Costs of electrified vs normal railroad

[krtaylor]

We had an extensive discussion about how much electrified railroad vs. normal railroad should cost before the forums were reorganized. What is the current pricing scheme, right now? Is there any change expected in the future?

[Oracle]

I think it's:
railway - 1
electrified railway - 1.5
monorail/maglev - 2

but forgive me if I'm wrong.

[krtaylor]

I guess I was hoping more for
normal = 1
electrified = 2
maglev = 4
But OK. At least it is noticeably different now.

[Dinges]

it is:
1
1,6
2

[krtaylor]

OK.

You know, I was thinking, a lot of this sort of detail is interesting but not really covered in the manual. Maybe we should write a Patch technical-details manual, talking about how the calculations work. Like, what has maintenance costs (and how much), and this sort of value here, and how the reliabilities are calculated, and the plane accelerations, etc.

[eis_os]

Without electric rails:
1 2 4

With electric rails:
1 1,625 2

[Raichase]

Hmm, I still think the price increase is too small. I was having a discussion with a non-forum member, and he was saying that the problems of the money surplus limit what can be done realistically.

For example, It is annoying to see people using the ICE train for everything, and this is due to the fact that people can afford to build an ICE train for every single train they want (heck, lets use it to transport coal). Electrified railways should be trying to limit the money surplus, as in real life, electrification is a costly and tedious process, and governments and companies must rationalise every dollar they spend. In TT, we just dump down a sign and fork out a few thousand. Let's make it a few hundred thousand

I love the fact that the price increase has happened, as it is realistic, but I think that it could be more different to the regular railway. Unless you have just started a game in 1970, there is no need to build non-electric railway over the electric railway.

Thanks, thats my thoughts on the matter anyway. In short, I like the price increase, but I think it can be pushed further.

[krtaylor]

I agree, Raichase, and I argued strongly for much more expensive electrified track when the price changes were first mooted. I even researched real-life electrification projects and conversions. But I was outvoted. Maybe the pricing coefficient can be a settable parameter in TTDX Configurator?

What really annoys me, is that the pricing is still so close in amount that the tendency is to build electrfied rail whether you need it or not, simply on the off chance that you may use electrified locos later on, and you're too lazy to rebuild all the track for it. It should be a serious issue, whether you use electrified rails or not.

One thing that goes here - In no way am I criticising MB's wonderful DB set, particularly since as far as I can tell it reflects reality. However, something that seems very odd to me, is that there is no reason to electrify until the 1980s - the electric locos are both weaker and slower than the steam or diesel. In fact, that red steam engine is the fastest train in the game until the ICE (although a little expensive). Is this for real? Something about that seems a little odd. Electric trains have always been faster and more powerful, haven't they?

[Raichase]

What really annoys me, is that the pricing is still so close in amount that the tendency is to build electrfied rail whether you need it or not, simply on the off chance that you may use electrified locos later on, and you're too lazy to rebuild all the track for it. It should be a serious issue, whether you use electrified rails or not.

Hmm, that is the problem I am referring to - new train lines (especially freight) here in Australia are not bult as electric, unless needed. North, South and West of Sydney all lose their electrification after the first major town...

One thing that goes here - In no way am I criticising MB's wonderful DB set, particularly since as far as I can tell it reflects reality. However, something that seems very odd to me, is that there is no reason to electrify until the 1980s - the electric locos are both weaker and slower than the steam or diesel.

Ah yes, I was discussing this point with Michael a few days ago. We were talking about how nobody uses the V100 and other such "weaker" locos, because people are always worroed about the fastest train... The electrics are in there not, because of their speed, but because of their high HP and lower running costs. In real life, the early electrics were emplyed to haul heavy freight trains up steep grades. The BR194 is an excellent locomotive for getting 12 Iron Ore wagons up a mountain (from what I have seen, Michael plays with terrain as mountainous, and a high level of lakes/oceans).

In fact, that red steam engine is the fastest train in the game until the ICE (although a little expensive). Is this for real? Something about that seems a little odd. Electric trains have always been faster and more powerful, haven't they?

Ah, you have missed the BR103 then. It is a fast electric train invented at a good time - 1969 and it moves at 200km/h, much faster than the BR05's 165km/h... It also has much more HP. The BR05 is a very fast locomotive, but that is because it was built to haul short express services through Germany. Longer haul trains were being taken by other classes (although the only one of those present in the set is the BR01).

An interesting point arises from this, and that is that TT (even with the wonderfull patch and it's graphics) can not accuraly represent the trains. E.g. nobody here (save for myself and the realism players, you know who you are) will purchase a V100, because there are *better* trains that can be bought. I say *better*, because they are only superiour when looking at TT. In real life, companies have many more decisions to make than just "how expensive the loco is, how fast it goes and how much HP it has", really there are problems like reliablity (which is fixed in real life), adaptablilty (can it shunt, haul fast trains, slow freight or help other trains up hills), avaliablity of parts, fuel, how qualified people must be to drive it etc etc etc, all of which are impossible to show in TT.

Food for thought, even if it is a bit OT - it's still worth knowing.

[Patchman]

I appreciate the discussion here. One thing I'll do in beta 5 is to have TTD remember the previous selection of rail class (regular/electric/maglev), and use that as default for the next time.

This way at least you have to make a conscious decision to build electrified, because regular rail will be the default until you do so.

This won't really make a difference in what class people will prefer, but I think a lot of it is just laziness to change the default everytime.

The cost factor of about 1.6 is one Michael researched for a recent ICE high speed track built in Germany. It's quite likely that this ratio used to be a lot higher in the past. Now that electrified track is basically the default for new tracks, you'd expect that the price has been optimized. Or maybe regular tracks have become more expensive in general, so that the cost of electrification is small compared to it.

Either way, it wouldn't be too hard to make this ratio change linearly in time. Give me the ratio you want it to be in 1920, and (I guess) 1.6 in 2000, and I'll interpolate linearly. (Anything else would be too complicated, although a logarithmic decrease with 7, 15 or 31 steps would be feasible using a bit scan operation.) See below for an illustration for a decrease from a factor of 8 down to 1.6.

[uzurpator]

Well - there are a few problems here - all which lead to using TGV's to haul coal trains...

1. Electrified rails (and rails w alltogather) have no real maintenence costs. This encourages to build elaborate rail networks because track is dirt cheap to build and maintain. Note that even making track 10 times more expensive will not fix the problem - it is built once and will serve to the end of the world, and once it is not needed simply dynamite it away to get most of your cash back.

2. No real difference between cargo and passanger locomotives. In reality TGV trainset weighs around 400 tons of which 136 are locomotives. Such composition can reach 300 km/h. But otoh DM3 with its 300 something tons can pull 6000 tons with speed of 80 km/h. Their powers are alike.

The reason is the fact that DM3 has gearing balanced towards pulling large weights while TGV has it balance towards speed. IT would be cool if patch also allowed to specify maximum weight of the train (exocluding loco) that a given locomotive can reach max speed with - this will encourage of using slow, but powerful engines (like BR 45) instead light passanger engines like BR 05. The latter reached 160 km/h - true. But with 200 ton trains!

[krtaylor]

1. My researches indicated that, in the beginning, the ratio of track to electrification costs was approximately 1:3.

2. I strongly agree, there should be maintenance costs for track. I would propose that they be 10% of the original cost, adjusted for inflation of course.

3. The reason that the electric passenger and freight locos are relatively unrealistic, is because on most if not all electric trainsets, all the wheels are powered, including those of the cars. The "locomotive" is really just the control cab, pantograph, and transformers, it doesn't have any more "motive power" than any of the other cars. Most of these are really EMUs, or electric multiple units; they just don't look like it because they are fastened together permanently.

But TTD cannot replicate this, as it does not have any way of noting that a car has horsepower ability, particularly not when it depends on what loco it has. The only way to approximate the effect would be to take some of the DMUs or EMUs that are in the game, and make a train out of nothing but them (that is, no traincars, all locos.) Then it would work properly. But that won't work for the ICE, it looks odd.

I'm not sure what I am suggesting here for improvements. Thoughts? Maybe if you reduced the relative weights of passenger cars and increased the weight of freight, you could lower the HP of passenger locos so they could haul passenger cars OK but wouldn't be able to pull freight very well.

[uzurpator]

3. The reason that the electric passenger and freight locos are relatively unrealistic, is because on most if not all electric trainsets, all the wheels are powered, including those of the cars. The "locomotive" is really just the control cab, pantograph, and transformers, it doesn't have any more "motive power" than any of the other cars. Most of these are really EMUs, or electric multiple units; they just don't look like it because they are fastened together permanently.

Nope. take alook here: http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/tgv/tgvindex.html

Only high speed train in europe with distributed drive is ICE3 (beautiful train btw).

The true part is the fact that engines are geared towards better TE or better speed - not both. Steam engines had gearing set by the size of the drivers, in electric and diesel engines it is mostly done by normal tooth sprockets or metal belts. Freight locomotives tend to have lower gearing and are circuted to run at lower speeds. They also tend to use sophisticated circutry to start heavy trains (to control TE on a verge of slippage). Express locomotives are geared towards higher speeds so even if they have higher power they can pull lower load. Universal locomotives are something inbetween.

[Arathorn]

Can we also make cost of railways more expensive compared to roads? That way it would be more economical to transport things by road instead of by train.

[krtaylor]

Huh. I know in Japan they usually have all wheels powered. I'm not as familiar with the European systems. You're right now that I think about it, the European model tends to have locomotives that "look" like locomotives, such as that don't have room for passengers in them.

Your point about the gearing is also correct; that affects the acceleration as well.

I think we could get the desired result if we fiddled with the relative weights of the different types of cars. If passenger/mail/valuables cars were LOTS lighter than the rest, then we could make the passenger locos lots weaker (but with high top speed). That would work.

I think the way to deal with the roads vs railways question is by assessing a maintenance cost per month for your railway network, and NOT for your roads. That is realistic - even if you as a company have to build roads, which itself is rare, generally it is maintained by the local government thereafter. With train tracks it's all the job of the railway company.

But part of the problem is that trains go so much faster than trucks, and hold so much more. I think the way to help with this is by adding George's long vehicles to the "official" set once they can handle corners better, and adding more of them earlier in time. That way the capacities and speeds will be increased. There's no reason the top speed of the busses should be 35 mph into the 1960s. By 1945 at the latest there should be busses that can do 55, and by 1960 there should be 70 mph busses and trucks. In fact, that would lead to the balance here in the US - trucks are used enormously more than trains, because they generally go faster.

[uzurpator]

Average rail wagon can carry 60 tons of cargo. No truck can carry that much. Also - railroads are best with bulk cargo and long distances - trucks rule at short distance and small amounts of cargo.

As for weights and alike.

Average passanger carriage in europe weighs around 45 tons. Average wagons hits 20 tons empty and 80 full. Avreage passanger train hits 500-900 tons. Average freight train will go around 2500 tons.

To correct this we should double capacities of freight wagons and double industry production and make cargo payment half of its current price. Along with setting maximum tonnage for locomotives this will nicely make a difference. However it will screw up trucks big time.

Ofc we could leave payment rates as they are and:
1.Increase running costs of locomotives
2.Add running costs to wagons
this way we would offset profit explosion for extra cargo and loong trains.

Trucks however will not be able to cope with increased amounts of cargo they would need to transport. (Unlike stations you cannot expand truck bays and they only hold two trucks).

The only applicable solution is IMO just giving locomotives their maximum load - freight trains, even in ttd, are heavier then passanger ones.

Unless something like this happend:

[krtaylor]

Actually you'd have the trucks BACK in, wouldn't you?

I see your argument, and technically what you are talking about would work, but it isn't vey elegant. Here I have to ask a question of the Patch crew:

Does the TTD engine have calculations for the weights of the trains, or just their length? Does it know whether they are full or empty, and thus how heavy they are? Does this therefore affect the acceleration of the engines?

If it did, you could easily fix things by making passengers weigh nothing, and their cars weigh next to nothing; then making passenger locos much weaker. Problem solved.

[Patchman]

Here I have to ask a question of the Patch crew:

Does the TTD engine have calculations for the weights of the trains, or just their length? Does it know whether they are full or empty, and thus how heavy they are? Does this therefore affect the acceleration of the engines?

If it did, you could easily fix things by making passengers weigh nothing, and their cars weigh next to nothing; then making passenger locos much weaker. Problem solved.

Of course TTD knows the total weight of the train. It's shown in the train info window after all.

Each passenger weighs 62.5 kg, each bag of mail weighs 250 kg, and each crate of goods weighs 500 kg. Everything else weighs 1 ton per "unit".

The total weight is calculated correctly, and used to calculate the acceleration of the train.

With the realistic acceleration model, power, weight, and maximum TE should all be handled correctly. The reason why it isn't in fact realistic for cargo trains is that you rarely see a coal train with only 5 wagons, whereas passenger trains with 5 wagons are common.

If you consistently had 50 coal wagons on trains in TTD, everything would work realistically, and you'd really need cargo locomotives for cargo trains. However, such long trains don't work well in TTD, because distances and stations are too short to support them.

However, if you multiply the weight and capacity of each cargo wagon tenfold (and the industry production too), you'd get close to realistic values. But then it wouldn't look right... because each wagon would really represent ten wagons.

[uzurpator]

Actually you'd have the trucks BACK in, wouldn't you?

I'm just thinking about the game as a whole, not just one aspect of it.

I see your argument, and technically what you are talking about would work, but it isn't vey elegant.

And making wagons feather weight and making passanger locomotives weak (the unrealistic way - passanger locos always had higher power then freight locos) is elegant?
BR 103 - pure express engine - 9895 hp but were also meant for light 600-800 ton trains. BR 103 has 312 kN tractive effort.
Freight loco BR 151 has 7980 hp but 441 kN tractive effort. Lower power yet the latter engine is stronger by 41%. Power is only a measure of how fast an engine can reach its max speed. Tractive effort is how much it can pull. Don't confuse these two.

Does the TTD engine have calculations for the weights of the trains, or just their length? Does it know whether they are full or empty, and thus how heavy they are? Does this therefore affect the acceleration of the engines?

It does - just check weight for full and empty train in train data.

If it did, you could easily fix things by making passengers weigh nothing, and their cars weigh next to nothing; then making passenger locos much weaker. Problem solved.

Problem not solved. Problem not even touched. Even 2000 hp engine can reach 200 km/h with ease with TTD very light trains. Besides this solution has nothing to do with reality.

EDIT:
Patchman:

TTD carriage weighs 25 tons. With 40 passangers it weighs 27.5 tons.
Coal car weighs 20 tons empty and 50 tons full.

So
9 full passanger train weighs 247 tons
9 full coal car train weighs 450 tons

This figures are ~50% which is close to reality where passanger trains tend to be lighter then cargot rains by ~50%. Also with patch it is possible to use much longer trains which make sense mostly for freight (mixed goods trains like oil + ore). IMO a setting that would somehow indicate maximum weight an engine can pull to max speed would have a place....

[krtaylor]

Humph. I know, fiddling with the weights is inelegant, but at least with the passengers you only have to change one or two things, rather than hacking ALL the cargos. Besides which, passengers are displayed as numbers not weights, if you told the game they only weighed 6 kg each nobody would ever know. Ditto the "sacks" of mail.

Making a "max weight limit" for locos does make some sense - after all, if you put a loco geared for high speeds in front of a train of coal cars, it would just spin its wheels I suppose.