Making 1.06.1: any interest?

[Gumboots]

Other things people might want to think about are reliability ratings and maintenance costs. From time to time there is some grumbling about one loco or another's reliability.

I'm mentioning this because if we're talking about a patch or mod (whatever it gets called in the end) we might want to carefully consider the reliability and maintenance cost stats we assign to locomotives. I'm convinced that if people want some locomotives to be reliable, and want that reliability to be usable in terms of keeping the thing running for a longer period, and aren't just blindly going to ignore the cost of it all, the only way to do it within the limits of the game engine is to assign maintenance cost by using a combination of purchase cost and reliability rating. The game makers seem to have done this to some extent, but they don't seem to have got the balance right.

IOW, a loco with "Poor" reliability might have an initial yearly maintenance cost of 15% or 20% of purchase price, while a loco with a "Very Good" rating might only have an initial maintenance cost of 5% of purchase price. That way, the more reliable one might still be economic to run after a longer period, since the maintenance cost is hard-coded to increase by around 10% per year for all locomotives regardless of their rating, and this automatically means older ones cost quite a bit to run.

Given that the game's ratings don't actually tell you much, I'm providing some helpful translations based on my experience with the game.

These translations assume that you want two things from your locomotives: good profit (ie: no point running all over the place if will hardly haul any load) and good reliability (ie: no profit if it aint moving, or if it stops other trains moving). This means you'll probably be the sort of person that thinks about replacing locomotives as soon as they start showing signs of breaking down more than very occasionally.

A Helpful Translation, Into English, Of RT3 Reliability Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------

Rating of "Very Poor" means, in English, "if very well maintained and used fairly hard, will only be good for canning dog food after 3 years".

Rating of "Poor" means, in English, "if very well maintained and used fairly hard, should be melted down and recast as manhole covers after 5 years".

Rating of "Below Average" means, in English, "if very well maintained and used fairly hard, might make a good static tourist attraction after 7 years".

Rating of "Average" means, in English, "if very well maintained and used fairly hard, would only be useful for artillery practice after 9 years".

Rating of "Above Average" means, in English, "if very well maintained and used fairly hard, will actually give decent service for up to 12 years".

Rating of "Good" means, in English, "if very well maintained and used fairly hard, can soldier on for 18 years before becoming uneconomic to maintain".

Anything above that will probably be fine for the length of the average RT3 scenario, as long as you don't mind the escalating maintenance costs.

The term "Very well maintained" means that oil level never drops below 60%. IOW, it is not achievable by relying on the locomotive automatically using inline maintenance sheds, and has to be done with scheduled maintenance stops at all times. If relying on automatic use of inline maintenance sheds, deterioration in reliability will be faster.

The term "used fairly hard" means up to 6 cars of any type, plus caboose, in flat terrain. If trying to haul more cars, or trying to haul 6 up harsh grades, deterioration in reliability will be faster.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From this you can see that a Consolidation, for example, is really only good for 8 years or so of service, while an H10 2-8-2 can be kept for roughly twice as long if you don't mind the maintenance costs.

Maintenance costs are the killer with reliable locomotives in RT3, since maintenance costs increase by roughly 10% per year. Here's roughly how your ongoing maintenance costs for an H10 2-8-2 look:

Year 1: $16,000
Year 2: $17,600
Year 3: $19,360
Year 4: $21,296
Year 5: $23,426
Year 6: $25,768
Year 7: $28,345
Year 8: $31,179 (which is roughly double the initial yearly expense)
Year 9: $34,297
Year 10: $37,727
Year 11: $41,500
Year 12: $45,650
Year 13: $50,215
Year 14: $55,236
Year 15: $60,760
Year 16: $66,836
Year 17: $73,520
Year 18: $80,872
Year 19: $88,959

Purchase price for a brand new H10 2-8-2 is $170,000. The maintenance costs for Year 18 and 19 are sufficient to buy a new locomotive. This means (IMO) there is no point keeping the old one for any longer than this. It makes more sense to dump the old one somewhere around 16 or 17 and get a new one, even if the old one is still fairly reliable.

Or, take that cute little American 4-4-0 as an example. Purchase price is $40,000. Initial maintenance cost is $7,000. Costs escalate like this:

Year 1: $7,000
Year 2: $7,700
Year 3: $8,470
Year 4: $9,317
Year 5: $10,249
Year 6: $11,274
Year 7: $12,401
Year 8: $13,641 (which is roughly double the initial yearly expense)
Year 9: $15,005
Year 10: $16,506
Year 11: $18,156
Year 12: $19,972

Year 11 and 12 maintenance costs are roughly equal to the cost of a new engine, and by 11 or 12 years of age an engine that started out with "Below Average" reliability will not be delivering very reliable service anyway. The smart option is to throw the thing away before it's 10 years old and get a new one.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so what does this all mean for locomotive replacement intervals? I've crunched some numbers for that too. Let's assume you have a reliable locomotive. It will keep running as long as you like, so the only consideration for replacing it is running costs. Let's also assume it has a fairly normal IAMC of 10% of purchase price, increasing at the hard-coded rate of 10% per year. From this you can work out the total cost incurred when replacing at different intervals.

For a first example, assume you keep the thing 10 years, then buy a new one. That means you buy two over a period of 20 years, meaning that adds up to 200% of the purchase cost for one loco. The escalating maintenance costs for one loco over a 10 year period add up to 159.4% of the purchase cost. That means for replacement every 10 years your total cost will be 100% + 159.4% + 100% + 159.4% for a total of 518.8%.

Ok, let's say you want to economise and decide to replace every 15 years. This is clever because it will save you money, right?

Ok, so over 15 years your escalating maintenance costs for the first loco will add up to 317.7% of the initial purchase price. You still have to buy two locos, so that's another 200%, and you still have to pay 5 years escalating maintenance costs for the last 5 years, so that's another 61.1%. This gives a total of 578.8%.

The net result is that by "economising" and keeping that first loco for 15 years instead of 10, you have incurred an extra cost equal to 60% of the purchase price of the locomotive.


ETA: Corrected text added from here on. I shouldn't do complex maths late at night.

To make it economical to keep the locomotive for 20 years instead of 10, the initial annual maintenance cost would have to be reduced from 10% of purchase price to 3% or 4%. A loco that has an IAMC of 4%, replaced every 20 years, will cost about the same as a loco that has an IAMC of 10% replaced every 10 years. IOW, neither of those two options will save you money compared to the other option if the purchase costs are the same for both locos. They're about break even.

If the more reliable loco had an IAMC of 3%, then it would start to be cheaper to buy one of those and keep it for 20 years, instead of buying another 2 locos for the same price each, that had an IMAC of 10%, and keeping them for 10 years each.

If you want a locomotive to be economic to keep in service for 20 years, the initial annual maintenance cost has to be much lower than you might think. If this causes problems with scenario balance (which is possible) it might be possble to compensate by adjusting cargo prices, or giving the more reliable ones less spectacular performance, or something else.

[Gumboots]

Ha. This is weird. I just did some adding up of initial annual maintenance cost (IAMC for short) as a percentage of purchase cost (PC) for all reliability ratings for all locos (steam, diesel and electric).This is taking 1.05 default loco figures, just to get an idea of what the original devs might have been thinking. There's very little sense to it.

There's only one example with a "Very Poor" rating, and that's the Firefly. It's IAMC/PC is 14.3%.

There are 4 locos with a "Poor " rating, and they vary from 10% to 60% IAMC/PC with an average of 27.1%. IOW, they average about twice as expensive to maintain as the Firefly.

The "Below Average" locos range from 5.7% to 20%, with an average of 14.5%. That's starting to make more sense.

The "Average" ones range from 3.3% to to 20%, with an average of 7.5%. Ok, that sorta works even if the range is bonkers.

The "Above Average" ones range from 1% to 19.2%, with an average of 9.6%. This makes no sense at all.

The "Good" ones range from 2.6% to 37.5%, with an average of 9%. That doesn't make any sense either.

The "Very Good" ones range from 3.3% up to 15.6% with an average of 6.1%, and by now I'm beginning to suspect some people were eating funny mushrooms.

The "Outstanding" ones range from 2.5% up to 28.3%, with an average of 10.7%, and by now I'm sure of it.

There's only one loco rated "Near Perfect" and that comes in at 0.4%.

Go figure.

[Stoker]

Good work on figuring out the loco stats Gumboots. I have suspected that the maintenance charges were not correctly associated with their ratings, but never looked into these things. One question I have is, where did the loco stats in the post you made @ 7:16 come from? Are they from the list included with 1.06? I ask this because whenever I select "All NA locos" for a scenario I am writing I end up having the Stirling available, and in your list it says Europe and World for the Stirling. Might want to check the code on that one, I think they may have inadvertently included it with the North America group. My only other suggestion as far as locos goes is to up the early American 4-4-0 passenger rating . As it is, the only loco with a "Looks Sharp" rating for NA locos in this time period is the Stirling (Duke- see note below), which does not belong on the NA list. As I had mentioned in another thread, the early 4-4-0's were about the most ornately decorated locomotives of all time, and they would be the best option for a good passenger loco in that era.



I personally would vote for giving these beauties an "Ultra Cool" rating, but I would settle for a compromise of "Looks Sharp".

Edit to add: OOPS! I was going from memory , and the loco incorrectly associated with the NA group (IMO) is the Duke, not the Stirling. Maybe some of these found service in NA at some point, but if they did it was certainly a rarity, and would be better represented by having a scenario writer manually include it if it was desired. Having these British Dukes steaming around in every western USA scenario in the late 1800's is a bit ludicrous. I see that you have already taken this into consideration, Gumboots. I now have most of the mod tools I need to get started, and have tinkered a bit changing a few buildings. I may take your advice and get Hex Editor Neo, although I am already quite familiar with TinyHexer. Not sure if the learning curve of a new program will pay off with the limited amount of coding I need to do to change/create 10 or so buildings.

[Hawk]

The Jupiter! One of the Golden Spike locos.

[Gumboots]

Good work on figuring out the loco stats Gumboots. I have suspected that the maintenance charges were not correctly associated with their ratings, but never looked into these things. One question I have is, where did the loco stats in the post you made @ 7:16 come from?

I took the figures from Lirio's list for 1.05. Not sure if she had any typos in that since I haven't checked it all yet. I picked 1.05 because I wanted to get an idea of what the original PopTop devs might have been thinking.

I personally would vote for giving these beauties an "Ultra Cool" rating, but I would settle for a compromise of "Looks Sharp".

Ah yes, those things. TBH, I find them quite revolting to look at. Obviously this is subjective, but to me the proportions are ugly and the paint jobs are just plain garish and tasteless. I realise some people love them to bits, but I'm not one of those people. I'd be quite happy if I never saw one again.

However, since you Yanks seem to be ecstatic about the things and since they're part of your history and all that, I don't really mind what passenger rating it gets. I'll just laugh every time I read it.

Regarding other updates to the loco list, the stuff I saw as being wrong with it was just off the top of my head. There should probably be some other tweaks too (Lirio will have some ideas about that I expect) but I haven't really thought them all through yet.

[Stoker]

Those early 4-4-0's were without a doubt over the top as far as the styling goes. Later locos dropped all of the ornamentation and look more or less like battleship boilers on wheels until the streamliners came along. The main reason for upgrading the passenger appeal on the RT3 4-4-0 is that the only NA loco available in that time period with a good passenger rating is the out of place Duke. If that gets removed, there needs to be at least one loco with a good passenger rating, and these 4-4-0's were prettied up for exactly that reason, so it makes sense. Even loco's pressed into war service were ornate, with polished brass domes and whatnot.Check out these USMRR locos on Shorpy:

02112a.jpg (254.76 KiB) Viewed 4090 times

[Gumboots]

Yeah I can see the sense of it.

Had an idea about the Camelback too. Since it's useless as it is, and since the existing model is one of the crudest in the game, it might be a good idea to turn it into something like a PRR E1. The current start date for it is pretty close to the actual build date (can be changed) and there were other examples of express camelbacks in various wheel configurations (4-4-0, 4-6-0, whatever). Making a model like this wouldn't be hard since it's mainly a matter of just moving and slightly reshaping the cab on something else. Could use a Connie or an Atlantic for a base.

prr700s800.jpg (42.92 KiB) Viewed 4090 times

[Stoker]

I do use the Camelback's now and then, depending on the scenario. They can be handy to use as freight-only road slugs, due to them being cheap and relatively cheap to run compared to the other options available in that time period in most scenario's. I am not by any means attached to them or their current stats, so I am behind you with pretty much any choice you make about re-doing those.

[Gumboots]

From what I can gather looking at posts about them (not many to go on) and from what I do myself, I don't think they get much use as they are. They can be ok for short haul freighters if the terrain is flat, but the current stats make them utterly useless if there are any grades at all, and the low free weight makes them slow on the flat with a heavy load. We could keep them as cheap freighters and just boost the grunt a bit to make them useful. Realistically I don't think they should have much less grunt than a Connie if we expect people to use them. If going for the cheap freighter slot we could drop the top speed.

[Gumboots]

Oh hey here's a third option: if people think it's a better idea, we could always drop the Camelback entirely and use the slot for something else. AFAIK the game wont care if there are unused assets in 3D\rt3_DDSF.PK4 and 3D\rt3_3DPF.PK4 so the original files there can be ignored. The only really relevant ones are the .lco and .car files in EngineTypes, and they can just be removed or replaced.

From what I can figure out, the game only registers a loco as installed if there are .lco and .car files existing for it. PK4's don't seem to matter since they're just a stash for whatever. I know PK4 names are irrelevant to the game engine too, and are only for human bookkeeping.

[Blackhawk]

Overall, I'd think the Camelback rarely used. I've used it on rare occasions, but only for a short haul at the most, and most likely just used it as a cheap place holder in scenarios that require a train sitting in the station and gathering a full load of cargoes. Then when it was time to actual haul the load, I'd upgrade the locomotive. Another questionable locomotive is the Orca. If locos start getting removed and replaced though, then the extent of it's backwards compatibility comes into issue. Although off hand I can't think of a 1.06 scenario that used required the use of the Orca. I suppose if you go for backwards compatibility, a disclaimer could always be given that scenarios requiring XYZ locomotive won't play as intended/may crash.

[Gumboots]

Yes I could quite happily lose the Orca. We could always change the Orca .lco and .car files so they point to the Camelback assets. That would blow people away if they hoped the Orca would save them in the Orient Express game.

[Stoker]

I think the only issue with eliminating the Camelback would be if an existing scenario has an event relating to it specifically, which would cause a crash if it looks for it and nothing is there. That being said, I do not know of any scenario's that have anything relating to the Camelback scripted, so it is probably safe. Another work-around that would make 100% certain that there is no missing resource issue would be to retain the exisitng file name of the Camelback, and just insert the new loco and stats, etc. that will show whatever you want in the game. I am considering using this method to deal with the "Crystals" cargo issue.

I could also live without the Orca. Again, you could use the same file name and insert a new loco in it's place, and it will appear as the new loco in any scenario that requires the Orca (I can think of a couple like Orient Express and one of the Michigan maps). The key might be to make the replacement loco a top performer so that the in-game usage would give similar results.

[Blackhawk]

Yes I could quite happily lose the Orca. We could always change the Orca .lco and .car files so they point to the Camelback assets. That would blow people away if they hoped the Orca would save them in the Orient Express game.

Serves them right, and a locomotive that looks like a whale should have the nice slow speed of one!

[Gumboots]

I think the only issue with eliminating the Camelback would be if an existing scenario has an event relating to it specifically, which would cause a crash if it looks for it and nothing is there. That being said, I do not know of any scenario's that have anything relating to the Camelback scripted, so it is probably safe. Another work-around that would make 100% certain that there is no missing resource issue would be to retain the exisitng file name of the Camelback, and just insert the new loco and stats, etc. that will show whatever you want in the game. I am considering using this method to deal with the "Crystals" cargo issue.

I could also live without the Orca. Again, you could use the same file name and insert a new loco in it's place, and it will appear as the new loco in any scenario that requires the Orca (I can think of a couple like Orient Express and one of the Michigan maps). The key might be to make the replacement loco a top performer so that the in-game usage would give similar results.

Yes I think eliminating the Camelback would be safe as it seems to be universally ignored. Having thought of it though, I do totally love the idea of turning the Orca into the Camelback just as an Easter egg.

But yeah the same file name/different assets dodge would work too and I think that would be ok as long as it's documented (see earlier rant about file names etc ). We can toss it all around and see what consensus we get on the best approach (if we get one).

ETA: I know Lirio edited her own installation to give a Mallard instead of an Orca in the OE scenario. That would be easy to implement too (applies to any loco of choice).

[Gumboots]

Oh here's another thought about loco naming: I'm personally not that keen on going overboard with Whyte notation for the in-game loco list. Personally I don't really care how many wheels a loco has or how they are arranged when I'm scanning the list for something to buy. That information is just extra clutter, which is generally not a good thing in an interface since you usually want to absorb it all at a glance.

I'd prefer to just have descriptive names for locos. So as an example, instead of "Mallard 4-6-2" (the original PopTop name) or "Class A4 4-6-2" (Lirio's name) I think it'd be better to just use "LNER Class A4". Most players will know what that is, and to me it's clearer to read.

This is quite apart from the fact that European players wouldn't generally use Whyte notation anyway. Really "BR 01 4-6-2" or "Class 01 4-6-2" don't make sense, since it'd be better as "BR 01 2′C1′ h2" if people want to get all steamhead about it.

(BTW, I'm not going to argue all of these points if people generally disagree, since I can always edit my own installation to suit my preferences)

[Stoker]

@ Gumboots: Another thing that I would be in favor of, and I think you would be as well, would be to replace all of the fantasy locos with something more useful- steamers would be my choice. This might break some scenario's, but if you stuck to retaining the original filename and inserting the new unit method they would at least not cause a crash. One thing you and I have in common as regards to a project like this is our desire to maximize the steam era of the game. For me personally, I could live with ditching ALL of the post- steam locos- (maybe retain some of the early electrics and transition era diesels)but that might be better suited to a true mod (we could even call it King Coal- ) . First things first, I think a 1.06 patch to deal with the cargo/production chain issues and the loco fixes you have in mind should be our first target. If we can accomplish that , and still have a good head of steam, we could then proceed with a full blown steam era mod. Along these lines, if we are going to pull the trigger on this 1.06 patch project, perhaps a name should chosen for it and a new thread be started in the "Patch maker's" section.

As far as the naming convention for loco's I can live with using the common nicknames and drop the Whyte notation, especially since there are more than one loco with many of these (4-4-0 is a good example- I think there are at least 3 of these in the game). This might be something to get some community input on before a decision is made though.

[Blackhawk]

I never paid much attention to the wheel arrangements in the game so I always just looked by descriptive name. Of course I also enjoy the diesel scenarios a little more than steam so my thoughts probably don't mean much to you since you only play steam!

The only thing I would do is if a engine gets renamed from something like "Mallard 4-6-2" to "LNER Class A4" and the Mallard name is lost, I would make sure in the release notes mention the renaming of any engine that loses its original descriptive name and its new name. Otherwise you may have someone reading posts on the forums on a scenario saying they used Mallards to win and the next guy no longer sees Mallards in his locomotive list as they are now LNER Class A4's.

[Gumboots]

@ Gumboots: Another thing that I would be in favor of, and I think you would be as well, would be to replace all of the fantasy locos with something more useful- steamers would be my choice. This might break some scenario's, but if you stuck to retaining the original filename and inserting the new unit method they would at least not cause a crash. One thing you and I have in common as regards to a project like this is our desire to maximize the steam era of the game. For me personally, I could live with ditching ALL of the post- steam locos- (maybe retain some of the early electrics and transition era diesels)but that might be better suited to a true mod (we could even call it King Coal- ) . First things first, I think a 1.06 patch to deal with the cargo/production chain issues and the loco fixes you have in mind should be our first target. If we can accomplish that , and still have a good head of steam, we could then proceed with a full blown steam era mod. Along these lines, if we are going to pull the trigger on this 1.06 patch project, perhaps a name should chosen for it and a new thread be started in the "Patch maker's" section.

As far as the naming convention for loco's I can live with using the common nicknames and drop the Whyte notation, especially since there are more than one loco with many of these (4-4-0 is a good example- I think there are at least 3 of these in the game). This might be something to get some community input on before a decision is made though.

Yeah I like where that is going. And I agree about the plethora of Whyte stuff shared between various locos, which is partly what got me thinking about dropping it. Nobody has ever insisted that we have all the wheel arrangements for diesels and electrics in the in-game list, and I think it would be a nightmare if we did.

If going with the all steam (or mostly steam) thing as a possible future mod, I think it would make sense to just bite the bullet and break things. Otherwise there would be too many unused and misnamed files hanging around for my comfort. Anyone playing it should be aware that scenarios that rely on some of the ditched trains wouldn't work. If necessary, editing such scenarios to suit should be easy, and identifying them would certainly be easy due to the obvious crash.

I never paid much attention to the wheel arrangements in the game so I always just looked by descriptive name. Of course I also enjoy the diesel scenarios a little more than steam so my thoughts probably don't mean much to you since you only play steam!

The only thing I would do is if a engine gets renamed from something like "Mallard 4-6-2" to "LNER Class A4" and the Mallard name is lost, I would make sure in the release notes mention the renaming of any engine that loses its original descriptive name and its new name. Otherwise you may have someone reading posts on the forums on a scenario saying they used Mallards to win and the next guy no longer sees Mallards in his locomotive list as they are now LNER Class A4's.

Yup, documentation is a good idea for any changes. Thing is Mallard was only one of the class anyway. Someone might choose to skin it as Union of South Africa in BR green or whatever.

[Stoker]

OK, we need pick a name for this patch. I am kind of drawing a bank here. I guess 1.07 or 1.06.1 would work, but I don't want to imply that somehow by making a patch that would make us on par with all of the work done to create the 1.06 patch. Maybe something like "1.06 complete"?

We need some ideas here folks, so let's here what all of the H&B member's think a patch to wrap up the 1.06 cargo/production/missing building issues and take care of a bunch of loco fixes and maybe some other graphics issues should be called.

Also, we need input regarding anything that other folks are interested in seeing fixed or added, and of course anybody who has any skills to contribute would be welcome as well. * well almost anybody. Personalities must be considered of course, and Gumboots and I are both fairly rough in this regard, so those that are easily offended and such might not enjoy dealing with the two of us for any length of time. Once we get this boxcar rolling, there will be need for some tester's to make sure the things we come up with work as intended.