From playing the demo I have noticed that goods are more than capable of travelling by themselves an unreasonable distance over land and as a result there is little need for my railway.
I have had situations where I have placed a railway station to intercept several trails of the one good only to eventually have that station miss out because somewhere else is paying slightly better while being unreasonably far away.
Or situations where at one station I have loads of a certain good but the other stations are not interested in it as they are getting the same good from a source that is unreasonably far away.
Does the patched game deal with this issue in any way or will the proposed community patch go some way to address this?
Or do I have it all wrong?
Not much use for my railway?
The freight is set up to go where the price is higher, whether travelling in carts and river rafts, or on your train. Buildings generate demand and the longer the demand goes unsatisfied, the higher the price gets.
Railways are needed for express, for taking cargo through natural barriers like mountains, or over long distances. They are also useful for controlling which factory will get raw materials, or for balancing materials between two that are some distance apart.
This is the way it was intended to work, so PopTop only tinkered with it. There is talk of making a patch to over-ride these mechanics, though that would have a major effect on game mechanics.
Railways are needed for express, for taking cargo through natural barriers like mountains, or over long distances. They are also useful for controlling which factory will get raw materials, or for balancing materials between two that are some distance apart.
This is the way it was intended to work, so PopTop only tinkered with it. There is talk of making a patch to over-ride these mechanics, though that would have a major effect on game mechanics.
Raw materials move best with branch lines.
Even though freight moves overland etc. you can make money on it by building branch lines from a town that needs the raw material from the source that produces it. That is one of the stratagies I brought with me from RRT2. In the Age Of Steam Senario, lumber is of huge importance and so if you have a lumber mill in Rolla, for example; build a branch out to the logging companies and run a train set to "any cargo. It takes a few years but inevitably the logs will cease to go overland and be loaded on the train and carried to the mill. Another benefit is that the station at the end of the branch will always demand some finished goods, it seems that logging camps like to demand booze for some reason!? You may not capture all the overland traffic but you will make money on the bulk of it. After a period of time your inbound station will have enough of the raw material to send to other places that need it on your railroad system. Give it a try and see what happens. 
-
jerseyjunior
- Hobo
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
great thread. as an opinion, I am completely against changing the cargo matrix in RRT3 - I think it's revolutionary, complex, and realistic.
as a comment, goods will not be produced without demand. for instance, say you build a steel mill where there seems to be plenty of iron and coal around - that plant will not produce steel unless there is demand for steel somewhere on your map - hopefully along your rail line. in fact, i don't think the iron or coal will move to the steel mill unless there is demand for steel. so, build a tool & die plant in some connected city and then you will start to see the iron and coal moving to the steel plant. this may take several years, but it will happen, and once it does it will be a constant revenue stream for you.
also, say you have 3 cities, A---B---C, and where C is demanding goods from A. You can still run a train from A to B and then to C and still get C the goods it wants. As long as C is demanding the goods, the train should retain the original goods when it re-loads itself at B. In this sense, the cargo matrix works great. Somebody once posted on this site that they figured out that all one really needed was to only run one train between each city for the cargo to get itself wherever it is demanded - it will simply wait to picked up by the next train. sometimes it takes a year or two for the game to realize a new industry or new rail line and to re-adjust the demand/transport calculations.
its a sophisticated supply/demand algorythm not seen in any other transport sim that I know of and my hat goes off to PopTop for coming up with it.
as a comment, goods will not be produced without demand. for instance, say you build a steel mill where there seems to be plenty of iron and coal around - that plant will not produce steel unless there is demand for steel somewhere on your map - hopefully along your rail line. in fact, i don't think the iron or coal will move to the steel mill unless there is demand for steel. so, build a tool & die plant in some connected city and then you will start to see the iron and coal moving to the steel plant. this may take several years, but it will happen, and once it does it will be a constant revenue stream for you.
also, say you have 3 cities, A---B---C, and where C is demanding goods from A. You can still run a train from A to B and then to C and still get C the goods it wants. As long as C is demanding the goods, the train should retain the original goods when it re-loads itself at B. In this sense, the cargo matrix works great. Somebody once posted on this site that they figured out that all one really needed was to only run one train between each city for the cargo to get itself wherever it is demanded - it will simply wait to picked up by the next train. sometimes it takes a year or two for the game to realize a new industry or new rail line and to re-adjust the demand/transport calculations.
its a sophisticated supply/demand algorythm not seen in any other transport sim that I know of and my hat goes off to PopTop for coming up with it.
-
Wolverine@MSU
- CEO
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:14 pm
- Location: East Lansing, MI
Why not build the tool & die right next to the steel plant. I wonder whether you would make more money this way (shipping the Goods out) or would you make more money shipping the steel to another city (the one with the T & D) and then the Goods out somewhere else?jerseyjunior wrote:... so, build a tool & die plant in some connected city and then you will start to see the iron and coal moving to the steel plant. this may take several years, but it will happen, and once it does it will be a constant revenue stream for you.
-
jerseyjunior
- Hobo
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
good observation wolverine. i assume that this would work from a supply/demand standpoint and have often thought of doing it however, the money lies in the transportation! people will pay good money to ship steel to a tool & die plant efficiently on your railroad. to follow your logic, you could build a single self sufficient city with factories of every sort, but how much fun that be? no need to transport anything.
I don't necessarily think this is true. Doesn't this depend on the price at each station?also, say you have 3 cities, A---B---C, and where C is demanding goods from A. You can still run a train from A to B and then to C and still get C the goods it wants. As long as C is demanding the goods, the train should retain the original goods when it re-loads itself at B.
If the price for steel is:
A = $10
B = $50
C = $45
And you run a steel train from A to B...I do not believe you can then run a steel train from B to C. The game won't let you, because it's not profitable. Now, I will agree that in theory, if there is some type of steel-demanding building at C, then C should have a higher price than B, which may be your whole point. :)
Am I missing something?
Quote:
great thread. as an opinion, I am completely against changing the cargo matrix in RRT3 - I think it's revolutionary, complex, and realistic.
jerseyjunior, I need to disagree. RT3’s economic system leaves a lot to be desired and is far from being realistic. I will agree however that it some ways is more realistic as the one used in RT2 as an example. To me, generally speaking, it is mostly a personal preference issue rather than a superior product/design issue.
Probably the best feature is that goods will move by themselves and by doing so generate an economic environment. But even for that to be done well there has to be a lot more tweaking to take place.
I still do not understand who owns the cargo my railroad transports. It is inferred that the railroad company owns the cargo because it is being paid the difference in cost between destination and origin. But we know that this is not realistic because normally railroads to not own the cargo. But if we assume that someone else owns the cargo then why as a railroad company do I care what price is at those two locations. The railroad rates are that much a ton/mile or whatever arrangements I make with the customer. So from the point of a railroad company where is the realism?
From my point of view if the current system is used as an economic map that is fine but remove the remuneration for the railroad from that system.
Even the way goods move leave a lot to be desired. You look at some maps and you will see the flow of cargo down a river valley for quite a considerable distance. Disregarding the fact that some of the primary industries might not even be there were it not for secondary industries close by needing those cargoes, those cargos will by themselves even move 10 times further downstream than to a industry needing those cargos very close by but just over the hill.
Yes, I understand that transportation by boat might be the most cost-effective way of shipping some products but by the time you get iron ore or coal to your canoe just how much will you be able to ship – particularly during the times the river is not frozen or flooded. How often do you load/unload it to a larger vessel? So overall yes it is more realistic because cargo moves but seeing the way it moves is still often unrealistic.
Ok, so there you have a good stream of cargo coming down the valley and at a convenient spot, just ahead of an industry requiring that cargo you place your station and intercept the cargo so you can transport it to some other place in need of it and just paying a few bucks more. This being a common practice in playing RT3 please just tell me how realistic this is given the general fact that it is more cost efficient to transport the finished cargo then the raw cargo.
I have a few more issues with that “revolutionary, complex, and realistic†economic model but this is already way too long a post.
great thread. as an opinion, I am completely against changing the cargo matrix in RRT3 - I think it's revolutionary, complex, and realistic.
jerseyjunior, I need to disagree. RT3’s economic system leaves a lot to be desired and is far from being realistic. I will agree however that it some ways is more realistic as the one used in RT2 as an example. To me, generally speaking, it is mostly a personal preference issue rather than a superior product/design issue.
Probably the best feature is that goods will move by themselves and by doing so generate an economic environment. But even for that to be done well there has to be a lot more tweaking to take place.
I still do not understand who owns the cargo my railroad transports. It is inferred that the railroad company owns the cargo because it is being paid the difference in cost between destination and origin. But we know that this is not realistic because normally railroads to not own the cargo. But if we assume that someone else owns the cargo then why as a railroad company do I care what price is at those two locations. The railroad rates are that much a ton/mile or whatever arrangements I make with the customer. So from the point of a railroad company where is the realism?
From my point of view if the current system is used as an economic map that is fine but remove the remuneration for the railroad from that system.
Even the way goods move leave a lot to be desired. You look at some maps and you will see the flow of cargo down a river valley for quite a considerable distance. Disregarding the fact that some of the primary industries might not even be there were it not for secondary industries close by needing those cargoes, those cargos will by themselves even move 10 times further downstream than to a industry needing those cargos very close by but just over the hill.
Yes, I understand that transportation by boat might be the most cost-effective way of shipping some products but by the time you get iron ore or coal to your canoe just how much will you be able to ship – particularly during the times the river is not frozen or flooded. How often do you load/unload it to a larger vessel? So overall yes it is more realistic because cargo moves but seeing the way it moves is still often unrealistic.
Ok, so there you have a good stream of cargo coming down the valley and at a convenient spot, just ahead of an industry requiring that cargo you place your station and intercept the cargo so you can transport it to some other place in need of it and just paying a few bucks more. This being a common practice in playing RT3 please just tell me how realistic this is given the general fact that it is more cost efficient to transport the finished cargo then the raw cargo.
I have a few more issues with that “revolutionary, complex, and realistic†economic model but this is already way too long a post.
The man who has no imagination has no wings. (Muhammad Ali)
-
jerseyjunior
- Hobo
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
canis39, granted in your example my situation would not work, but I specified that C was demanding the goods from A. I guess I should have specified that B was not demanding or not as much. As you guessed, that was my point. So, my situation would look like:
I don't necessarily think this is true. Doesn't this depend on the price at each station?
If the price for steel is:
A = $10
B = $50
C = $45
A = $10
B = $20
C = $45
The game will load up your train with Steel at A going to B and then re-load your train with steel going to C. Again, all you really need is one train between each city to move goods across the map.
JSS - great insight. I still stand by my comments and would rather enjoy all the great things about the game rather than focus on inconsistencies. As you yourself said, it is better than RRT2 and that is my point. Nobody has ever attempted a cargo system in a train sim where the cargo will move even without the trains! To me, that is revolutionary even if it is not perfect. Name me one game where the flow of cargo is more realistic than in RRT3? Obviously every single possibility can't be addressed or else it would cease to be a game (for example frozen rivers or ownership of goods). I prefer to oversimplify and believe that the pay is in the transport even though it might not hold water upon scrutiny and that ingenious merchants drag their goods down frozen rivers with a team of horses drawing a sled - not too hard to imagine is it?jerseyjunior, I need to disagree. RT3’s economic system leaves a lot to be desired and is far from being realistic. I will agree however that it some ways is more realistic as the one used in RT2 as an example. To me, generally speaking, it is mostly a personal preference issue rather than a superior product/design issue.
And finished goods are always worth more than raw cargo, so would stand to reason that they are more profitable to transport.
I don't want to really get into a debate about game specifics or rip apart a great game (as you could no doubt do with any game out there) but rather stand by my opinion that the cargo flow model is revolutionary and far more realistic than any I have before encountered. Also, it's fun, challenging to master, and I play it more than any other game - Just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.
RT3's system for freight is unique and I don't know which I prefer - RT2's or RT3's. I do know that I don't like SMR's for any type of cargo. In the old Poptop site, there was some discussion about the rational behind the RT3 system but no conclusion was ever reached as to which was better. Perhaps neither, they're just different. As I vaguely remember it, in RT3 agents in each space buy the cargo from the prior space, so it is the invisible agents in each space on the map who own the cargo. When we ship it by rail, we buy the cargo and get to keep the profit when we sell it. Otherwise, the agents keep the profit.
The supply/demand system in RT2 was good for freight in that demand went to zero if you sent too much. It would have been better, if the price went to zero at the same time, or if the station stored excess freight until the demand inched over zero. However, the demand for express was not good, in that express cargo should want a specific destination, as in RT3. I like the express system so much in RT3, that I wish it applied to freight as well. In real life, even generic coal isn't generic - high sulfur goes to some plants, low to other plants.
The supply/demand system in RT2 was good for freight in that demand went to zero if you sent too much. It would have been better, if the price went to zero at the same time, or if the station stored excess freight until the demand inched over zero. However, the demand for express was not good, in that express cargo should want a specific destination, as in RT3. I like the express system so much in RT3, that I wish it applied to freight as well. In real life, even generic coal isn't generic - high sulfur goes to some plants, low to other plants.
In RT2, I believe that 0 showing for a demanded product paid 50%, 5 paid 100%, 9 paid 140% of 'the' price for a cargo. It was affected by recent deliveries and by the state of the economy. So it was economical to keep shipping milk when it showed 0 after the first delivery because it has a good price.
-
AZ Rail Rat
- Dispatcher
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Being a driver/rider/map builder, never really paid lots of attention to the economy because it was so hokey. Always just took it as one of those "necessary evils†to give me an excuse to build in worlds I created and reasons for trains to go around it.
What JSS pointed out did get me thinking. Sort of like this:
1 – Freight value should ONLY be applied to industries that produce and consumers that purchase, i.e. another industry, houses, stores, etc.
2 – Revenue for hauling is ONLY based on a very simple formula: Expenses + % Profit (which is a factor of Expenses and varies based on Economic State – Boom to Panic). Therefore if it takes $1K to haul a ton 10 miles and profit is set for 15%, REVENUE for that load would be $1,000 + $150 = $1,150. Time to deliver should not be a factor, unless a bonus/penalty routine is available to let owner negotiate such things.
Some hauling expenses seem to already be calculated: Fuel and Maintenance come to mind. Other expense factors might come into play, such as expenses for a coal car might be less than for a milk tanker, things like that. A few I bet not even thought of, much less in any RRT model are labor, overhead, taxes, depreciation.
Except for those minor adjustments, it matters not if freight hauled is logs or whisky. To the engine and engineer, a ton - is a ton - is a ton (unless he breaks into the whisky car).
Express cargo (passengers, mail and troops) should have different calculations than freight, and each other.
3 - Passengers should be calculated by the person, not the ton. Twiggy would have to pay the same price as Hoss Cartwright (for all youse out there old enough to remember Bonanza - - - you do know who Twiggy was . . . err is don't you?). Ticket prices should be PLAYER selectable. Give a menu that displays route expenses and rates of competition, and then let the player see what the market will bear.
4 - Mail would be by the ton, but not so much time sensitive. It was not in the real world in the Golden Days of railroading. Back then inland mail went by train or stage. (Pony Express only went for a VERY FEW years and only in the west.) By the time we had Express Delivery, FedEx, UPS, etc., mail was going by plane or truck. Modern railroads don’t want to deal with it.
5 – Troops, now they could be fun. That would involve individual or long term negotiations with the Government - contracts if you will. These would pop up and “You are what you negotiate.â€
6 – Finally in my dream (as stated in many forums now in the cyberspace vapors), city growth would be determined by goods delivered. If x tons of lumber is delivered, it will build y number of houses. If enough lumber, cement and steel arrives, hey, we got a commercial building. Things like that.
So much for my dreams - - - I see there are a couple of new maps out there. I’m going to go ride a train. I’m sick of talking money - - - my wallet has diarrhea because it’s Christmas and the wife is getting on line again!!!!
What JSS pointed out did get me thinking. Sort of like this:
1 – Freight value should ONLY be applied to industries that produce and consumers that purchase, i.e. another industry, houses, stores, etc.
2 – Revenue for hauling is ONLY based on a very simple formula: Expenses + % Profit (which is a factor of Expenses and varies based on Economic State – Boom to Panic). Therefore if it takes $1K to haul a ton 10 miles and profit is set for 15%, REVENUE for that load would be $1,000 + $150 = $1,150. Time to deliver should not be a factor, unless a bonus/penalty routine is available to let owner negotiate such things.
Some hauling expenses seem to already be calculated: Fuel and Maintenance come to mind. Other expense factors might come into play, such as expenses for a coal car might be less than for a milk tanker, things like that. A few I bet not even thought of, much less in any RRT model are labor, overhead, taxes, depreciation.
Except for those minor adjustments, it matters not if freight hauled is logs or whisky. To the engine and engineer, a ton - is a ton - is a ton (unless he breaks into the whisky car).
Express cargo (passengers, mail and troops) should have different calculations than freight, and each other.
3 - Passengers should be calculated by the person, not the ton. Twiggy would have to pay the same price as Hoss Cartwright (for all youse out there old enough to remember Bonanza - - - you do know who Twiggy was . . . err is don't you?). Ticket prices should be PLAYER selectable. Give a menu that displays route expenses and rates of competition, and then let the player see what the market will bear.
4 - Mail would be by the ton, but not so much time sensitive. It was not in the real world in the Golden Days of railroading. Back then inland mail went by train or stage. (Pony Express only went for a VERY FEW years and only in the west.) By the time we had Express Delivery, FedEx, UPS, etc., mail was going by plane or truck. Modern railroads don’t want to deal with it.
5 – Troops, now they could be fun. That would involve individual or long term negotiations with the Government - contracts if you will. These would pop up and “You are what you negotiate.â€
6 – Finally in my dream (as stated in many forums now in the cyberspace vapors), city growth would be determined by goods delivered. If x tons of lumber is delivered, it will build y number of houses. If enough lumber, cement and steel arrives, hey, we got a commercial building. Things like that.
So much for my dreams - - - I see there are a couple of new maps out there. I’m going to go ride a train. I’m sick of talking money - - - my wallet has diarrhea because it’s Christmas and the wife is getting on line again!!!!
-
jerseyjunior
- Hobo
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:31 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
AZ, you are blowing my mind.
Seems like "the pay is in the transport" got you going.
Well, in a transport sim, shouldn't the pay be in the transport?
Kudos to JSS for so fervently denying my opinions.
I guess there are some flaws in RRT3 ... though it pains me to say that
I agree that Freight Value should only be applied to industries that produce directly to consumers who consume that freight. Other conflicts abound, however.
I am perfectly content with the cargo model in RRT3. I think any serious student of the model can appreciate the complexity that lies therein, and any more depth would lead to an incapability of understanding the inherent truths in the application. This could lead to disasterous outcomes among message boards where people are free to spout out their perplexities.
Seems like "the pay is in the transport" got you going.
Well, in a transport sim, shouldn't the pay be in the transport?
Kudos to JSS for so fervently denying my opinions.
I guess there are some flaws in RRT3 ... though it pains me to say that
I agree that Freight Value should only be applied to industries that produce directly to consumers who consume that freight. Other conflicts abound, however.
I am perfectly content with the cargo model in RRT3. I think any serious student of the model can appreciate the complexity that lies therein, and any more depth would lead to an incapability of understanding the inherent truths in the application. This could lead to disasterous outcomes among message boards where people are free to spout out their perplexities.
Quote:
I don't want to really get into a debate about game specifics or rip apart a great game (as you could no doubt do with any game out there) but rather stand by my opinion that the cargo flow model is revolutionary and far more realistic than any I have before encountered. Also, it's fun, challenging to master, and I play it more than any other game - Just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.
jerseyjunior, I found that a discussion often leads to a better understanding of other opinions and that such a dialog might help to open up the subject itself and make it more informative. So, I don’t see it as an effort to change anyone’s opinion but rather just offering another point of view. Therefore, please do not think that I do not value your opinion - quite to the contrary.
Quote:
As I vaguely remember it, in RT3 agents in each space buy the cargo from the prior space, so it is the invisible agents in each space on the map who own the cargo. When we ship it by rail, we buy the cargo and get to keep the profit when we sell it. Otherwise, the agents keep the profit.
Orange46, I thought I got that “agent†approach debunked then already because it did not make sense. I mean just how far to we really have to go in suspending all reality (invisible agents??) to explain how the “superior†economic system is working. If the economic system really makes sense why would we have to go to such extremes to explain it?
AZ Rail Rat, I am glad I got you thinking. :D
The way I visualize it is that actually each industrial building is an entity by itself. That is besides it having demand/supply numbers and current stated costs, it has additional financial numbers attached to it. For instance each iron mine would have a nominal shipping rate ($) it is willing to pay. You can negotiate with it for what you are willing to ship for. You ask for too much the company will refuse or go out of business. You ask for less you lose out on extra profits but the mining company will prosper as long there is demand for ore. That will then also, to some degree, determine how far you can ship the ore because if the freight component becomes too high the mine can not operate profitably.
The overall price for the cargo shipped still can be determined by the current economic system but the railroad shipping rates would be in a large degree separated from the general economic setup.
Well, I am sure there would be lots that could be done in that respect.
Quote:
Kudos to JSS for so fervently denying my opinions.
jerseyjunior, your opinion was only “counter-opinionedâ€. :D I was only rehashing beefs I have with RT3 since its release.
I don't want to really get into a debate about game specifics or rip apart a great game (as you could no doubt do with any game out there) but rather stand by my opinion that the cargo flow model is revolutionary and far more realistic than any I have before encountered. Also, it's fun, challenging to master, and I play it more than any other game - Just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.
jerseyjunior, I found that a discussion often leads to a better understanding of other opinions and that such a dialog might help to open up the subject itself and make it more informative. So, I don’t see it as an effort to change anyone’s opinion but rather just offering another point of view. Therefore, please do not think that I do not value your opinion - quite to the contrary.
Quote:
As I vaguely remember it, in RT3 agents in each space buy the cargo from the prior space, so it is the invisible agents in each space on the map who own the cargo. When we ship it by rail, we buy the cargo and get to keep the profit when we sell it. Otherwise, the agents keep the profit.
Orange46, I thought I got that “agent†approach debunked then already because it did not make sense. I mean just how far to we really have to go in suspending all reality (invisible agents??) to explain how the “superior†economic system is working. If the economic system really makes sense why would we have to go to such extremes to explain it?
AZ Rail Rat, I am glad I got you thinking. :D
The way I visualize it is that actually each industrial building is an entity by itself. That is besides it having demand/supply numbers and current stated costs, it has additional financial numbers attached to it. For instance each iron mine would have a nominal shipping rate ($) it is willing to pay. You can negotiate with it for what you are willing to ship for. You ask for too much the company will refuse or go out of business. You ask for less you lose out on extra profits but the mining company will prosper as long there is demand for ore. That will then also, to some degree, determine how far you can ship the ore because if the freight component becomes too high the mine can not operate profitably.
The overall price for the cargo shipped still can be determined by the current economic system but the railroad shipping rates would be in a large degree separated from the general economic setup.
Well, I am sure there would be lots that could be done in that respect.
Quote:
Kudos to JSS for so fervently denying my opinions.
jerseyjunior, your opinion was only “counter-opinionedâ€. :D I was only rehashing beefs I have with RT3 since its release.
The man who has no imagination has no wings. (Muhammad Ali)
-
AZ Rail Rat
- Dispatcher
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
JJ - The "opinion" that counts the most and gets my most respect is that you are"satisfied" with the RRT3 E-System. THAT'S what counts for you, that you can enjoy it and HAVE FUN playing. :D
What counts for me is that I can live with it. :?
For others and other things I don't like, at least it gives us something to bitch about. Forums would be pretty dull without it :P
What counts for me is that I can live with it. :?
For others and other things I don't like, at least it gives us something to bitch about. Forums would be pretty dull without it :P
RR economics dictate that you charge less per ton-mile, the further a load of cargo travels. That has to do with fixed costs and equipment usage.
In practice, shipping coal from Pennsylvania to New Jersey may cost the shipper only slightly less than shipping coal from Wyoming to New Jersey.
Similarly with passengers, an Amtrak coach ticket from San Francisco to New York is only slightly more expensive than a ticket from Baltimore to New York ($120 vs. $100).
It might be interesting to create a scenario where this kind of real-life pricing policy applies.
In practice, shipping coal from Pennsylvania to New Jersey may cost the shipper only slightly less than shipping coal from Wyoming to New Jersey.
Similarly with passengers, an Amtrak coach ticket from San Francisco to New York is only slightly more expensive than a ticket from Baltimore to New York ($120 vs. $100).
It might be interesting to create a scenario where this kind of real-life pricing policy applies.