[FRDF] Depots

[Hellfire]

But our journeys will never end.

Just as real life trains that reach their termini. But also real life trains get refueled or even cleaned during stops half way their journey. Consider for example amtrak's sunset limited. That train gets refueled somewhere halfway.

[PJayTycy]

So, are we going for the station+depot hybrid then?

I think so, if not PJayTycy thinks that he needs service between stations too.

That's not a problem, if I would really need that, I can still drop a station+depot combo along the road.

[Hyronymus]

From the allmighty FRD:

If you want to abandon a non-profitable line you should be able to send your vehicle to a 'universal depot' instead of being forced to sell it and buy a similar new one later, when you started a new transportation route.

As I suggested on my FRD talk page we could possibly solve this by adding a 'Transfer too ... depot' button to all depots.

[Hellfire]

adding a 'Transfer too ... depot' button to all depots.

I'm in favour of that idea.

[Zuu]

I think that idea is OK. But...

Either we need to have a fee for that, or make it take some time, so that you cant cheet, by teleport your trains from one side of the map to the other. Perhaps a good soulution can be that all wagons are emtied when using depot teleportation.

[Steve]

I agree that it needs to be restrictive, but the idea is good. Just pretend the train has to be loaded on a truck or something.. and that'd cost money

[Hyronymus]

Sounds more than fair to me. If noone is opposed then we might lock this topic too?

[PJayTycy]

Sounds more than fair to me. If noone is opposed then we might lock this topic too?

So, what would the conclusion be here?

[Hyronymus]

Please correct or expand the below ideas if you don't agree!

For trains: Once two or more stations have a direct connection between them (a 'line' is created) the player can link a depot to a station along the created 'line' or within a certain radius around a station. Per 'line' only 1 depot is needed but a player can always decide to build more depots along the line. Whenever a train stops at a station with a depot linked to it the train receives a maintainance service.

For RV's: Once two or more stations have a direct connection between them (a 'line' is created) the player can build a depot next to a station or within a certain radius around a station. If the RV runs an innercity service it only needs one garage in that city, as long as that garage is 'linked' to a station. For intercity transport city one of the stations needs a garage linked to it. Whenever a RV stops at a station with a depot linked to it the RV receives a maintainance service.

For aircraft: Hangars are part of the expandable buildings on an airport. The player only needs to build 1 hangar for each service they set up (when flying from Airport A to B you need 1 hangar at airport A or B). Whenever an aircraft stops at an airport with a hangar the aircraft receives a maintainance service.

For ships: A shipyard (just a small one) is part of the expandable buildings on a harbour. The player only needs to build 1 shipyard for each service they set up (when sailing from Harbour A to B you need 1 shipyard at harbour A or B). Whenever a ship stops at a harbour with a shipyard the ship receives a maintainance service.

Each type of depot (train depot, garage, hangar or shipyard) has a 'Transfer to ... button' to transfer the vehicle(s) inside to another depot of the same type somewhere else on the map. This transfer happens virtually and costs money.

[Zuu]

I think that the cargo should be lost when transfering between deports. This to make sure you never can earn mony by teleporting vehicles using transfer between depots. This means that we don't have to take that verry high fees, which might make transfers uneconmical.

[PJayTycy]

Nice summary Hyronymus, I agree completely.

I think that the cargo should be lost when transfering between deports. This to make sure you never can earn mony by teleporting vehicles using transfer between depots. This means that we don't have to take that verry high fees, which might make transfers uneconmical.

You could still use this as a way of sending your train full over the network, and teleporting it back empty. Something should be done so it is
A) less expensive than buying a new one (otherwise there is no point in using it)
B) uneconomical to do if you could get there in a "normal" way (to prevent cheating)

But, those 2 things almost contradict each other, in which case we should drop the idea.

[Hyronymus]

OK, that surely needs a solution. By only allowing to transfer empty vehicles to another depot you would effectively prevent cheating. What's the use of transfering your empty ship to the next stop? It doesn't make a revenue, it only costs money. But what does the value of the transfered vehicle have to do with it? If I want to transfer by pre-WW2 Opel Blitz truck to another service in 1990 it's completely up to me right?

[Steve]

If it's a cargo ship, you'd let it deliver it's goods and make it's cash. You could then teleport it back to the mine and let it go off again. Saving time and money from the return trip.

One solution is to not let you teleport vehicles that could drive somewhere themselves.

Hyr, i think it needs to be made clear on your summary about how vehicles are bought in the depot as well.

[Hyronymus]

What exactly do you want to have made clear about buying, Steve? In the mean time I'll think about the 'problem' with transfering to depots along the route.

[Steve]

That they are bought in the depots.. and can then trundle out on the track,

Or at least i thought that's what we decided.

[Arathorn]

Please correct or expand the below ideas if you don't agree!

[...]

I agree with this, except that a vehicle gets a service every time it stops at a station with a depot linked to it.
Why not have a time between services like in TTD, but then the vehicle gets a service the first time after that time has passed it stops at a station with a depot linked to it.

[jfs]

Two points:

On teleporting: I suggest making the cost exactly how much the vehicle made last time it delivered some cargo. That way you can't transport more cargo with the same number of vehicles (by saving the return-trip time). Maybe reduce the cost depding on when the last income was.

On servicing: I suggest that, the more a vehicle is in need of service, the longer it has to be stopped at a station that can provide that service, reflecting that it's actually being serviced. Note that the vehicle should still be able to load/unload while being serviced.

[Steve]

Well, i think it would be best to unload, service, then load. That was you maximise profits but have a bit of realism there. You could even have a group of engineers hitting the trains with hammers and such.

[Hyronymus]

I did some thinking on preventing players from cheating by transfering trains from depot to depot instead of from station to station. I considered a few things and found there's a weakness in nearly all solutions. That's why I suggest we make it as unfavourable as possible for a player to cheat by transfering trains from depot to depot. How?

• - clear the route in the routing table
  - let the transfer take 5 days (minimal)
  - make the vehicle unavailable for 1 more day after arriving in the new depot
  - allow vehicles to be moved only once per 3, 6 or perhaps 12 months
  - charge money for each transfer [EDITED]

As soon as I know your opinions about these proposals I will write a new summary and will also deal with how vehicles are bought.

[PJayTycy]

The only reason when it should be usefull, is if you actually want to change a loco's schedule to a route it isn't connected to. So, indeed, clearing the schedule, removing the cargo, and a time delay + cost would be good. Time delay and cost could be based on the distance of travel.

This way, it might make no sense to transport a really cheap engine (just buy another one), but it would make sense to transport your expensive state-of-the-art new engine.