The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Too slow ...  (Read 3410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCollett

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Languages: en
Too slow ...
« on: January 26, 2014, 01:48:55 AM »
The recent reduction in speed of the horse-drawn buses (and also of horse-drawn and steam trams) is entirely correct.  But in the game it means that these vehicles now have the same (unhistorical) problem that the hackney carriages already had in the previous version of the pakset: almost no passengers are ever willing to use them, however frequent and direct the service, on the grounds that they are "too slow". 

As things stand, the most cost-effective intra-urban transport in the late 19th century is probably overhead narrow-gauge railway.  Cute, but not very historical.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18745
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2014, 11:09:15 AM »
Hmm - interesting. Cute indeed (and worthy of a screenshot), but, as you correctly observe, anhistorical. I am hoping that the passenger-generation branch will fix this, with its abolition of distance ranges so that passengers who can tolerate travelling for a long time are equally likely to want to travel any distance, as opposed to the current code in which passengers who can tolerate travelling for a long time insist on travelling a long distance.

Offline MCollett

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Languages: en
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2014, 09:00:16 PM »
Cute indeed (and worthy of a screenshot)
OK, here is one example:

Those little trains have an average speed of 28-29 km/hr, far faster than anything a tram can manage, let alone a bus.  And the overhead tracks are absurdly cheap (probably a decimal left off in the .dat file).

Quote
I am hoping that the passenger-generation branch will fix this
I look forward to that.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18745
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2014, 09:37:28 PM »
Now that is very steampunk!

Edit: And you are right about the decimal - now fixed.

Edit 2: Incidentally, in 1882, could you not use steam trams?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 09:48:00 PM by jamespetts »

Offline MCollett

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Languages: en
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2014, 11:06:13 PM »
Edit 2: Incidentally, in 1882, could you not use steam trams?

Steam trams are faster than horses, but still only half the speed of the trains, which makes a huge difference in patronage.  With trams (even steam) I just don't get enough passengers to cover the upkeep of the tram track. 

At this date, I find that buses actually work better than trams: a slightly higher frequency can compensate for the slower speed and there is no track to pay for.  That at least is probably correct: trams only really became popular in smaller towns once efficient (and quiet and fast) electric vehicles became available.

If I play on into the early 1890s, I might convert the narrow-gauge track to standard gauge and run Liverpool Overhead EMUs.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18745
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2014, 11:16:48 PM »
Interesting observations. The excessively low cost of the elevated narrowgauge tracks is probably partly responsible for the imbalance here; but steam trams were certainly more effective than horse 'buses in many situations where high capacity was needed because of the ability for a single vehicle to be so much bigger. There was a slight advantage of speed; horses would generally pull their trams at no more than about 4mph, whereas steam trams would run up to about 8-10mph.

Offline MCollett

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • Languages: en
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2014, 11:47:10 PM »
The excessively low cost of the elevated narrowgauge tracks is probably partly responsible for the imbalance here; but steam trams were certainly more effective than horse 'buses in many situations where high capacity was needed because of the ability for a single vehicle to be so much bigger.

Of course, where high capacity is needed, trams win over buses - but with the present game balance the demand is just not high enough to require that high capacity.  Yes, the track cost plays a role; and I think that the current balance of costs in the pakset is part of the problem.

Expanding on that, my general opinion is that while track and station construction costs are broadly plausible in the pakset as it stands (assuming something like constant 1900 currency), fixed maintenance costs are absurdly high.   At the moment, most structures have annual maintenance costs of the same order of magnitude as construction costs!   By contrast, this document suggests that for things like bridges and tunnels, annual maintenance (note, not monthly!) is between 0.5% and 2% of construction cost, while the track itself has to be renewed on a timescale of 6 to 40 years, depending on how heavily used it is  (and of course the cost of laying the track is itself usually only a small part of the cost of constructing a new line).  Overall, I would like to see a huge reduction in fixed maintenance costs, compensated for by a moderate increase in running costs (gross revenue is probably about right as is). 

Best wishes,
Matthew

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18745
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Too slow ...
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2014, 11:55:17 PM »
That is very interesting and useful information - thank you! A very large rebalancing is long overdue, but even the enabling works for that (let alone the rebalancing itself) are massive.