Proposal to modify/extend cargo classes

[andythenorth]

For reference - there is previous general discussion of cargo classes in ECS thread here: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php? ... &start=420

--

I propose extending cargo scheme with one additional class. I'm experiencing a repeated issue where bulk class is insufficient. According to wiki BULK should properly be "any non-packaged cargo suitable for pouring, e.g. coal, grain, ore, cement, ..."

However this leaves a gap for certain cargo types which are bulk, but are not typically poured. Specifically in FIRS, these include scrap metal and fibre crops. Other examples might include fruit and vegetables, and sugar cane / sugar beet.

These are not cargos that should be transported in hopper wagons / large dump trucks (HEQS). They might typically be transported by gondola / open wagon. Many sets define open wagons and hoppers as being able to handle bulk. This leads to unwanted vehicle refits when used with FIRS.

I am working around this by defining these cargos as piece goods. It's appropriate in many cases as scrap, fibre crops etc can be baled. However this also means that box cars and in some cases express cars also refit to these cargos. It's the better of two bad options, but not ideal.

One route would be to ask vehicle set authors for extensive FIRS-specific vehicle support. I dislike that route.

Another option would then be to introduce a new class, which would indicate the suitability of a cargo for use in hoppers. This could be adopted as/when vehicle sets are updated.

To avoid a recurrence of the heated CTS debate, let me be clear that the cargo classes scheme generally works, I am proposing an adjustment because I think we are short on something to describe the conceptual difference between a bulk cargo that can be poured (i.e. will flow) and a bulk cargo that is simply bulky and has to be handled manually / mechanically.

There appears to be a suitable value free at '800' for this new class. What would it best be called? Would it define "can flow" or "can't flow"?

[wallyweb]

What would it best be called? Would it define "can flow" or "can't flow"?

fluid (fld)
A state of matter, such as liquid or gas, in which the component particles (generally molecules) can move past one another. Fluids flow easily and conform to the shape of their containers.

[Kogut]

Other examples might include fruit and vegetables, and sugar cane / sugar beet.

These are not cargos that should be transported in hopper wagons / large dump trucks (HEQS).

Przechwytywanie.PNG (2.95 KiB) Viewed 1625 times

And I thought it is a good idea...

[michael blunck]

I propose extending cargo scheme with one additional class. I'm experiencing a repeated issue where bulk class is insufficient. According to wiki BULK should properly be "any non-packaged cargo suitable for pouring, e.g. coal, grain, ore, cement, ..."

However this leaves a gap for certain cargo types which are bulk, but are not typically poured. Specifically in FIRS, these include scrap metal and fibre crops. Other examples might include fruit and vegetables, and sugar cane / sugar beet.

Well, that particular sentence had been written by me. However, "pouring" should be understood in a broader context. IMO, "suitable for pouring" is something different than "flowing", e.g. of powder-shaped (pulverulent) material (cement, sugar, ...) [*]. In my understanding, "bulk" primarily means "non-packaged", and is indeed a valid term both for "scrap metal" and those fruits/vegetables which are handled mechanically, i.e. by some form of loading equipment. OTOH, packaged fruit/vegetable would be filed under "piece goods" resp "general cargo". In case of scrap metal, larger objects could be regarded as piece goods, but most of the time transported scrap metal has been shredded, i.e. it´s "bulk", not "piece goods".

These are not cargos that should be transported in hopper wagons / large dump trucks (HEQS). They might typically be transported by gondola / open wagon.

Mmh. I don´t see the point. For sure, it´d be physically possible to load a hopper wagon with scrap metal or sugar beets. Both in "reality" and in-game. In contrast, it´s not possible to load a hopper with crude oil, or a box van with "loose" grain. IMO, there´s a difference.

Many sets define open wagons and hoppers as being able to handle bulk. This leads to unwanted vehicle refits when used with FIRS.

IMO, your "problem" seems to be mainly an aesthetical one? Comparable to railway sets which forbid usage of passenger locomotives for freight?

I am working around this by defining these cargos as piece goods. It's appropriate in many cases as scrap, fibre crops etc can be baled. However this also means that box cars and in some cases express cars also refit to these cargos. It's the better of two bad options, but not ideal.

There are cargo types belonging to more than one cargo class. This makes sense because in this way, it´s possible to narrow down transport possibilities for specific vehicles, w/o having to revert to explicit use of cargo bit masks. That exactly was the reason for recent changes in some ECS cargoes´ classes.

One route would be to ask vehicle set authors for extensive FIRS-specific vehicle support. I dislike that route.

When including support for FIRS in DBXL and NewShips, I didn´t encounter real problems, honestly. I could come up with some of my allocations, in case you´re interested.

Another option would then be to introduce a new class, which would indicate the suitability of a cargo for use in hoppers. This could be adopted as/when vehicle sets are updated.

Please keep in mind that cargo classes are cargo-related, not vehicle-related. I strongly recommend to keep it this way.

To avoid a recurrence of the heated CTS debate, let me be clear that the cargo classes scheme generally works, I am proposing an adjustment because I think we are short on something to describe the conceptual difference between a bulk cargo that can be poured (i.e. will flow) and a bulk cargo that is simply bulky and has to be handled manually / mechanically.

Even coal and grain can be handled "manually / mechanically", i.e. by mechanical grabs. Nevertheless, it remains "bulk" cargo. Other than in railroading, the difference is more obvious in shipbuilding, where there exist two different measuring schemes: "grain", which indicates the total volume of the holds, excluding any structural items or fittings (i.e. grain (or any other "pourable" cargo) fills in all corners and around structural members), and "bale", which measures volume up to the stiffeners on the inside of the hull, with space between stiffeners being lost.

There appears to be a suitable value free at '800' for this new class. What would it best be called? Would it define "can flow" or "can't flow"?

Although it´s always possible to introduce new cargo labels, we should take some care with introduction of new cargo classes. Since you referenced that announcement, I´d like to point out that George and me had some intensive discussions about the whole cargo label / cargo class concept recently.

The fact that you don´t come up with a name seems to be an indication that a new class is not desperately needed, IMO. All mentioned cargoes (scrap metal (shredded), fruit/vegetables, sugar beet, ...) are bulk cargo in my opinion. The question which particular wagons to use for their transportation is not in the domain of their cargo class(es).

[*] Whether they´re "flowing" is another cup of tea. Those cargoes really "flowing" are called "pulverulent", and they do indeed have special means of transportation (silo wagons) in contrast to those cargoes that are "dumped". In fact, George and me have been discussing if it´d be helpful to get those pulverulent cargoes under "liquid".

Just my 2cc.

regards
Michael

[supermop]

Just want to say that I personally have seen plenty of scrap metal being transported in what are essentially coal cars. Other than that I do favour the addition of a little more nuance.

Best,