Transport Tycoon Forums

Ar4i wrote:So in reality there were steam engines much better than the diesel ones? The U4a 4-8-4 has much higher stats than the diesel engines invented 25 years later?

On paper, yes, steam engines were more powerful, but they had significant disadvantages. DanMack will probably correct me or add to the list below, which describes some of the advantages of diesel:

• A steam engine is extremely heavy. It has to pull its own weight as well as the consist.
• A steam engine requires a crew of two. A diesel only needs an engineer.
• When multiheaded, the diesel slave units do not need any crew.
• Diesels are easier to maintain and have lower running costs.
• Diesel is cleaner than coal.
• When first introduced, diesel fuel was cheaper than coal.

Hmm ... looking at that last item and considering the current cost of diesel fuel, maybe the railroads should return to steam.

Wally pretty much hit the nail on the head, but yes, one steam locomotive, as a rule, was more powerful than a single diesel locomotive. That said, there are A LOT more moving parts on a steam locomotive, A LOT more infrastructure required for maintenence and A LOT more fuel required. Diesels were quieter, more comfortable, easier to work on and more efficient than a steam locomotive. A 4-unit diesel could haul as much as one steam locomotive, but was A LOT cheaper and easier to maintain.

If you compare a 4-8-4 against say, a single FP7, performance-wise and HPwise, yes, the 4-8-4 will blow it out of the water, but the running costs are exorbantly higher, and the cost of running 4 F-units equals approximately one steam locomotive.

DanMacK wrote: If you compare a 4-8-4 against say, a single FP7, performance-wise and HPwise, yes, the 4-8-4 will blow it out of the water, but the running costs are exorbantly higher, and the cost of running 4 F-units equals approximately one steam locomotive.

- obligatory smiley because I'm not having a go - I absolutely love the Canadian Set...but using 1962 running costs:

• Confederation 484 5,800HP, running cost $170,830
• FP7 1,500HP, running cost $87,244
• 4xFP7, 6,000HP, running cost $348,976!!

Affording enough HP on trains headed by diesels *is* challenging - trains that make easy money in steam days can be tough to break-even with using diesels.

Personally I like that challenge. Also, I'm running a freight weight multiplier of 8 - anyone using low freight weight multipliers shouldn't have a problem getting diesel hauled trains over the hills with a couple of units (and making good profit).

BTW (1), what's the recommended freight weight multiplier for Canset 0.3?

BTW (2), do those costs sound right? I am running the Newships GRF which multiplies ship running costs and capacities - I believe I've seen reports of that screwing with train base running costs (don't know if that was confirmed tho').

cheers,

Andy

I roughly thought 2 diesels = 1 Steam loco and that's about what those work out to. that said, running costs shouldn't be anywhere near that high.... Try turning off newships and see if that changes anything??

I do want to make a few changes in costs and such for Version 0.5, more inline with UKRS and NARS pricing. Running costs will be reduced to make up for the increased initial costs.

In the US Set, we originally had the idea of making the haulage-type cost basis increase. So the steam locomotives, as a group, would get more and more expensive to run, in comparison with diesels. That would somewhat counteract what you're showing here. I don't have any idea how the cost coding works though.

... purchase and running costs ...

Let's get the facts straight first; when we specify costs, these costs are for medium game play with inflation turned off. For difficult games they are 15% higher and for easy games 25% lower.

Now the U4a 4-8-4 Confederation has running costs of $35,000 and the FP7 $17,874 per annum.

From recent experience, I would say, that the cost structure for steam engines is about right. In an early game [difficult level] with all trains being steam hauled; I have running expenses of about 30 to 35 % of train revenue. That works out quite well and after about 10 years I can dismiss the bankers and costs are starting to become irrelevant.

The base costs can differ between steam, diesel and electrics, but that is not important. We can set the cost for every individual engine and to (almost) any value. We can have 1 steam = 2 diesels if we want.

krtaylor wrote: ... MLW M636 and Cartier livery ... Don't you think this a bit confusing? Wouldn't it be easier, instead, to have the Cartier livery only appear ON ore trains? ...

I have opted for consistency; all engines with multiple liveries are bought at random because we cannot refit them. Then we add the rules, that is why only the modern ore hopper can be attached to the Cartier livery. I've got to rework it anyway, because the AI and AutoReplace do have troubles with it too. May be an option to refit the modern ore hopper to Cartier livery if attached to a MLW M636 engine is the way to go.

zero1000 wrote: ... ore processing plant ...

The set internal industry/cargo feature is meant to go without any other 3rd party industries activated. If you have other industry sets loaded expect troubles. If it works with having PBI after the CanSet, fine, but I cannot guarantee it.

The new industry update should work with older save games that used CanSet v0.3a/b/c; but you need to run 'Cht: ReloadIndustries'. If you want to remove 3rd party industries, deactivate them then run 'Cht: PurgeIndustries'. BTW, in a temperate game the Ore Processing and Metal Fabrication Plants do not affect iron ore and steel, they just make use of them. The only thing they do is replace the TTD 'original' steel mill.

... I have added all the values for the internal industries but have also activated pikkas industries, because in the scenario editor all looks fine. ... With loading Pikkas Industries below the Canset in the newgrf.cfg it works! You can have the Canset internal industries + Pikkas industries ...

Yes, but ... in game you won't be able to transport any cargo type that is not TTD 'original' or comes from the CanSet internal industries. So, you may see pikka's industries, but the cargo types, like lumber, plastics and fuel oil will most probably not be transportable by the CanSet. If the parameter is set to 128 you'll get those cargo types but no Ore Processing Plant ...

OzTransLtd wrote:

zero1000 wrote: ...With loading Pikkas Industries below the Canset in the newgrf.cfg it works! You can have the Canset internal industries + Pikkas industries ...

...you may see pikka's industries, but the cargo types, like lumber, plastics and fuel oil will most probably not be transportable by the CanSet.

I'll confirm that. I'm currently playing a game with Canset Copper / Metal chain active, PBI and PBI Brick Chain. Works, but plastic and lumber (among others) won't be travelling by train in this game - nothing to transport them. This is as expected (see earlier posts in this thread).

cheers,

Andy

Hey, Gang! I was playing with the latest set today, and found, I think, a pricing bug. The gondola seems a bit expensive. This was in an arctic scenario. Dunno about any of the other climates. Oh, and this was set in 1921, but the gondola is designed in 1956?

Cheers!

I think that's the excess shipping charge for the time machine.

I think that's the NARS and not the CanSet...

That's also a 1200hp gondola.

Yes, that looks like the old NARS. Maybe you have multiple sets loaded and they're conflicting?

Ahhhhh. Great job catching that, Pikka. You were right on the money about the conflict. I had thought that I disabled that in my newgrf config, but it slipped under that radar. All is well, now, and that reminded me to download the updated NARS. Thanks a bunch!

Cheers!

DanMacK wrote:I roughly thought 2 diesels = 1 Steam loco and that's about what those work out to. that said, running costs shouldn't be anywhere near that high.... Try turning off newships and see if that changes anything??

...I do want to make a few changes in costs...

I've turned off newships (no change) - some more thoughts (sorry, long post) on running costs below.

OzTransLtd wrote:

... purchase and running costs ...

Let's get the facts straight first; when we specify costs, these costs are for medium game play with inflation turned off.

Now the U4a 4-8-4 Confederation has running costs of $35,000 and the FP7 $17,874 per annum.

I reckon base running costs on Steam Engines are pretty good (certainly for the way I play: OTTD, difficult, inflation on). I think diesels and electrics would benefit from some work. Take a look at the attached pic and my (back of the envelope) maths below it Assumption 1: Tractive effort is not used (in OTTD). That's probably important in respect of train performance.
Assumption 2: to get comparable performance (top speed and acceleration at a specific train weight) between locomotives, we need similar running cost per unit of hp.
Assumption 3: (obviously feel free to shoot this down in flames) - that the CanSet should offer a *reasonable* challenge (it's stupidly easy and boring to make money in TT if the difficulty is medium and the weight multiplier is low), and is not just a set to 'pick the prettiest locomotive and you'll make money anyway'. In this respect, the NARS, UKRS, and US Renewal Set all offer reasonably interesting challenges.

Looking at freight locomotives (the first row in the image) which might be used on similar duties:

• the Mikado delivers 3,300HP for an $18k running cost, or $5 / hp
• the GP9 is 1,750HP for an $18k running cost, or $10 / hp
• the Trainmaster is 2,400HP for a $28k running cost, or $12 / hp

So the GP9 is roughly twice as expensive to operate as the Mikado, and the Trainmaster is more than twice as expensive. Not shown in the screenshot, but a couple more comparisions (remember no inflation in these numbers):

• the RS18 is 1,800HP for a $15k running cost, or $8 / hp. That locomotive is, relative to the other diesels, a total bargain, and until the GP40 becomes available, there's really no point in using anything else unless a higher top speed is needed - just line up as many RS18s as you need to get the HP (this might actually be quite realistic )
• the SD40 is 3,000HP for a $35k running cost, or $12 / HP. (2 RS18s get you 3,600HP for $30k). Most of the big diesels of > 3,000HP have high running costs, the HR616 is $14 / HP!)
• the GP40 is another relative bargain, 3,000HP for $25k, or $8 HP. Like the RS18, there seems little point in running anything else.

Looking at passenger locomotives (second row in the image):

• U4 Confederation is 5,800HP for $35k running cost, or $6 / HP.
• FP7 Diesel 1,500HP for $17k running cost, or $12 / HP.
• Z1a Electric 1,100 for $15k running cost, or $14 / HP.

It's a long post (sorry). My main thoughts are

1. Diesels are typically at least twice the cost of equivalent steam on a cost / HP basis. Trains that make money reasonably with steam become loss-making when only diesels are available (possibly very realistic in some ways - if that's a concern - but on the other hand, diesels use less manpower than steam, so lets say that's a whole other debate). It would be nice to see the diesel costs rebalanced.
2. I know the set isn't focussed on electrics, but IIRC other sets tend to make electrics expensive to buy, reasonably cheap to operate on a cost / HP basis. In CanSet, given the extra cost of electrified track, electric trains are almost completely uneconomic to run in the game. It would be nice to see the electrics rebalanced.

Hope that helps.

cheers,

Andy

andythenorth wrote: Assumption 1: Tractive effort is not used (in OTTD). That's probably important in respect of train performance.

No representative train set is ever going to make sense if TE is not taken into account, IMO. I'd recommend playing with realistic [sic] acceleration on if you want the slower and heavier locomotives to be worthwhile.

Hi, a strategic question here:

Where should I use narrow gauge rails? Small closed freight lines (i.e. a small short line from a coal mine to a nearby electric station)? Or would NG rails also be useful as networks?

PikkaBird wrote:

andythenorth wrote: Assumption 1: Tractive effort is not used (in OTTD). That's probably important in respect of train performance.

No representative train set is ever going to make sense if TE is not taken into account, IMO. I'd recommend playing with realistic [sic] acceleration on if you want the slower and heavier locomotives to be worthwhile.

Yep, I play with Realistic Acceleration on. I'd missed this from the changelog for OTTD 0.6.0

- Feature: Add support for tractive effort to 'realistic' acceleration (7592)

I was thinking this older info info still applied:

Comment by Zojj (Zojj) - Monday, 21 May 2007, 04:59AM
In the trunk, tractive effort is currently ineffective.

So thanks - I'll take TE into account in the game, and see if the cost / HP argument holds water.

Acerbus wrote:Hi, a strategic question here:

Where should I use narrow gauge rails? Small closed freight lines (i.e. a small short line from a coal mine to a nearby electric station)? Or would NG rails also be useful as networks?

That is how I use them - small networks that don't require heavier trains to do the job, shorthaul coal/iron/wood, etc. NG is cheaper to build and run, but doesn't have the really strong and/or fast trains you need later in the game.

Acerbus wrote:Hi, a strategic question here:

Where should I use narrow gauge rails? Small closed freight lines (i.e. a small short line from a coal mine to a nearby electric station)? Or would NG rails also be useful as networks?

I like to use NG as feeder services to a nearby mainline where the loads are transferred to bigger SG trains for the long haul.

andythenorth wrote:So thanks - I'll take TE into account in the game, and see if the cost / HP argument holds water.

Ok, I've done some tests on heavy freight trains with CanSet in OTTD 0.6.1 RC1. I ran 600 ton coal trains along parallel tracks over both hilly and flat terrain. I've tried different combinations of locomotives to see whether horsepower or TE made more difference to performance. It's fairly subjective, the measure was the order that trains arrived at the destination.

Tractive effort makes a (small) difference. 6,400 of diesel HP with a TE of around 1000KN beats 7,200HP of steam HP with a TE of around 400KN - but not by a great deal over a run of about 40 tiles. Weight is about the same on both trains (slightly higher on the steam, but not by much). The running cost on the diesels is double that of the steam.

A single diesel with 2,400 HP and 423KN TE is soundly beaten by both of the other locomotives.

Realistic acceleration on, breakdowns off, inflation off, freight weight multiplier x 8.

I'll stop posting on this issue now - I don't want to be the 'boring running costs guy'. The set is great; this is hopefully useful feedback that could enhance gameplay.

There is a problem with wagons I've noticed in my game with Canadian pack - at some point around 1980-1990 all types of cargo have wagons that are able to run 120+ km/h except for liverstock which is limited to 96 km/h (there is only one liverstock type wagon?). So all my farm trains would be very slow and thus slowing down the traffic on mainlines. I think this is a balance issue and a suitable higher speed wagon will help to solve it.