Is Wardwood Western Doomed?

[Alberth]

I don't know (I never play with infrastructure costs), but you can easily try.

Open the infra structure window, and build or demolish a bridge, tracks, etc
I think the right number is the number of units. Eg tiles with many track directions count heavier than tiles with few track directions.

Note that costs are not fixed, it is related to how many maglev pieces you have. The same tunnel costs less if you have less other maglev pieces.
The idea is that bigger companies pay more, making it more difficult for them to expand further.

[Eddi]

recommendation:
2000 pieces of maglev rails cost you more maintenance than 1000 pieces of maglev rail and 1000 pieces of monorai.

so if you keep some branch lines separated from your main lines as monorail instead of maglev (or even electrified railway), then you can significantly reduce maintenance costs, without sacrificing actual pieces of maintenance.

[Baldy's Boss]

I cleaned out a lot of stuff, and the balance is now again non-negative, it still needs a lot of work.
Trains breaking down every 4 tiles can't be good

To give an idea, below is a not-so-good looking train:

The attachment before.png is no longer available

After taking out the line, I get

The attachment after.png is no longer available

So I don't get 150K from the train, but I gain about 3000K not paying for infra structure.

I included the overall financial overview as well, and as you can see, balance is just above 0. If you load it (you'll need a nightly), you can see I cleaned out a lot of lines and roads.


Edit: I should add that infra-structure costs are exponentially increasing, each additional piece that you have costs more than the previous piece, and this increase also grows. For this reason, cleaning out lines is very beneficial when you have a big company with a lot of lines.

Is this need for a nightly indefinite,or would a future RC or release incorporate what's necessary to make that savegame run?
(I've been taking out unused road depots and some stations and roads).

[Sylf]

Is this need for a nightly indefinite,or would a future RC or release incorporate what's necessary to make that savegame run?

This should be compatible with version 1.6 coming in about 10 months from now (but no guarantee that it'll really be in 10 months). Or 1.6 beta and 1.6 RC version, which probably will come in December of this year (again, no guarantee in that time frame).

[Alberth]

Is this need for a nightly indefinite,or would a future RC or release incorporate what's necessary to make that savegame run?
(I've been taking out unused road depots and some stations and roads).

Hmm, yeah, sorry about that.
Being a developer, I only run test versions (ie self-compiled versions). Since most people around me do that as well, I didn't realize you would be using a stable release.

As Sylf said, my test version is a future stable release. Alternatively, you can redo what I did. I enabled the "build on pause" so I had room to perform a lot of cleanup in a short time without constantly running out of money due to bills that needed to be paid. Then I cleaned up as much as possible, only letting the game run forward when I needed a train in the depot.
I kept the infra structure window open, and the minimap on company view.

After about 2 hours, cleaned out enough to get the infra structure drop to about 550,000,000, which is about break-even. Then I disabled the build on pause again.

[Baldy's Boss]

Is this need for a nightly indefinite,or would a future RC or release incorporate what's necessary to make that savegame run?

This should be compatible with version 1.6 coming in about 10 months from now (but no guarantee that it'll really be in 10 months). Or 1.6 beta and 1.6 RC version, which probably will come in December of this year (again, no guarantee in that time frame).

So all current nightlies are not compatible with any future version of 1.5.x?

[Eddi]

correct. consider all current nightlies as "1.6 alpha"

[Baldy's Boss]

I haven't done the while-paused thing,but I've been ripping out unused road infrastructure.I find that removing roads and depots lowers the maintenance bill but removing bus stations does not.

Meanwhile,the Rartown game,which once seemed crippled by fleet obsolescence,is going from strength to strength.I think a big difference between it and the Wardwood game is the lower operating margin of the NARS vehicles...Does anyone see another reason that Rartown is doing so much better?

[Sylf]

You have 48% more trains in the better game, and when you compare the best earning trains between them, the better game trains are earning more.
The train set doesn't matter.
The only thing that matter is income vs expenditure.
In the latest saves you posted, you hardly have any NARS trains running, so you can rule those as the reason for the difference.

[Baldy's Boss]

You have 48% more trains in the better game, and when you compare the best earning trains between them, the better game trains are earning more.
The train set doesn't matter.
The only thing that matter is income vs expenditure.
In the latest saves you posted, you hardly have any NARS trains running, so you can rule those as the reason for the difference.

My Plonnville game (my first to reach 2051with modern cost structures) had even more trains,but was way worse off financially despite a lower inflation rate.

[Alberth]

I took a screenshot of the entire mini map of rartown and old plonville, and the latter shows a lot more single lines.

I think you underestimate the exponential aspect of the infrastructure costs.

[Alberth]

(new message due to attachment limit)

To show what exponential infrastructure costs means, I build one line (only tracks, but you can imagine the train, signals, and station with it).

infra_28.png (180.81 KiB) Viewed 285 times

Let's say the train makes 250/year, minus the 144 infra costs, so something like 106 / year. Quite neat.

So far so good. This works, so let's add another exactly equal line:

infra_56.png (148.2 KiB) Viewed 285 times

Second train also makes 250/year so together 500 / year, minus 408, so together they make 92 / year

The second train makes the costs higher to the point that summed profits - costs decreases, yet if you look at the trains, you have 2 trains each making 250. If you add a 3rd line, costs are 768 against your 3x250 -> -18/ year profit.

This is what "exponential" is about. It doesn't scale linear (add everything -> done), it scales faster. Costs for infrastructure rise faster than the addition brings in w.r.t. extra income. In other words, the more infrastructure you have, the more efficient you need to use that.

As shown above, just adding more lines of the same type is not going to work. Costs rise faster than the additional income of the extra lines, so at some point you
- will go bankrupt due to costs,
- stop expanding as it is not economically feasible, or
- get smarter in using the tracks and signals to reduce costs

[Baldy's Boss]

I took a screenshot of the entire mini map of rartown and old plonville, and the latter shows a lot more single lines.

I think you underestimate the exponential aspect of the infrastructure costs.

How do you get the whole-map picture?...it's impossible to zoom out all the way,I thought the map function was similarly limited to a multiple that my map size had exceeded.
Rartown has a smaller network than Old Plonnville,less rails and fewer trains,but is making much more money despite higher per-unit infrastructure costs.It has about 5 years' maintenance in the bank compared to Plonnville's less than one (though in the past Rartown had as much as 12 years' maintenance in the bank).

[Alberth]

euhm, I didn't do anything special, just enlarged the minimap window, and made the world small enough to fit in the window on my screen, which is just 1920x1080, nothing special afaik.

[Espee]

My Wardwood Western Railway seems to be entering the death spiral that claimed Betston Blue and Gondborough Rail.It was my first game using any NewGRF vehicles.
There are plenty of profitable operations but the maintenance bills have become lethal.The cash pile peaked in 2038 (same as Old Plonnville Green RR) and has lost 300 million.
What can be done to save this company?...what must go?

I don't want to gang up on you, BB, but after taking a look at your overall operation, I'm not sure where to start. However, a quick view of all your vehicles by last year's profit makes a few things clear:

* You have 180 trains, most of them (not all) making a profit, indicating there is sufficient potential revenue out there, but at least 1/3 of them are old, so you're losing revenue due to breakdowns.
* 457 road vehicles 3/4 of them not making a profit, 2/3 of them old and losing revenue for you.
* 13 ships, 11 of 13 making a profit but all but 2 old again losing revenue.

So where's your money going? I took the liberty of changing a few game settings as follows:

WhenPausedAllowAllActions.PNG (1.48 KiB) Viewed 1442 times

GroupExpensesInCompanyFinanceWindow.PNG (7.49 KiB) Viewed 1442 times

So now we can get a more organized breakdown of your revenue and expenses:

WardwoodWestern-Finances-2043-0701.PNG (22.03 KiB) Viewed 1442 times

Let's take a look at your financial statement for the last year (2042). For simplicity's sake, I will round of the numbers to the nearest million pounds. Here's what clearly stands out the most:

(1) You had 638M in revenue, but 703M in operating expenses and 28M in other costs, so you lost 94M in one year alone.
(2) Rail revenues of 597M, with running costs of only 70M. Not counting infrastructure costs (another can of worms altogether), you came out ahead here by 527M, about the only positive metric so far.
(3) Road vehicle revenue of 34M with running costs of 50M. You lost 16M here alone. Unless you're running some serious feeder service to enhance your rail revenues (not readily apparent when I looked), you would be better of sending all your trucks and buses to the nearest depot as selling them off ASAP.
(4) Ship revenue of 6M at a running cost of 2M. At least you're not losing money, but barely a blip on the radar screen here.
(5) Your infrastructure costs (track/tunnel/bridge/station/depot costs) were 581M, almost as much as your total revenue!

Based on the above, my first priorities would be as follows:

(1) Examine the infrastructure (primarily rail lines) and determine what lines are costing the most and generating the least revenue. Determine if there is a potential to increase revenue on the identified underutilized lines and move accordingly as follows:
(1a) If no reasonable chance of increasing revenue, tear up line and sell all rail vehicles/rolling stock (unless it is newer stock that can be easily transferred to another line).
(1b) If revenue can be significantly increased by merely adding trains and minor trackwork, add trains/modify trackwork as needed.
(1c) If revenue can be increased but only after significant infrastructure changes, hold for time being.
(2) Examine road vehicle traffic and eliminate all clearly unprofitable service immediately. Only replace road vehicles on the most profitable services.
(3) Sell off all ships and end all ship service unless there is a compelling reason to keep (i.e. feeding raw materials to industries producing products moved by WW rail).

[Espee]

I tried to play this game through for a few more years, and changed some of the settings to improve the odds (permitting construction while paused, changing Breakdown setting from Normal to Reduced). Even still, it was a lost cause for a number of reasons, but the most striking one was little to no organization in WW's rail operation, such as no overall grouping of trains by routing and/or cargo type that would have helped the player monitor operations and identify/deal with problems/issues in a timely manner. Even still, it was clear by the financials that the rail infrastructure was grossly overbuilt and seriously underutilized.

WardwoodWestern-BuntbournePowerPlantB.png (496.62 KiB) Viewed 1400 times

Please note the above illustration regarding Wardward Western's coal service to the Buntbourne Power Plant. This example provides a good illustration of most of the issues I noted:

NO INTEGRATED RAIL NETWORK - Just about every rail line in this game is a standalone operation, delivering one type of cargo between two stations. No provisions for tying the system together so you could put additional traffic on your lines merely by building a short branch to a station here or there.

ONLY ONE SUPPLY SOURCE TO A GIVEN INDUSTRY - I saw numerous examples on the map where a second (or even third) originating industry stood neglected not far from an active line that was supplying the same type of cargo to a destination source (see above). In this case, a short branch from your existing line to the Slunford Coal Mine would have doubled your potential cargo available with only about a 15-20% increase in infrastructure costs. Two or more supplies feeding your receiving industry also allows you the flexibility to reassign trains back and forth as production varies.

STATIONS ARE TOO SMALL - All rail stations (the cargo ones, at least) need to be sized to handle the max train length in your particular game, UNLESS there is some physical limitation that prohibits it. This game is set for a max train length of 8 tile lengths, so the stations should be built to 8 TL as well. Originating stations also need multiple tracks for multiple trains (more to follow). I try to make a minimum of 3 tracks if one cargo is served, and at least 4 tracks if 2 cargoes (example, livestock & grain) are served from a single station.

INSUFFICIENT MAINTENANCE DEPOTS - Not only should there be one depot, spaced between 1 and 2 max train lengths from the near end, at every station, but if the route is long enough, you need additional maintenance depots along the way. I try to position one maintenance depot every 50 to 75 TL, and will often use a "Maintain at ____" order to ensure that trains will stop there as needed, to minimize breakdowns and keep the line clear.

NOT ENOUGH TRAINS AVAILABLE FOR LOADING!!! - I can't overemphasize this one, as trains are not only needed to move cargo, BUT to increase production at your industries as well. Raw material industries (coal, oil, iron ore, wood) increase production based on how much cargo is being carried, which of course they only see in terms of how much empty capacity is stopped at the station waiting to be loaded. A good rule of thumb for determining how many trains you need for a given service is to have one trained stopped for loading at all times, which means one empty train arriving as a full one pulls out. Of course, when you first build stations, it will take some time to build up cargo, but the best way to do it is to build 2 trains right away and let them fill up. I will take about 12-18 months in game time but this will ensure that your industry starts building up traffic and puts your rail network to good use.

TRAINS TOO SHORT!!! - Under most circumstances you should be building trains to the maximum length allowable, unless you are EXTREMELY cash starved and trying to build up a new service. For a single-engined train of 7 to 8 TL, a good rule of thumb for cost is that the appropriately sized engine will be half of the train purchase cost, and the wagons the other half. Engines don't make money, wagons do. It's a waste of money to buy an expensive engine and only put on half as many wagons as it can handle, as your train still costs about 75% of a full-length train but only has 50% of the revenue generating capability. Now of course, there may be times when you do need to shorten your train length (steep grades, small stations) but overall, it's best to hang as many wagons off the a*** end that you can drag over the line without impacting traffic or dropping appreciably below your top speed on level straight track.

INAPPROPRIATE ENGINE SELECTION FOR CARGO BEING CARRIED - Every NewGRF comes with a selection of engines for a reason, as certain engines are best suited for certain applications. Your engines have 6 major attributes: Cost, Service Life, Reliability, Max Speed, Power, and Tractive Effort. As you play more with NewGRFs such as NARS, DB set and 2CC, you will note that your wagons have attributes of capacity and maximum speed as well. Match your engines to your wagons: it makes NO sense to put express engines with a maximum speed of 150 MPH on a coal train with a wagon max speed of 75 MPH (remember, the slowest rated piece of equipment in the train dictates the max speed). You will be spending 3-4x what you need and not getting any extra benefit in return - and the high HP needed for faster speeds doesn't translate into what you need for raw materials service, which is TRACTIVE EFFORT. The Wardwood Western spent 3x as much on EuroStar engines to haul coal trains as the 4400HP GEVO diesels that supply pretty much the same tractive effort, without the extra expense of that electric catenary.

OLD/OBSOLETE ENGINES DISRUPT SERVICE - Old engines breaking down all the time incur the same operating costs as newer engines of the same type working properly, hauling cargo and making money. Breakdowns affect ALL trains on a given line. In addition, older equipment earlier in the game may be obsolete in terms of top speed, pulling power etc. and have the same type of effect as broken down trains. Keep in mind that for an average engine life of 20-25 years, you should be replacing at LEAST the engines (and the whole trains if newer/better wagon technology comes along) on 4-5% of all your trains every year of game play.

These are the major issues I noted, hope it is some help to BB in future gameplay...

[Espee]

As it appears that the Wardwood Western management team may have used acquisition of AI players as part of its growth strategy, one thing to keep in mind for future gaming is that (at least in their current manifestation), train AIs are quite stupid - in fact, most if not all of the ones currently available for download don't even work as well as the original rail AI in Transport Tycoon. That's not a reflection on those who have been working on developing new ones, but the fact that planning rail lines is far more complex that planes or ships or even roads. In addition, many of the developers do not seem to be checking to see if critical game options (example: scaling grades on inclines or forbidding 90-degree turns) have been enabled or not. The idea on how to match HP and TE to train needs seems to be something that has not been seriously considered either.

My experience is that taking over AI competitors for their rail networks is more trouble than its worth. On the few occasions when I have tried that strategy, I have spent more time and effort rebuilding stations, untangling spaghetti routing. dealing with trains going 1 MPH because the AI decided to go directly up and down a mountainside instead of tunneling or going around, not to mention the bother of integrating them into my style of game play (grouping trains by route, labeling track lines for easier identification, realigning signals for consistency with my existing network). Unless I want to buy out an existing AI for a specific objective (such as acquiring a station in a crowded section of the map or getting access to critical raw supplies) I prefer to expand by building up my own existing network.

[Espee]

So tunnels cost more than plain tracks...but there is no indication of this fact on the itemized infrastructure?
How about bridges vs. tunnels or plain tracks?
I tend to favor tunnels in the quest to make lines ever more straight & level (which speeds delivery and increases income).Too bad if this is not worth the investment.

"Level" is a relative term, dependent on the heightmap profile as well as game settings such as weight multiplier for cargo. If you have seen any of my games, you will note that I do a fair amount of tunneling, but I play with extremely mountainous heightmaps (hand-drawn for this purpose, BTW) and a weight multiplier of 3x, which requires that I keep my mainline grades to a 1-in-10 rise (1 level up/down for every 10 TL traversed) to keep my 16 TL long coal and iron ore drags (I play with North American style long, heavy trains) from seeing more than 2 levels rise and fall from one end of the train to the other. In your Wardward Western game, you're playing with a 2x weight multiplier over some relatively mellow terrain, maybe not the pannekoeken landscape that's common with the Dutch players, but certainly not excessively steep. You should be able to get away with a 1-in-6 rise/fall without any noticeable major issues. The tunnels I have seen on the WW have been excessively long, yet often the terrain is only 1 or 2 levels higher than the tunnel. Going back to the Buntbourne Power Plant example in my previous post, if you were that concerned about grades, you would have had no problem keeping to within 1-6 if you had foregone that long tunnel near Buntobourne town, used some minor terraforming to bring the grade to the top of the ridge, then used fill on both sides of your existing bridge to build a higher bridge and save yourself a 2 or 3 level drop - all which would have been cheaper than building a tunnel to begin with.

Remember, that unlike model railroaders, real railroads only build bridges and tunnels as a last resort, either to avoid excessive grades, clear obstacles such as tunneling under towns, or for grade separation of different rail lines. Cutting would have been a far less expensive, and more realistic option, in 90% of the cases where a tunnel was used in this game.

[Baldy's Boss]

Group 37 (Trains 133 and 134) has been one of Wardwood Western's most profitable operations ever since its twin-bore maximum length tunnels were enabled by ripping out enough of a mountain for the tunnels not to be OVER maximum length.

Making acquired AI routes more straight & level is indeed part of the construction obligations.

[Kevo00]

Group 37 (Trains 133 and 134) has been one of Wardwood Western's most profitable operations ever since its twin-bore maximum length tunnels were enabled by ripping out enough of a mountain for the tunnels not to be OVER maximum length.

Making acquired AI routes more straight & level is indeed part of the construction obligations.

But the point is that there is no point building such long tunnels for just two trains if the infra costs incurred exceed the profits made by those two trains.