get rid of the totally annoying, ear-splitting, headache inducing safety valves run amok problem!
The first one I posted gets rid of it under AI or DCC. Totally. The safety valves don't pop.
But you said it was too underpowered for cab operation. The latest one, solves the safety valve annoyance and provides plenty of power.
Last edited:
Hi all,
I am a Cab mode person myself and I have found a way to get Safeties to stop or even minimized in DCC\AI mode without fouling Cab mode, in steam-container there is a tag called 'cut-off' this controls the DCC/AI mode timing of the slide valve position while in DCC/AI, allot of people default it to 0.55, however I have found by making it 0.60 or 0.65 slows the cut-off percentage timing by AI/DCC, lets say your loco is set for 45mph Max speed DCC and you set it to cut-off 0.55, the AI/DCC pulls it back to 37%, now whats happening is at that speed there's not much steam going into the cylinders to use the boiler steam and what's happening is the Boiler rises more than what DCC/AI is using, now lets say you set it to 0.65 for 45mph DCC, at that speed the AI/DCC cut-off percent goes back to 55% and the cylinders are using more steam, so try adding 0.05 to the cut-off and give it a run and keep adjusting each time, Do not make massive adjustments because at slow speeds say 25mph the cut-off percent might still be in 75% and completely drains the boiler, so do small changes and test at each speed.
Cheers.
I am a Cab mode person myself and I have found a way to get Safeties to stop or even minimized in DCC\AI mode without fouling Cab mode, in steam-container there is a tag called 'cut-off' this controls the DCC/AI mode timing of the slide valve position while in DCC/AI, allot of people default it to 0.55, however I have found by making it 0.60 or 0.65 slows the cut-off percentage timing by AI/DCC, lets say your loco is set for 45mph Max speed DCC and you set it to cut-off 0.55, the AI/DCC pulls it back to 37%, now whats happening is at that speed there's not much steam going into the cylinders to use the boiler steam and what's happening is the Boiler rises more than what DCC/AI is using, now lets say you set it to 0.65 for 45mph DCC, at that speed the AI/DCC cut-off percent goes back to 55% and the cylinders are using more steam, so try adding 0.05 to the cut-off and give it a run and keep adjusting each time, Do not make massive adjustments because at slow speeds say 25mph the cut-off percent might still be in 75% and completely drains the boiler, so do small changes and test at each speed.
Cheers.
Well if you are using it in DCC mode that sould not worry you. Why change it again?
Bill69
What problem?????
What I find amusing about this thread is that while N3V's response to this safety valve issue, is that it is not a problem and doesn't need fixing. Isn't it then strange that this thread is one of the most active threads on the forum, and it is only a few weeks old? As the old adage goes, "where there is smoke, there is fire" ( no pun intended)
What I find amusing about this thread is that while N3V's response to this safety valve issue, is that it is not a problem and doesn't need fixing. Isn't it then strange that this thread is one of the most active threads on the forum, and it is only a few weeks old? As the old adage goes, "where there is smoke, there is fire" ( no pun intended)
At the very least it shows that it is perceived as a problem, and therefore should be addressed in some manner. As an engineer (design not locomotive) I've been down that road. Folks think something is a fault that isn't, you still need to address the issue, and it is by far better to remove the bullets from the gun (stop customers from having the experience) then to put on a bullet proof vest (explain, over and over, that it isn't a fault).
I have worked for multi-national high tech companies for many years, and the first response you might get when bringing up a new problem is ," Gee, we haven't experienced that problem here, it must be something your doing wrong" :mop:
Why? Why wouldn't I? I worked as a programmer. I've always enjoyed fixing things to make them work the way I want it to work. I also enjoy fixing things people claim can't be fixed.
I posted two working example that solve the problem, which appears to be occurring largely because the max-fire-temperature, min-fire-temperature, and initial-boiler-temperature values used were too high. (Imagine that-- safety valves are constantly popping because the fire's too hot! Who'd have thunk it!)
I'm beginning to get the impression that some folks don't want the problem solved because they've convinced themselves there is no problem. I tried to eliminate some of the guess work and the overall voodoo'ness of these configuration by asking questions about values used, but apparently that is a touchy spot. The scientific approach is frowned on here, apparently... The enginespec is something that some like to treat more as voodoo, rather than something involving science.
Ever heard of the phrase GIGO. I think that's exactly what's happening here... ("...if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?")
Last edited:
I agree with you totally. Here are the solutions that I have been given to solve the "problem", so far.
1. Operate you train with the brakes dragging all the time
2. You don't know how to operate a steam engine, so it's your fault
3. Nobody else has this problem, so it must be something you are doing wrong
4. All steam locomotives have their safety valves going off constantly
5. Get a new sound card and put a notch filter at the frequency of the hissing steam, and you won't notice it.
6 Run in DCC mode
Yada Yada Yada , anything but addressing the real issue.
Bottom line is with the help I have received on this thread, and some tinkering with the settings on the engine spec, now two of my biggest steam locos, are quiet as church mice. No @@##* hissing, and spewing steam, and they run properly reacting to cutoff settings, and additions of coal and blower settings, none of which worked with the old engine specs. Silence is Golden!!!!!!
Last edited:
Robert,
Yes, it's mind blowing...
Please cut 'n' paste the code below into a steam enginespec file and use with on the N&W "J" loco and please let me know (1) if the safety valves problem goes away and (2) how drivable you find it in cab operation. Thanks.
Code:
steam
{
number-cylinders 2
number-power-strokes 2
firebox-heating-surface-area 53.7
firebox-thermal-conductivity 17
boiler-volume 30
steam-chest-volume 0.4419
steam-chest-max-flow 192.72
super-heating-constant 125
max-fire-temperature 650
min-fire-temperature 485
initial-boiler-temperature 485
firebox-efficiency 1
max-coal-mass 2200
ideal-coal-mass 1800
shovel-coal-mass 48
safety-valve-low-pressure 2166
safety-valve-low-flow 10
safety-valve-high-pressure 2180
safety-valve-high-flow 20
water-injector-rate 12
piston-volume-min 0.016
piston-volume-max 0.177307
piston-area 0.36939
piston-angular-offsets 0.1,1.6708
valve-lap-percent 0.1
blower-effect 0.1
blower-max-flow 0.2
burn-rate-idle 0.00919
burn-rate "1e-005"
speed 19.09
cutoff 0.55
boiler-efficency 1
boiler-efficency-min 1
boiler-efficency-idle 1
hand-brake-max-force 2
}
Last edited:
The fire temps settings most of us use isn't the actual cause of the safeties popping, it's the way to e-spec has been set up, again there's some tags which isn't calibrated properly
Putting those all to 1 means the boiler is brand spanking new with no flaws what so ever, so 100% of the fire is going to the boiler, lowering the efficency down helps reduce safety valves constantly popping and makes for more realistic handling as boilers start to loose efficency as they get old.
this is the heat to the boiler with the loco coasting, with it being set to 1 means 100% of the fire is going to the boiler and the boiler is flawless with 0 leaks or heat loss, the real loco boilers have flaws and loose heat so there average 0.95 for a brand new boiler, then after a few weeks old they start to wear and drop down to 0.8, then a year 0.7 and so on.
Here's my e-spec setting
Compare these tags to your tags and you'll notice you have your boiler set to produce 100% heat from the fire to the boiler and that's the reason why you have had to reduce the fire temp, N3V say the fire should be 1200 kalvin, but that sounds a bit hot to me so I use a minimal of 783.5 kalvin for small fireboxes which is 510.35 Celsius that is slightly higher than the standard house oven which is 450 Celsius, then add boiler heat loss to represent steam leakages and all the other tags I've used, it helps in DCC and in Cab, produces enough steam to climb hills and also prevent safeties from popping in DCC/AI mode while running under 35mph.
Cheers.
Code:
boiler-efficency 1
boiler-efficency-min 1
boiler-efficency-idle 1Putting those all to 1 means the boiler is brand spanking new with no flaws what so ever, so 100% of the fire is going to the boiler, lowering the efficency down helps reduce safety valves constantly popping and makes for more realistic handling as boilers start to loose efficency as they get old.
Code:
boiler-efficency-idle 1this is the heat to the boiler with the loco coasting, with it being set to 1 means 100% of the fire is going to the boiler and the boiler is flawless with 0 leaks or heat loss, the real loco boilers have flaws and loose heat so there average 0.95 for a brand new boiler, then after a few weeks old they start to wear and drop down to 0.8, then a year 0.7 and so on.
Here's my e-spec setting
Code:
Firebox: 95.00 sq ft
Tubes: 1056.00 sq ft
Grate Area 21.00 sq ft
Boiler Press: 140 PSI
Safety Valve Low: 140 PSI
Safety Valve High: 141 PSI
Bore x Stroke: 18in x 26in 'E-spec 18in x 26in +0.393701in cylinder clearance'
Driving Wheels: 4ft 6in
Tractive Power: 14,040lbs '100PSI MEP' 15,600lbs '110PSI MEP' 17,472lbs '120PSI MEP'
firebox-heating-surface-area 8.82579
firebox-thermal-conductivity 17
boiler-volume 2.61007
steam-chest-volume 0.660372
steam-chest-max-flow 112.184
max-fire-temperature 783.5
min-fire-temperature 542.7
initial-boiler-temperature 450.3
firebox-efficiency 0.8
max-coal-mass 340
ideal-coal-mass 180
shovel-coal-mass 7.74
safety-valve-low-pressure 1067
safety-valve-high-pressure 1077
safety-valve-low-flow 0.54
safety-valve-high-flow 0.73
water-injector-rate 1.6
water-injector-rate2 1.6
valve-lap-percent 0.13
piston-angular-offsets 0.0174,1.5708
piston-volume-min 0.00164174
piston-volume-max 0.110062
piston-area 0.164173
blower-effect 0.1
blower-max-flow 1.6216
burn-rate-idle 0.0103
burn-rate 0.306
speed 16.54
cutoff 0.4
boiler-efficency-idle 0.727
boiler-efficency 0.841
boiler-efficency-min 0.454
super-heating-constant 35
starting-boiler-steam 1
starting-water 2303
starting-coal 184
number-cylinders 2
number-power-strokes 2
fuel-energy 27912000
fuel-specific-heat-capacity 1100
firebox-plate-thickness 0.017
boiler-heat-loss 0.32
tractive-effort-constant 0.4Compare these tags to your tags and you'll notice you have your boiler set to produce 100% heat from the fire to the boiler and that's the reason why you have had to reduce the fire temp, N3V say the fire should be 1200 kalvin, but that sounds a bit hot to me so I use a minimal of 783.5 kalvin for small fireboxes which is 510.35 Celsius that is slightly higher than the standard house oven which is 450 Celsius, then add boiler heat loss to represent steam leakages and all the other tags I've used, it helps in DCC and in Cab, produces enough steam to climb hills and also prevent safeties from popping in DCC/AI mode while running under 35mph.
Cheers.
The 100% values are from Bill69's original enginespec. I had reduced them to 85% on the first spec I posted, but Bill69 commented basically about "underpowering"... so I jacked them back up to 100%.
The main problem seems to stem from the fact that the larger to largest American steam locos had big boilers/big fireboxes. The engines pecs written for small steam seems to work fine (in terms of the popping off constantly problem) but the larger-to-largest American steam has problems in this regard.
For example, your boiler-volume=2.61007 while the N&W Y6b that comes in TS12 has its boiler-volume=40. The built in N&W Y6b seems to work fine (in terms of safety valves) for me.
Meanwhile, the rest of the American steam -- in the 2-8-2 to 2-8-8-2 range -- seems to be all over the boards in terms of the values used for boiler size. Some are using ~12 while the next guy uses ~26 for the exact same locomotive, etc. My opinion, that I stated earlier (several times) is that I assume there is a "correct value", so why not discover it and use it. Otherwise, you're just playing a guessing game...
Same is true for the firebox-heating-surface-area value. They too seem to be all over the place... For the exact same locomotive boiler...
It shouldn't be that difficult to come up with some valid values for both firebox and boiler size (and others, as well). And unless that's done, the values being used are bound to play heck with the final result. ("...if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?")
Last edited:
ZecMurphy
Community Assistant
Hi All
I've been watching this discussion, as it has been interesting to see what others are coming up with.
However, as even you have proven yourself Rob (with your last post), this is not a Trainz bug (and hence doesn't need specific fixing in the 'internal' code), but is to do with the enginespec itself.
However, the interesting part is that for my, I've kept the F class' boiler pressure pretty much under control most times, however if you aren't keeping on top of things, it can get out of hand, as with any prototype loco.
I should note that my experience on the prototype is with locos at the smaller end of the spectrum (2ft6in, and 2ft, tank locos, and a similar size stationary boiler).
I'm not saying that enginespecs are perfect, but that with the right driving and firing technique you CAN drive these without the safety valves lifting. Of course, if an Espec is out(and it's not hard to have it out), then it might just start causing things to act oddly, or be difficult to drive. Actually, this is one area I've thought of modeling, the slightly different performance characteristics that individual locos have, such as one version is a good steamer, whilst another is a bad steamer, another has older safeties that now go off at lower pressure due to weak springs, etc, etc. As Azza has shown, some locos are run at rated pressure all the time, so as to actually have enough pressure when you need to work hard.
It is wasteful, and most railways discouraged it prior to the end of the steam. However, in the last decade or so of steam operation, the railways cared less, maintenance was poorer (and hence safety valves could go off at odd pressures), and the locos needed to work much harder in the roles they were given...
Regards
I've been watching this discussion, as it has been interesting to see what others are coming up with.
However, as even you have proven yourself Rob (with your last post), this is not a Trainz bug (and hence doesn't need specific fixing in the 'internal' code), but is to do with the enginespec itself.
However, the interesting part is that for my, I've kept the F class' boiler pressure pretty much under control most times, however if you aren't keeping on top of things, it can get out of hand, as with any prototype loco.
I should note that my experience on the prototype is with locos at the smaller end of the spectrum (2ft6in, and 2ft, tank locos, and a similar size stationary boiler).
I'm not saying that enginespecs are perfect, but that with the right driving and firing technique you CAN drive these without the safety valves lifting. Of course, if an Espec is out(and it's not hard to have it out), then it might just start causing things to act oddly, or be difficult to drive. Actually, this is one area I've thought of modeling, the slightly different performance characteristics that individual locos have, such as one version is a good steamer, whilst another is a bad steamer, another has older safeties that now go off at lower pressure due to weak springs, etc, etc. As Azza has shown, some locos are run at rated pressure all the time, so as to actually have enough pressure when you need to work hard.
It is wasteful, and most railways discouraged it prior to the end of the steam. However, in the last decade or so of steam operation, the railways cared less, maintenance was poorer (and hence safety valves could go off at odd pressures), and the locos needed to work much harder in the roles they were given...
Regards
This just goes round and round. The locos that we run in the US , the larger ones, all activate the safety valve non-stop, which is not realistic. The payware locos from Auran, have the same problem. If you don't believe me, get the PRR1 , place it on a track, and operate if for 40 miles or so and see what happens. My experience is that within about 0.2 miles the safety valve will start making a sound similar to what you would expect if you took an electric drill with a 1/4" bit and drilled a hole in a 747 tire under it's normal pressure of around 170 PSI and held your ear against the hole. It makes a pleasurable operation of the popular steam engines in Trainz, impossible to enjoy. There is nothing that can be done in the operation of these locos to get rid of the horrendous noise the valve creates except to edit the engine spec. Now my question is , why should I have to edit the engine spec of a payware engine from Auran , to get it to function properly?
And please, don't tell me I am doing something wrong, unless you give me a step by step method of how to do it right.
Last edited:
It's a I d 10 T issue, coming from the desktop support side of things.
John
Oh please, that's the oldest load of crap in the book, right up there with "The check is in the mail" and "I won't *** in your eye"... The place where I worked was (as I am) vehemitly opposed to that sort of corporate behavior, we worked in a niche market which meant the "big boys" left us alone and we had a small customer base - but that customer base was loyal and happy.
Imagine if the next time your PC was broken, you could make a phone call and talk to the engineer that designed it, and/or the man that built it - get a solution - and personally impact future development.
I have no real reason to suspect the Trainz algorithm itself, but looking at the few that are on the DLS, there is little consistency in the values being used for large American steam in the enginespecs. As I said earlier -- GIGO.
From what I can tell, there is no way to really control the fire in Trainz, other than turning off the blower. It'd be nice if I could bank the fire, but I can't. Meanwhile, if something like the e-spec's firebox temperature is too high, the safeties will eventually pop. If you cut in the injectors to cool down the boiler, even at full notch the rate of flow in the e-spec is usually set too low to have any (cooling) effect. If the boiler is too tiny (from the e-spec data) it's going to be harder to cool down. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I don't normally do cab control, but I know how to use it. Most of the small steam locos don't seem to have the safety-valve problem. The small steamers are a nice, but they're not my primarily interest, which is large steam. I can operate the built-in Y6b and Big Boy without excessive pop-offs. They both seem very under-powered, but safeties aren't a problem on them. But the dozen of so big American steam locos on the DLS (2-8-2, 4-8-2, 2-10-2, 2-8-8-2) are another story. Under "certain conditions" all they want to do pop-off, with no way to really control it. Under AI and DCC they're horrible most of the time.
Note that I said, under "certain conditions". If you run into the cab and operate them on a route that's mostly uphill, you probably won't notice the problem. But if you are running a route where you drift download for a few miles, after a hard run uphill, the problem will show up. Running them at realistic speeds makes the problem even more apparent. And they really go nuts under AI or DCC.
The Appalachian Coal route that built into TS12 has a section that makes a great test route. Start out in Princeton yard with ~2500 tons in tow and head towards Glen Lyn. There's a steep grade just past the yard limits that will slow you do to a crawl, so you'll need to hit the hill under good head of steam, because you will slow down to the 5-10MPH range. But once you start hitting the tunnels it's mostly all downhill for miles and without any really effective way to cool down, the safeties start blowing off, staying on until (many, many miles later) the grade ends and you can open the throttle again.
Run that same route in the opposite direction and you won't notice the problem, because it's mostly all uphill.
Given the wide variation in values used for a given container, for the small exact locomotive, I think it's safe to assume probably all of them are "out". I think it's time to start from scratch...
Given the fact that there's only a handful of large American steam on the DLS (most of the Ben's steamers), it wouldn't be all that much of a task to create some realistic values for them. Off the top of my head, there's a light 2-8-2 and 4-6-2 that share nearly identical boilers, a light 2-10-2 and 4-8-2 that share nearly identical boilers, a N&W 4-8-4, and a 2-8-8-2 Mallet. You could reduce all those down to four e-specs, if you wanted to shortcut the problem.
Is it possible to use the forums here to hack our way through the steam container values jungle? The logical thing to do would be to take the critical containers and to come up with values that close to being valid for large American steam. Looking at how widely a given container value varies in the e-specs for identical locomotives, I wouldn't trust any of them to be correct.
One of (several) reason why I hate to drive under cab control is the fact that the large American steam perform so very badly, in terms of tractive effort, under it. Some of them are so under-powered they can't even move out of there own way! None of them seem to come close to being able to tow the same number of coal the prototypes could. I'd like to hope that it's because of poor data values in the e-spec and not Trainz itself. If it is the e-specs, the right values might make a world of difference in regards to pulling power.
Can we please use this opportunity to go through the steam containers and come up with some valid values for some of the basic steam containers, for 4 basic boilers... a basic model e-spec for just a few big American steam? If cab operation was an experience that was actually good*, I might even start using it.
* As I said, the small steamers seem to work well. But they're not what I really want to operate.
Last edited:
I was only kidding.
We need a sense of humor here again. That seems to have been lost in this crisis mode we've been in lately. The forums get like this periodically for some reason.
I too worked in a small shop that had that level of support. Sadly, the company closed in 2009 after 28 years in business. Their customer base went away with the rest of the printing industry, which took the biggest hit during the past two recessions. I was able to make suggestions to the design engineers, and actually had an impact on future products. I was the one that introduced system reporting and emailing using SMTP services. With this the digital proofers would email out a request for service if they had a jam or required human intervention. I also worked with the team, again suggesting a new product suggestion, for remote proofing. This came from a proof in concept (pun intended here.
) to reality. Customers were setting up their imagers in one location and proofing to them over the network. No one had thought of that before even though the devices had two NICs installed.I've been in technical support for close to 25 years. I never, ever treated anyone like this. No one is ever an I 10 T in my book. I am no expert, and they know how to do their work, and they don't know or should have to know how to fix their own computer. In my current job ,while I was working in the office and not on disability, I received an award two years in a row, not from my technical support group, but from the sales managers and VPs. I brought up to speed and online over 350 users the first year I was there. I supported them with upgrades, and other technical difficulties always with a smile and a bit of humor. I was honored for being the calm one, even with the highest VIPs in the organization, when a problem exists. Last year I received an award for more of the same plus supporting close to 580 people myself. The thing is, Ted, it's all about respect. I treat the people I work with and for the same way want to be treated. I treat the same people in the forums here the same way with the same respect I want to be treated with. If everyone else in this world would do the same, we'd have a much better place to live in.
John
Hello All.
I have read most of this thread.
I have question for ZecMurphy or Any N3V member. Why not just give us the option to turn the safety valve sounds off all together?
I do not run steam locos in cab mode. Tried to learned, To complicated for me. I either run them in DCC or under AI mode. But has has been brought up before doing so incurs the wrath of the saftey valve gods.
I myself would rather just turn the sound off as as it serves ME no real purpose.
Kenny
My opinion below.
One thing I would like to point out is that although N3V is going for realistic trains operation, If those realistic operations causes this much trouble it might be wise to reconsider if this much realism is worth (potentially) loosing content creators and paying costumers.
I do believe that this is one of those things that will cause people to leave.
I have read most of this thread.
I have question for ZecMurphy or Any N3V member. Why not just give us the option to turn the safety valve sounds off all together?
I do not run steam locos in cab mode. Tried to learned, To complicated for me. I either run them in DCC or under AI mode. But has has been brought up before doing so incurs the wrath of the saftey valve gods.
I myself would rather just turn the sound off as as it serves ME no real purpose.
Kenny
My opinion below.
One thing I would like to point out is that although N3V is going for realistic trains operation, If those realistic operations causes this much trouble it might be wise to reconsider if this much realism is worth (potentially) loosing content creators and paying costumers.
I do believe that this is one of those things that will cause people to leave.
N3V could sell this as an add-on or upgrade, and make some money at the same time. I would happily pay $10, without a second thought, if I just had the ability to turn that **@## safety valve sound off.