Speed adjustment considerations

[Gumboots]

Yes it is a bit odd, but we can't do anything about it at this stage so there's not much point worrying about it. I can think of several other factors too. For example, the way steamers use oil for lubrication isn't the same way that diesels use it. I've mentioned this before somewhere back wherever, but decreasing diesel reliability as oil level drops makes sense in terms of realism, but it doesn't make sense for steamers.

[Gumboots]

I was thinking about the way I normally use a train and not a small part of that is the revenue it can initially haul. Or the ROI I was choosing to ignore in some of my previous post when doing the 1 fast train = 1.5 slow trains comparison. Short-term, but fundamental to building a company using rail profits. At the levels at which rail's ROI potential is at least on par with that of current industry (20%+), my feeling is that the differences in the classes may be too subtle to prevent a smash everything with Mixed option giving better short term and thus likely faster company growth.

Fair enough, but if you make mixed classes (apparently) too expensive to run and too unreliable you will have the opposite problem. Most people will ignore them and go for freighters and express from the start, or just go for the old standby of an industry start. People generally don't like annoying locomotives, AFAICT.

I was thinking of the overall development of a game with time, and how I would want to use locos for various roles, and from that perspective I wouldn't want mixed traffic locos being unreliable or particularly expensive. Anyway, in the early stages of a game when pax traffic isn't well developed, using mixed traffic locos makes the most sense. I wouldn't expect people to be split their roster into dedicated express and freight services until several years had elapsed. Come to think of it, if you combine this factor with the general dislike of unreliable locos, what you would probably end up with is people just running freight locos in the early years, and ignoring the (comparatively low) potential income from pax.

Since, as you pointed out, the fuel cost test map isn't an attainable distance for some engines, the gaps given by read-out figures (unless we use a percentage comparison figure) that the indicator gives are necessarily exaggerated real-situation costing splits. That is, when we consider the read-out figure against a suggested baseline (for example I suggested 120k).

I took a look at the calculator's formula for actual fuel cost when adding it to the speed/grades sheet, and noticed that I could simplify the way it was written. It's currently just saying:

Code: Select all

=(Fuel_rating*SUM(Loco_plus_tender; Consist_8)/27.5)

If I use 55 instead of 27.5 it gives an output close to what I usually see on the Italy map. So if we want to alter the formula to correspond to usage on any particular map, it's very quick and easy to do that. We could even have a preset list of divisors to suit any given map.

Suppose I load up the Orient express map and take the finance option and run a no-industry company. The assumption is for us to then ignore the average express speed requirement which is hardly representative? What about the restricted access aspect of all the countries which adds extra layers of cost to expansion into many areas of the map? TBH, some access restriction is often present on a map, but Orient Express tends to be on the high side IMO. I guess I could work it out as a percentage of cities that are accessible at game start while considering city size as well.

We could edit the events for any test map if that's useful. If we were going to use Orient Express for some of the testing, we'd have to edit events anyway if we wanted to test different eras. It'd probably make sense to pick a range of maps from different eras for initial testing. That way we'd have to do less editing, and would get a better idea of the overall effect of the proposed changes.

[RulerofRails]

Trying to stay on topic, and make progress with current ideas instead of floating more new ones around some more. I must remember that it's unlikely that many players regularly obtain higher ROI from rail than industry. Realizing this, that idea makes less sense, even to me.

Supposing that the fuel costs for mixed trains at the 50/50 weight and those for freighters at the Average Freight weight are equal. It seems that running a Mixed class with an average Freight consist will cost 60% more (virtually consistent over all time periods) of whatever the consist component of fuel cost is. Which depends on the decided parameters for engine weight. After a couple of minutes fiddling and giving it very little thought, let's say that Express engine weight is 20x the weight of a single Express car, Mixed engine weight is 10x the weight of a 50/50 weight car, and freight engine weight is 5x that of an Average Freight car.

So let's say that we are considering a full consist of 8 cars. So, the consist component of fuel cost for an Express engine would be 8/(20+8) or 0.29. Mixed would be 8/(10+8) or 0.44. Freight would be 8/(5+8) (0.62).

With this simple formula minimum train weight would be 19 tons for an early freighter and the maximum would be 250 tons for a Mixed class. With maximum for freight being 205 tons and Express at 180 tons.

So taking a Mixed consist train hauling average freight (60% more for the consist portion) at the same fuel cost level will give fuel cost increase of (0.6*0.44) or 26%.

The weight increase between Express and 50/50 is less regular and ranges from 1.4x to 1.9x with an average of 1.5x. This would mean that fuel costs for an Express with Mixed cars would average 44% higher than if it were hauling Express.

Out of interest the split in Freight weights between minimum and maximum averages 43% higher than the Average Freight calculation and 35% lower. This means the Freight class hauling all maximum freight would be (0.62*0.43) or 27% higher than Average Freight. A Freighter hauling all minimum would get 22% lower fuel costs than an Average freight. Giving a potential difference in the Freight class of 49% in the extreme cases.

Don't know if that's going to be really helpful but worth a shot to try to see comparisons.

[Gumboots]

Supposing that the fuel costs for mixed trains at the 50/50 weight and those for freighters at the Average Freight weight are equal. It seems that running a Mixed class with an average Freight consist will cost 60% more (virtually consistent over all time periods) of whatever the consist component of fuel cost is. Which depends on the decided parameters for engine weight. After a couple of minutes fiddling and giving it very little thought, let's say that Express engine weight is 20x the weight of a single Express car, Mixed engine weight is 10x the weight of a 50/50 weight car, and freight engine weight is 5x that of an Average Freight car.

Ok, a bit rough, but just for argument's sake I'll go along with it as a starting point.

So let's say that we are considering a full consist of 8 cars. So, the consist component of fuel cost for an Express engine would be 8/(20+8) or 0.29. Mixed would be 8/(10+8) or 0.44. Freight would be 8/(5+8) (0.62).

With this simple formula minimum train weight would be 19 tons for an early freighter and the maximum would be 250 tons for a Mixed class. With maximum for freight being 205 tons and Express at 180 tons.

I assume by "minimum train weight" you mean "minimum locomotive weight". I think these figures are off. I was finding that in general express locos ended up being the heaviest, and freight locos ended up being the lightest, with mixed somewhere in the middle. It basically has to be like that to get reasonable relative fuel costs with the different consist weights.

So taking a Mixed consist train hauling average freight (60% more for the consist portion) at the same fuel cost level will give fuel cost increase of (0.6*0.44) or 26%.

The weight increase between Express and 50/50 is less regular and ranges from 1.4x to 1.9x with an average of 1.5x. This would mean that fuel costs for an Express with Mixed cars would average 44% higher than if it were hauling Express.

Without quibbling about exact percentages we can say that this is roughly right for the general trend. It'd also make sense to consider the relative speeds at which these consists can be hauled by the different classes of loco.

Out of interest the split in Freight weights between minimum and maximum averages 43% higher than the Average Freight calculation and 35% lower. This means the Freight class hauling all maximum freight would be (0.62*0.43) or 27% higher than Average Freight. A Freighter hauling all minimum would get 22% lower fuel costs than an Average freight. Giving a potential difference in the Freight class of 49% in the extreme cases.

Don't know if that's going to be really helpful but worth a shot to try to see comparisons.

Yes it is useful to think about this stuff. Obviously a freighter hauling minimum freight would not only have a lower fuel bill than with heavy freight, but it would also be able to haul faster. This will have to be taken into account when trying to balance the various classes. I do expect there to be some grey areas, where the use of different locomotives may be debatable depending on exactly what you want to emphasise at the time. We'll have to determine the possible grey areas and try to make the best overall choice for stats.

And I do expect testing to be a bit of a feedback loop, where what's possible in terms of practical loco performance may still result in changes to proposed consists weights over time.

[RulerofRails]

Yes, I did mean minimum engine weight. To get express engine weights always heavier than mixed (at 10x) engine weights would require a 30x express weight setting. This gives the consist component a 8/(30+8) (21%) fuel cost factor. I don't know how low this should be taken. The decision on this will dictate the advised engine weight for freighters. I would tend to think that 20% representing the consist is very low already. In the current game the Big Boy seems to have little fuel cost increase when cars are added and that figure is 320/(620+320) or 34% in D-era. In C-era we have 160/(620+160) for 21%. Without careful consideration I would hesitate to go below this value. What is your opinion?

Once we have the minimum, getting rough weights for the other classes from there is quite easy. What sort of factor would be worth trying for? Should there be an average 25% weight difference between the classes? That would be roughly 9.5x for Mixed and 4.7x for Freight. The respective consist components are 8/(8+9.5) for 46% in Mixed, and 8/(8+4.7) for 63% in Freight.

[Gumboots]

Ah, I see what you're saying. Well that brings the problem of what to do about fuel ratings. If we cut express weights down to where adding cars causes a very large increase in fuel cost, then we'll also have to increase the fuel rating to a very high level to get a figure that makes sense relative to other classes.

Just as a quick example to hand: the default Stirling with 8x pre-1900 3 ton express cars, and a loco+tender weight of 97 tons, gives a fuel bill of $26k at a rating of 6. Remove the consist and it drops to $21k, or approximately 20% reduction. Looked at the other way, it's a 25% increase when adding a full consist. That's probably getting towards the lower end of where we'd really like to be, in terms of fuel used loaded vs unloaded. So on that basis a ratio of 32:1 for loco:car weights seems to be about the limit.

If it's hauling default pre-1900 express at 7 tons each the Stirling's bill would be $33k. So if we want to maintain much the same figure with 3 ton cars the fuel rating would need to increase from 6 to 8. That's probably ok, but it's a tradeoff in that it would increase the unloaded fuel bill from $21k to $29k. So perhaps go for eliminating the tender weight and just keeping the loco at 85 tons. That would put unloaded fuel cost back to $25k, and loaded with 3 ton cars it'd be $31k. So unloaded it'd cost a bit more to run, but only a few k, fully loaded it'd be a couple of k cheaper, and with a half or so load it'd be about the same. Given that in practice I'd expect fuel bills to generally be lower than your test track, $1k or so either way is not likely to matter much.

By comparison, a default Connie (70 tons) hauling 7x default pre-1900 freight at 10 tons each plus a default caboose at 13 tons, and at the same default rating of 6, also has a fuel bill of $33k. It's hauling 27 tons more than the default express consist but the loco is 27 tons lighter than the Stirling, so it balances out for fuel cost. If it hauls the proposed heaviest freight at 7 x 20 tons each, plus a proposed caboose at 8 tons (basically, the same as mixed) the fuel bill would be S48K.

So for heavy freight we may want to drop the fuel rating to 5, or alternatively drop the loco weight/tender weight to around 45 tons. The former would give a bill of $40k with heavy freight and $31k with average freight. The latter would give a bill of $42k with heavy freight and $31k with average freight. So much of a muchness for cost, but with the lower weight giving more oomph up grades and greater flexibility in the fuel scale.

A default Connie hauling the proposed mixed at 7.8 tons/car would cost $29k at a rating of 6 and a weight of 70 tons. Give it a rating of 7 and the bill would be $34k, which is about where it should be.

So that comes down to express having a loco:car weight ratio of about 28:1 and a fuel rating of 8, mixed having a loco:car weight ratio of about 9:1 and a fuel rating of 7, and freight having a loco:car weight ratio of between 2.3:1 and 3.5:1 (depending on average or heavy freight) and a fuel rating of 6.

So yeah, on a rough basis having express locos about twice the weight of freight locos seems to work, with mixed about in the middle. This is the same ballpark shown on the graph I made in the fuel cost calculator sheet, for modifying real life loco weights to fit the various classes we're thinking of.

[RulerofRails]

I hope I am not confusing you. The bit about "assuming fuel costs for average freight and 50/50 are equal" isn't right. We don't need to assume that. I should have said that this is the relationship between the weights of the different proposed classes. For example the 60% figure is the relationship between the Average Freight and 50/50 Average consists. So over the whole of the time periods Average Freight is on average 60% heavier than 50/50 Average. Because this info is about the effects of using the wrong train for a consist and not about comparing the fuel classes, I think we can ignore the fuel rating and therefore that info about equal fuel costs was a misfire. Sorry.

This is about the fuel cost disadvantades of using a train for a use that isn't intended. This isn't to be confused with actually balancing the fuel costs of one class against another which of course is very dependent on fuel ratings. And there is no way we want to use equal fuel costs either. The game would be so boring if we did that.

Probably you undestood, but I just wanted to try to clarify so we are both on the same page. I got worried when you started talking about the Stirling and Connie having about equal fuel costs.

You are right that the lower values will neccesitate higher fuel cost ratings. Before nailing down those, I think we really need to examine what the current progression of fuel costs are if the idea is to imitate the cost increase with the passing of years into more modern times. We also need to decide on an initial figure for the split between the cost of hauling a load of express and that of hauling a load of mixed, and then the split to freight. Then go and test and assess the results of the split we chose, and possibly try some others, if we need be, before we are satisified that we have made a good choice.

I can try to get together data on the current progression of fuel cost, but it will be a day or two before I expect to have enough time to get it done.

ETA: I noticed you were likely posting while I was editing my post after submitting since I saw new stuff in your post. So reverted my post for continuity of discussion. I don't know if you saw the full version or not.

Didn't need to say some of the above (did remove it in the edit), but here's new bit:

I was working off the spreadsheet and averaging out over all time periods. Good to see that you are coming up with similar figures. Looking Good!

[Gumboots]

I was just quoting the default fuel costs of both locos, on the basis that they had probably been tested pretty well for overall balance, and that perhaps taking cues from default stats would be a good starting point.

I realise that fuel usage with unintended consists is another issue, but it's related in that we have to know what point they will be at with their intended consists before we can figure out where they'll be with other consists. That means setting weights and fuel ratings for the intended consists first.

[Gumboots]

I think we really need to examine what the current progression of fuel costs are if the idea is to imitate the cost increase with the passing of years into more modern times.

Keeping things economically worthwhile in later years is going to be important, but with the heaviest consists only being 20% heavier than they are now, and with that being workable for costs even with default stats on most locos, I think it'll be ok.

We also need to decide on an initial figure for the split between the fuel cost for hauling a load of express vs. that of hauling a load of mixed, and then the split of mixed vs. freight. Then go and test and assess the results of the split we chose, and possibly try some others, if need be, before we are satisfied that we have made a good choice.

I notice that in general the default express locos seem to have similar weights and fuel ratings to freight locos of the same era, give or take a bit, which means they generally seem to end up with lower fuel bills due to the lighter consist (assuming you are actually using them for all default express).

I suppose it comes down to how much you'll get paid for hauling each cargo, which is a bit unpredictable. This may be why they just used much the same ratings for default locos of a given period, with one or two exceptions. I agree that we want some variation in stats though. Some of it will come down to what we have available in terms of the roster. I'm hoping to expand that. Realistically I think this whole mod pack will have to be developed over the next year and will take most of it. Quite apart from any possible additional modelling, it will take quite a bit of testing time to make sure we aren't introducing unforeseen and undesirable effects. That's the sort of thing that can wear through time and enthusiasm at a great rate, and there's no point burning ourselves out over it.

I can try to get together data on the current progression of fuel cost, but it will be a couple of days before I expect to have it done.

Cool. I'll take a look at getting some .car files together for cargo cars.

[Gumboots]

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?

Hey I just twigged to something. I was looking through the language file to check a few things (mainly standard messages that relate to car weights, etc) and I found all the default locomotive names listed towards the end of the file:

Code: Select all

;the entries from 3200 through 3394 contain all the locomotives, assorted cars, buildings, and cargo types in the game.
	3200 "2-D-2"
	3201 "Adler 2-2-2"
	3202 "Alcohol"
	3203 "Aluminum"
	3204 "Aluminum Mill"
	3205 "American 4-4-0"
	3206 "Ammunition"
	3207 "Atlantic 4-4-2"
	3208 "Auto Carrier"
	3209 "Auto Plant"
	3210 "Automobiles"
	3211 "Bakery"
	3212 "Baldwin 0-6-0"

Etc.

Anyway, since the whole idea of the language file is to be able to translate text without borking the game, it's likely that changing locomotive names here would be the way to do it, at least for default locos. So if Lirio's stuff was set back to the default names, and then the language file edited to display something else, we should be able to use Lirio's stats, and have names that we want to see, without any events or availability stuff being screwed around with.

The catch is that this wouldn't work for third party locos, because the only text string they have is set in the .lco file, so once that is saved into a .gmp it would still cause problems if the .lco had been edited to a different name. I think we can live with that though. It's mainly some of the default names that would be good to change.

[Gumboots]

Got a revamped version of the speed vs grades spreadsheet. This one allows comparing multiple locos, or the same loco with a pile of different test stats, on the fly all at once. It's set up with 24 blocks for locomotives on each of two pages, and can have 8 locomotives visible for comparison on a 1920x1200 screen at 90% zoom. More locomotive blocks can be added just by copy/pasting extra blocks, if anyone wants them.

There's a third page which has a collection of default and custom locomotive stats. A fourth page gives car weights for any year, for the original PopTop cars and for the revamped scale I'm working on.

This sheets gives the usual speed vs grade, as well as an estimate of annual running cost. The running cost is calculated by adding maintenance cost to the fuel bill, and you can enter different mileages to get an idea of how that will affect the bottom line. RoR reckons mileage can be as low as 300 or so for very early locos, and over 1,000 for fast ones, with around 600-700 being fairly normal for the late 19th/early 20th century. Me? I haven't tested mileages much. I'll take his word for it.

The zip contains .ods and .xls versions of this beastie. Take your pick.

Edit: Just playing around with this, comparing various locos, and found out something: the stats WP&P released it with make the N&W Class Y6 2-8-8-2 a complete dud.

His N&W Class A 2-6-6-4 is 20% cheaper to run, is more reliable, has better passenger appeal, becomes available in the same year, is faster on grades of 5% or less, and is only 10% slower up a 7% grade.

Even Lirio's loco stats update doesn't help. That evens up the running costs of the Class A and the Y6, and evens up the reliability, but gives the Class A even more of a speed advantage on all grades, even an 8% grade, and boosts the purchase price of the Y6 to 25% more than the Class A.

So there's still no reason to ever use the Y6. Which is a bummer. The stats of several locos could do with some revision.

[Just Crazy Jim]

More is betterer. I just did several comparisons and yeah, a few of the locos could use some calibration, including some of the earliest PopTop locos. Seriously, if the Planet is the ground floor on loco development, nothing after it should be worse, right?

[Gumboots]

Hah. Don't bet on that. This is RT3. They can make anything worse.

AFAICT getting a useful mileage estimate for running cost comparisons will have to be done by looking at game saves. There are too many variables involved: top speed, acceleration, pulling power, free weight, grades or flat, high priority or normal or low, steady cargo or variable cargo or intermittent, long runs with few stops, short runs with frequent stops, and probably half a dozen other things.

FWIW, I've already looked through some saves on the Italy map. That generally has fairly short runs, but some longer ones. The way I've usually played it will end up with moderate traffic density on average. Kriegsloks are my go-to loco for that map, and it looks like they're generally turning in the equivalent of around 400 miles per year. This is with D era consists of around 300 tons, give or take a bit depending on day of the week. So for now I'd say 400 miles is a good starting point for a locomotive that has a top speed loaded up of around 40 mph, and an acceleration rating of 4, on fairly average runs in fairly average traffic conditions.

My best guess for a Connie on an open map with generally longer runs, and hauling the 10 ton B era freight it's designed for, is that since it will commonly wind up to 60 mph instead of 40 it will probably cover around 500 miles per year. Station and maintenance and water stops are a constant regardless of loco speed, and chew up a lot of time, so it won't be as simple as "60 mph is 1.5 x 40 mph so 1.5 times the mileage". Taking the square root of "loaded top speed, divided by 40" and multiplying that by 400 miles may be a good starting point for mileage guesstimates.

And more miles therefore higher fuel costs may not be a bad thing. All else being equal it should mean more revenue, so a good comparison between locos would have to account for that too. If one loco costs 10% more to run per year but covers 10% more miles, it's probably as cheap in terms of revenue generated, but if sufficient cargo is available the greater revenue will help your bottom line.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Sounds reasonable. Although it must be considered that there is strong variance in cargo density between maps.

On the hateful end of the pool, we have Texas Tea (start date 1888) for instance has a lot of wide open empty full of gullies and crannies galore to keep the grade uneven. And Mexico (start date 1870) is rugged as a shark's mouth with thin industry. I won't even comment on how broken Pacific NW is - looking at it in the editor, it looks like it was made while drunk and in a rush. Making money with trains on these maps is doable, but not easy.

On the more forgiving end of the pool, we have Italy (start date 1946) which is a strongly varied terrain, but mostly a grade of some sort and lots of windy, kinky, zig-zags of tracks when I play it, but fairly dense cargo generation. Ireland (start date 1865) is relatively flat and has fairly good cargo saturation. Even Go West! (start date 1840) is fairly forgiving for all its miserable terrain. On these maps, it's easy to make fat wadges of cash just railroading.

Then there's Russia (start date 1863 +/-), with long distances between stations and about nothing to haul. Poland (start date 1993) is every bit as bad. Argentina Opens Up (start date 1880) is to me the very opposite of fun to play. Eastern Canada (start date 1893), that starts 7 years before the cargo weight change and miserable distances to haul cargoes. Sure, you get the 2-D-2 in 1904, but can't afford to electrify your bajillion miles of track because of the giant, open, empty spaces you have to traverse to fetch cargoes. Then it's 1910 before you get the Atlantic (by no means a good loco) and 1914 (3 years before the end of the scenario) before you get the Pacific (a reasonably good loco, but arrives too late to really be meaningful). IMHO, these maps represent thumbnail sketches as to why railroads go bankrupt.

So, it seems to me, that to get a real comparison we have to first settle on a single map that gives a fair balance of grades and flat terrain, and has adequate cargo saturation to make it possible to turn a profit in the first place. Then we run a mind-numbing number of runs with each loco in its proper cargo weight era...

Or, we say netrz to that madness and just ballpark it. We couldn't do worse than PopTop

[Gumboots]

Or, we say netrz to that madness and just ballpark it. We couldn't do worse than PopTop

I like this option.

I've already thrown my "400 times square root of (top speed divided by 40)" guesstimate into an extra page on the spreadsheet, just to see how it stacks up. Will do for now. Can tweak it later if I want to.

[Gumboots]

By the way...

Then it's 1910 before you get the Atlantic (by no means a good loco) and 1914 (3 years before the end of the scenario) before you get the Pacific (a reasonably good loco, but arrives too late to really be meaningful).

IMO the Atlantic is pretty good for short runs with frequent stops, on flat terrain. In that situation its good acceleration helps it along. The Pacific has a higher top speed for the same load, but is 2 levels lower on acceleration, so does better on long runs. However, against that the Pacific is a lot more expensive to run, so probably won't actually make you any more profit. The Pacific is also one level down on reliability, so all things considered the Atlantic is probably just as good.

[Just Crazy Jim]

By the way...

Then it's 1910 before you get the Atlantic (by no means a good loco) and 1914 (3 years before the end of the scenario) before you get the Pacific (a reasonably good loco, but arrives too late to really be meaningful).

IMO the Atlantic is pretty good for short runs with frequent stops, on flat terrain. In that situation its good acceleration helps it along. The Pacific has a higher top speed for the same load, but is 2 levels lower on acceleration, so does better on long runs. However, against that the Pacific is a lot more expensive to run, so probably won't actually make you any more profit. The Pacific is also one level down on reliability, so all things considered the Atlantic is probably just as good.

Fair enough. My experience with the Atlantic is largely limited to maps without much really flat ground on them (e.g., Eastern Canada (a surprising lot of hills and valleys), Pacific NW (may as well be crossing the Alps twice), The Cheshire (a right roller coaster of a map), San Diego (the San Diego & Arizona short line version)), on those maps, because of the grades, the Pacific generally out performs the Atlantic in overall money making.

[Gumboots]

Must admit I usually try to avoid both those locos, if I have any other options, so my experience with them is limited. The old H10 Mikado is one of my favourites for that period. Reliable, reasonable performance on the flat, good up grades, and cheap to run.

[Just Crazy Jim]

When a map allows, until I can get Mikados, my general practice is to run Connies for general purposes, running Camelbacks in front of the freight stuff simply on account of the fuel economy. Maybe even setting up a second set of tracks just for freight if the map is dense enough for that.

I should probably try making a proper Camelback, because there were a number of lines that ran them exclusively for passenger service and they did not suffer for it. The fireman's nightmare in-game is more a yard engine/switcher than a line-runner.

[Gumboots]

Yes I've had that same thought. IRL camelbacks were prized for express service due to their lack of smoke. They weren't slow either. Something like CNJ No. 592 would be a good addition to the game, at least for fun even if it's not strictly needed to expand the roster.