Helper/Banker/Pusher engines- I think I got it!!

[ostlandr]

Okay, gang-

I thought of this while using cargo refits to haul iron ore in one direction and steel in another direction with NARS 2. I have to use the "refit to" order in the depot. For example, the hoppers start off refitted to iron ore. Orders are go to A, load iron ore, go to B, unload iron ore, go to depot, refit to steel, go to B, load steel, go to C, unload steel, go to depot and refit to iron ore.

This gave me an idea how we can have functional, useful Helper engines in the game.

Here goes: For a Helper/Banker/Pusher engine, have one cargo/livery type refit be invisible, length 1/8, 1 hp, 1 te, and $1 running cost. The other refit is the normal locomotive. Alternately, leave the running cost alone, as this would represent the helper running "light" back down the grade, waiting, etc.

So, a train on a mountain route has a Helper 'permanently' attached (until you remove it.) You start out with the helper refitted to "not there." At the bottom of the steep grade is a depot. The train goes into the depot, refits to the visible & working helper, then tackles the grade. At the top of the grade (or at the bottom of the other side of the mountain, or the end of the mountainous division) the train hits the depot again, and 'disappears' the helper.

In the game, the player would see trains entering the depots, then emerging with the helper engine on the rear (or front, if you prefer, but I hate when I yank a drawbar in the middle of a grade.) You could even have two helpers- one each on front and back, or two on the rear. Then after the train climbs the grade, it hits a depot and "cuts off" the helper(s).

For us realism junkies, if the train was dropping the helper at the top of the grade, we would have to buy a second helper. This one would run invisible up the hill, then refit to visible and run "light" back down to the depot at the bottom of the grade. To enable this, you might need to tweak the HP/TE/weight of the invisible version so it can haul itself up and down hill.

So: Thoughts? Would this even work? If so, would it add enough to gameplay to make it worthwhile?

[DJ Nekkid]

I like the idea, and its very possible to make. You can even have some engines with a "built in" helper (1st part is 7/8ths long with a 1/8th invisble part). When you need it and enters a depot, both engines get 8/8th size (or whatever sizes you use), and back to 7/8th+1/8th at the other end Ofcourse you need to adjust power and running costs, but that is also easy

[wallyweb]

It seems we already have a discussion going on over here.
Perhaps we can get a moderator to merge this topic onto the end of that other one so that the devs would be able to see all the options/suggestions together in one place.

[ostlandr]

LOL! Great minds think alike, I guess! Hopefully some friendly mod will see this and merge the topics, or the PikkaBird, Dave Worley, et. al. will see the topic over here.

One thought I just had was doing add-on GRFs based on sets for folks who want helpers/bankers. Not sure what this would do to sprite count, etc. I know that some of the sets, like the Canadian set under development, are already pushing the sprite limits. If a locomotive in a separate GRF uses the same sprites, does that increase the sprite count?

Somebody will probably bring up the point that having the train hitting the depots to add/drop the h/p/b slows down the trains and makes operations more complex. Yes, it does. That's why railroads only use them when it's absolutely necessary.

It seems we already have a discussion going on over here.
Perhaps we can get a moderator to merge this topic onto the end of that other one so that the devs would be able to see all the options/suggestions together in one place.

[wallyweb]

If a locomotive in a separate GRF uses the same sprites, does that increase the sprite count?

It would. Probably not an issue in OTTD but it would definitely be an issue in TTDPatch, hence my suggestion to try and do it as an advanced order.

Somebody will probably bring up the point that having the train hitting the depots to add/drop the h/p/b slows down the trains and makes operations more complex. Yes, it does. That's why railroads only use them when it's absolutely necessary.

Exactly! It adds to the gameplay with a touch of reality. Makes the player think.

[KeikyuFan]

It seems we already have a discussion going on over here.
Perhaps we can get a moderator to merge this topic onto the end of that other one so that the devs would be able to see all the options/suggestions together in one place.

I am replying this this thread as the other one is in a TTD Patch and might get missed (no offense, but with all the neat stuff happening in Open TTD, is there any development still going on in TTDP at all?).

I'm not familiar with the coding issues, but I do use a lot of multiple-engine trains in my gameplay (mainly NARS although I am playing around more with the 2CC set nowadays). Each time a locomotive is purchased, it is assigned as a separate train (and train number) until I drag them together to make a train with a 2 or more unit consist. Interestingly enough, if I pull an engine off a train, I notice that many of the original attributes are saved (such as any name I assign to that specific engine). For example, I may assign all my engines individual numbers in the train name, so if I pull that engine off, the original engine number (name) re-appears. Whether that consistently happens all the time I am not sure, but if the code can be modified accordingly, it suggests the following concept:

When 2 or more engines are used on the same train, the first engine in effect acts as a "master" unit - its schedule takes precedence over any other engines in the consist, with all other engines effectively acting as "slaves". When we build a new engine in our maintenance depot screen and click/drag with the mouse to put it on another train, we are effectively placing the engine (manually) in "slave mode", and when we remove it, we are restoring (manually) it to "master mode". Why can't we do the same thing in the code, but with orders?

Currently we have 3 options for our maintenance depots when scheduling:

• Go to depot (always), service and continue.
  Service (go only when needed) and continue.
  Stop (go to depot and disregard any following instructions).

I propose 3 additional commands:

• Attach helper/banker (acquire available slave).
  Detach helper/banker (release slave).
  Assign as helper/banker (set to slave mode, wait for train requiring helper/banker).

The main train is always acting in the default (master) mode, and based on what others have written this is relatively self-explanatory. The catch here is how we treat the bankers/helpers. The schedules is a list of sequential commands where all the conditions related to a given command (i.e. loading/unloading or resetting reliability value in the maintenance depot) have to be met before the next command can be executed, otherwise the train (or other vehicle) keeps trying to execute that same command. Once the train is assigned as a helper/banker, it gets set into slave mode, and operates under the command/control of its master until the master releases it, then goes on to execute the next command: Example as follows:

MAIN TRAIN #1 [MASTER MODE BY DEFAULT]

• (1) Go to Station A (load).
  (2) Attach helper/banker at Maintenance Depot B. [ACQUIRE SLAVE]
  (3) Go via Waypoint C.
  (4) Detach helper/banker at Maintenance Depot D. [RELEASE SLAVE]
  (5) Go to Station E (unload).
  (6) Go via Waypoint C.

HELPER/BANKER #2

• (1) Assign to helper/banker service at Maintenance Depot B.
  [SET TO SLAVE MODE TO JOIN TRAIN #1, RESET TO MASTER MODE WHEN RELEASED BY TRAIN #1]

In this simplified example, the only instruction in the schedule is to go to Depot B and get picked up as a helper, so once the "slave" is released (set to master mode again), regardless of where it is, it just heads back to Depot B and sets itself up as a slave again. Yes, we can add other stations and waypoints to make life easier, but theoretically, only one instruction would be necessary if you are only assigning helpers/bankers in one direction.

Possible options, if someone really wants to get into this:

• LOCATION OF HELPER/BANKER IN TRAIN: in front of train, at rear of train, helper/banker cut in forward of caboose/brake van as not to crunch your brakie/conductor in the event of a virtual wreck.
  • PROTOTYPE EXAMPLE: Passenger trains in the US place helpers in front before the advent of push-pull technology for safety and comfort sakes. OTOH, long freight trains require helpers in back as not to exceed drawbar pull limitations.
  SPEED LIMIT EFFECTS: either train speed limit no faster than max speed of slowest engine, or train can move at max of master engine speeds, BUT HP and tractive effort of helper/banker cut out.
  • PROTOTYPE EXAMPLE: Many railroads in the US simplified the troublesome electrical systems of older six-motor (Co-Co) diesels for switching/marshalling yard duty by removing the series-to-parallel transition for the DC traction motors, limiting operating speed to 25MPH. Unit could still be hauled idle or DIT (dead-in-train) at old max speed of 65-70MPH but obviously would not contribute any pulling power above the old transition speed.
  MODIFIED BREAKDOWN EFFECTS: Helper/banker (slave) units might be older, less reliable units downgraded from road service. "Breakdowns" of slaves would not completely stall/stop the master train but merely cause the loss of their assistance when in operation.

Just some ideas to kick around...

[michael blunck]

I am replying this this thread as the other one is in a TTD Patch and might get missed [...]

This whole discussion is ill-placed here in "NewGRF Technical Discussions". It belongs into "TTDPatch suggestions" resp "OTTD suggestions".

@moderators
Please move|merge.

regards
Michael

[wallyweb]

Note to Moderators:

This whole discussion is ill-placed here in "NewGRF Technical Discussions". It belongs into "TTDPatch suggestions" resp "OTTD suggestions".

It matters not which section this topic goes to although there are two already underway
here: * Board index ‹ TTDPatch ‹ Suggestions ‹ Helpers/Bankers *
and here: * Board index ‹ TTDPatch ‹ Suggestions ‹ Selectable Load/Unload and auto-refit suggestions *
There may also be a similar discussion in the OTTD section, although I am not aware of it.
Perhaps a similarly named topic in each section, with links to the other discussion(s), would be appropriate.

I am replying this this thread as the other one is in a TTD Patch and might get missed (no offense, but with all the neat stuff happening in Open TTD, is there any development still going on in TTDP at all?).

Yes, there is, but not necessarily in parallel with OTTD. This current topic is an excellent example of where there is concurrent interest in the same potential feature.

It would seem that both OTTD and TTDPatch both allow for multiheading of engines.
TTDPatch provides access to an Advanced Orders menu. Perhaps OTTD has something similar?
In TTDPatch, Advanced Orders is the ideal location for this feature.
All that is missing is a way of automating the drag and drop process.

EDIT Thank you to Pikkabird for moving this into OTTD Suggestions.
Please keep in mind that a similar discussion is underway in the TTDPatch section. (Links above).

[KeikyuFan]

I am replying this this thread as the other one is in a TTD Patch and might get missed [...]

This whole discussion is ill-placed here in "NewGRF Technical Discussions". It belongs into "TTDPatch suggestions" resp "OTTD suggestions".l

Well, excuse me for responding. It's not like I have some magical administrator powers to move things around myself.

[wallyweb]

Well, excuse me for responding. It's not like I have some magical administrator to move things around myself.

Take a look at my post above. Pikkabird moved the topic this morning.

[KeikyuFan]

Well, excuse me for responding. It's not like I have some magical administrator to move things around myself.

Take a look at my post above. Pikkabird moved the topic this morning.

OK, sorry, I'm awake and with the program now. Thanks everyone.

[WWTBAM]

Note to Moderators:

This whole discussion is ill-placed here in "NewGRF Technical Discussions". It belongs into "TTDPatch suggestions" resp "OTTD suggestions".

It matters not which section this topic goes to although there are two already underway
here: * Board index ‹ TTDPatch ‹ Suggestions ‹ Helpers/Bankers *
and here: * Board index ‹ TTDPatch ‹ Suggestions ‹ Selectable Load/Unload and auto-refit suggestions *
There may also be a similar discussion in the OTTD section, although I am not aware of it.
Perhaps a similarly named topic in each section, with links to the other discussion(s), would be appropriate.

I am replying this this thread as the other one is in a TTD Patch and might get missed (no offense, but with all the neat stuff happening in Open TTD, is there any development still going on in TTDP at all?).

Yes, there is, but not necessarily in parallel with OTTD. This current topic is an excellent example of where there is concurrent interest in the same potential feature.

It would seem that both OTTD and TTDPatch both allow for multiheading of engines.
TTDPatch provides access to an Advanced Orders menu. Perhaps OTTD has something similar?
In TTDPatch, Advanced Orders is the ideal location for this feature.
All that is missing is a way of automating the drag and drop process.

EDIT Thank you to Pikkabird for moving this into OTTD Suggestions.
Please keep in mind that a similar discussion is underway in the TTDPatch section. (Links above).

Maybe we need a general TTD suggestions forum for things that havent been ruled out for either (O)TTD(P).

[andythenorth]

Maybe we need a general TTD suggestions forum for things that havent been ruled out for either (O)TTD(P).

Nah, no point. A thread somewhere about 'underground railways' will suffice