Fuel Cost - progression over time

[RulerofRails]

Here's a chart for all the 1.05 locos including diesel and electrics over the years 1829 to 2015 (x-axis). There was no room for all the year labels, and I haven't worked out how to add just the important years to the x-axis.

This is the average of the fuel cost of every loco available during a given year, taken for each of the years. If a loco was available till the end of the game it was contributing to the figures for each subsequent year.

The graphed fuel figure is for 8-cars of freight (according to the current Era) before mileage is applied. I thought to do it this way, because it's obvious that my test track is a pretty efficient routing setup for a typical C- and D-era train that isn't rubbish on grades. This way the figures aren't yearly but a more accurate measure against the cost of moving cargo a certain distance from point A to point B.

I did some IF statements and stuff, so will try an all steam one next which shouldn't be too hard. As far as the max and min figures go, some of the unique locos like the Shay and Fairlie are definitely skewing this number upwards. The sample size here is a bit small to do a proper average. Removing a couple of locos like the Shay and Big Boy (the Orca spring to mind for a minimum one) would change the look of those lines a lot. The big peak in maximum is due to those heavy, expensive steam locos. Even the average would be somewhat affected.

If you have any ideas for limitations to do a better presentation of this data, speak up cause it's easier to do things right the first time. At the moment I am manually switching the formulas for the eras, but I can pretty easily put in some of the proposed average weights to see how they look. Also don't know if I should do a seperate graph for 1.06. Fuel cost was one of the things that Lirio didn't seem to change very much, so am unsure if it's worth a seperate sheet for her stats as well. I am thinking to try to differentiate the averages for Diesel, Electric and Steamer, but I need to consider the best way to implement that. More IF statements and stuff.

*ETA: Edits due to my confusion with "track mile" and "track pieces" counts. 1 track mile = 2 track pieces. I am using the count for track miles.

[Gumboots]

I think it would make sense to exclude locomotives which are obvious outliers. The Big Boy, and to a lesser extent the Challenger, is usually impractical if you want decent profits. There are rare exceptions where it can be used profitably, but even there another locomotive will usually do the job better. So I'd remove any locos that are, for whatever reason, too stupid to use.

The Stirling and some other express locos just aren't practical for hauling freight. They can do it, more or less, but their lack of hauling power means they will do it at a lower speed than other locomotives that are available at the same time. This makes using them for freight very much a sub-optimal choice. If you think it's important, their omission can be noted above or below the graph. I think splitting the graph it into steam, diesel and electric makes sense, to give an indication of the differences between categories.

My 2c is that for the moment we should stick with default 1.05 and 1.06 stats. Adding 1.06 locos for extra data range, and possibly some of the custom ones, is probably a good idea. I don't think that needs an extra graph.

[RulerofRails]

Well, here's one with the average split into three, one for each of the fuel types. I haven't eliminated any locos at this point. I will likely eliminate the Orca, Big Boy, Challenger, Shay and Fairlie as those could easily be called pretty useless/not representative. I am less sure about eliminating the express haulers because I don't believe these have a higher fuel cost per ton. If it's just a question of not enough oomph to haul that particular weight increasing pulling power is going to have no effect on fuel cost per mile as long as the consist weight is the same. However, if you make a list of the "normal" locos and the "express" ones I can do a graph to see if there's much difference.

1.06 has a couple of introduction date changes that will slightly change the graph. Nothing major though, will see about doing that later.

[Gumboots]

Ok, fair enough. Just ditch the obvious outliers then.

[RulerofRails]

Here's a selective chart for 1.05 Steamers. I have excluded the Orca, Shay, Fairlie, Challenger and Big Boy. I only left the overall Steam Average so there is some comparison but not much clutter.

[RulerofRails]

I want to try to use a better mixed value that is hopefully representative of what we might actually see in-game. I went through the in-game loco stat figures like 80t Freight, 67t Mixed, 53t Express to see what ratio of express/freight was used in determining those numbers. Turns out that a 40% Express / 60% Freight split is used for those numbers. We know that these numbers are inaccurate, I just wanted to see what the game makers thought the Mixed split was going to be.

So, thanks to Hawk's info here, it's really easy to check a saved game for total express hauled. Following is some code. Just copy it. Load a saved game. Use Shift+E to go into the editor. Find the main Status event. Normally this is just called Status, but sometimes the setup is a little less intuitive. It should trigger as "ALWAYS TRUE." Click in the text box of said event and use CTRL+V. Then open the ledger to see the figures.

Code: Select all

Troops: [Game-wide LTD Troops Hauled]
Mail: [Game-wide LTD Mail Hauled]
Passengers: [Game-wide LTD Passengers Hauled]

All loads: [Game-wide LTD loads hauled].

I am happy to see the figures from anyone's developed games. By developed I mean 20 years played. Also, a normal game where there wasn't excessive focus on industries at the expense of rail or big boosts for passengers/mail/troops. I tended to look at game's where there were small or no AI, but bigger AI doesn't really matter. Either a percentage split or the raw figures in a file, either will be useful in working out the fuel costs with the current game's setup and will be useful for express balancing. Noting the era of the game is good as well, current year is all that's necessary.

I went through the saved games that fitted the above criteria in my present 1.05 install and did see some variation. I didn't see a figure below 10% Express hauled. Maximum was 41% on Michigan 1830. I didn't get a big enough sample size to do a true average, but my take-away from this is to use rough numbers of 30% before 1850, 25% for 1850-1900, 15% for 1900-1950, and 10% after that.

[Gumboots]

Yeah I just took 50:50 because I've found that in practice it's hard to get a useful figure for a freight/express split on mixed traffic. It varies from train to train, even on the same route, and often varies quite dramatically depending on current cargo availability and prices.

However, on second thought I can see some value in maybe putting the mixed class a bit further up the weight range. If we're going to have varying freight weights during the same time period, moving the mixed class a bit further up the weight range could tend to even out the gap between heavy freight and express. IOW, instead of mixed being halfway between average freight and express, maybe it should be halfway between average-to-heavy freight and express, if that makes sense.

And yes I know you can get express loads hauled. What I had been trying to get earlier was express revenue, which isn't something you can do.

And why would the amount of express in a game have anything to do with express loco stats? I don't get it.

[RulerofRails]

Just to be clear, so far in this thread I have been talking about 1.05. Those observed mixed rates are in games that are played in the regular way, heaps and heaps of auto consist. In the proposed split system, these numbers don't mean a lot. In my experience, using auto consist regularly causes some freight to be hauled when passengers are available. This is partly due to the order of loading available cars on a train being based on the price of delivery before an engine passenger appeal rating is applied to any Passengers.

As far as the 50:50 for the proposed Mixed class, for now I think this looks a workable solution for fuel cost. For loco speed settings, the Mixed class should be able to pull a bit more weight than that.

To work out the level of passengers that are needed to justify using dedicated express trains often, I am thinking it would be helpful to know how many passengers other's rail networks are hauling compared to freight. Many maps have decent passenger potential if using Hotels and good track setup/train routing. Any data volunteered will also be a guage of how much of that potential gets used regularly with the vanilla game.

I went ahead and applied the splits I mentioned in my last post. (30% express before 1850, 25% for 1850-1900, 15% for 1900-1950, and 10% after that.) I have decided to keep the x-axis showing $0.05 increments, but let scale adjust automatically. Here's how the comparison between fuel types is looking using the Selective Steam Average.

[RulerofRails]

Another view. Fuel cost when running an engine without a consist.

[RulerofRails]

I used Lirio's/Magnus's info to make the sheets for 1.05 by combining it with the engine weight data that data you collected in the Fuel Cost Calculator for all default steamers. But, Lirio's sheet doesn't have any custom locos, so I decided to transfer onto low_grade's sheet which seems to include almost all of the locos available when he made it. There were a couple electric ones there that I couldn't even find anywhere. "Quicksilver", "Class 313," and "Mecury Magneto." Neither sheet has engine or tender weights in the first place. I went to Trainmaster as that has more custom locos than I have in any of my other installs. I assumed that no weight changes were made when making TM as I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has changed engine or tender weights of existing locos in the past.

There were some introduction/end date changes with 1.06 and the first renaming of existing 1.05 engines introducing engine availability issues. Thankfully, the install for 1.06 has check-list options of what to install that details the changes to those engines. Neither sheet has got all these loco dates right. Probably wont change the comparison too much. An easy one to check is the P8 which in 1.06 is available till 1965.

I need to go through my sheet and fix those right now. I still need to try to put some better code in the sheet then I might post it. I want to reduce the number of manual tasks a bit more if I can. What comparison do you want to see for starters? I have 22 custom locos in the sheet, but purposely didn't add some doubles as these are often around double engine weight. Sometimes they even use a worse fuel rating to boot. The GP7 Double I have in the sheet is causing a spike and I am considering excluding it.

[RulerofRails]

I think I took the sheet as far as my current skills allow. Should be regarded as a beta, but didn't name it as such cause I forgot. I would be surprised if I didn't make any mistakes, so let me know if you find anything.

I included both OpenOffice and .xls versions in the zip. I made the sheet in OpenOffice. Main differences I see are in size and load time. The MSOffice one is much larger but loads far quicker. Take your pick.

ETA: This sheet can output 3 different sets of outputs very easily within the few seconds it takes to enter new weights/ change consist length/ change the variation of the existing consist. One output is a basic "all loco", but the other two are: one based on the 4 PopTop default eras and then a brand new one for the custom cars that accepts a new weight every 5 years. The custom car one allows copying car weight values from the latest "Car Planner" spreadsheet in. Both those values have automatic fields to refine the figure to, for example, "Version 1.05", "Steam", and include a manually controlled exclude list for complete custom control if that's desired.

Edit: Fixed bug where exclusion list was always active.

[Gumboots]

Cool. I'll take a look over the weekend. Have been rather busy with other stuff.

[RulerofRails]

To help interpret this data, a $80k cost on my test track corresponds to the $0.15k level on the sheet. The loaded freight Kriegslok has a default D-era level of $0.116k on the sheet which gives it the $62k test track score.

I found a bug in my sheet. It involves the exclusion list. The list is currently always on. I forgot to add an "AND()" condition that is used to ensure that it is active. Will update the sheet shortly.

Another comparison involving custom cars for the first time. Comparing my approximation of default auto consist vs. proposed Mixed class which as I understand should have higher fuel consumption than other classes so I bumped all locos up two levels to get it at least close to what we have now. The average peaks at $0.116k. What we currently have with Kriegslok. Possibly fuel consumption could rise another level. That will just transpose the graph up a bit.

This whole comparison is rough because I lumped all 1.06 and custom steamers from the list into it. Many of them will never end up in this mixed class. I still excluded the outliers because they are definitely heavy freight locos (except Orca).

---

Setup using 1.06 + Custom locos less the outliers I mentioned a few posts back:
For default weights I tried to approximate auto consist for each era when using a caboose. So Era-A: 4 Express, 3 Freight, caboose (34 tons); Era-B: 3 Express, 4 Freight, caboose (74 tons); Era-C: 2 Express, 5 Freight, caboose (153 tons); Era-D: 1 Express, 6 Freight, caboose (320 tons).

For custom weights I am using 7x the "Average 50/50 split" weights as given in this planner and also the caboose as given at the minimum freight weight. I applied the "Mixed Average" modifiers to the engine+tender weights (from last sheet of this fuel cost calculator). I increased fuel consumption by 2 levels (made it worse). Otherwise, no engine stats are changed.

Note:
I did some steps manually as the sheet isn't setup to automatically spit out stats for two different sets of engine weights.

[RulerofRails]

This is a comparison of the proposed classes when applied across the average 1.06+custom steamers. The Freight class gets fuel consumption one level lower, the 50/50 is up two levels.

I realize this is an imperfect view as all locos are included for each class. By taking only the average of the steamers this should be minimized. The progression is looking flatter than default for sure. Notice that the average for Max freight is still below the default of the Kriegslok ($0.116). Maybe it doesn't need a reduction in fuel consumption and Express and 50/50 consumption should be raised instead. Will do that in the next graph.

[RulerofRails]

So, the above except now "Mixed" 50/50 Average class is now +3 fuel consumption levels above default. Express and Freight are at the default fuel consumption levels.

This time I am showing the "Mixed" 50/50 Average class when running it for a not intended purpose: All express.

I chose +3 fuel consumption levels for 50/50 class because at +2 levels 50/50 hauling it's intended cargo is about equal to the Average Freight cost as well as being roughly equal to the dedicated Express class. It's my feeling that making Express class better at hauling Express than 50/50 class is easiest with a lower fuel cost to begin with. 50/50 class can have other costs like engine maintenance and replacement subsidized by hauling a few cars of freight when the comparison is made to the Express class in the circumstance of having fewer than 8 cars of express to haul at time. This will likely be true most of the time. We could just rely on passenger appeal rating. Testing will tell if that's enough.

Using further refined loco weight modifiers the shape of this progression could be improved, but this isn't a bad start. An important thing to remember is that this is all for Steam locos and the drop off at the end of graph happens because sample size is small and those locos (Kriegslok, QJ, Red Devil) are good on fuel in their default state.

Another thing, I just realized that since the first fuel cost thread I have been using the one-way direction (my mistake when measuring my test track) when in fact this is the cost to travel that distance in both directions. This means that all the cost figures in this thread are double what they purport to be: the cost of covering one track-mile with that train and load. I wont change the formula for the chart to keep the comparisons better, but to apply this figure to the game we are measuring the cost of covering 2 Track Miles. Time to go back and edit some posts.

[Gumboots]

I have no idea why you seem to have this obsession with making the mixed traffic class substantially more expensive to run than other classes. It makes no sense to me. Everything I've been able to figure out says that the mixed traffic class should have a fuel rating in between the ratings for freight and express. IOW, fuel rating is related to consist weight, not to class name. If you have to haul more weight, you need a lower fuel rating to keep costs reasonable.

[Gumboots]

Ok, there is one situation where I could see a benefit in making the mixed class more expensive to run. That would be if, on a developed map with a decent network, mixed traffic still had consistently higher returns compared to freight and express. That could warrant correction via increased fuel costs, but is something that could only be determined by extensive testing. It's not amenable to the use of spreadsheets based on assumptions.

Modifications to the default weights are going to be extremely important in determining the overall results, which is why I was trying to get a rational basis for converting real life locomotive weights into corrected weights for the .car files. I think a consistent formula for that conversion would be best, since it gives a greater chance of in-game locos retaining the relative feel of their real counterparts when compared to others in the roster. Without a consistent formula to provide a starting point loco stats are likely to be all over the place, depending on whose butt they are pulled out of and what mood the owner of said butt was in at the time.

[RulerofRails]

Read your latest post. Will post what I had anyway. I agree, definitely need to test and no pulling numbers from thin air.

The +3 level fuel consumption for Mixed was an experiment with the fuel costs of a Mixed class hauling express. I was combining it with a +1 fuel consumption boost for Express, but took that off when I noticed that in the early years express fuel cost was still higher on an Express loco than on a Mixed one. I forgot about not having individual classes in the early years. I have always felt that we need to have higher fuel costs for Mixed. I can't explain exactly why very easily except as a balance thing against the dedicated classes. I am really unsure how much. Perhaps one level will be totally sufficient. Testing will be the place to find out if this idea is true in reality.

Other things, leaving the idea of raising the Mixed aside for now. Using the overall average of yearly differences with default fuel consumption ratings:

A Mixed class engine hauling 8 Express cars costs 13% less fuel than an Express class engine hauling those same cars.

An Express class engine hauling 8 "Average 50/50" Mixed cars costs 10% more than a Mixed class engine hauling those same cars. Reliability settings will likely render this impratical.

A Mixed class engine hauling 8 "Average Freight" Cars costs 9% more than a Freight engine hauling those same cars. Reliability settings will make this less ideal as a long term soution.

So in my mind the one to watch is hauling the lower weight classes with a higher weight train. Reliability will allow this, and because we are using modifiers to make the Express class heavier than the Mixed class, this makes it naturally cheaper to haul the lighter cars with the stronger engine which is also lighter. Using low passenger appeals for freighters should keep most express traffic off them. This brings me back to the Mixed class hauling express.

Going by your testing on Passenger appeal here: I can read that Very Cool might actually return 112%, whereas Tolerable will return 88%. That leaves a 27% margin. Depending on what fuel cost/revenue ratio is (maybe half in the 1900s?), the 13% more paid for fuel will reduce the gap in expected profits to maybe 20%. Because the Mixed train will have opportunity to haul freight as well without having a unreasonable breakdown chance, it will have more revenue potential. Might be hard to justify buying a dedicated express engine.

This is what I was thinking about when trying out higher fuel consumption for mixed. Other alternatives involve engine weight modifications and passenger appeal rating refinements. It's sure hard to gauge whether a 10% fuel cost here or there is going to change a lot for the average player. My guess is probably not. It wont change a thing for me when I am in expansion mode with profits fueled by rails, but then again I don't play like the average player. Over 20% might be enough for me to start paying attention. When in expansion mode the purchase price has a good deal to do with the best engine over the very short term. But that's not an important thing at this point.

I say all this because I would like changes to be as bullet-proof as possible. I know RT3 isn't bullet-proof, but I am trying to find the weaknesses so we can test properly for them from the start. Don't want to sound negative here. Soon we can get some testing going. That will be good.

Here's the unmodified classes over the full period. Notice how Mixed class is hauling Express for slightly less than Express class.

[Gumboots]

I agree it's good to try and figure out pitfalls in advance. I don't see that as being negative.

An Express class engine hauling 8 "Average 50/50" Mixed cars costs 10% more than a Mixed class engine hauling those same cars. Reliability settings will likely render this impractical.

A Mixed class engine hauling 8 "Average Freight" Cars costs 9% more than a Freight engine hauling those same cars. Reliability settings will make this less ideal as a long term solution.

It'll also be affected by pulling power and free weight, meaning the mixed class should be slower with all freight, and the express class should be slower with mixed, so that will cut annual returns.

This is what I was thinking about when trying out higher fuel consumption for mixed. Other alternatives involve engine weight modifications and passenger appeal rating refinements. It's sure hard to gauge whether a 10% fuel cost here or there is going to change a lot for the average player. My guess is probably not. It wont change a thing for me when I am in expansion mode with profits fueled by rails, but then again I don't play like the average player. Over 20% might be enough for me to start paying attention. When in expansion mode the purchase price has a good deal to do with the best engine over the very short term. But that's not an important thing at this point.

I can see that in expansion mode you'd compromise fuel costs to get faster turnaround, but I'm not sure how far we should balance things towards expansion mode. Like I said before, my assumption was that a lot of the time it would make the most sense to run mixed in expansion mode anyway, at least towards the periphery of your network, with dedicated freight and express used in the more established sections where pax traffic has had a chance to build up.

I understand that we don't want mixed or freight locos being more attractive with lighter-than-intended consists. We can definitely play around with the weight modifiers some more if necessary. That sheet I made was a first stab at getting something usable and consistent, but it doesn't have to be the last word on the matter. Turnaround time should also help. If a mixed loco will haul express slightly cheaper per ton/mile but not as fast, then the express loco automatically becomes more competitive for annual ROI even before you throw in pax appeal effects.

[RulerofRails]

I got time to work up a graph for the latest proposed Even Scale car weight progression. Here's how this looks. If I remembered to make everything the same way this should compare as a side-by-side with the graph on my last post, for reference: "1.06+, Proposed classes, default fuel ratings, with Mixed hauling Express". This doesn't take into account two distinct groups of freight weights. Heavy Freight actually represents the current HEAVIEST possible freight car.

As I said, that view doesn't incorporate two distinct weight groups: Military/Mining Cargoes and everything else. Here we have done an Average of Military/Mining which I have code-named INDUSTRIAL. I have done another Average for the rest of the freight cargoes. I called these CONSUMER. Please note that I still haven't split up the roster into potential classes. I'm still using the Basic Weight Modifiers across all engines.