Balance and realism issues with RT3 v1.06 locomotives

[Lirio]

So! There remain a fair number of remaining niggles and quibbles that i have with the v1.06 locomotives. Since i've been working on trying to fix these, i figured i might as well ask for some input from what is left of the Railroad Tycoon 3 community. These fixes will be limited to what can be done with hex editting .car and .lco files as well as real life time constraints, so please don't ask me to add new engines or fix engine textures. Beyond that though, i'm all ears to any suggestions!

Here's a list of various things i've noticed, as well as possible solutions:

-The Consolidation is available too early. The first Consolidation was built in 1866, while the type didn't really take off until 1875. Meanwhile, the Mogul is available too late, the type was in broad use from the mid-1860s to the early 20th century. Would make more sense for the Mogul to be given the Consolidation's original 1865-1912 timeslot, while the Consolidation gets pushed back to 1875-1920. The Mogul's maintenance costs should be lowered so it retains a niche in second line service after the Consolidation comes along.

-The Ten Wheeler is also available way too late, as the type is generally a contemporary of the American type, though granted the model in question could be taken to represent a late Ten Wheeler much the same way the Eight Wheeler represents a late model American. However i think it would feel more natural to make it available earlier, like in the 1880s.

-The Eight Wheeler's stats are ridiculous. There is to the best of my knowledge no solid evidence that the No. 999 ever made it past 100 mph, or even 90 mph. In fact best as i can tell, it never went any faster than 82 mph on those gigantic 86 inch drivers, and the normal express 4-4-0 engines of the time had 78 inch drivers, which leads me to believe that 75 mph is a more reasonable top speed if we take the Eight Wheeler to be a representative example of 1890s American types. Additionally its current pulling power's pathetic and really should be increased to match that of the American at least. Also it should probably be available 1890 or 1891, since that's when the Class I engines the 999 was based off were introduced.

-The Atlantic is too slow and comes too late. It's apparently based on the PRR E6 class, which was in fact built from 1910-1914, but the type was broadly available since around 1900. Moreover, a top speed of at least 85 mph would be more in line with the locomotive's actual performance capabilities. 75 mph is what they could average start to stop on a good run. i think i'll make it available 1905, gives the Eight Wheeler a solid 15 years on top of the express heap in NA.

-The Camelback's kind of useless, could probably do with a pulling power boost to make it a viable replacement for what would by the 1890s be an ageing Mogul type.

-The H10 is misnamed. The H10 is what the New York central called their 1922 variant of the USRA Light Mikado. The 1918 models were the H6s. Though given its pulling power and speed, it's probably meant to be a Heavy Mikado, but those were H9s... Really, just calling it "Mikado 2-6-2" is probably best. This is one change i'm not entirely sure of how to do. Help?

-On that note, both the H10 and Northern have pulling capabilities that i find somewhat out of line with the other engines, and indeed their actual capabilities in reality. They were impressive, sure, but not quite that impressive.

-Also while discussing Mikados, the Class S is just... kind of sad. Surely the real version wasn't that limp and pathetic was it? It does have good speed, i grant, but the rest of it is... yeah. Inclined to give a bit of a boost in pulling power, that should make it a pretty solid engine.

-The Mallard's speed is too high. Not interested in debating whether it did or didn't reach 126 mph, glitches in the dynamometre, Perfidious Albion, etc. The point is it could not sustain such speeds, as evidenced by the fact that Mallard had to be stopped due to an overheated bearing shortly after its historic run. A top speed of 120 mph, perhaps even 110 mph, would better represent the locomotive's actual capabilities in service. Also, the engine really should be renamed Class A4, since Mallard was only a particular example of that design.

That's it thus far, don't have much gameplay experience past the 1920s. Anything else anyone would like to add in terms of game balance or realism?

[Gumboots]

Have to admit I haven't played 1.06, but I think a lot of the comments makes sense for 1.05 as well. To take just one example, camelbacks may have been butt ugly, but they were actually prized as express locomotives due to their almost smokeless operation and good power. The in-game camelback has zero passenger appeal and is utterly gutless if the terrain is not dead flat. That's not at all realistic, and doesn't add anything of value to the game. Honestly, what is the point of including locomotives that are complete rubbish for their era? Nobody ever uses them, so they're just a waste of space.

[Altoona+BeachCreek]

Overall, my use of the camelback has been limited to shuttling cars between St. Paul and Minneapolis stations on one scenario. Ever. It certainly needs something done.

[thietavu]

Can't disagree with anything you say - meaningful changes! Here are some short comments of some other engines:

P8, as good as it was in real life, seems a bit overpowered (and completely unbreakable) considering it was only a smallish 2-6-0.

Prairie seems underpowered.

Pacific's reliability is miserable. At least in Finnish State Railways, Hr1 class Pacifics were very durable and reliable until the end of steam era in around 1971...

Ivatt is useless as it is here. Was it THAT powerless and unreliable in real life..?

GP7s are also very underpowered since 1950 when the loads double. Might use a bit of extra hp?

QJ was quite a powerful freight engine - here it barely beats H10...

Consolidation 2-8-0 is far too unreliable in the game now. In Finland it was the most durable steam type ever - almost unbreakable and economical, too. Many still run on museum railways here, and they need little maintenance.

Btw, you probable meant H10 to be a 2-8-2 Mikado.

I would like to re-name many classes so that they reflect the actual types: P8 -> P8 2-6-0, and so on... Now there's too much guessing and remembering what is what. ;)

Thanks for taking this task! There's still plenty of life in RRT3 and its community!

[Gumboots]

Consolidation 2-8-0 is far too unreliable in the game now. In Finland it was the most durable steam type ever - almost unbreakable and economical, too. Many still run on museum railways here, and they need little maintenance.

It was the same over here. Stacks of them were used right through to the end, and they were just about indestructible. Some had been in constant service for more than 60 years by the time they were retired.

[Lirio]

Prairie seems underpowered.

Prairie's not available in v1.6, it is in the Loco Pack, but they removed it from v1.6 because it uses the Atlantic's skin and isn't really useful for anything. Fact is, in reality it wasn't very useful either.

Ivatt is useless as it is here. Was it THAT powerless and unreliable in real life..?

Ivatt? Can't seem to find that engine, what year is it?

Pacific's reliability is miserable. At least in Finnish State Railways, Hr1 class Pacifics were very durable and reliable until the end of steam era in around 1971...

Consolidation 2-8-0 is far too unreliable in the game now. In Finland it was the most durable steam type ever - almost unbreakable and economical, too. Many still run on museum railways here, and they need little maintenance.

The Pacific has above average raliability already, but i could perhaps bump it up. The Consolidation definitely needs to have better realiability, but i don't want to make it too good. It's cheap by 20th century standards but expensive by 19th century standards, which should be pretty balanced.

GP7s are also very underpowered since 1950 when the loads double. Might use a bit of extra hp?

QJ was quite a powerful freight engine - here it barely beats H10...

Will keep that in mind when i get to that time period.

Btw, you probable meant H10 to be a 2-8-2 Mikado.

I would like to re-name many classes so that they reflect the actual types: P8 -> P8 2-6-0, and so on... Now there's too much guessing and remembering what is what. ;)

Oh, yeah, 2-6-2's the Prairie. Andyes, i wanted to rename them all to reflect their wheel arrangements.

Thanks for taking this task! There's still plenty of life in RRT3 and its community!

You're welcome! ^_^

[Lirio]

P8, as good as it was in real life, seems a bit overpowered (and completely unbreakable) considering it was only a smallish 2-6-0.

Looking into it, apparently it really was just that good. Would have been even better, to the tune of an extra 6 mph in speed, if they'd not screwed up the balancing in the design. It's pulling power is right on the money for its actual capability. Wouldn't know about the free weight value, it seems to be a fudge factor that's at best very loosely based around the weight on the drivers, and at worst derived using voodoo magic. It looks fine, is all i can say. i could see an argument for decreasing its reliability to Good down from Very Good, but some of the things were in service for over 50 years, so completely unbreakable sounds about right. It even had a fairly simple design so a lowish maintenance and construction cost makes sense for it, though granted it was simple by German standards, and the Germans have this tendency to over-engineer everything and use twice as many parts as necessary. What definitely does need to be changed though is its availability date, the locomotive was constructed from 1906 onwards, and i think its performance is significantly good enough that the six year difference matters.

[thietavu]

P8, as good as it was in real life, seems a bit overpowered (and completely unbreakable) considering it was only a smallish 2-6-0.

Looking into it, apparently it really was just that good. Would have been even better, to the tune of an extra 6 mph in speed, if they'd not screwed up the balancing in the design. It's pulling power is right on the money for its actual capability. Wouldn't know about the free weight value, it seems to be a fudge factor that's at best very loosely based around the weight on the drivers, and at worst derived using voodoo magic. It looks fine, is all i can say. i could see an argument for decreasing its reliability to Good down from Very Good, but some of the things were in service for over 50 years, so completely unbreakable sounds about right. It even had a fairly simple design so a lowish maintenance and construction cost makes sense for it, though granted it was simple by German standards, and the Germans have this tendency to over-engineer everything and use twice as many parts as necessary. What definitely does need to be changed though is its availability date, the locomotive was constructed from 1906 onwards, and i think its performance is significantly good enough that the six year difference matters.

I guess you're right... And, besides, it *is* nice to finally have ONE good engine after all those "breaks in 10 years" Consolidations etc. in long scenarios like my Great China 4. ;)

A scenario like that (over 140 years long) really shows a new perspective to all the engines in the game. There you really *can* use good engines 50+ years if need be, and then those engines like Pacific and Consolidation (which were, I think, modeled only for short-time RRT3 scenarios where reliability doesn't matter too much) become disasters... I have used P8 (and some others) often about 40 years in Great China 4, until they finally become too weak around 1950. If I tried the same with the Consolidation, I would have to replace the whole roster 4 (!) times in 40 years due to their unreliability... Not very realistic! And very annoying, too, when you try to build a long-time railroad empire in China and neighboring countries. ;)

By the way, I have read that UP "Big Boy" was famous for its reliability. The same may apply to other giant-Mallets. Anyway, I've noticed that the actual practical usage time for Big Boy is at most about 10 years in RRT3. After a decade or so, especially its running costs become so monstrous that it simply can't be used. Again, acceptable for short scenarios - but unacceptable in very long ones. Maybe we should have a (realistic) goal of making most of the engines both reliable enough and economical enough for at least 20 years of operation. In many cases, like Pacifics and Consolidations, 40 years would be reality.

[Lirio]

So if i'm to understand you, reliability doesn't just determine the amount of breakdowns per unit time, but also how common those breakdowns get as the unit gets older? Such that an engine with "Average" or "Above Average" reliability generally takes about ten years (bit less for one, bit more for the other) to break down so much and so often as to become unusable. Is that correct?

i do recall, based on other things i've read on these forums, that engines do seem to get more unreliable the harder you run them. So the more cargo you make them haul, and the steeper grades you make them run, the faster their breakdown chance increases. i know that generally i can get 15-20 years out of even generally crappy engines like the default American. For a time i had the American available in my game from 1850 and used them until the 1870s, which some would run up to 25 years, and they generally served me pretty well. However, i tended to run only three express and a caboose, which didn't overload the engine, and the caboose prevented about half the breakdowns. So it's possible you run your engines too hard, which is why they don't last as long.

At any rate, in the current version of my mod the Consolidation has Above Average reliability, and the Consolidation II has Good reliability. The Consolidation II is from Ned Fumpkin's Cowboy Engines, which i hope to include into the rebalancing mod, as they make the locomotive progression in North America make a lot more sense. He has yet to get back to me on whether i can use it or not, though. i think it would be fine to throw them in so long as i gave proper credit and attribution, but i figured since he's still around in the forums, the polite thing to do is ask.

[Gumboots]

i do recall, based on other things i've read on these forums, that engines do seem to get more unreliable the harder you run them. So the more cargo you make them haul, and the steeper grades you make them run, the faster their breakdown chance increases.

In my experience, this seems to be true.

i know that generally i can get 15-20 years out of even generally crappy engines like the default American. For a time i had the American available in my game from 1850 and used them until the 1870s, which some would run up to 25 years, and they generally served me pretty well. However, i tended to run only three express and a caboose, which didn't overload the engine, and the caboose prevented about half the breakdowns. So it's possible you run your engines too hard, which is why they don't last as long.

I run them hard and replace them early. Makes more sense to me. Lower costs, all things considered. My basic consist is five cars mixed if all uphill, six cars on the more or less flatttish, and seven on downhill runs, with caboose all the time. This seems to work pretty well. Gives good profits per train with minimal congestion, and reasonable lifespan.

[thietavu]

Good points, and I agree with all of them. My own RRT3 gaming happens mainly in "China", where - as said - conditions are very different from ordinary RRT3 scenarios. It is quite possible to run express trains there with, perhaps, 4+1 cars, but the amount of freight is almost always, at least since year 1890 or so, so enormous that it takes full 8-car trains to handle it. To make matters worse, there are quite a lot of "interesting" mountain ranges (well, including most of Tibet...) there where the real world railroad engineers had one heck of a challenge... And still do. For example, getting west from Beijing (towards Mongolia and big cities of Hohhot, Lanzhou and Baotou etc.) means an enormous climb over nasty mountains. I've seen a train battling those grades near the Great Wall, and one can only imagine how torturing they were in steam era! It's the same in my simulation. Heavy trains over really tough grades.

Still, perhaps there is one thing to consider. The real "mountain engines" were, I believe, designed for such cruel conditions and misuse, and could therefore pull heavy freight trains over Maria's Pass, Donner's Pass, etc. without too much trouble. Many of those engines (mostly of Mallet type) were in use far longer than a decade, and I've never seen it written anywhere that they usually "rot" due to long consists and tough grades. Could be wrong, of course. But in that sense, I wouldn't think that a Big Boy or a Challenger, for example, had any problems lasting at least something like 20 years in good condition, no matter where they were used and how. In RRT3 those giants generally wear out in 7..10 years on routes they were designed for...

Not a huge thing, especially for those who never play these long giant maps with lots of mountains. But as for realism, well... Every improvement is nice. :)

By the way, my own records using the new China map (not publicly available yet) were something like 100 year old steam engines doing some forgotten rural branchlines with 2 cars + a caboose. :) Reminded me of museum railroads. ;)

[Lirio]

Alright, considering all that's been said, and the oft mentioned issue that the there really isn't much use for the big mallets in the game because of the 8 car limit to trains, i'm inclined to increase the the reliability of the truly gargantuan freight haulers, so that they have a niche as reliable engines you can depend on. Odd you say the Challenger wears out quickly though, it does in fact have Good reliability, like the S3, the Northern, and the H10. The Big Boy does have only average reliability, which doesn't make sense given that it was basically an overgrown Challenger and just as reliable. i'll definitely be bumping its reliability up to Good at the least. Possibly make them both Very Good, depending. thietavu, are you sure that the Challengers wear out after only a decade or so?

[arop]

Once somewhere on this site I found an alternative 4-4-0 American (max 49 Mph), avaiable 1855-1895, a 2-6-0 Mogul, avaiable 1869-1905 and a 2-8-0 Consolidation, avaiable 1881-1920. I have used these 3 variants with succes since then.

Comments A)
About the 4-4-0 American speeds are more realistic than the original for this typical mixed trafic engine. This engine could be superceeded by the faster and more powerful 4-6-0 (max 65 Mph) in 1875 (in Europe the gap is filled out by the 4-2-2 Stirling as the first real express engine. In 1892 a slowed down (max. 80 Mph) version of the Eight Wheeler (being removed) whith less tractive efford than a Ten Wheeler.

Comments B)
The 2-6-0 Mogul is avaiable in a more realistic period, but this typical freight engine is faster than a 4-4-0 American. I think the maximum speed should be 40 Mph. and a little more powerful. Later superceeded by the 2-8-0 Consolitations on trunk lines, many Moguls did a useful job on secondary railroads as a mixed train engine (maybe the period of availbility should be prolonged to about 1915, when surplus faster and more powerful Tenwheelers from the trunk lines would take over).

Comments C) will be submitted later together with the Consolidation files, while it's impossible to submit more than 5 attachments a time.

[Lirio]

Once on this site I found an alternative 4-4-0 American, avaiable 1855-1895, a 2-6-0 Mogul, avaiable 1869-1905 and a 2-8-0 Consolidation, avaiable 1881-1920.

Thanks, but i've already got those engines more or less to my liking. More interested in hearing what sorts of issues you, and other people, have encountered with the existing engines roster. To tell the truth, i'm entirely unfamiliar with the electric engines as i never run electric, and i'm not very familiar with the diesels because i prefer to play scenarios during the age of steam.

[arop]

(Continued)

Comments C)
The original 2-8-0 Consolidation had a unrealistic maximum speed of 60 Mph, too fast for a typical freight engine. This version. avaiable 1881-1920 has the more realistic maximum speed of 45 Mph and should be a lillte more powerful. (in 1907 it will be superceeded by the more modern powerful 4-8-0 with a maximum speed of 60 mph well suited for fast freight and mixed traffic and the 0-8-0 USRA for the minor jobs).

Comments D)
There is a lack of European freight engines before 1910. It could be filled out nicely by removing the "cow catcher" and the front carrying wheels from the Mogul and the Consolidation, making them into 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 freight engines with six wheel tenders from the very British looking 4-4-0 Duke class or 4-2-2 Stirling. Slow but powerful, such engines were very common in Central Europe in the period 1870-1920, even with spark arrester chimneys (in 1910 superceeded by the Preussian 0-10-0 class G10). The 2-6-0 and 2-8-0's arrived relatively late in Europe (the first about 1890) and looked a little more modern than their North American sisters, and some of them had an active life until the end of steam.

Final comments:
If necessesary, we should arrange a poll among all users of this site before releasing a new loco pack

[thietavu]

Alright, considering all that's been said, and the oft mentioned issue that the there really isn't much use for the big mallets in the game because of the 8 car limit to trains, i'm inclined to increase the the reliability of the truly gargantuan freight haulers, so that they have a niche as reliable engines you can depend on. Odd you say the Challenger wears out quickly though, it does in fact have Good reliability, like the S3, the Northern, and the H10. The Big Boy does have only average reliability, which doesn't make sense given that it was basically an overgrown Challenger and just as reliable. i'll definitely be bumping its reliability up to Good at the least. Possibly make them both Very Good, depending. thietavu, are you sure that the Challengers wear out after only a decade or so?

It's been a while since I tested all the Mallets in heavy mountain use, but I seem to recall that Challengers were, indeed, somewhat less troublesome than especially the Big Guy. There was only one Mallet-type I found more or less usable in China's long, mountainous freight routes (such as: Liuzhou to Kunming or Chengdu to Beijing), and it was, I think, NW Y6 2-8-8-2. The others either wore out (especially Big Boy), or became too expensive in maintenance very soon. In any case, "very good" reliability ranking would, I feel, be appropriate for them all. The running costs remain high, but that's, I guess, only reality...

[thietavu]

About European steamers...

It is true that the roster used here differed a lot from American types. Here in Finland, the earliest (1865->) engines were of 4-4-0 type made in Britain and USA. Then came 0-6-0s, 2-6-0s and, eventually, 4-6-0s and 2-8-0s. Many of the Northern European (including UK) models seem to have been 4-6-0s for express and 2-8-0s for freight until the end of steam. 4-6-2s and 2-8-2s plus some heavier 0-10-0s and 2-10-0s etc. did eventually also appear, especially in Central Europe, but in general, Europe preferred smaller, simpler, lighter steam engines than USA.

Btw, China scenario is, I think, interesting also in the sense that one can use virtually anything there, as happened in real life. They purchased anything from everywhere before finally getting their own development running in the 50s... Very (!) long, very flat desert and plains routes such as the mainline from industrial steel giant Shenyang to Changchun in Manchuria, near North Korea's border, are nice "test runs" for speed, reliability and economy! :) It is on those routes that bullet trains, for example, *really* make a difference! Especially interesting is the politically sensitive mainline in Western China, between Tibet and Mongolia, running from mostly Muslim (!) Urumqi through thoroughly dead, hilly deserts to, well, anywhere... It is probably the longest route ever seen in RRT3, with some nasty terrain and no towns of importance within a couple of thousand miles. It has to be built, but making it profitable is, well... interesting. Like is the choice of what engines to use on such very long, partly high grade, partly flat route! Those engines need to be both reliable, fairly fast (otherwise cargo never gets anywhere!) and economical to use. I have found only very few suitable engines for something like that in RRT3. :)

A very good test map for testing and adjusting the engines, I think, among its main tasks. It is built for TrainMaster, though - but I suppose that doesn't affect testing at all.

[Gumboots]

Alright, considering all that's been said, and the oft mentioned issue that the there really isn't much use for the big mallets in the game because of the 8 car limit to trains, i'm inclined to increase the the reliability of the truly gargantuan freight haulers, so that they have a niche as reliable engines you can depend on. Odd you say the Challenger wears out quickly though, it does in fact have Good reliability, like the S3, the Northern, and the H10. The Big Boy does have only average reliability, which doesn't make sense given that it was basically an overgrown Challenger and just as reliable. i'll definitely be bumping its reliability up to Good at the least. Possibly make them both Very Good, depending. thietavu, are you sure that the Challengers wear out after only a decade or so?

I can second that. They do seem to wear out quite quickly.

Also, and it may be just me, but it does seem that different engines with the same nominal reliability rating can actually have different reliability in practice. I'm not sure what is going on there, and I haven't done any really rigorous comparisons, but it's something I've noticed at times (or thought I did).

To tell the truth, i'm entirely unfamiliar with the electric engines as i never run electric, and i'm not very familiar with the diesels because i prefer to play scenarios during the age of steam.

Very sensible. I approve of this.

[Lirio]

The original 2-8-0 Consolidation had a unrealistic maximum speed of 60 Mph, too fast for a typical freight engine. This version. avaiable 1881-1920 has the more realistic maximum speed of 45 Mph and should be a lillte more powerful. (in 1907 it will be superceeded by the more modern powerful 4-8-0 with a maximum speed of 60 mph well suited for fast freight and mixed traffic and the 0-8-0 USRA for the minor jobs).

There is a lack of European freight engines before 1910. It could be filled out nicely by removing the "cow catcher" and the front carrying wheels from the Mogul and the Consolidation, making them into 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 freight engines with six wheel tenders from the very British looking 4-4-0 Duke class or 4-2-2 Stirling. Slow but powerful, such engines were very common in Central Europe in the period 1870-1920, even with spark arrester chimneys (in 1910 superceeded by the Preussian 0-10-0 class G10). The 2-6-0 and 2-8-0's arrived relatively late in Europe (the first about 1890) and looked a little more modern than their North American sisters, and some of them had an active life until the end of steam.

If necessesary, we should arrange a poll among all users of this site before releasing a new loco pack

Pretty sure the original Consolidation has a maximum speed of 45 mph, actually. Currently i have the Consolidation available 1875-1895 at 50 mph (might drop it to 45 mph), and the Consolidation II available 1895-1945 running at 55 mph. Then Con II is a cheap and reliable engine so i figure even in the early 40s you might find some use for it as a switcher, or on secondary tracks of little importance. In my experience locomotive purchase and maintenance costs do tend to add up over time, so cheap engines are generally a good idea on low traffic tracks. Doubly so if you're in the habit of replacing them often.

Anyway, as i said in the opening post, i don't know how to make new engines. As far as i can tell the process is largely tedious, so i'm not inclined to learn. i think we already have a pretty huge engine selection at any rate, so i'm more inclined to play around with what we already have. For example the easiest way to add 0-6-0 freight engines to Europe in the late 19th century is to rename the G4 0-6-0 to something else and push it back 30 years. At present it's not any use in 1907 because everything it can do, a P8 can do better (except be cheap, the G4 is certainly very cheap).

i really want to stress here that is not a locopack. i'm not adding new engines, i'm rebalancing the existing ones. i may include some existing engines that are not part of the 1.06 patch, such as nedumpkin's Cowboy Engines, WP&P's trilogy of N&W engines, and his gorgeous Royal Hudson, but that's contingent on me being sure i'm not stepping on anyone's toes by doing so.

It's been a while since I tested all the Mallets in heavy mountain use, but I seem to recall that Challengers were, indeed, somewhat less troublesome than especially the Big Guy. There was only one Mallet-type I found more or less usable in China's long, mountainous freight routes (such as: Liuzhou to Kunming or Chengdu to Beijing), and it was, I think, NW Y6 2-8-8-2. The others either wore out (especially Big Boy), or became too expensive in maintenance very soon. In any case, "very good" reliability ranking would, I feel, be appropriate for them all. The running costs remain high, but that's, I guess, only reality...

That's useful information, thanks!

Also, and it may be just me, but it does seem that different engines with the same nominal reliability rating can actually have different reliability in practice. I'm not sure what is going on there, and I haven't done any really rigorous comparisons, but it's something I've noticed at times (or thought I did).

That's interesting, the game does seem to have a number of weird hidden mechanics under the hood that are not readily observable. It does seem engines wear out faster if you run them hard, so it would make sense for weaker engines to seem to have lesser in practice reliability. Wouldn't make sense for tougher engines though. i recall you observed that letting oil drop below 50% tends to decrease their reliability, it could be that due to interactions between top speed, terrain, type of cargo hauled, and priority, some engine types tend to run longer with deficient oil reserves. There might also be something in the loco files that determines the rate at which an engine goes through oil and water, which might also affect reliability over the long term.

Very sensible. I approve of this.

Steam is just more fun! ^_^

[thietavu]

Also, and it may be just me, but it does seem that different engines with the same nominal reliability rating can actually have different reliability in practice. I'm not sure what is going on there, and I haven't done any really rigorous comparisons, but it's something I've noticed at times (or thought I did).

After the countless hours playing with virtually every engine in the game in deserts and Tibetan mountains etc, I'm quite sure you are right about that. That reliability ranking does affect things, but differently in different engines and conditions. Perhaps the type of cargo, the total load, grades, placing of water towers, etc. all together create the "real" wearing out - and maybe the "reliability" value only modifies the result of that mixture... Would be interesting to know the brain of the RRT3 engine. How much of the artificial intelligence is really smart and calculated - and how much is just kind of credible bluff. ;)