Bridging the Mississippi

[RayofSunshine]

But Orange46,

I have completed the Erie, L&M, and C&RI. The only 1 left if the C&O. I have the Chairmanship of the C&O, a notice to complete a Trans Rwy, as well as the ledger stipulating the requirement of cnn the 5 territories by 1868. SO, and after 1/2 year, why don't I get recognition so as to receive some revenue to continue the game?

[Orange46]

Because you are in the wrong railroad. If the briefing is telling you to connect 5 territories, then you are probably still supposed to be in the CRIP, and if the briefing does not say anything about changing railroads, then, you should not be changing railroads. If it isn't 1869 or later, you will be in the CRIP no matter what you do. Hang in there.

[RayofSunshine]

Okay Orange46,

That explanation sounds reasonable, and didn't give a thought to have been ""asked"" to help another Railroad system.

Guess that is the reason for "instructions", of which how many are really read, until after the fact, ""that things are not just going well""

Thanks for the hint, suggestion, or comments.

[RayofSunshine]

Well Orange46,

Another and getting dumber questions all the time.

Your suggestions don't help much. Oh, there is the ledger notice of the completion for the C&RI requirements, with the new requirement to cnn the 5 territories, however the C&RI does not have access to the other territories.

And before proceeding with my "train of thought", Oh yah, living dangerously again, I had made a cnn to the L&M ""within the boundaries"" of E.STL, which probably does not qualify that as a cnn to the Midwest territory. That's 1 comment.

The only other way to get access, in my opinion, is to auto "resign" C&RI, and go after the Chairmanship of the other railways. But in previous attempts I have been "killed" and Just "lost", and heading down the tracks.

That was 1 of the reasons I took the Chairmanship of the C&O, because it gives access to all the territories and hence the cnn of the 5 territories. BUT, that cannot be done, as I might get access to the territories, but no revenue to make the connections.

And I don't know about this relying on taking the Chairmanship from the former railways, as all I see is that they are continuing to "issue bonds". Even the L&M, of which I had paid off all the existing bonds. To do that, I must have had a fairly profitable railway to repay, I believe $2+M of debt, plus the penalties.

Will try a couple other avenues of idea until I get another reply, suggestion, hint from you.

[Orange46]

1. When you first take over the CRI, you have access to all 5 territories. At the end of the month, you gain access to CRI's territory.

2. When you get the message to connect to the 5 territories and all of the cities, you already have access to all of the places you need to go and nothing changes.

3. Perhaps we are not on the same page as to what the 5 territories are. These are the 5 circles west of the Mississippi and they are listed on the Territories box found after clicking the Company detail box. Marshall, Fort Dodge ,Des Moines, Mason City and Cedar Rapids are green checked for the CRI and they are the five territories that you need to connect to. Think Railroad towns - nothing is there until the railroad comes.

4. You are only an employee of these railroads and they don't want ex employees who work for another airline - err - railroad messing around with their company. That's why they sometimes hire Pinkertons.

5. But, as you are noticing, Art Intel and his buddies are not very good managers. At some point, the owners of these railroads will wake up and realize that they need you back - desperately. Hopefully, you will forgive them for not wanting you back sooner.

[RayofSunshine]

Okay Orange46,

That makes sense, BUT was something different of what believed the goals of the territories. There are 3 operative area to which get their transportation from Erie, L&M, and the C&RI, then believing the others to be that of Jefferson City, Chareston, and Canada. The big problem was that of getting across the MISS, although I could lay track to Quincy, in order to cnn to Jeffery.

Now another question. Why doesn't the ledger show that I have already connected to Mason and Cedar City, if they are supposed to be territories in question?

Will cnn with the other 3 to see if that makes a difference, as they will be connected, or could all be connected after the recommendation to proceed with their connections.

[RayofSunshine]

Talk about "pulling teeth" Orange46,

But the thought passed my mind, there I go "trying to think again", that I had only laid track """thru"""Cedar City and Mason"" and did not build a depot, hence once the tracks and depots were initiated, I also had Marshall as being connected in the ledger. BUT, there is the obstacle of the Mason River, which doesn't permit access across, at this time.

So we go to another quesiton. Does that access ever get authorized, as there isn't any other ""territories"" to which I have authority of access.

[Orange46]

Access will come before your contract runs out, unless you got yourself many years behind schedule in building the first bridge across the Mississippi.

You have to follow the story to understand what is going on. There is only one bridge over the Mississippi and there is a legal battle going on as to whether or not it is an obstacle to navigation. If the suit is lost, the bridge could be torn down! Until this battle is resolved, no one wants to build a bridge over any waterway that would subject them to a similar problem - thus - you can't build bridges until this suit is resolved in a manner acceptable to the bridge owners. But, hey, this works for the barge owners in St. Louis and Memphis and on other rivers. The trans continental RR was a misnomer. When the golden spike was driven, the rail network was not yet connected to the Atlantic or Pacific, but merely connected Omaha and Sacramento. In November 1869 the Central Pacific finally connected Sacramento to San Francisco Bay at Oakland, California. In 1872 Union Pacific opened the first bridge across the Missouri to Omaha. {Internet}

[RayofSunshine]

Well Orange46,

This is a very interesting scenario of a really historical part of history. I enjoyed it concept, even though it had its points of confusion, but with help managed to get the theme of it played. Well, to a point. Where the hell does a player get all the revenue in the construction of lay track and building depots? Even with issuing bonds, I don't believe I will be able to complete the scenario without getting "fired".

Any way, aside from "my" inadequate accomplishment, I want to thank you for not only your time and imagination in its creation, but also you time and patience for the explainations and suggests you rendered.

Will be interested to see what you will concoct on the next creation.

[Sugus]

A great scenario but huuuuu...

Everything went well till the final story concerning Charleston began! Because you have no chance to fulfill the earlier "peanuts" before the deadline to reach intended by Orange46, you start in 1877 with the following "list of very easy jobs":
haul 60 loads of grain as well as 30 loads each of crystal, dye, rice and sugar to Charleston. Furthermore, connect (with this small final company again) to Cincinnati, Louisville, Detroit, Collingwood, Chicago and London. And more: connect up to 14 cities in total (once more: there are no other cities, just connect to some of the already connected ones again?)

Connecting to Collingwood and London is o.k., because we've never visitied them before. But the other cities? Why? Why can we not rely on the connections made by the other (e.g. "our earlier") companies. I know: using the other companies tracks to haul the cargoes required is a way, but obviousely not the best. On the other hand, building new tracks all over through the "old good Northern America" is out of interest after having played a map for more than 40 (game) years. So what?

(I made a game save immediately after entering this final situation. So, may be in five years, I'll have to tell you completely other experiences concerning this map. )

Anyway: great thanks to Orange46 for this interesting and challenging scenario!

[Orange46]

I have to admit that on the first time thru, a person of my skill level would not get gold. The other lines get hopelessly bogged down in traffic and - that was my goal. I was trying to recreate the log jams that wooden bridges created in busy RRT2 scenarios, such as my NA thru the Ages.

Railroads commonly built lines that duplicated their competitors in North America, and that's what I had to do.

Thanks for playing.

[RulerofRails]

Just played this map. Had to restart a couple of times due to jumping in too fast and not "studying" the cargo map overlays. But then steadily worked toward a victory.

I enjoyed the different challenges in the map immensely. Thanks again and again!

[RulerofRails]

Just played this one again. I was having some problems with the TM map I am tweaking with the AI going crazy with engine purchases and wanted to refresh my memory about what the expert at this situation (Orange46) had done in his maps. I didn't find much done in the editor, but perhaps I over-looked it. It's easy to miss stuff there. I decided to play this one anyway since it had an infinite line of credit for the AI (issuing bonds is enabled) to see what happened. I finished all the objectives in Jan 1885 at which point there were 506 trains on the map.

My company had 49 trains but had already retired 7 or 8 of the returning haul-to-Charleston trains as my game was starting to lag a little. In this game I tried to be conservative with train purchases, but I did connect to the western settlements as I was bored waiting for mid-game contracts to end. Consequently I had a stronger economy on the map, which no doubt encouraged the AI to buy more engines after all.

The way I build my maintenance stops close to the stations in such a fashion that several spokes radiating from the city can use the same facilities is a problem here because this method chokes up more than the service in the middle of nowhere like the AI use. My way is much more efficient, but the AI doesn't have the first clue about maintenance except for when it builds track.

---

Strategy:
There is talk about building a wooden bridge at Davenport. I didn't even bother, but went straight for a stone one. If you do this in poor economies you will save a fair bit.

My tip for finding traction at the start is to do the before-mentioned Adrian-Toledo-Detroit connection and build Hotels in each city. To kick-start growth, look for Milk and Produce. If there is a town surrounded by 3 Dairies, that is a good supply and making that connection is quite safe using bonds. If there isn't a good opportunity with Milk (or in conjunction with it), look to expand south to Fort Wayne using bonds when there is a good price differential between Toledo and Fort Wayne (or another city with no steady natural migration supply). For this to work you need to have gathered a decent supply of Produce with your network.

In my game, I had no Milk but had gone east to Cleveland as this was an extra Produce supply. I had 20-30 loads in total on my network (most at Toledo) at the time I went to Fort Wayne. The price potential was around $25, I bought enough new trains to haul all the product and received at least $20k per load when the trains arrived.

I waited about six months after these arrivals for the price in Fort Wayne to drop. With the money and a couple bonds I connected to Lafayette with a price differential for Produce of about $19, but still good for $17k or so for each of those loads. With that money and a bond or two again, I went to Terre Haute and on to Evansville where my Milk supply was. Further bonds and I branched to Indianapolis.

With Hotels all-round this is a second cluster of cities that also gives a stable express income. With two good express city clusters we get connecting express traffic between them which will help to keep the Lafayette-Fort Wayne-Toledo line profitable. At this point I had a railway with a very solid revenue base without much fuss.

Designing a network according to the supplies of resources on a map is a little like painting where creativity and adaptability is the difference between good and great. This is meant as a suggested strategy to get established and not a point by point connection guide. The later companies will have better resource supply possibilities, but the same ideas should help when jumping to them as well.

[Gumboots]

The way I build my maintenance stops close to the stations in such a fashion that several spokes radiating from the city can use the same facilities is a problem here because this method chokes up more than the service in the middle of nowhere like the AI use. My way is much more efficient, but the AI doesn't have the first clue about maintenance except for when it builds track.

Ok, you seem to have a contradiction here.

[RulerofRails]

What I meant was that my system is more efficient when running at normal traffic levels. I make the service facilities just far enough away from the station that a train in the station can't block the service facility with it's tail. I build the Water Tower butted against the Oil Shed.

After handing control over to the AI, it's a problem because the AI like to re-route 80% or so of trains onto a couple of (often short) routes resulting in super heavy traffic in a few areas. They decide that a few routes are SO GOOD that most of the trains should be on those, to the point of neglecting some other profitable routes entirely. So we see specific areas of super high traffic. As a side-note, this is bad for express traffic, but the AI don't seem to understand that either.

When traffic becomes super heavy, the Water Tower butted against the Oil Shed becomes a big jam often bridging the gap to the station as well into one big jam. On this map, I used some of the AI's track for the final deliveries. I built short sections of my own track to bypass some of these jam situations.

Writing about this I got the idea. Here (and in his other maps with the same concept) Orange46 always mentions making sure that service is provided for the AI roads. Well, I got a different idea, I'm going to give the AI very low water and oil consumption (effectively giving virtually no maintenance stops). I might even decrease their loading times as well, greatly improving their traffic flow. On this map it doesn't matter how much money the AI make. In my situation their profitability does matter, but overhead and track, station and train maintenance will be substantially increased to curb back excess profits.

[Gumboots]

Hmm. Well offhand I can't see how your way would be more efficient. It might be, but I can't see it at the moment. If using inline facilities, I would have thought the way to minimise congestion would be to distribute the sheds and towers as widely and randomly as possible.

Anyway, when testing oil and sand and water consumption over long periods, I found that setting them both to -100% reduces consumption to approximately 2% of the normal rate. Most locos can run 20 years non stop, without needing oil or sand or water, if you set consumption to -100%.

[Orange46]

I don't remember doing much with the map, other than zoning the Mississippi river and setting the zones for each of the roads. It looks like you didn't blow the first bridge over, as that was why I strongly suggested building a wooden one. The destroy bridge command blows all bridges. I wish RT3 penalized wooden bridges more, as in most scenarios they don't cause problems. In this one, wooden bridges are a disaster - at least across the Ole Miss.

[RulerofRails]

I was lumping things together when I talked.

The main argument for the service facilities near the stations being more efficient is to do with acceleration. If the train has to stop in the middle of a run, average moving speed compared to not-stopping-at-all can drop by up to 50% for engines with the poorest acceleration. Of course, we are still stopping for service, but because we are stopping near the station, the new acceleration length is only just longer than the train (distance to get from the service facilities into the station). Drop in average moving speed is therefore minimized. I'm treating the distance between the Water Tower and Oil Shed as a constant here, but it still has a small effect whenever both are needed on that run. For this reason, the drop will never actually be 50%. The other major factor here is stops for passing other traffic. A random factor, it will reduce the realized effectiveness of this method especially on single track.

Trying to build service facilities in locations where they can service the trains heading in multiple directions is not more efficient in terms of traffic density, as you said. There are lower build costs though, and as I tend to double track these areas very quickly it seems to work well enough with my traffic patterns. Perhaps this is a matter of me being willing to give up some of the efficiency from stops near the stations. But the limit before over-loading is definitely reduced. So the AI are having an easier time than normal to make congestion.

Occasionally I have built in the opposite manner with stops designed to service only one direction of traffic on a run, but it's normally only in specific spots such as lines to/from Chicago in the North America Railroad Sim scenario. I will tend to do this instead of building multiple stations. So once again it's a case of using up some of the advantage I gained with another decision. Should have done this here, but it didn't occur to me till much of the networks were already built.

---

Orange46, my snazzy double-tracked stone bridge did blow out. I forgot about that event and since my station in Moline was too close to the river I didn't want to be stuck with single track. I re-built after saving for another year or so, but could only afford a single track stone bridge this time.

I think the main difficulty with the bridges is that the corresponding towns are very close together. A curve or two is necessary to get both service facilities placed at all. I would speculate that the AI don't even see that there's a bridge there, so it's a short, high-profit run to them.

One could use some events to slow the speed across hidden under-river territories to simulate even slower bridge crossings. I don't mind seeing the speed across stone bridges reduced some and wood bridges would get a further penalty. Engine pulling power should be increased drastically in this territory as well to ensure that all trains are capable of reaching their maximum speed with any load. As long as there aren't too many traffic conflict stops within this "bridge area", trains that have accelerated higher than the speed limit before the "bridge area" will have their speed dropped to the maximum allowed upon reaching the bridge. I would make these events only applicable to the human player, for obvious reasons.

[Gumboots]

That reminds me of something. You say you put the sheds and towers jammed up against each other. Doing that makes the train creep at 1 mph between the two if it needs to visit both. It never actually accelerates. I think this is because the game engine knows it should accelerate the train, but also knows it should be deccelerating it to come to a stop at the next building. The conflict between these makes the game go "Meh" and therefore the train just stays stuck on 1 mph if the distance is very short.

I know some people put the building further apart just to stop this happening. I don't know if they have tested to make sure turnaround time is actually faster with greater spacing and greater speed, vs 1 mph at minimum distance. Might be worth doing some simple timing tests of a few options.

[RayofSunshine]

Well Gumboots,
I usu either methods. However, I just believed that when "butted" against either other, that the train only has to basically stop only once, as that when farther apart, to slow down for each "stop". But, it could be interesting to really determine if it "actually" saves time, in either case. I will be waiting to see the conclusion or results from some one mathematically inclined.