The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Platform costs  (Read 2513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCollett

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Languages: en
Platform costs
« on: May 07, 2012, 11:34:37 PM »
Currently (0.8.3), brick platforms are much more expensive both to build and maintain than wooden ones of the same or similar capacity, and concrete ones somewhat more expensive again.  I very much doubt that this reflects economic reality. 

In the real world, I would expect wooden platforms to be cheap to build, but with fairly high maintenance costs, while brick platforms should be expensive to build, but have low maintenance costs.  Concrete should get the best of worlds: cheaper to build than brick (though not as cheap as wood), and about the same maintenance.  The advantage of brick over wood, and of concrete over both should probably increase with the scale of the building: small for a plain platform, larger for a platform with building and largest for a fully-covered platform hall.   

Tentative suggestions:
  • Wooden platform: 20pax @ 37.50(4.48) -> 20pax @ 150.00(24.00)
  • Brick platform: 24pax @ 300.00(27.00) -> 24pax @ 300.00(27.00)
  • Concrete platform: 24pax @ 600.00(36.00) -> 24pax @ 240.00(27.00)
  • Brick platform with building: 36pax @ 400.00(36.00) -> 36pax @ 400.00(36.00)
  • Concrete platform with building: 48pax @ 800.00(48.00) -> 48pax @ 400.00(45.00)
  • Wooden platform with overroof: 40pax @ 225.00(30.00) -> 40pax @ 225.00(45.00)
  • Brick platform with overroof: 48pax @ 600.00(45.00) -> 48pax @ 500.00(45.00)
  • Concrete platform with overroof: 50pax @ 937.50(60.00) -> 72pax @ 500.00(64.00)

From a gameplay PoV, this would give a real strategic choice between wood and brick in the early game.  Later on, it would make sense to upgrade wooden structures.   Once concrete is available, it would become the material of choice for new stations, without there being any particular reason to upgrade existing brick ones.  All these seem to me to be historically sensible.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18243
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2012, 11:47:03 PM »
Matthew,

thank you for these suggestions - that is most helpful. As it happens, I am currently in the process of reviewing platform/station costs, and will take this into account, particularly the differentiation between wood and brick, which I think is a good idea. My current plan is to alter the way in which station capacities work somewhat by greatly reducing the capacities of the plain platforms (to almost nothing), introducing a new smaller wooden building, and recalibrating the prices so that it is always cheaper (given enough land without having to demolish anything) to get capacity using extension buildings, but that higher capacity platform units (overall roof types or integrated building types), although costing a little more per passenger (to build, at any rate), will be more space efficient, and useful when space is tight. Currently, too many players are building very big stations with just plain platforms and no sort of station building at all, which is not very realistic.

Offline wlindley us

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 957
    • Hacking for fun and profit since 1977
  • Languages: EN, DE
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2012, 12:58:58 AM »
Support.  Even in the 1830s, there should be a little variety in station buildings. I suggest something along the lines of:
  • Small wooden station, capacity 32, construction cost 600, maintenance cost 48
  • one-storey stone station, capacity 64, construction 1200, maintenance 64
  • two-storey stone station, capacity 128, construction 2400, maintenance 96
  • three-storey stone station, capacity 256, construction 4800, maintenance 128
The goal is to have a handful of  three-storey station buildings be sufficient for even the largest city station.

Also, perhaps a small wooden post-office, identical except for Royal Mail coloration?
The Goods facilities (siding, loading tower, shed, bunker) should similarly be arranged so that while the price and capacity double with each higher-level building, the maintenance costs increase by a fixed amount.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18243
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2012, 01:05:34 AM »
Hmm - my time is somewhat too limited in the short-term to draw quite that many station buildings. I'm about to upload a wooden station building, and have considered adding platforms with small shelters to go between the platforms with buildings and the bare platforms; but you are rather accomplished at buildings, so perhaps you could have a go at filling in the gaps (and adding an Underground station circa 1999 while you're at it)? ;-)

Offline MCollett

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Languages: en
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2012, 01:54:52 AM »
My current plan is … recalibrating the prices so that it is always cheaper (given enough land without having to demolish anything) to get capacity using extension buildings, but that higher capacity platform units (overall roof types or integrated building types), although costing a little more per passenger (to build, at any rate), will be more space efficient, and useful when space is tight.
Currently, the extension buildings are generally much cheaper than the platforms, with the exception of the plain wooden one.  My suggestions above only considered the relative cost of the platform types: if the cost of these is compared with extension buildings, or with bus stops, I'd be inclined to divide through by a factor of 4 or so.

From a pure game balance PoV,  perhaps a cleaner pricing separation needs to be made between the platform itself and the capacity-increasing upgrades.  More capacity is good, but so are longer or more numerous platforms.  A station extension building provides only the former, a plain platform some of both, and improved platforms more of the former but no more of the latter. 

Here is another go, with consistent maintenance costs of 0.125 per passenger for brick/concrete/stone and 0.150 for wood, plus 3.00 (4.00 for wood) per platform section.  Building costs are 5 times maintenance for wood, 10 times for concrete, 13.33 times for brick and 15 times for stone.  I've included a few of the current station buildings on the same basis (i.e. the same rate per passenger, but with no platform costs).

  • Wooden platform: 20pax @ 35.00(7.00)
  • Brick platform: 24pax @ 80.00(6.00)
  • Concrete platform: 24pax @ 60.00(6.00)
  • Brick platform with building: 36pax @ 100.00(7.50)
  • Concrete platform with building: 48pax @ 90.00(9.00)
  • Wooden platform with overroof: 40pax @ 50.00(10.00)
  • Brick platform with overroof: 48pax @ 120.00(9.00)
  • Concrete platform with overroof: 72pax @ 120.00(12.00)
  • Stone station: 32pax @ 60.00(4.00) (currently @ 31.25(4.48))
  • Concrete station: 32pax @ 40.00(4.00) (currently @ 31.25(4.48))
  • 1950s station (concrete): 64pax @ 80.00(8.00) (currently @ 62.50(8.96))
  • Country station (brick): 64pax+64mail @ 160.00(12.00) (currently @ 62.50(8.96))

There isn't currently a wooden station building: on the same pricing basis, a small one might be 25pax @ 18.75(3.75), or a larger one 50pax @ 37.50(7.50).

I'm not sure of the best general way to price dual-cargo buildings:  half price for the second cargo (as I've done for the country station above) seems reasonable, but there is also an argument for just charging full price for the lot. 

I haven't made any allowance for the value of space efficiency, which might suggest increased construction costs for the higher-capacity buildings.  That's partly covered automatically by the fact that they will often be built replacing lower capacity ones, which is more expensive in total than building the high-capacity building ab initio.

Best wishes,
Matthew


Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2012, 03:16:29 AM »
I suggested those numbers to account for inflation. I think it also has an side effect of keeping older, lesser stations in their original state for longer. However, I didn't quite account for the life span of the wooden platform being excessively long. As long as the service is fairly frequent, it is hard to overcrowd a station that is not an interchange with another line. [size=78%] [/size]


Imo, I would prefer the 4+ platform stations to require some form of station building.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 03:25:03 AM by ӔO »

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18243
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2012, 04:56:01 PM »
Hmm, why only four? Most stations of even one or two platforms have buildings - the ticket issuing has to happen somewhere.

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2012, 06:47:12 AM »
Some lines are made or modified to run with less man power and the stations may be unmanned.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18243
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Platform costs
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2012, 11:42:09 AM »
That is a very modern invention, and most stations were built long before anyone thought of that; but even unstaffed stations need a shelter for the rain, and a place where the ticket machines are located.