Great China 4 challenges

[thietavu]

Has anybody here tried or managed to create the world's highest running railway from Beijing to Lhasa, Tibet, yet? You can actually build it very accurately, but also in many alternative ways.

Or what about India and Bangladesh? There's plenty of agricultural stuff available in both, that's for sure. What they need, though, is steel, aluminium, machinery, etc. Those, again, are available in South-East China. Large city of Kunming would be a nice place for hauling those things westward, and vice versa. Just one slight problem: the geography between, for example, India and Kunming is nightmarish for rails! There is a good reason why there are very few real world railways in Myanmar, Laos and China's extreme areas west/south from Kunming... Tackling all those mountains and rivers can drive anyone crazy.

Need for speed? Want to have some fun building the fastest possible express routes on Manchuria's huge, level plains without disturbing the extremely heavy freight traffic in the area (or vice versa)? How fast can you actually go from industrial giant Harbin relatively close to Russian border and Mongolia to Beijing? Steam? Diesels? Electrics? Bullet trains?

Few people (if any) probably play this scenario, but please share your experiences, problems and victories if you do. :)

[cheminot]

Hang on, there...
The Forum is running on slow, but I'm sure your scenario will hit the headlines.
I have looked into it a few times just to get the feeling and it is a little.... daunting! (TM is a different learning curve from RT3, and China4 is another ball game again.)
The least I can say at this moment is... 'Great Job'!

[thietavu]

Hang on, there...
The Forum is running on slow, but I'm sure your scenario will hit the headlines.
I have looked into it a few times just to get the feeling and it is a little.... daunting! (TM is a different learning curve from RT3, and China4 is another ball game again.)
The least I can say at this moment is... 'Great Job'!

Thank you! :) And yes, it's a challenging scenario, but you can play it in very many different ways.

[cheminot]

I'm trying, really trying... but it's daunting!
Just wait, you'll see...
(I know the feeling: 'why people don't get back to me?' but, like I said, the forum is just a little sleeply, but I'm sure you'll get a lot of feedback.

BTW, I got a few logos from the Chinese site including the official modern one, I'm polishing them and if you're interested...

[RulerofRails]

Trying this one with no bonds, no industry, and going for the average speeds as LTD instead of YTD. Somewhere along the way:

The aid is very helpful!

[RulerofRails]

I finished this epic map in 2009. It did take me a week! As I said, I added some extra restrictions on my play. One of the main ones being that I was going for LTD speed goals. As a consequence of this I was a freight only railway up until 1960. Except for the first decade or so, my LTD average freight speed was always 23mph up till that point. The other thing was that I looked in the editor to see which steamers I had to play with. In doing so I saw and fixed the bugs in the events that were displayed in Event Validation. This meant that the 2nd World War cost me an extra $20M and the Korean War events fired.

Because I was operating on low revenues and the combined $50M hit from the 2nd World War was too much, interest payments completely wiping out any potential profits and then skyrocketing towards the huge payments just before the aid event that resets cash thus wiping out all that debt. The Korean War only added a tiny bit more to my mountain of debt at that stage. If someone is wondering why I didn't get fired from my company, that's because I had started the company with 100% ownership to give a slower start (no stock screen in this game).

In 1960 I used all the aid cash to start replacing all my tired old engines (mainly P8s) with the Norfold Western Class J. I only used steam in this game. The shiny new J Class was fast enough that I could run them as mixed consists and achieve 43mph with 8 cars on almost all runs, more than enough for the average express speed goal. From that point on I didn't buy any other engine type except for two Red Devil's that I used for a long run from Fukang to Yumen. The better fuel economy of the Red Devil is offset by the higher replacement cost. On that run I figured that it was too close to call, maybe the Red Devil still wasn't more efficient but it was close enough that it didn't bother me. Here I figured on replacement cost being at least 10% of purchase price, most replacements were done at 10 years, near the end of the game I had around 213 J Class engines worth $45M. So each year $4.5M of company profits were going towards this.

Because I never built any industry, some cargoes never showed up on the map. For example, there was never a single load of Paper on the map at any time because no Paper Mills ever showed up. In the TM enviroment and especially with dense farming communities it was a challenge to try to route to get consistent demand gradients.

Prior to 1971 all my track was double with stone bridges. This was necessary when using the P8 in the search for speed because the P8 is made for low value, high volume traffic. Upon switching to the J Class I about halved the engine roster, so there were far fewer potential train conflicts. I switched permantently to building single track because in 1971, bridge and track costs went up 70% everywhere except inner China (because the temporary event unwinds on the entire game instead of just inner China). $2M+ for a double-tracked stone bridge was too much. Track maintenance I calculated at approximately 8% of the book value attributed to track. Every 12.5 years, the company must pay track maintenance equal to the original cost of the track. As an illustration, a $2M bridge will cost $160k per year throughout the rest of the game. At the end of the game, annual track maintenance was up to $26M per year.

I did go after some connections based on info I got from the editor about what bonuses I would receive (better pulling power mainly). In 1971 I studied the events for a long time to work out why track costs had increased drastically. This comes from the temporary track cost reduction in inner China as part of the 1966 newspaper "Cultural Revolution!". Turns out that the -70% track cost reduction works great, however, the unwind event (Temporary Event appearing at the bottom of the event list of an in-progress game) the game automatically generates will apply to the whole game. I can see a similar thing has happened for other events as well. I can only assume that after so much gameplay this feature while not controlled has been accounted for in the design. Some fiddling with the triggers could likely "fix" this to a works-as-advertised status.

At first glance, the terrain on this map is extremely rough (not talking about number of mountains, just jagged edges) and I wasn't really looking forward to entering the mountains, because of the events situation and particularly the 1971 unwind, many of the mountain routes ended up being "cheap" because they were in inner China when compared to the cost of track elsewhere. As the years passed I did try to put some design into my mountain routes.

I don't know much about the history and I hope that my play with restrictions was within the spirit you intended for your game, otherwise I would have been swimming in cash and long ago the computer would have bogged me to a standstill. I had a good challenge and a few moments of doubt that I would ever make the Trainmaster target. Thanks! Also, for your patience before I got time to attempt such a monster map.

Some screenshots:

Notes: The first shot is from when I had just connected 230 cities, the second two after I let the game run to the end of the year. The -$138k industry profits is because I used some terrain levelers but only in the instance that building a station had badly terra-formed ground. Trying to avoid reloading a save, it worked sometimes.

PS. If you want to see what I did in more detail I can post the saved game but it's 86MB and zips to 19.7MB so I hesitated to do it.

---

While playing for this long I had some time to consider the game's mechanics and I am now pretty sure that the demands of the agricultural communities can never be satisfied (price goes red). A simple example of this is a regular RT3 Textile Mill. This mill is swamped with Cotton but has no supply of Wool. It is running at full production converting Cotton to Clothing. The price for Cotton is low (red), however the price for Wool is at the maximum. There is no way that the mill could porduce more even if it has a supply of Wool, but the game still calculates a full strength for that demand.

The root of this problem is that there is one figure that determines the maximum number of loads an industry can produce no matter how many conversions are used. In the case of the Textile Mill the maximum is 4 (or 8 with an upgrade). For the agri communities this figure is exactly 1. The Textile Mill only has two conversions, TM's agri communities have 12+ seperate conversions. The TM Supply Chain Guide claims that these are only demands, when in reality a look at the bca files reveals that they are actually all conversions. All these 12 conversions are limited to a combined output of 1 load per year. I believe that the majority of cargoes sitting at an agri community actually just rot away.

[delacroixp]

I love your non-industry approach to the China4 map ... combined with steam-only.

I built paper-mills, flour-mills, textile and machine shop combos in my 2nd year to to acquire 200 million in industry profits (LTD) by the end of 1884.
I included Profit, Revenue, Industry-profits and loads-hauled (LTD) in the annual statement to better follow what's really happening.
I discovered that Industry was already responsible for 80% of the Nett Profits and that Railways were only responsible for 20% of the profits.
Furthermore, railways only ran at about 10-20% profit on turnover ... making the overall picture pretty bleak.

I would prefer that railways were responsible for 90% of the profits.
I don't mind if industries could be built or bought with no profit (merely to help railway transport) ... else a very small profit.

I know thietavu didn't want ppl to play the china3 map as "Westerners" but if you look at Chinas history over the passed 6,000 years they are arguably the most materialistic nation of all-time ... moreso than the Romans, English or Americans.
The Mongol, Viking, Celtic and Hun (Attila) were far less interested in material progress and development.

That said, I would like to see what kind of Revenue, Profit and Loads-hauled could be achieved over 150 years on this map ... with particular interest in percentage profit of revenue.

It's all good

Pascal

[RulerofRails]

Hey Pascal. Good to see someone commenting on TM.

Yeah, I had fun with this one. I knew I would be finished in no time if I built industries. Steam for me is part nostalgic and part challenge. I tried to appreciate this map for what it is instead of trying to whizz through it as fast as possible. The most challenging part was keeping lifetime average speed up at the level that is supposed to only be attained with modern diesels or electrics. Higher infrastructure costs and by extension track maintenance costs kept me frugal throughout the game. Also, stations mature quickly on this type of map. Settling on the lowest revenue tier after 20 years. On Expert, that's 25% below the prices quoted on the map.

That said, I would like to see what kind of Revenue, Profit and Loads-hauled could be achieved over 150 years on this map ... with particular interest in percentage profit of revenue.

Don't know when I'll get a chance to play this one again, but what rules are you proposing?

[delacroixp]

That said, I would like to see what kind of Revenue, Profit and Loads-hauled could be achieved over 150 years on this map ... with particular interest in percentage profit of revenue.

Don't know when I'll get a chance to play this one again, but what rules are you proposing?

I would like to marginalise Industries but not sideline them completely (Buying old and new industries would be good while slashing profits).
We could start with 1 million instead of 4 million and remove the increase in costs for inclined track (although it is an incentive to lay track more carefully) and other railway increases.

Good job on the Red Devil (I'm South African and loved to see what was possible with steam).
An UK group considered building a new steam engine but it's impossibly expensive.


It's all good

Pascal

[RulerofRails]

Industry profits are tied to the actual cargo prices on the map which is the same thing that is used to determine rail profits. Industries can be made harder to buy by increasing their price, but actual cuts in industry profits will tend to reduce rail profits as well.

One idea to regulate how much your company can make from industries involves making some events so that if industry profits make up too high a proportion of revenue, industry production will be reduced but only for all the industries your company owns. This will not prevent building industries to make good use of raw resources because the player can sell those industries and still profit from the cargo they produce.

Are you talking about this https://www.a1steam.com/ ? Also, you have a PM.

[delacroixp]

Industry profits are tied to the actual cargo prices on the map which is the same thing that is used to determine rail profits. Industries can be made harder to buy by increasing their price, but actual cuts in industry profits will tend to reduce rail profits as well.

The price of industries have little impact on the ultimate revenue (profit) stream over a long period ... even if you double or triple the cost of industries (esp Paper mills, Textile mills and other scarce products).
In the spirit of thietavu original intentions I think railway (nett) profits should occupy 90% or more of the income.

Thievatu... I agree with you that a scenario like yours should be all about the railways side of it. So, have you considered enforcing this view? I mean, something like forbidding buying industries, including some industry profit tax, making industries much more expensive to buy, etc..?

I noticed that brunom mentioned something about imposing "industry profit taxes" for the China3 map ... is that the same as reducing industry profits ? (with the same resultant effect on National development)
Our Economics 101 lecturer at UCT posed the question of increasing national taxes ... how would it effect Output ?
Most of us viewed it as an impediment to growth and development but many ppl will in-fact work harder to maintain their standard of living.

Are you talking about this https://www.a1steam.com/ ?

No. See http://www.5at.co.uk/. They wanted to build a modern steam train with all the latest improvements that technology would allow.
The British invented the steam train and have fallen in love with their creation. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that the Chinese love China and pursue progress and development above all. Steam was useful within the transport gambit while it made financial sense. They would equally have used Maglev if it had been more financially feasible.
Steam trains are fun and beautiful in a tourist/nostalgia type setting but are poor substitutes for electric or diesel traction when you need to get the real job done.
I love history but steam trains are flawed in so many areas ... in terms of modern railways and even transport in general. Energy efficiency, pollution (very dirty) and reliability (so many moving parts) spring to mind but road transport (trucks and cars) really are better in so many ways.

I would like to see the China4 map keep the main goal of connecting 250 cities but have secondary goals of Total Profit (LTD), a good percentage profit on turnover (perhaps 20%) and Loads Hauled (encourages players to run 600+ trains, rather than connect the dots ie. connect the towns and be done). Average speed could also be raised.

Perhaps it should be called China Inc. ... China4 for Experts.


It's all good

Pascal

[delacroixp]

Startup with double-track from Harbin to Anshan

I wanted to play with double-track throughout since it's proportionately cheaper than
single track and maintenance is also proportionately cheaper.
It also sets you up early for a significant loads-hauled figure.


Close-up of Harbin in Jan 1885 ... 115 trains

I started the game without using the caboose but it serves a dual purpose later.
It not only reduces breakdowns by 50% (breakdowns will severely slow down a busy track)
but also restricts cargo loading to 7 wagons (which also helps trains run still faster).
Overall I think you end up delivering more goods ... and deliver them quicker.
@ thietavu What kind of train speed did you achieve by the end of 2020?
Maybe the map needs a different speed goal every 50 years or so (The average speed changes
according to steam, diesel and electric ... also early locos compared to modern equivalents).


Double-line from Harbin to Shenyang
Showing income statement and End-Of-Year statement.

@RulerofRails What do Overheads include?
You have 1K for 3 years running and 7% of lifetime expenses overall.
Mine seam massively high.


Station info - Jan 1885

Clearly shows the sheer abundance on this map and
how 600+ trains could create a huge turnover during the 150 year period.


It's all good

Pascal

[Gumboots]

I started the game without using the caboose but it serves a dual purpose later.
It not only reduces breakdowns by 50% (breakdowns will severely slow down a busy track)
but also restricts cargo loading to 7 wagons (which also helps trains run still faster).

You're half right.

The caboose will reduce breakdowns by 50%. I know this because, instead of just taking the RT3 manual's word for it, I actually tested it over decades of game play. The caboose does what it says on the tin.*

Where you're half wrong is in thinking that the caboose will make trains run faster. It won't. It will actually make them run slower. This is because the caboose and dining car are the heaviest cars in the game. The D era (post-1950) express cars weigh 27 tons, the freight cars weigh 40 tons, while the caboose and dining car both weigh in at 53 tons. IOW, both are twice the weight of a standard express car, and 1/3 heavier than a freight car. Yes, really.** Why? Dunno. However, it does mean that running a caboose and a dining car on an express train will really hammer the speed.


*Sometimes things don't do what they say on the tin, because things were changed during development after the manual and readme were written. We've found a few things like that. The speeds given in the loco stats pop-up are an example. They're known to be always wrong.

** And yes, we have thought about changing that. It's easy to do.

[RulerofRails]

Gumboots is right about the caboose, TM uses the same Caboose weights as 1.05 and 1.06.

The main reason I believe it's hard to notice during play is the wrong loco speed stats. These are out a fair bit, enough in fact that even with a caboose the train will still go significantly faster than the quoted speed. I use the "Express" setting as an indication of speed with all freight. This really shows the speed if all cars on a train were as heavy as the caboose.

My low Overhead:
Did you take a look at my cash balance or company profit in my low overhead screenshot? I explained it more detail, but I had enabled some extra cash withdrawals that are in the events but not setup quite right. My network was aged at that point as well as I got a little caught with old equipment which I was trying to make last until the J Class arrived. I couldn't overcome the negative balance I got from the combined $50M hit to company cash that the World War cost. Interest just took me backwards for a bunch of years, I think there was another cost or two in the interim.

This is the largest negative balance I have ever experienced in a game. The reason why I could keep playing was because I started my company without outside investment so the shareholders couldn't fire me while waiting for the end of 1959 (just a few weeks away at the time of the shot) when the aid events start to be tested. These set company cash so it doesn't matter how much debt you are in. BTW, I think I got two payments which went directly into rollingstock upgrades, but the aid events continue long enough that most players who are struggling will be able to turn their company around.

Overhead is based on revenue and size (probably CBV or assets) over time, but no one knows the exact formula. I could only quote what the documentation says.

[delacroixp]

Overhead is based on revenue and size (probably CBV or assets) over time, but no one knows the exact formula. I could only quote what the documentation says.

I built a ton of railyard structures (see Harbin pic) and was wondering if they could be responsible for the huge increase in overhead expenses.

****Trainmaster 1.0**** thread
The interesting thing about the Railyard Structures is that they have small demands like 0.5 or so per year. My games are almost without fail, to short to take advantage of them, because the player must wait some years before they form a weak price gradient. I have never gotten into the habit of using them, here's my reasoning (feel free to let me know if I am wrong): Frequent service can easily wipe out the weak price gradient they deliver, cargo rot during the "gathering" process is a problem, but the worst thing is that you are by definition sacrificing rail delivery profits by raising the demand at the source point where you are picking up cargo. This can't do anything but make profits lower. In 1.06 (and TM) I don't really see the point for them as one can force any cargo delivery they like.

I found them a bit of a nuisance myself since they take a lot of real-estate and are finicky to fit them into the smaller station footprint.

Perhaps they could work well over a long period of time in the China map.


It's all good

Pascal

[RulerofRails]

Each building has a footprint file (.bty). Buildings that seem difficult to place are generally smaller than their footprint which is invisible in-game. The result is that even in the locations for a successful placement, the surrounding area is left with less room for other buildings.

Harbin in your game will see less industries and houses by mid- to late game. That may not necessarily be a bad thing, just depends on what you are trying to accomplish strategically. It may well be that these buildings are useful in some way over these long time-frames.