Mothballing without changes to the code

[jamespetts]

Apologies if this is not the right forum for this suggestion: it is in the nature of an extension request, but directed at pakset authors rather than the coders; but is not specific to any one pakset.

There are circumstances in which it might be useful to mothball, rather than destroy, a section of road or rail, in order that it can be re-instated later without concern of it being built over in the meantime, or because one's company is out of funds and cannot afford to remove it, but simply wishes to cease maintaining it.

This feature could be achieved simply by adding mothballed versions of roads, rails, tramways, etc., to each pakset: they would have a maximum speed (and, in Simutrans-Experimental, maximum weight) of zero, and thus be unusable. They would also, however, have a zero building cost and a zero maintenance cost. They could be over-built on existing ways using the CTRL+lay method (how does that work with the modern dragging system where CTRL is used as a straightness constraint?), and then re-upgraded to a serviceable type when conditions improve.

Edit: Oops - I had meant to post this in "Simutrans discussion" and must have clicked the wrong link: terribly sorry. Can a moderator move it, perhaps? Thank you :-)

[VS]

So in other words, a "fake" way with 0 cost, 0 maintenance and 0 speed?

[Zeno]

This would have the inconvenient you would have to pay again construction cost when you want to re-use the normal track, am I right?

[gerw]

They could be over-built on existing ways using the CTRL+lay method (how does that work with the modern dragging system where CTRL is used as a straightness constraint?), and then re-upgraded to a serviceable type when conditions improve.

The new dragging system hasn't changed this behaviour. With CTRL you trigger both, straight tracks and building over faster tracks.

This would have the inconvenient you would have to pay again construction cost when you want to re-use the normal track, am I right?

Yes.

[jamespetts]

This would have the inconvenient you would have to pay again construction cost when you want to re-use the normal track, am I right?

Just as in real life

[Zeno]

Just as in real life

Nah... IRL it should be less; probably a half or so. Usually you don't have to re-buy all materials and you can repair existent rails, which isn't so expensive; unless you forget about it during 10 or 15 years...
Anyway, I can accept re-purchase as unmothball

[jamespetts]

Well, you still wouldn't have to rebuild your cuttings and embankments...

[V813]

Will the pathfinder still direct vehicles through that "mothballed road"? Will citycars still go into them?
Of course, even so it will be possible to remove the junctions the "mothballed road" has with the real roads.

Another problem would be the automatic conversion to cityroad...

[VS]

Regarding route search, that's exactly why speed for such way must be set to 0.

Citycars - no idea. Cityroads - if the city wants them, it can take them. It's probably more interesting for waytypes that cost more, like high speed tracks, canals...