Suggestions for future TT

An archive of the Usenet group alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc.
Neil Williams

Re: HST vs. EMU

Post by Neil Williams »

Stephen Down <ste...@sjd117.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:84ljkm$lol$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
uk.railway added

Maarten Batenburg wrote:

Why is a TGV (or a similar HST, like the Eurostar) not a EMU? It exist
of several semi-permanent coupled carriages, of which some are
powered.

I'm getting confused now.
I would have thought that a TGV or Eurostar would be considered
"loco-hauled" because it is only the leading unit that powers the entire
train. But it can't be "loco-hauled" and an EMU, can it?
I think the main criteria for something being an MU would be...
- Semi-permanently coupled sets
- Ability to work in multiple
- (Possibly) containing powered coaches

An HST (IC125) would fail the second of these - though there is distributed
power, the 'units' are not designed to work in multiple, except in
emergency. This means they are essentially top-and-tailed locomotive-hauled
sets with the locomotives capable of multiple working in pairs (one at each
end). The same could, I suppose, be applied to a GatEx EMU, however these
have powered coaches, so don't count as hauled stock.

An E* is a semi-permanent coupled set (or more precisely two sets coupled
together), has some of its power equipment for each 'loco' in the end
passenger coach and is propelled by both 'locos' at once. I believe that if
sufficient power and platform capacity was to be available, multiple working
of sets would be possible. Therefore, it is in my book an EMU.

Neil
Phillip Michael Jordan

Re: HST vs. EMU

Post by Phillip Michael Jordan »

Neil Williams <willi...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:84lsmk$5t9$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Stephen Down <ste...@sjd117.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:84ljkm$lol$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
uk.railway added

Maarten Batenburg wrote:

Why is a TGV (or a similar HST, like the Eurostar) not a EMU? It exist
of several semi-permanent coupled carriages, of which some are
powered.

I'm getting confused now.
I would have thought that a TGV or Eurostar would be considered
"loco-hauled" because it is only the leading unit that powers the entire
train. But it can't be "loco-hauled" and an EMU, can it?

I think the main criteria for something being an MU would be...
- Semi-permanently coupled sets
- Ability to work in multiple
- (Possibly) containing powered coaches

An HST (IC125) would fail the second of these - though there is
distributed
power, the 'units' are not designed to work in multiple, except in
emergency. This means they are essentially top-and-tailed
locomotive-hauled
sets with the locomotives capable of multiple working in pairs (one at
each
end). The same could, I suppose, be applied to a GatEx EMU, however these
have powered coaches, so don't count as hauled stock.

An E* is a semi-permanent coupled set (or more precisely two sets coupled
together), has some of its power equipment for each 'loco' in the end
passenger coach and is propelled by both 'locos' at once. I believe that
if
sufficient power and platform capacity was to be available, multiple
working
of sets would be possible. Therefore, it is in my book an EMU.

Erm...
the EuroStar has 2 powered Locos, not one!
Phillip
Boudewijn

Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Boudewijn »

Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> schreef in berichtnieuws 83fqb2$hi...@news02.btx.dtag.de...
There is to implement a kind of pathfinding algorithm anyway. In 3DTT the
trains have a station list so when I have a station then I can look which
trains do halt here and where they go to. This list could be used for
optimizing but it is somewhat ugly to fill and maintain it because players
can change their schedules every time and there are really many vehicles in
the game. Passengers and cargo can use more than one vehicle for their
journey and more than one company. This will be very very very complex.
What about some good old chance-calculating?
Example: 100 people are on bus station A. There are two
coaches from A to G and two busses going ABCDEFG.
36 or so will catch the first coach to G. The rest will
catch the first bus to G and 10/11 people get off at each
station, where 11/12 people are waiting to get in.
Of course the percentages will vary (randomly).

Get the idea?
Peter J. Dobrovka

Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Boudewijn schrieb in Nachricht ...
...
What about some good old chance-calculating?
Example: 100 people are on bus station A. There are two
coaches from A to G and two busses going ABCDEFG.
36 or so will catch the first coach to G. The rest will
catch the first bus to G and 10/11 people get off at each
station, where 11/12 people are waiting to get in.
Of course the percentages will vary (randomly).

Get the idea?
Hm, yes, but the passengers will have a goal and a kind of "character". They
will decide themselves where to get in and out. They plan their route before
they show up on the very first station.

Peter
Sean

Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Sean »

Peter J. Dobrovka wrote in message <84of2d$ap...@news04.btx.dtag.de>...
Boudewijn schrieb in Nachricht ...
...
What about some good old chance-calculating?
Example: 100 people are on bus station A. There are two
coaches from A to G and two busses going ABCDEFG.
36 or so will catch the first coach to G. The rest will
catch the first bus to G and 10/11 people get off at each
station, where 11/12 people are waiting to get in.
Of course the percentages will vary (randomly).

Get the idea?


Hm, yes, but the passengers will have a goal and a kind of "character".
They
will decide themselves where to get in and out. They plan their route
before
they show up on the very first station.

Peter
Do you mean they will be at A and want to get to (for example) Z, so they
will take a train to Y (long distance) and then get on a bus to Z ?
Peter J. Dobrovka

Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Sean schrieb in Nachricht <84qv0k$4f...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Peter J. Dobrovka wrote in message
...
Hm, yes, but the passengers will have a goal and a kind of "character".

They
will decide themselves where to get in and out. They plan their route

before
they show up on the very first station.
...
Do you mean they will be at A and want to get to (for example) Z, so they
will take a train to Y (long distance) and then get on a bus to Z ?
Exactly.
If there is no bus to Z some people will not travel at all, because they
find it uncomfortable to get from Y to Z by their own. This is even more
true in the case of cargo. Some industries will only use your transport if
you lay the tracks to their main entrance and provide the complete way to
the destination.

Peter
Sean

Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Sean »

Peter J. Dobrovka wrote in message <84r7d5$k3...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
Sean schrieb in Nachricht <84qv0k$4f...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Peter J. Dobrovka wrote in message
...
Hm, yes, but the passengers will have a goal and a kind of "character".

They
will decide themselves where to get in and out. They plan their route

before
they show up on the very first station.
...
Do you mean they will be at A and want to get to (for example) Z, so they
will take a train to Y (long distance) and then get on a bus to Z ?


Exactly.
If there is no bus to Z some people will not travel at all, because they
find it uncomfortable to get from Y to Z by their own. This is even more
true in the case of cargo. Some industries will only use your transport if
you lay the tracks to their main entrance and provide the complete way to
the destination.

Peter
Great! That means there will be no more 'mega-rail' links between two huge
cities with 3000 passengers waiting at each station.
Chris Becke

Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Chris Becke »

"Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote:
Exactly.
If there is no bus to Z some people will not travel at all, because they
find it uncomfortable to get from Y to Z by their own. This is even more
true in the case of cargo. Some industries will only use your transport if
you lay the tracks to their main entrance and provide the complete way to
the destination.
The game needs the follwoing general set of extensions (Are we talking 3DTT
or TT here?)

As a general rule, all cargo that arrives at a station arrives there for a
specific "carrier" for a specific destination (which might be another
station thats on the routing list to the eventual destination).

I have a gut feeling that warehouses should be built for storing cargo in
transit.

This covers passengers, mail, coal, everything.

Factories should have built in lorry loading zones. goods cannot magically
move from factory to station back to factory. This means that the
effectiveness of lorry stops must be increaseable - lorry stops *must* be
expandable to accomodate more lorries at a time.

Finally, make at least one more type of road: highway. Enforce "zoning"
speedlimits on all roads. highways will have limited curvatures, and allow
the use of larger faster inter-city trucks that cannot be routed along roads
that take 90 degree turns. The cities must come connected via the low grade
roads - the players must be given the oppertunity to buy the road, convert
it to highway, and place toll booths upon it.

Fianlly - shared "stations". You don't own the factorys lorry stop - anybody
servicing a factories goods must use the factories stop. You can however
fund extenstions to the stop if the factory itself is lax in htat regard.
Also airports, should possibly be paritally owned & extendable (more runways
can be built). Buying into other companies automatically confers partial
ownership of all their stations. A small percentage of teh profit of every
station is diverted to the other owners.

The use of shared stations would allow multiplayer games to be competetive
or co-operative as required.

Chris
--
Peter J. Dobrovka

shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for future TT

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Chris Becke schrieb in Nachricht <38719ead$0$63...@helios.is.co.za>...
"Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote:
...
As a general rule, all cargo that arrives at a station arrives there for a
specific "carrier" for a specific destination (which might be another
station thats on the routing list to the eventual destination).

I have a gut feeling that warehouses should be built for storing cargo in
transit.
Not neccessarily. The cargo car is often owned by the industry and it comes
out of the factory with full load already. I only have to own the engine and
the tracks to take it away.
This covers passengers, mail, coal, everything.
Passenger warehouse = hotel ;-)
Factories should have built in lorry loading zones.
They will have them and they will have also have built-in railway stations.
They ARE railway stations in the moment you connect your railroad to them.
goods cannot magically
move from factory to station back to factory. This means that the
effectiveness of lorry stops must be increaseable - lorry stops *must* be
expandable to accomodate more lorries at a time.
As mentioned before: there is a (hidden?) traffic beside the player's
activity, called "individual traffic". We don't plan to simulate it exactly,
you will see sometimes horsecoaches and later lorries and taxis showing up
that don't belong to no player.
Finally, make at least one more type of road: highway. Enforce "zoning"
speedlimits on all roads. highways will have limited curvatures, and allow
the use of larger faster inter-city trucks that cannot be routed along
roads
that take 90 degree turns. The cities must come connected via the low
grade
roads - the players must be given the oppertunity to buy the road, convert
it to highway, and place toll booths upon it.
Highways will come, but only after 1930.
Fianlly - shared "stations". You don't
own the factorys lorry stop - anybody
servicing a factories goods must use
the factories stop.
Yes.
You can however
fund extenstions to the stop if the factory
itself is lax in htat regard.
Hm... - interesting idea...
Also airports, should possibly be paritally
owned & extendable (more runways
can be built). Buying into other companies
automatically confers partial
ownership of all their stations. A small
percentage of teh profit of every
station is diverted to the other owners.
Yes.
The use of shared stations would allow
multiplayer games to be competetive
or co-operative as required.
Oh yes, I would like to bring players to cooperate instead of
concurring only.

To share a station you have to include it into your station list for a
transport. If the other station's owner agrees your trains may use his
station. But only for this one transport route, this is no general
permission to use his other stations or even airports, too.

Peter
Chris Becke

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Chris Becke »

"Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote:
Not neccessarily. The cargo car is often owned by the industry and it
comes
out of the factory with full load already. I only have to own the engine
and
the tracks to take it away.
Cargo cars, when empty must be transported back to the owner I hope. None of
this railroad tycoon "cars dissapear when empty" rubbish.
This covers passengers, mail, coal, everything.

Passenger warehouse = hotel ;-)

Factories should have built in lorry loading zones.

They will have them and they will have also have built-in railway
stations.
They ARE railway stations in the moment you connect your railroad to them.
hmmm, two diffrent companies try to connect rail routes to a factory.

Is there some sort of facility to splice two diffrently owned rail systems
together at points, and share line for a distance. hmmm, this could be a
method of income - like toll booths. You set up the railway network / road
network, and other companies run the trains on it.

I see an alternate mode of play where the company simply funds the
construction of infrastructure, and other companies do the transporting
using it.

Thus, a two player co-operative game could involve one player buying the
rights and setting up highways, railway lines, airports & harbours. The
other player(s) buy and route the trucks, trains, and planes and ships.

In real life, harbours and airports are owned by an independent company in
which prehaps some of the transporting companies own a share.
goods cannot magically
move from factory to station back to factory. This means that the
effectiveness of lorry stops must be increaseable - lorry stops *must* be
expandable to accomodate more lorries at a time.

As mentioned before: there is a (hidden?) traffic beside the player's
activity, called "individual traffic". We don't plan to simulate it
exactly,
you will see sometimes horsecoaches and later lorries and taxis showing up
that don't belong to no player.
I would be tempted to go the whole way - at least as far as actual cargo
being moved is. Basically, a factory that exists _is_ currently shipping
goods & making a profit.

I would start with the factories owned by the local town whose population
provies their workforce :) Each town would be a type of limited focus
company that owns vehicles and performs shipping.
Finally, make at least one more type of road: highway. Enforce "zoning"
speedlimits on all roads. highways will have limited curvatures, and
allow
the use of larger faster inter-city trucks that cannot be routed along
roads
that take 90 degree turns. The cities must come connected via the low
grade
roads - the players must be given the oppertunity to buy the road,
convert
it to highway, and place toll booths upon it.

Highways will come, but only after 1930.
Fast trucks come, but only after 1930 :) Its a chicken and egg thing. The
development of fast trucks is tied into the developemnt of high quality long
distance highways.
Fianlly - shared "stations". You don't
own the factorys lorry stop - anybody
servicing a factories goods must use
the factories stop.

Yes.

You can however
fund extenstions to the stop if the factory
itself is lax in that regard.

Hm... - interesting idea...
Funding an extension is a more costly way to "buy in" to the factory's
station.
Also airports, should possibly be paritally
owned & extendable (more runways
can be built). Buying into other companies
automatically confers partial
ownership of all their stations. A small
percentage of the profit of every
station is diverted to the other owners.

Yes.

The use of shared stations would allow
multiplayer games to be competetive
or co-operative as required.

Oh yes, I would like to bring players to cooperate instead of
concurring only.

To share a station you have to include it into your station list for a
transport. If the other station's owner agrees your trains may use his
station. But only for this one transport route, this is no general
permission to use his other stations or even airports, too.
I forsee the exinstance of "non-owned" or town council owned stations. It
should be possible to sell part ownership in a station to the local council
or another company to recoupe the cost of building the station. (or
potentailly gain funding up front by offering to pay for some fraction of a
projected new airport, and waiting for the town or other companies to offer
to buy in).


Imagine the following scenario:

You wish to build a train-station in a town. Instead of just building it,
you first indicate you wish to build a trainstation - (you ask the council -
can I do this) The council then decide if they like you, and a train station
is something thats needed, they offer to part pay for the station - if there
is already a station, or they don't like you, they tell you how much you
must pay them (ie you can bribe the town council when you've demolished too
many trees :). During the bid phase other transport companies too can
request to part buy the station (you can reject them).

Now that everyone has promised money, and the town council has given their
approval you can go ahead and construct a station conforming to the station
you promised. If you are very frugal in your construction, and the money
contributed by the others is large you might even make a profit in the
construction :) (ah -"Construction Tycoon!").

To build a toll road / highway between two cities a similar approach must be
used. Indicate that you want to connect the two cities - their councils then
get together and decide wether to grant the rights or not. This stops
another company (or you) just building another road and bypassing another
companies toll.

hmmm.

Chris.
--
Peter J. Dobrovka

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Chris Becke schrieb in Nachricht <3872373e$0$...@hades.is.co.za>...
...
Cargo cars, when empty must be
transported back to the owner I hope. None of
this railroad tycoon "cars dissapear when empty" rubbish.
Yes, the empty cars must come back because otherwise there will be no
new ones. After a time the industry who ownes the cars will ask for bringing
back. If you don't or can't the cars are disassembled at your station where
they are waiting and reassembled at home. This costs a lot of money.

...
hmmm, two diffrent companies try to connect rail routes to a factory.

Is there some sort of facility to splice two diffrently owned rail systems
together at points, and share line for a distance. hmmm, this could be a
method of income - like toll booths. You set up the railway network /
road
network, and other companies run the trains on it.
The rail to the player's cargo station is built and owned by the industry.
The player may fund the construction to force business. The industry will
have an own engine bringing the loaded cars to the station. Sounds
complicated but it is automatic, the player doesn't has to bother with
micromanagement here.
I see an alternate mode of play where the company simply funds the
construction of infrastructure, and other companies do the transporting
using it.

Thus, a two player co-operative game could involve one player buying the
rights and setting up highways, railway lines, airports & harbours. The
other player(s) buy and route the trucks, trains, and planes and ships.
In real life, harbours and airports are owned
by an independent company in
which prehaps some of the transporting companies own a share.
This should be possible in our economy model. Note that there is no need to
setup the game as cooperative mode. Players can cooperate or throatcut each
other in one and the same game just as in real life.
I would be tempted to go the whole way - at least as far as actual cargo
being moved is. Basically, a factory that exists _is_ currently shipping
goods & making a profit.
That's the point. Otherwise there would be no reason for existence.
I would start with the factories owned
by the local town whose population
provies their workforce :) Each town would be a type of limited focus
company that owns vehicles and performs shipping.
This is something we have to think about. It is very valid what you say,
transportation does not begin in 1820 when the player starts. Especially
ships and horsecoaches have to exist already.
Later in the game the factories may have even own trucks as they have in
present reality.

...
Highways will come, but only after 1930.

Fast trucks come, but only after 1930 :) Its a chicken and egg thing. The
development of fast trucks is tied into the developemnt of high quality
long distance highways.
I think this is similar to the development of big industries by railroad we
have to simulate: for running a good profit the industries have to be large
enough but they start to grow only when there are good transportation
connections.
So the use of automobiles boosted the building of highways in Europe. Before
them there were smaller roads only.

...
You can however
fund extenstions to the stop if the factory
itself is lax in that regard.

Hm... - interesting idea...

Funding an extension is a more costly way to "buy in" to the factory's
station.
We have to think about it. There would be a possibility.

...
To share a station you have to include it into your station list for a
transport. If the other station's owner agrees your trains may use his
station. But only for this one transport route, this is no general
permission to use his other stations or even airports, too.

I forsee the exinstance of "non-owned" or town council owned stations. It
should be possible to sell part ownership in a station to the local council
or another company to recoupe the cost of building the station. (or
potentailly gain funding up front by offering to pay for some fraction of a
projected new airport, and waiting for the town or other companies
to offer to buy in).
In our economy model this should be possible. Companies can be sold in
little parts.
Imagine the following scenario:

You wish to build a train-station in a town. Instead of just building it,
you first indicate you wish to build a trainstation - (you ask the
council -
can I do this) The council then decide if they like you, and a train
station
is something thats needed, they offer to part pay for the station - if
there
is already a station, or they don't like you, they tell you how much you
must pay them (ie you can bribe the town council when you've
demolished too
many trees :). During the bid phase other transport companies too can
request to part buy the station (you can reject them).
Oh yes, there were already discussions in the team going into just this
direction.
But forget the trees - the town council has different problems ;-)
As I remember our discussions the town council will always be interested in
a new transport route, the major problem is if you have to tear down
something, esp. bridges and main roads. Because our construction model does
have a planning mode and marking objects for deletion this gives the
possibility of 'certifying' the changes you have to make on the city. If you
have to tear a bridge but plan to build a new one at the same time, the
council will allow it. (In difference to TT, where I cannot upgrade old
wooden bridges to speed up my buses.)
Now that everyone has promised money, and the town council has given their
approval you can go ahead and construct a station conforming to the station
you promised. If you are very frugal in your construction, and the money
contributed by the others is large you might even make a profit in the
construction :) (ah -"Construction Tycoon!").
I like this idea! I think we will implement it.
To build a toll road / highway between two cities a similar approach must
be
used. Indicate that you want to connect the two cities - their councils
then
get together and decide wether to grant the rights or not. This stops
another company (or you) just building another road and bypassing another
companies toll.

hmmm.
We should ask Rémi and Steve how it is possible to earn money by owning a
highway. Building is abnormal expensive, I have problems to imagine the toll
bringing so much money back.


Peter
Chris Becke

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Chris Becke »

"Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote:
Yes, the empty cars must come back because otherwise there will be no
new ones. After a time the industry who ownes the cars will ask for
bringing
back. If you don't or can't the cars are disassembled at your station
where
they are waiting and reassembled at home. This costs a lot of money.
There can be a factory that makes trains and carriges - other factories have
to buy them before they can use them ;->

That was said just to be funny, but prehaps is not so stupid. In real life,
in a developing country you cannot build new transport infrastructure in a
far away place without a method to ship the stuff there.

If you buy a new engine, somebody must put it on a truck, and send it to the
depot from which you wish to dispatch it.

...
I see an alternate mode of play where the company simply funds the
construction of infrastructure, and other companies do the transporting
using it.

Thus, a two player co-operative game could involve one player buying the
rights and setting up highways, railway lines, airports & harbours. The
other player(s) buy and route the trucks, trains, and planes and ships.
In real life, harbours and airports are owned
by an independent company in
which prehaps some of the transporting companies own a share.

This should be possible in our economy model. Note that there is no need
to
setup the game as cooperative mode. Players can cooperate or throatcut
each
other in one and the same game just as in real life.
Absolutely - i did not mean to imply otherwise. There is no better way to
win that to stab a supposed ally in the back :)

...
We should ask Rémi and Steve how it is possible to earn money by owning a
highway. Building is abnormal expensive, I have problems to imagine the
toll
bringing so much money back.
Locally we have a Toll Company that has built a number of very good roads
connecting major cities, under contract from the government. They expected
to make their money back after 5 years from tolls. I don't know how toll
roads work anywhere else...

Finally, on ownership of things.. It is my understanding that, here at the
turn of the millenium,

Trainstations are owned by the company that also owns the all the trains and
rails.

Harbours are owned by a harbour company, independent from the owners of the
ships. silo / wherehouse space on site is rented not bought, and no
restriction is placed on the ships that use the facilities (other than the
ability to pay the harbour tax).

Busstops, (of the big intercity) type are typically adjacent to
trainstations (and airports), and no restrictions are placed on the vehicles
visiting.

Airports, are owned by an Airport company. All types of aircraft may visit.
wharehouse space might be rented on site.

--

Basically, a factory is a station: they are diffrent versions of the same
thing. An international airport is a "factory" that accepts passengers from
some types of "vehicle" and produces outputs to the others.

That is, to model an airport in isolation, that has an airstrip on which
aircraft land, a "busstop" where cars and busses collect / deposit people,
and an attached trainstation. People can arrive via any one method, say via
an aircraft landing and docking, and those people will be directed to the
waiting areas for the other transports: busstop and train. People arriving
via train or bus are routed to either the waiting area for aircraft, or,
some small percentage might be just using the airport as a switchover from
bus to train or visa versa.

The important thing to note is that at each step of the route things do get
paid for. Unlike in TTD, the airport company must get money, even if its
just a hop on a longer journey thats not yet complete (the next hope might
be on a competing transport!).

Chris
Trikklennium

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Trikklennium »

Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:84t11d$1u2$2@news04.btx.dtag.de...
I have a gut feeling that warehouses should be built for storing cargo in
transit.
Not neccessarily. The cargo car is often owned by the industry and it
comes
out of the factory with full load already. I only have to own the engine
and
the tracks to take it away.
Does this mean that you won't have to buy cargo cars at all.......Or just
for certain 'Runs'?
Factories should have built in lorry loading zones.
They will have them and they will have also have built-in railway
stations.
They ARE railway stations in the moment you connect your railroad to them.
Owned and maintained by the company or the industry?
(This brings up the question of who foots the cost of upgrading....)
We don't plan to simulate it exactly, you will see sometimes horsecoaches
and later lorries and taxis showing up that don't belong to no player.
He he...could this be used as a bit of comic relief......IE daft names for
taxis and such?
This would be a great place to put inside jokes....


--
Rick McGreal
Life is a bunch of Roses...Complete with thorns.
tri...@transport-tycoon.co.uk
http://www.transport-tycoon.co.uk
Peter J. Dobrovka

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Trikklennium schrieb in Nachricht <8500t7$9m...@gxsn.com>...
Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:84t11d$1u2$2@news04.btx.dtag.de...
I have a gut feeling that warehouses should be built for storing cargo
in
transit.
Not neccessarily. The cargo car is often owned by the industry and it
comes
out of the factory with full load already. I only have to own the engine
and
the tracks to take it away.

Does this mean that you won't have to buy cargo cars at all.......Or just
for certain 'Runs'?
Yes, exactly this it is meaning.
Factories should have built in lorry loading zones.
They will have them and they will have also have built-in railway
stations.
They ARE railway stations in the moment you connect your railroad to
them.

Owned and maintained by the company or the industry?
The industry.
(This brings up the question of who foots the cost of upgrading....)
Everyone who is interested in the upgrade.
Being stations and owning a small loco is no upgrade for the industry. The
upgrades are in capacity and technology.
We don't plan to simulate it exactly, you will see sometimes horsecoaches
and later lorries and taxis showing up that don't belong to no player.

He he...could this be used as a bit of comic relief......IE daft names for
taxis and such?
This would be a great place to put inside jokes....
If you think so... but since I do not understand what you mean it seems I am
no insider.

Peter
Rémi Denis

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Rémi Denis »

Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> a écrit dans le message :
84th3j$5r...@news04.btx.dtag.de...
Chris Becke schrieb in Nachricht <3872373e$0$...@hades.is.co.za>...
To build a toll road / highway between two cities a similar approach must
be
used. Indicate that you want to connect the two cities - their councils
then
get together and decide wether to grant the rights or not. This stops
another company (or you) just building another road and bypassing another
companies toll.

hmmm.

We should ask Rémi and Steve how it is possible to earn money by owning a
highway. Building is abnormal expensive, I have problems to imagine the
toll
bringing so much money back.
In France, Highway companies are co-owned by the government and private
parts. And of course, building is funded by the gov. Moreover, city/suburbs
highway are entirely owned by the gov. or local authorities, that's why
there is no toll for them.
I suppose that major highways *do* make profit, because they are expensive
(especially for truck/buses) and many people use them, but the building is
refunded on quite long terms, although companies have to pay for the initial
loan interest and to maintain it. The same concept apply for major
tunnels/viaducs which costed a lot of money, which you've got to pay to use.
There is a problem with little unused highway section which are not taken by
many people and might not be financially reliable. Maybe, the gov. gives
money for them as it does for the loosing-money National French Railway
[public] Society.

There might be some differences in 3DTT:
in France, there is a few motorway companies, they each have a 'landzone':
S.A.N.E.F. in North/East, S.A.P.R.R. between Paris, the Rhin and the
Rhône...

In 3DTT, I suppose that every company may want to build a highway from one
city to another, and that only the first will be allowed, not regarding to
any landzone attribution.

--
Rémi
Peter
Peter J. Dobrovka

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Rémi Denis schrieb in Nachricht ...
...
In France, Highway companies are
co-owned by the government and private
parts. And of course, building is funded by the gov.
Ahaaa!

...
In 3DTT, I suppose that every company
may want to build a highway from one
city to another, and that only the first
will be allowed, not regarding to
any landzone attribution.
Yes, exactly.
I am surprised about this landzoning. It makes absolutely no sense! Why
should a country grant access rights for companies by territory boundaries?
I know this territory thing only from gangster clans ("this part of the city
is mine, hahaha"). This is in contradiction to the freedom of business and
ownership.


Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x
Chris Becke

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Chris Becke »

"Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote:
I am surprised about this landzoning. It makes absolutely no sense! Why
should a country grant access rights for companies by territory
boundaries?
I know this territory thing only from gangster clans ("this part of the
city
is mine, hahaha"). This is in contradiction to the freedom of business and
ownership.
"roads" are a service that occupy land.

In order for a company to be able to offer a road serice they need a "zone"
to build a road in. Two companies with differing goals building roads in the
zame area would lead to chaos. As each company would own the road they have
build, and the land around it it would not be possible for another companies
road to cross or intersect.

Chris

--
VisualC++ & Win32 FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/vcfaq
My Win32 Page: http://users.lia.net/chris/win32
Bill Hayles

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Bill Hayles »

On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 18:13:49 GMT, "Rémi Denis"
<rden...@pop3.multi1mania2.com> wrote:

There might be some differences in 3DTT:
in France, there is a few motorway companies, they each have a 'landzone':
S.A.N.E.F. in North/East, S.A.P.R.R. between Paris, the Rhin and the
Rhône...
It's exactly the same in Spain, except that the idea of private
companies building and running toll motorways is much more recent than
in France. Aumar, the company that owns the Mediterranean Motorway (E15
- A7) between Valencia and Alicante is very unpopular and many people
(including me!) prefer to use the slower but free old road, the N332.
In 3DTT, I suppose that every company may want to build a highway from one
city to another, and that only the first will be allowed, not regarding to
any landzone attribution.
If 3DTT is to mirror real life, if the price is set too high, people
won't use it!

From Benitachell, Alicante, Spain
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es
Trikklennium

Re: shared stations for 3DTT (was: Re: Suggestions for futur

Post by Trikklennium »

Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:850bjp$g8c$1@news00.btx.dtag.de...
(This brings up the question of who foots the cost of upgrading....)
Everyone who is interested in the upgrade.
Being stations and owning a small loco is no upgrade for the industry. The
upgrades are in capacity and technology.
Thats what I meant.......If I want to take the advantage of using Monorail
over normal tracks but the industry can't see the use at the mo'. Could I
buy it anyway?
He he...could this be used as a bit of comic relief......IE daft names
for
taxis and such?
This would be a great place to put inside jokes....
If you think so... but since I do not understand what you mean it seems I
am
no insider.
Sorry...bit of a language problem here..(My Fault)
What I mean't was just like in SC2000 there is a boat in the marina that if
you click on it it will give the captain as being one of the staff
programmers.

An inside joke is one that you lot who made the game know about..(If you had
a silly nickname for somebody) and you placed it in the game KNOWING nobody
else would understand it..

--
Rick McGreal
Life is a bunch of Roses...Complete with thorns.
tri...@transport-tycoon.co.uk
http://www.transport-tycoon.co.uk
Peter J. Dobrovka

3DTT industries and research (was: Re: shared stations...

Post by Peter J. Dobrovka »

Trikklennium schrieb in Nachricht <854h5o$7q...@gxsn.com>...
Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:850bjp$g8c$1@news00.btx.dtag.de...
(This brings up the question of who foots the cost of upgrading....)
Everyone who is interested in the upgrade.
Being stations and owning a small loco is no upgrade for the industry.
The
upgrades are in capacity and technology.

Thats what I meant.......If I want to take the advantage of using Monorail
over normal tracks but the industry can't see the use at the mo'. Could I
buy it anyway?
At this moment this topic is not foreseen clearly. I think you can build you
own factory every time the standard industries do not fit your wishes.
Building a factory for monorail could be important if yourself have
developed the monorail in your research center. There will be a kind of tech
tree. Mario doesn't want it to be like in Civ but to split up into topics
(wheels, motors, comfort f.e.) you can fund. We will see.

Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x
Locked

Return to “alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests