The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build  (Read 5965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jk271

  • *
  • Posts: 292
  • Languages: CZ, EN, DE
Dear simutrans development team,
When I was testing new money stats patch, I have discovered that it costs more to destroy a bridge or a tunnel than to build it.
I found out that it was not a bug or a feature introduced by my code. I comes from current master (trunk) branch. At least revision 5879 has it.
I am not sure wheather is it a bug or an intented feature.

How to reproduce it:
1) Start game in year 1930.
2) Build a road tunnel.
3) Write down costruction costs (e.g. on a piece of paper).
4) Destroy the tunnel.
5) Write down construction costs (for destruction of tunnel)

Same algorithm can be used for bridges.

Used paksets: pak128.cz and pak64
Operating system: 32-bit Debian GNU/Linux on 32 computer
game version: revision 5879 and release 111.2 (both)

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3267
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2012, 09:27:54 PM »
jk271, I think that it is quite logic that demolishing of bridges and tunnels is a more expensive than their building - because their demolishing is not so easy like their building - or not? So, I don't comprehend this like bug - but like way of similarity with real world.

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9569
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2012, 10:19:27 PM »
You have to pay for the reconstruction of the initial tracks piece at entry and exit. Thus destroying is slightly more expensive.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2012, 10:58:35 PM »
You have to pay for the reconstruction of the initial tracks piece at entry and exit. Thus destroying is slightly more expensive.

I just tested. Building a tunnel cost 4000, demolishing it cost 4480. No tracks remained afterwards, as there were none there to begin with. However filling that big hole with concrete should perhaps cost a lot more.

Though in reality, these holes seem to be just left there. Sometimes they are reused for something else. But I don't think Simutrans has the ability to leave holes in the ground without ways.

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9569
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2012, 10:28:24 AM »
Actually it has, i.e. underground non way tiles are not difficult. But indeed a tunnel assumes it has a way.

Offline Fabio

  • Devotee
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
  • The Pak128 Guy
    • Visit me on Facebook
  • Languages: EN, IT, RO, FR
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2012, 03:04:47 PM »
It would be great to simply "abandon" tunnels (but also tracks and maybe bridges). they could be cheaper to reuse, but mostly they would leave a track of the map evolution (e.g. An abandoned tunnel because a newer one was built)

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2012, 04:25:01 PM »
All abandoned rail tunnels, or even above ground sections, I know of that have been reused, have been reused for non-railed roads, so I don't think leaving the track serves any purpose. It doesn't take long for the track to become pretty useless either, with trees growing between the rails.

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2012, 09:21:21 PM »
In the UK, when railways were closed (lots in the 1960s), the railway company "abandoned" the infrastructure but had to keep paying maintenance on the bridges, tunnels, etc. Because otherwise they would collapse/fall down, doing damage to other peoples property or risking human life, which would be potentially very costly indeed.

In fact, it has been suggested that most of the line closures were an error because this wasn't taken into account beforehand.

I think if "abandoned" or "mothballed" infrastructure is incorporated, it should still attract mainenance.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 5543
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2012, 10:05:13 PM »
I haven't heard of such rules here, so that might vary from country to country. Sometimes/usually stuff like that (mines, bunkers) get sealed off at the ends, but that's generally all. In either case, avoiding collapse is the government's problem, indirectly, locally or otherwise, as it was the government that built and/or owned them. For the few privately owned tunnels, the government would probably seek compensation after something eventually went wrong, though the current owner might have had nothing to do with the tunnel, while the company that built it is long since defunct.

Offline kierongreen

  • Dev Team, Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2012, 10:38:42 PM »
In the case of railways in Britain while they were built privately, in the 1960s they were owned by the government. As the government did not wanting to subsidise rail transport this meant closing lines that weren't used enough - but as AP points out, the structures that made up the line were still the responsibility of the government (via British Rail) to maintain.

Steel in bridges could often be sold for scrap, however stone and brick could not, so remained behind. As the cost of repair had often been used as justification for closing the line the structures were sometimes demolished (often requiring significant amounts of explosive, which then led to questions as to how unsafe they were in the first place).

Where structures were left in place they have on occasion been reused, not just for roads (either partially e.g. Creagan Bridge before/after, or fully e.g. Connel Ferry), but reopened heritage railways (e.g. the Bluebell), main line railways (e.g. Airdrie/Bathgate, before/after) or new light railways (e.g. on the DLR). In the cases where they have been reused for rail transport (including those I've linked to) original tracks had long since been removed or become unusable, so new track was laid.

Offline Fabio

  • Devotee
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
  • The Pak128 Guy
    • Visit me on Facebook
  • Languages: EN, IT, RO, FR
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2012, 11:23:01 PM »
In Italy most abandoned railways had their tracks dismantled, but the public owner held (and often still holds) the right of way. Some have been used for city bypasses.
Abandoned tunnels have sometimes been sealed, or simply left where they are (especially in rural areas). Some have been used for roads.
One thing I miss in Simutrans is the distinction between the right of way and the tracks/road pavement. In real life rights of way are often reused with less cost. This goes more or less the same as for upgrading ways vs building new ones, the first solution being cheaper, although bypasses and shortcuts might be needed.
Another issue is that abandoned ways are a landscape feature. I would simply convert mothballed ways into ground objects. I happened to build a railway on difficult ground with a lot of bends. Later on I straightened some sections using tunnels. Obviously I removed the abandoned part, but I wish it could remain as a ground object to witness the evolution of my line.

Offline wlindley us

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 978
    • Hacking for fun and profit since 1977
  • Languages: EN, DE
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2012, 11:38:52 AM »
But indeed a tunnel assumes it has a way.

That could be the start of German poetry, 1920s style?

Offline jk271

  • *
  • Posts: 292
  • Languages: CZ, EN, DE
Re: Bridges (and tunnels) are more expencive to destroy than build
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2012, 09:25:18 PM »
Thank you for explanation. I will update tests.