1.06.01 patch: remove end dates for locos?

[Gumboots]

Another idea: I'm wondering if the end dates for locomotives should be removed. It's a very simple coding job, so no worries on that score. End dates aren't strictly necessary (some locos don't have them anyway) and scenario authors can still use an event to make a loco unavailable after a certain date, if they want to.

I'm thinking it could be handy, or just fun sometimes, to not have the end date forced by the .lco file since that can never be overridden by the player or by scenario authors. Someone might want to use a loco out of its usual timeframe, or even just have their own museum or whatever for fun.

Older locos will always be further down the list than newer ones, so having all of them still available wouldn't be a problem even if somebody just wanted the latest and greatest. You'd just never scroll down the list far enough to see the ones you didn't want.

[Blackhawk]

This issue came up in Trainmaster. Whether to remove the end dates or leave them as is. I favored keeping end dates, Ned preferred removing them. Ned's reasoning behind getting rid of the dates was that, even if production had stopped, you could always say you were buying the locomotive used from another railroad. Which I like that reasoning, it's just unfortunate RT3 doesn't allow like a price variation and allow new vs used

Either way it can create some work for a scenario creator. Either the creator leaves the locomotives as they are and they'll remain in the list the entire duration of the scenario, or they create an event to remove them from availability. Which the converse is also true in that with the end dates, the scenario creator can use an event to make the locomotive available even after its end date.

This may be another thing that boils down to backwards compatibility. Would the no end dates disrupt any 1.06 scenarios to a significant degree that it shouldn't be done? Is there a scenario, where the older cheaper engines being available could be highly advantageous?

[Gumboots]

The other thing I was thinking of was engines that have been preserved. They wont be cheaper (usually they will have had loads spent on them) but they are still available. If anyone wants to take a G4 for a spin, there's one over in Germany that still runs.

Which the converse is also true in that with the end dates, the scenario creator can use an event to make the locomotive available even after its end date.

Are you sure this is true? What happens in that case? How is the end date handled? I would have thought the engine would be unavailable.

If the event can override the end date, does that mean any engine made available by event after its end date behaves as if it has no end date?

ETA: Ok, tested it. Never knew you could do that with an event. I assumed the end date would just kick in if the loco was made available after that date. Interesting. Ok, so that means the only reason for getting rid of end dates would be to give the player more options (either for strategy or just for fun).

I can't see it giving a huge advantage in any scenario, but it's worth considering.

[RulerofRails]

My take on this:
The idea of having "used" engines available for purchase is good. The problem is that maintenance should be higher to be realistic. And we all know that with steam engines maintenance is too high reflecting the propaganda reason why steam became obsolete. With technology costs would definitely have come down. I will thank WSherrick for his excellent article on the topic that is available from the HISTORY {corrected, see Hawk's post below for the link} section of this site. The maintenance issue would have to be fixed before I would consider "used" engines being a useful addition to the game.

I think that maybe the idea with engine availability dates was to represent the years the locos were being made. Some people have said this or that loco was used up till a certain date far past the normal retirement age. So what, that should mean they have a great reliability rating, not be purchasable for 30-40 years after they were actually made! On the other side of the coin, the idea of staying close to reality could be dumped in favor of sticking to a progression of technology allowing early engines to be "created" new by a player.

I am unsure about the backwards compatibility as well. I think there are some instances in modern times where a player would gain an advantage by having all previous engines available. For electrics the GG1, E18, and Shinkansen come to mind. Even with the 1950 weight increase the awesome reliability and cheap costs of the GG1 and E18 make them competitive. The Shinkansen is simply fast. I can't think of any diesel engines specifically right now. However, engine cost increases with the time periods and I would say that an E-series or an F-series would give an advantage if used as your first train. The cheaper early low-performing steam engines would also give an advantage if used at the start. This could possibly open up the possibility of having single-use-then-retire trains in the modern era. Strategising . . . . . .

On the overall I am withholding a vote right now to strategize a bit more. At the moment though I would lean towards no, because of the effect on existing scenarios.

[Gumboots]

We can't really do a "used engine" category within the limits of the game engine, AFAIK. Re purchasing old engines: arguably if it's still in existence and running, it can be purchased (assuming the owner will sell). I wouldn't worry about that side of it. I'd only be concerned about the possible effects on gameplay.

I hadn't considered diesels and electrics (I never do). I'm not sure if I can think of an example where early steamers would give a real strategic advantage. Most scenarios require an industry start anyway, and by the time you get rail and stations, etc built the cost saving on an obsolete loco that has poor haulage for the current era would probably not be an issue.

Another point is that if a scenario author wants to restrict the choice of engines they'll usually use a specific selection rather than a whole category like NA, Euro or World. In that case, not having end dates would make no difference.

[Hawk]

My take on this:
The idea of having "used" engines available for purchase is good. The problem is that maintenance should be higher to be realistic. And we all know that with steam engines maintenance is too high reflecting the propaganda reason why steam became obsolete. With technology costs would definitely have come down. I will thank WSherrick for his excellent article on the topic that is available from the downloads section of this site.

Actually, that article is in the Railroad History section of the site.

[RulerofRails]

Thanks for correcting me, Hawk. Appreciate it. I slipped up, sorry.

I tried to fix my mistake with a strike-through, but couldn't work out how to do it. So went for bold and a little note.

[Hawk]

Thanks for correcting me, Hawk. Appreciate it. I slipped up, sorry.

I tried to fix my mistake with a strike-through, but couldn't work out how to do it. So went for bold and a little note.

No problem.
There is no strike-through bbcode here. That's why you couldn't get it to work.

I just linked to the right page in my post.

[Lama]

I prefer giving the scenario maker control over things like loco availability. Default removal of end dates messes with that.

[Gumboots]

Not really. It does, to some extent, for already existing scenarios. If you wanted to strictly maintain the original roster for existing scenarios you'd have to add events to it. For new scenarios it isn't a problem, because the author can still use an event to make any loco unavailable whenever it suits them.

[Lama]

True. Forgot. Just a hassle.