Speed adjustment considerations

Creating and Editing Rollingstock
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Anyway, I have some general conclusions about locomotive stats balancing, based on what has been found so far. You might also be able to get some ideas for strategy out of this.

For a start, the game's coding makes no attempt to generate real train physics. This is definitely a train game rather than a train simulator. The mathematics behind it just ensures that our trains go fast down hills and slow up hills, and assumes that's enough to keep us entertained. Seems to work. :-D

Pulling power is well-named. It does what it says on the tin. "Free weight" is badly named, because it's not really that at all. I can see why it might have been given that name, because its effects can make it appear that you are being given "free cars" in your consist on 0% grade, but it's still not a very good name. OTOH, "exponential curve arbitrary modifying factor #3" is a bit of a mouthful. :mrgreen:

Although its effects are probably most obvious on 0% grades, at least for later locomotives with high pulling power, "free weight" definitely has an effect on all grades and for all locomotives. The lower the pulling power, the greater the effect "free weight" will have up grades. Similarly, pulling power also has an effect on all grades, even on 0%, and this is interwoven with the effect of "free weight".

Long consists are heavily penalised in terms of speed, especially when the free weight setting is low. If FW = 0, adding an eighth car to a seven car consist will cause the same percentage speed reduction as adding a second car to a one car consist, and this will apply to all grades. This is obviously nowhere near realistic, but it's how RT3 coding works. For higher values of FW this will only strictly apply to a 0% grade, and will only apply if FW is not so high that any consist at all can be hauled at full top speed. I haven't yet worked out exactly how the speed varies for non-zero grades in these cases, but it probably still penalises long consists more than it should.

Locomotive weight and tender weight are very heavily penalised in terms of speed up grades. If you want your choofer to go up hills like a mountain goat, making it weigh next to nothing is a really good way of doing that. A very light locomotive will, for given settings of pulling power and free weight, haul an 8 car consist faster up grades than a heavy locomotive. This is obviously nowhere near realistic either. In reality, hauling a heavy consist up hills requires a lot of weight in your loco. RT3 is the direct opposite of that.

The way it works is that, for the basic case where pulling power = 1 and "free weight" = 0, every 1 ton added to locomotive or tender weight will always cause the same percentage reduction in speed up a given grade. For example, a locomotive weight of 1 ton will reduce speed up a 4% grade by 3.25%, and will do this for any number of cars in the consist, and regardless of the weight of each car. Increasing the weight of a 320 ton locomotive to 321 tons will also reduce speed up a 4% grade by 3.25%, and will do this for any number of cars in the consist, and regardless of the weight of each car.

At this point your reaction is probably somewhere between !facepalm! and "Bovine droppings!" but really, that's how RT3 works.

Pulling power > 1 modifies this. For example, if pulling power = 3 and "free weight" = 0, then every 1 ton added to loco weight will cost you 1.1% in speed up a 4% grade, but this will still apply regardless of the number of cars in the consist, and regardless of the weight of each car, and regardless of how heavy the locomotive was before you added that extra 1 ton.

Increasing the "free weight" to anything more than 0 can change this relationship, but only if the "free weight" is high enough to allow hauling that number of cars at full top speed on that grade. If the "free weight" is not high enough to allow hauling that number of cars at full top speed on a 4% grade, then if pulling power = 3 every 1 ton added to locomotive weight will still cost you 1.1% in speed.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

!!party*!

Got it! :mrgreen:

Ok, "free weight" works like this. Remember how there was a basic speed reduction factor for 0% grade, and that this just kept getting used to multiply speed for the last number of cars to get speed for the next number of cars? That's easy to turn into an equation.

Call the speed reduction factor SRF. FW is "free weight". CW is car weight. N is the number of cars.

For the basic case where "free weight" = 0 you have: Speed = (Top speed) x (SRF)^N

For any non-zero value of "free weight", which also works for zero anyway, the equation is: Speed = (Top speed) x (SRF)^(N-(FW/CW)).

Which is not as scary as it looks. All it does is give you your extra "free car" to haul at top speed every time "free weight" goes up by an amount equal to car weight, while still allowing speeds to be calculated for intermediate values of "free weight". !*th_up*!

So that's a done deal. The party bit is that I just figured out how "free weight" boosts speed for grades, which was the last bit that was holding this nifty new calculator up. In the great tradition of RT3 coding, this one is really simple too. It's the same scaling for all grades, and only depends on FW/CW.

So call this grade boost factor GBF.

For FW = 0, GBF =1. In other words, the speed is just what it would have been anyway.

For FW > 0 it's GBF = 1.2239^(FW/10) so: Speed= 1.2239^(FW/10)(Top speed) x (SRF)^N

That's all it is. Works for all non-zero grades and all car weights. Why 1.2239? Don't know, and don't care. It is, so I'll use it.

Now this is all for pulling power = 1, so I'll have to do some more checking with other values of pulling power just to make sure which one gets applied first. Once I have that figured out, writing the complete equation will be easy. (0!!0)
Last edited by Gumboots on Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Edit: Warning. Everything in this post turned out to be wrong. I must have made a basic error when testing, due to being tired.

Just thought of something else to test. I was idly wondering if loco and tender weight were treated the same. IOW, just added together to get a total weight, and that got used as "loco weight" in the formula. I was hoping the answer was yes, because that would be the simplest case.

OTOH, I did wonder why they had bothered including a tender weight if it made no real difference. If tender weight and loco weight were just added together to get a total figure there would be no real need for tender weight. You could just increase the loco weight by the same amount and save the game engine having to read some extra code, and save yourself the trouble of having to edit tender files during development. Since I knew the RT3 devs were as lazy as I am, I thought they might have deprecated the tender weight in the same way that they deprecated the weights in the .cgo files.

No such luck. !facepalm!

Turns out that loco weight and tender weight are treated differently. I ran a quick test with the Big Boy, since I knew that by default it has a loco weight of 560 tons and a tender weight of 60 tons. A quick and obvious test would be to reverse those figures and see what happened, so that's what I did. The result is that a 60 ton Big Boy with a 560 ton tender will haul 8 monster freight cars up a 6% grade about twice as fast as a 560 ton Big Boy with a 60 ton tender.

So now I have to figure that bit out too. *!*!*!

Pic attached, showing the variation in speed for the two cases, with two different cargo cars weights for each case.
Attachments
Loco_and_tender_weights.png
Last edited by Gumboots on Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Well done on finding the formulas! !!clap!!

I haven't had enough time to run lots of numbers in the spreadsheet, but it's looking great. :mrgreen:

I doubt that I understood everything you were saying when I was reading through, however I have a question mark over your latest post regarding tender weight being treated differently to engine weight. If that were true, I can't see why the workaround principle in some of my latest posts of changing combined engine + tender weight, free weight, pulling power, and car weight using the same modifier would end up with identical stats but at a new car weight. I tested that multiple times on different engines. I treated engine and tender weight as a whole and would only make the change to one value.

Just now I tried to replicate your results with the Big Boy and failed to do so. I switched around engine and tender weights with no change in stats. From your pic, the number "1" and number "3" sets respectively appeared no matter which way I switched the weights. I even tried to put all 620 tons in the tender with 0 engine weight. But, behold, the stats seemeth not to have changed.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Eh? That's weird, because I took those figures straight from RT3 when I swapped the weights around. I'll test it again just to make sure.

If both weights are just added into one lump that would be ideal, because it'll be simpler to deal with (I already have everything else figured out) but then I wonder how RT3 threw out different sets of figures in the last test. **!!!**
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Hey question: how are you doing that test? Are you exiting back to the main menu, then editing the hex and saving it, then going back into the sandbox to check the stats again? Or are you just editing the hex while still in the sandbox?

I did it the first way. I always exit back to the main menu when testing hex changes, just to make sure the file is reloaded by the game before being called for display.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Depending on what I am testing, but the most common thing with the engine stats is to reload a saved game/sandbox after I have changed and then saved the hex. All previous engine changes I have made show up immediately once the game loads afresh. However, before questioning your analysis, I did completely restart the game between tests and even tried starting new scenarios.

Just now, I tried this in 1.05 just in case it was something happening in 1.06. I also tried to put the Big Boy stats with reversed engine and tender weights into the Class 01. It's all the same for me.

There must be some explanation. Try these Class 01 files with the Big Boy stats except for the weight swap. What do you see?
Attachments
Class 01-Test.zip
Pointless file, except for this test
(743 Bytes) Downloaded 158 times
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

I'm about to crash for the night. I'll double check everything over the weekend. !*th_up*!
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:You are dead right about pulling power. I noticed that too. There is no way to make a loco better on grades. All we can do is:
Increase the free weight to make it better on the flat ground with a tiny boost to graded performance.
Increase the engine or tender weight which will make the loco worse on grades with no effect on flat-ground performance.
Increase pulling power which increases all values with flat-ground performance obviously benefiting more from higher values.
I was just thinking about this again. If we want to make a loco better on grades, the most effective way is to simply reduce the loco weight. Even changes of 1 ton have a direct and even multiplying effect on any speed up any grade. We were already thinking of artificially reducing weights for heavy locos to get their fuel consumption down to a useful level. This will automatically give them a boost on grades, and a pretty strong one too.

I think loco weight is going to end up being one of most powerful modifiers for adjusting stats. Given that the exponential formula behind it is now known, it shouldn't be hard to use that to keep relative performance of heavy locos the same while drastically reducing their weights.

Also, it turns out that increases in pulling power actually benefit speed up grades more than speed on the flat, because pulling power applies the same exponent on all grades (including 0) but non-zero grades have a steeper speed drop with every added car, which means they get a proportionally larger bonus once the pulling power exponent is applied.

RulerofRails wrote:I had a thought, hey, some people have examined speed and pulling power a fair bit in the past. So I went looking at some of the old spreadsheets that people have made. Of interest is Low_grade's one from the tips/tutorials download section. He used a simple scale of 1 to 10 to relate most of the levels i.e. Good to Very Good for example. He made pretty complicated formulas, but I wonder if we could update the scales to nearer their true relationships. What do you think?
I had a look at Low_grade's sheet too. I'm not sure how much use it is. For example, he appears to just take the PopTop fuel ratings at face value, without any consideration for how actual fuel cost is affected by loco weight. We'd have to find and dissect every assumption in his sheet before we'd know what it all meant, and whether the assumptions were good ones.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:I doubt that I understood everything you were saying when I was reading through, however I have a question mark over your latest post regarding tender weight being treated differently to engine weight. If that were true, I can't see why the workaround principle in some of my latest posts of changing combined engine + tender weight, free weight, pulling power, and car weight using the same modifier would end up with identical stats but at a new car weight. I tested that multiple times on different engines. I treated engine and tender weight as a whole and would only make the change to one value.

Just now I tried to replicate your results with the Big Boy and failed to do so. I switched around engine and tender weights with no change in stats. From your pic, the number "1" and number "3" sets respectively appeared no matter which way I switched the weights. I even tried to put all 620 tons in the tender with 0 engine weight. But, behold, the stats seemeth not to have changed.
I just tested it again and you're right. I must have clicked the wrong buttons or something when I tested it before. I was pretty tired at the time so I'm putting those results down to basic human error.

This is good, because it means loco+tender weight is a simple proposition and I can just get on with compiling the final version of the spreadsheet. !*th_up*!

I also think that when we get around to revising stats, it'd make sense to just set all tender weights to zero and do all the required adjustments on the loco weight only. It'll give the same result, and mean fewer things to keep track of. ;-)

Oh and with the spreadsheet, the assumption I made is that the game calculates the car-weight-related speed reduction coefficients on the basis of average car weight. This is the simplest way of doing it, so is probably what they did. I can't really tell at the moment though because the stats pop-up only gives speeds for consists that have one car weight for all cars. The only way of checking this assumption would be to check train speeds while they're running in the game.

What I'm thinking is that if the car-weight-related speed reduction coefficients for each grade and each car in the consist are calculated on the basis of individual car weights, with each individually-calculated coefficient being applied to that stage of the consist before the next is calculated, then this should give noticeably different speeds (compared to using an average weight) as each car is added if the consist alternates between heaviest and lightest cars. Should be easy enough to check, since the results can be predicted for both cases.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Ok, good. I was worried there for a minute that something was wrong with my game. The 560t engine and 60t tender are pretty confusing. I got them confused all over in the fuel costs thread. I was quoting 600t at times and 620t at others. I haven't been bothered to go back and re-correct my posts there. If you notice the fuel cost in one of my tests for the stock Big Boy was 108k instead of 112k making it the only odd one out. Well turns out that I thought I had returned the Big Boy to original, but in fact had believed my own lie and put 540 instead of 560. *!*!*!

Good idea to lump engine and tender weights together in the engine .car file. !*th_up*!

If I understood what you said correctly, I would assume that the game uses an average of all consist weights. I don't have time right now, but we could also do some physical testing for the odd grade values like 1% and 3% just to double check that your stats match real-game performance. The difficulty I see is that in-game I bet those grade figures are an average. I know for a fact that a 3% grade can change color from yellow-green to a lighter orange. This is why I have puzzled a bit on how to test graded performance in-game. Maybe the actual grade is recorded somewhere, or perhaps it doesn't matter after all, and the game is just reading the average before calculating speed reduction. Might be worth testing at some point.

A little off-topic, but I did notice that with Lirio's pack when I tried to event a loco availability, I noticed that the Standard 4-4-0 wasn't there. Nor was the American 4-4-0 that she renamed it from. I remember that a couple others were missing as well. Just wondering is that explainable from the muck-up caused by the re-naming process or is this a limitation of adding new locos to the game or is it a 1.06 bug?
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

I don't think we should get too pedantic about the accuracy of speed stats. If they're generally within 1 or 2 mph of the speed we see in the game, I think that is the best that can be hoped for. Rounding errors, minor track kinks, etc, will probably mean that perfect agreement won't be possible. We can test it when we have time and, if necessary, make some adjustments to various factors.

I'm confident that if the calculated speeds match for the even-numbered grades they will also match for the odd-numbered grades. Putting it another way, the stats from the spreadsheet shouldn't be any rougher for 1 and 3% than the stats from the game are for 2 and 4%. They pretty much have to be as good. The formula is very tightly constrained. I plotted the changes in coefficients between grades to an accuracy of 1 in 10,000 (IOW, four figures). I don't think we can spot anything that small during gameplay, even allowing for the large exponents used at times.

The loco availability thing seems to be a result of the renaming mucking things up. The game apparently lists available locos on the basis of display name rather than internal ID number, so any renaming at all will bork existing maps that rely on default names. This is a nuisance, but not a major one.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Ok, so I have it working perfectly with free weight on a 0% grade. Still haven't got it working on non-zero grades, but that's a nesting problem in the formula. There are so many brackets and bits of stuff in the tiny input bar that it's a bit hard to keep them all straight. I'll copy/paste it out to somewhere more spacious tomorrow and go over it in detail. Should be ok once I try a few things and get the ordering right.

However it is working on a 0% grade. I tested it with a range of locos, from the Adler to the Red Devil, and a range of consist weights from pre-1850 to post-1950. Occasionally it'll differ from the game's stats pop-up by 1 mph somewhere, due to rounding error, but generally the figures are an exact match. So this is good. !*th_up*!

I also have the conditionals I wanted working. The speed output will now never drop below 1 mph, just like the game's stats, and will never exceed top speed no matter of how high you push free weight. So you'll always get an output that makes sense. The conditional for consists shorter than 8 cars works now too. If you choose a 6 car limit on your consist, the last two columns will just show - in all cells, instead of numbers.

The other good thing is that I found out I can give cells, and cell ranges, custom names instead of just using their basic XY location. This has cleaned up the formula a lot. For the 8th car on 0% grade it now looks like this:

Code: Select all

= IF(Consist_length > 7; MIN(Top_speed; MAX(1;((0.98^((SUM(Consist_8))/8))^((8-((8*Free_weight)/SUM(Consist_8)))/Pulling_power))*Top_speed));"-")
Which is a lot more comprehensible than what was there before. :-D
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Yee ha! ::!**!

Got it working with all consists on all grades, with every locomotive tested so far. !*th_up*!

On grades of 0%, 2%, 4% and 6% the generated results match the game's stats pop-up to an accuracy of 1 mph at worst, and usually match exactly. Results on non-standard grades of 1%, 3%, 5%, 7% and 8% cannot be directly checked against in-game stats, but the progression of speeds looks to be correct. I expect them to be equally accurate. Note that the locos currently listed are using default PopTop stats, not Lirio's stats.

I haven't yet tested with any diesel or electric locos as I don't currently have them installed, but I don't expect the game to use different equations for diesel and electric. I'm pretty sure the differences between steam and the other two types are only done with the usual ratings (weight, fuel economy etc, etc).

Edit: Just ran a quick test, which confirms that the spreadsheet still works for diesel and electric locomotives. Speed/grade/consist figures from the spreadsheet, for the C55 Deltic diesel and the 2-D-2 electric, match the game's stats exactly.

I have included a diesel example (C55 Deltic) and an electric example (2-D-2) over to the right of all the steam locomotives. The plan here is to give each fuel type its own column. That way if you're only interested in checking diesel you can collapse the steam column. If you only want electric, just collapse the steam and diesel columns. I'll add more locos of all types later. Might as well have them all.

Zip attached, containing Open Office and Excel versions. (0!!0)

The Excel version is stripped down to the basic speed/grade/consist calculator. The Open Office version has the basic calculator on the first sheet. The other five sheets in the Open Office version are all the background work I did to figure out the equations behind it. Have a look through them if you're interested in the back end stuff. Ignore them if you're not interested.

Edit: Latest version attached here.
Last edited by Gumboots on Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Gumboots wrote:The conditional for consists shorter than 8 cars works now too. If you choose a 6 car limit on your consist, the last two columns will just show - in all cells, instead of numbers.
What is the purpose for this? Is the number for a consist limited to 6-cars going to differ from taking the value for #6 from the full one that displays values all the way up to 8 cars?

Will get into looking through some figures now. I am interested in whether the game rounds off the grades before putting them in the formula for a gameplay purpose. For example, if I am laying track and I make it do a corner to keep track grade from passing 4%, but I only just get it to read 4%. If the direct route will only just return 5%, does the formula record a 4/5 jump or just a fractional one where the game is using a decimal figure, but rounding to give the displayed figure.

Thanks to all your hard work we can try many different settings quickly. !*th_up*! The question to be answered is can we make express trains of the early eras (when there's less numerical gap between the freight and express weights) fast enough up grades while being useless at freight? Especially if we give the express locos low fuel costs, we don't want people to start using them on the dead flat runs as an exploit. Obviously, understanding the formula more will help in understanding the limits in keeping flat ground weight hauling down and yet getting decent graded peformance. But, I will attempt it anyway.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:What is the purpose for this? Is the number for a consist limited to 6-cars going to differ from taking the value for #6 from the full one that displays values all the way up to 8 cars?
No, the values won't differ. I just added the extra conditional to clean up the table if you're specifically wanting to explore shorter consists. It's just a visual convenience that saves your brain having to ignore data you're not interested in at the time. I find it useful, but you don't have to use it.
Thanks to all your hard work we can try many different settings quickly. !*th_up*! The question to be answered is can we make express trains of the early eras (when there's less numerical gap between the freight and express weights) fast enough up grades while being useless at freight? Especially if we give the express locos low fuel costs, we don't want people to start using them on the dead flat runs as an exploit. Obviously, understanding the formula more will help in understanding the limits in keeping flat ground weight hauling down and yet getting decent graded peformance. But, I will attempt it anyway.
I didn't mind the work. It was an interesting exercise, and now we have a useful tool. I've already taken a quick look at some basic stats for early era stuff. I grabbed default PopTop stats for the Connie and the Stirling, and compared them with their usual B era PopTop freight and express consists, as well as with the current proposal for late 19th century freight and express and mixed.

We can quickly and easily dial in any specific performance we want now (I've had a quick play with that too, and forsooth it rocketh) but even with default loco stats there's a good split in capabilities. Basically, on grades of 3% or less the Stirling would haul the proposed 1890 express like a Connie hauls default B era freight (IOW, it'll finally make you happy) and the Connie is a still a good freight hauler with the proposed 30% heavier average freight.

When you move up to mixed traffic the Stirling becomes a bit weaker than it is with default B era express, which IMO makes it pretty much useless unless the terrain is a perfect 0% everywhere. The Connie would be a far better choice for that role if there are any imperfections in the terrain. We also have the options of altering weights, and reliability and fuel economy ratings, to get an even more definite split in loco categories. For example, I was thinking that since express locos will be tailored towards the lightest consists they should have the worst fuel economy ratings. The light consists will keep their fuel bills reasonable, and the comparatively poor fuel rating would make them less suitable for any heavier consists. You could use them for mixed in a pinch, but you'd naturally prefer to use something else. I think it's looking quite workable.

BTW, the heaviest 1890 freights in the current proposal are 20 tons, which is the same as default post-1900 freights. Default Connies will still handle default post-1900 freight consists. They don't like it an awful lot if there's much in the way of grades, but they'll do it, so that aspect is looking ok too.

Pic attached of the basic stats comparison.

Edit: I think I'll add a basic fuel bill indicator to the sheet. Since we'll obviously be using weight and fuel economy as significant balancing factors, it makes sense to have some indication of how locomotive weight changes will affect fuel bills as well as performance on grades. I'd keep this simple. It can just take total train weight and the given fuel economy rating, and output a relative figure on a simple tons/miles basis for comparison with other options. I won't take it further than this, because there are too many possible variables, but a quick and obvious indicator like this should be a useful (and easy) addition to the sheet.
Attachments
Basic_comparison_1.png
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

Here ya go. Updated version that includes fuel economy ratings, with a displayed fuel bill that matches the equivalent Year 1 figure from your existing fuel cost sheet. Should be handy once we get into custom stats balancing. !*th_up*!

Edit: Zip removed. Get the final version of the spreadsheet here.
Last edited by Gumboots on Sun May 28, 2017 3:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RulerofRails
CEO
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

I ran a few tests and I can see that the game isn't using only the displayed integer levels for the grades which is good. From a gameplay perspective, the more subtle you can be on grades the better.

At first glance I would say that the Stirling would be ok with the proposed mixed consist (7.8 tons). This is quite comparable to the current Mallard or Zephyr which are useful on flat ground. But, then I remember my own post about the readouts in the game being out compared to the actual .car file value that is used. So I must get accustomed to accurate readings which are for the proposed maximum speed which in many cases will not be reached in actual service with Average or worse acceleration.

I am looking at the formula from the spreadsheet. It seems to me that the graded formula uses a lower base for consist weight than for loco+tender weight. For example this is from 5% grade for 1 car:

Code: Select all

=MAX(1,(MIN(1,(1.2239^(Free_weight/10))*(0.9572^(SUM(Loco_plus_tender)))*(0.938^Consist_1)))^(1/Pulling_power)*Top_speed)
So we have 0.9572 for the engine vs. 0.938 for the consist. This means that not only does engine weight come into play on grades (it means nothing on the flat ground, :-P ), but also it has MORE effect on speed reduction than consist weight. Go figure. !hairpull!

This can only mean that optimizing graded performance for light-duty trains such as express will mean in general that engine weight should be lighter if we want to prevent them being exploited for light freight duties.

Here's a pic to illustrate using the American (10x speed to better gauge differences at low speed). Of course, the train is underpowered once the engine weight is added. Pulling power and/or free weight could be increased to get better performance on grades. This will work fine to get good graded performance, but both these actions will sacrifice the flat-ground split at these car weights. If I understand correctly, increasing pulling power will decrease the possible variations over the range of performance stats for a given car weight.
American test showing effect of engine weight on grades.jpg
This is about the best way to get graded performance at low weights while including good penalties on flat ground service that I am likely to come up with. Even at 0t engine weight, there's still the possibility of hauling a couple cars of light freight while still getting decent all-round performance, but maxxing out at 3 cars of light freight should make this fairly unattractive. Another thing is that this engine is currently introduced (1845) in the era of the 1 ton express and 3 ton minimum freight. So, this exercise is a test instead of a recommendation for final settings.

I have been thinking that reliability could be a discouragement to using express locos for other service, but the 3 year grace period before this kicks in is plenty long enough to allow exploitation in the initial high-growth stages.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:I ran a few tests and I can see that the game isn't using only the displayed integer levels for the grades which is good. From a gameplay perspective, the more subtle you can be on grades the better.

At first glance I would say that the Stirling would be ok with the proposed mixed consist (7.8 tons).
It would be ok if the terrain was absolutely, slate-based, competition grade, billiard table flat. It would be pretty much useless in any other situation, IMO. There would be other locos which would do the job better. Particularly once fuel consumption comes into play. With the proposed consists it would make sense to run the Stirling at a rating of 7, the Connie (or other heavy freighter) at 5, and a mixed loco at 6. This should give reasonable fuel bills for all in their designated slots, but make them less useful in "inappropriate" roles.

I am looking at the formula from the spreadsheet. It seems to me that the graded formula uses a lower base for consist weight than for loco+tender weight. For example this is from 5% grade for 1 car:

Code: Select all

=MAX(1,(MIN(1,(1.2239^(Free_weight/10))*(0.9572^(SUM(Loco_plus_tender)))*(0.938^Consist_1)))^(1/Pulling_power)*Top_speed)
So we have 0.9572 for the engine vs. 0.938 for the consist. This means that not only does engine weight come into play on grades (it means nothing on the flat ground, :-P ), but also it has MORE effect on speed reduction than consist weight. Go figure. !hairpull!
It depends very much on loco/tender weight and on consist weight. You have to consider the exponents, not just the base coefficient. Once the exponents are applied, the minor difference in base coefficients can become far less important. For example, if the consist is 160 tons and the loco/tender is 320 tons, then that extra power of 160 on the loco/tender coefficient will render the resulting output far smaller than the one for the consist.
This can only mean that optimizing graded performance for light-duty trains such as express will mean in general that engine weight should be lighter if we want to prevent them being exploited for light freight duties.
I disagree. Since they will be hauling very light consists, it makes more sense to make express engines relatively heavier and mixed or freight engines relatively lighter. This will help the hauling ability and fuel consumption of the latter, if they need it (particularly heavy freight) while not penalising express locos too much (coz they're running really light anyway, so no worries about grades and fuel).

I have been thinking that reliability could be a discouragement to using express locos for other service, but the 3 year grace period before this kicks in is plenty long enough to allow exploitation in the initial high-growth stages.
It can still be used to some extent. People usually keep locos longer than a few years, so reliability should become a significant balancing factor.
User avatar
Gumboots
CEO
Posts: 4828
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:32 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed adjustment considerations Unread post

RulerofRails wrote:I am looking at the formula from the spreadsheet. It seems to me that the graded formula uses a lower base for consist weight than for loco+tender weight. For example this is from 5% grade for 1 car:

Code: Select all

=MAX(1,(MIN(1,(1.2239^(Free_weight/10))*(0.9572^(SUM(Loco_plus_tender)))*(0.938^Consist_1)))^(1/Pulling_power)*Top_speed)
So we have 0.9572 for the engine vs. 0.938 for the consist. This means that not only does engine weight come into play on grades (it means nothing on the flat ground, :-P ), but also it has MORE effect on speed reduction than consist weight. Go figure. !hairpull!
Thought of another way of explaining this, since on reflection my last attempt didn't make much sense.

Since we're talking about multiplication and a resulting reduction in speed, the smaller the multiplier the greater the reduction in speed. Multiplying speed by 0.1 has a much more severe effect than multiplying speed by 0.9. So even just considering the base coefficients, without any exponents, the consist factor (0.938) is going to have a more severe effect on speed reduction than the loco/tender factor (0.9572).

The exponents (directly related to weight) can change this. 0.9572 squared is 0.9162. Another way of putting this is that 0.9572^(n+1) < 0.938^n. IOW, as soon as the loco/tender weight exceeds consist weight by 1 ton, the reduction in speed due to loco/tender weight will be more than the reduction in speed due to consist weight. So a light loco hauling heavy freight loses most speed due to consist weight, and a very heavy loco hauling express loses most speed due to loco weight. This is actually pretty sensible.

This can only mean that optimizing graded performance for light-duty trains such as express will mean in general that engine weight should be lighter if we want to prevent them being exploited for light freight duties.
Yes, if you are purely concerned with maximising performance up grades then express locos should be as light as possible. I'm not purely concerned with that though. I don't want to maximise the performance of express locos up grades. I just want their performance to be useful when they are hauling an express consist.

The way to get this, AFAICT, is to trade off the lighter express consist against a heavier express locomotive and a worse fuel economy rating. This can be balanced to give useful performance combined with useful fuel costs. I've run some basic calculations which show this is possible. If the same locomotive is then made to haul a heavier consist, fuel bills will go up and performance will go down. This will make it less attractive for heavier consists, even if it still has a higher top speed under perfect conditions on flat terrain. I know I can run all Mallards and Class 01's on flat terrain on the Italy map. I know they will be faster on flat terrain than Kriegsloks. I also know that Kriegsloks will make more money with heavy consists, due to lower running costs.

That said, there may still be circumstances when you would want to run some light freight with some express locos some of the time, but that happened in real life too. I'm not after a perfect bulletproof solution for any and all cases. I don't think that's practicaI. I just want a better solution than we currently have, and I'm pretty sure that's possible.
Post Reply