Author Topic: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library  (Read 659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline passengerpigeon

Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« on: July 06, 2017, 07:38:39 AM »
Dear community,
After many hours spent building a Pak64 network, I have run across four obvious balancing issues, in order of importance:
•There are no low-cost single-decker carriages for medium-speed trains. The SingCo passenger carriage is too slow by 1960 and the double-decker carriages are ugly and not commonly used in real life for long-distance non-commuter regional trains. A 65-75 seat carriage with an operating cost of 3.50-4.50 crowns per kilometre, an introduction date in the 1950s, and a top speed of 120-140km/h would be ideal.
•There are no economical EMUs for regional or underground/suburban services until far too late in the game. Regional EMUs do not come about until 2007, over 100 years after they were introduced in real life. I have wasted so much diesel fuel running BR614s on fully electrified regional lines after continually making a loss with the cheapest locomotive-hauled electric train I could build, and am having to string together lengthy consists of tramcars to run on what are intended to be heavy-rail metro systems.
•Train top speeds don't increase fast enough towards the end of the 20th century. Although the SJ X2000, introduced in 1991, can go 220km/h, TGVs were already running at much higher speeds before then. The first true high-speed train is the ICE-TD, introduced in 2007 (too late and with an unrealistic top speed).
•There are no aircraft smaller than the Tristar after 1995. In my opinion, there should be four different categories of aircraft in the 21st century: a direct replacement for the F27 (DHC-8 or ATR based), a 75-90 seat regional jet (based on the ERJ-175 or CRJ-900), a narrowbody airliner with 150-200 seats (based on the 737-800 or A320-200) and then the widebody airliners such as the Tristar (which should go obsolete no later than 2013).
I'm sorry if I sound like a whiner and I am willing to make any of these vehicles if you think you might like to include new ones in the pakset. Do any "insiders" know why these balancing issues exist and whether plans are in place to rectify them?
Thanks,
Passengerpigeon.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4674
  • Total likes: 170
  • Helpful: 108
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2017, 03:38:40 PM »
There are no low-cost single-decker carriages for medium-speed trains. The SingCo passenger carriage is too slow by 1960 and the double-decker carriages are ugly and not commonly used in real life for long-distance non-commuter regional trains. A 65-75 seat carriage with an operating cost of 3.50-4.50 crowns per kilometre, an introduction date in the 1950s, and a top speed of 120-140km/h would be ideal.
It has always been my impression that pak64 focuses on bigger and faster, although this has bothered me more with busses than trains. The minibus was re-enabled for me when I brought that up.

There are no economical EMUs for regional or underground/suburban services until far too late in the game. Regional EMUs do not come about until 2007, over 100 years after they were introduced in real life. I have wasted so much diesel fuel running BR614s on fully electrified regional lines after continually making a loss with the cheapest locomotive-hauled electric train I could build, and am having to string together lengthy consists of tramcars to run on what are intended to be heavy-rail metro systems.
Even the EMU is a relatively late addition, after I complained about the lack multiple-units for local traffic. pak64 doesn't really offer underground vehicles at all.

Train top speeds don't increase fast enough towards the end of the 20th century. Although the SJ X2000, introduced in 1991, can go 220km/h, TGVs were already running at much higher speeds before then. The first true high-speed train is the ICE-TD, introduced in 2007 (too late and with an unrealistic top speed).
I've never been much bothered by this, but that is because we do not really have high speed trains here in Norway. Even the SJ X2 doesn't go that fast (except for a rather short stretch).

There are no aircraft smaller than the Tristar after 1995. In my opinion, there should be four different categories of aircraft in the 21st century: a direct replacement for the F27 (DHC-8 or ATR based), a 75-90 seat regional jet (based on the ERJ-175 or CRJ-900), a narrowbody airliner with 150-200 seats (based on the 737-800 or A320-200) and then the widebody airliners such as the Tristar (which should go obsolete no later than 2013).
I have also noticed that airplanes quickly escalate to bigger and bigger, and somewhat faster and faster, but I don't use airplanes much, except to take load off the main train lines late in the game. Then I need only the big planes.

I'm sorry if I sound like a whiner and I am willing to make any of these vehicles if you think you might like to include new ones in the pakset. Do any "insiders" know why these balancing issues exist and whether plans are in place to rectify them?
So you are not the first to miss something, but as mentioned elsewhere recently, there doesn't appear to be many artists working on pak64 anymore. At least not outside the Japanese community, which is kind of separate from this forum. I think the last few vehicles, which includes the EMU, came from there. Most of them are at the other end of the time line, though.

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 8745
  • Total likes: 305
  • Helpful: 229
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2017, 05:07:44 AM »
Generally the newer vehicle in pak64 are more introduced to solve the issues with later games (i.e. too much to transport). Also pak64 was made by Hajo (who is german) and thus tends to have more "German"-like vehicles historically. And in germany double decker were very common for anything not high speed/long distance. But a similar car with similar statistics (scaled down to lower usage) is certainly feasible. The only problem is that most existing cars are very similar (optically) to the proposed one. So it has to be with a top speed of 140 and something in the 6 cost range. (so they get all same revenue at top spped per passenger at their intro time).

For long distance there are single decker, the 160 km/h ones. With a fast engine, the give about the same revenue as the slower double decker.

Since all vehicle for pak64 should have player color (for easy network games), there is a limited choice of already painted vehicles. (Although there is a suitable electric EMU in pak64.japan). But you could run streetcars underground as well ... same they did in many places worldwide. Actually, underground urban service is something rather for the streetcar type.

Small aircraft in pak64 is mostly useless economically (since the airport is quite expensive). If there is ever a working network, planes tend to be too small quickly and congestion builds up (at least in the games I played).

Anyway I added a small plane, one early EMU and a japanese single decker car I had in stock. (And tweaked some of the ther incomes very little.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4674
  • Total likes: 170
  • Helpful: 108
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2017, 03:50:19 PM »
One issue I have with the last passenger wagons in pak64 is that they look a bit like the wagons for boxed goods. The windows do not contrast well with the default player color.

When I have felt the need for small aircraft, it has been to serve a small village far from everything else. Simutrans doesn't make it easy to notice that the airport costs more than the aircraft's profits, unless those two things are the only things you own. However, the passengers will probably pay for other services. The airports, or at least the one on the non-village side, will not be the final endpoint.

I'm not sure why the TPSchienenbus got its running cost severely reduced. According to my calculations, and vague experience, it was profitable enough. It apparently can't reach top speed with one trailer, which seems a bit odd.

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 8745
  • Total likes: 305
  • Helpful: 229
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2017, 12:40:19 PM »
I checked profitability for the rail bus, and it was too low compared to the double decker (three double decker and not too expensive engine will get four times the revenue easily). Since it will be only used on small branch lines, then branch line cost is probably higher to maintain that the amount to transport.

I am still thinking about an earlier high speed rail options (TGV/Shinkansen), and a later (some of the recent chinese ones).

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4674
  • Total likes: 170
  • Helpful: 108
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2017, 01:35:38 PM »
Since it will be only used on small branch lines, then branch line cost is probably higher to maintain that the amount to transport.

Yes, I forgot about the infrastructure costs as usual.

Offline DrSuperGood

Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2017, 05:57:11 AM »
Infrastructure cost in pak64 is so trivial one can usually afford double lines for even a single convoy.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4674
  • Total likes: 170
  • Helpful: 108
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Big gaps in Pak64's vehicle library
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2017, 07:05:05 PM »
Prissi, it looks like you've made a small typo in the definitions for the new Japanese EMU. At line 346, there is a constraint reference to JNR-Mc100. No such vehicle is defined. There is however a JNR-Mc101. Is that what you meant?