[10.4] share of profits not calculated correctly on shared stations?

[ӔO]

I'm not sure if this is entirely limited to experimental, but I've noticed there is something a bit odd with the way profits are shared between players when there is a transfer of passengers between the two.

In case 1, two players simply have stations that are in the catchment area of the other. The passengers will be transfered and the profits will be shared equally between the two players. This is fine, as both players profit for the distances they carry passengers with.

In case 2, two players are sharing one station. One player owns the station, while the other simply connects to it. In this case, the player who connects to the station carries and delivers passengers over a long distance and is the only player doing so. The player who owns the station has their own network setup in their own area. Now, with the two networks joined together, they both generate a lot of passengers, however only the player who carries and delivers the passengers to the other player's station earns money from the larger influx of passengers. The player who owns the station simply does not earn money for the passengers they transfer along their part of the network, no matter how over crowded it is.


using pak brit ex 0.8.3
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Turnkey%201870.sve

'delta rail west' owns the station and only seems to be making profitable lines when its trains don't connect to the transfer station.
'delta rail east' runs the connecting train to 'clemont parish hall railway station'

[jamespetts]

I have had a brief look at your test map, and cannot immediately find any evidence that things are not working as intended. Convoy no. 267, for example, when it eventually unloads its passengers all loaded up at its own joint station, makes what appears to be an appropriate amount of revenue for the trip, having picked up all of its passengers at the transfer station (there is a separate problem with the calculating of average speeds, which might have suppressed revenue generally, which I have now fixed on my 10.x branch).

The way that it should work, incidentally, for all but air and water transport, is that the revenue is divided based on the number of tiles of each player's way that the convoy traverses. In your case, the trains of Delta Rail East run almost exclusively on tracks belonging to Delta Rail East, only touching Delta Rail West's tracks briefly in the station. Virtually all of the revenue from the leg of the journey on Delta Rail East's trains will, therefore, go to Delta Rail East. Likewise, Delta Rail West owns all of the tracks on which its trains run, so will not share any of its revenue with Delta Rail East. In effect, the way that you have things set up at present, the profits/revenue will work in just the same way as in previous versions if the transfer station was owned by the public player: each player will keep all of the revenue made on its own leg of the journey (aside from a very small amount indeed paid by Delta Rail East to Delta Rail West for using a few tiles of track at the station).

Things are (optionally, but this is enabled by default) different for air and sea transport, where there are no ways: here, the players will pay a charge to use another player's airport or sea dock that is not based on a way sharing charge.

[Milko]

Hello

I think it would be more correct if the use of a station or bus stop owned by another player give rise to payment of a fee for parking only (to be paid on the residence time) and / or a fee of transit passengers who are downloaded or uploaded (possibly reduced in the case where the station is overloaded).
The player who owns the station is the only one to pay its costs, the player stops at the station owned by others do not pay anything. In theory a player could also leave their own train station for an indefinite time hurting the other player.

Giuseppe

[jamespetts]

Hmm, I'm not sure that I follow that entirely - why would the system that you propose be more realistic? The system as implemented is based on the way in which things were actually done: on canals and railways, where routes were shared, the cost was divided amongst the various carriers by reference to the distance travelled on the other companies' canals/railways (see for example here for the scheme that operated for railways in the UK before nationalisation, on which this system for apportioning revenue is based; a similar system operated for canals). Conversely, I am not aware of railways or canals using time in the stations or docks as a basis for the division of revenue.

As to the last part - what do you mean by a player leaving their own train station for an indefinite time?

[Milko]

Hello

Hmm, I'm not sure that I follow that entirely - why would the system that you propose be more realistic?

I think it is more realistic: the convoy owned by the player "A" train enters and uses the player's "B" station. The player "A" pay to player "B" a fee to use and to park at the station.

As to the last part - what do you mean by a player leaving their own train station for an indefinite time?

I wanted to say that if a player does not pay anything for access to the station of an opposing player could also leave one of his train stopped in the station to lock it for free.

Giuseppe

[jamespetts]

As to the second point - any player who abuses running powers faces the prospect of having the running powers withdrawn by the granting player, which should be sufficient disincentive. As to the first, although there would be some economic sense in what you propose, that was not, in fact, the way that things have been done, so, in that sense, it would not be more realistic.