Cargo weight revamping

[Gumboots]

I've been putting some thought into where we ultimately want to end up with boxcars too. The default D boxcar is a 50 footer, probably because it was the most common size when the game was made, even though there were 60 or 62 foot cars around too.

I think most of us want longer trains, just because they're more fun. The biggest boxcars are the 86 footers, which are actually 86' 6" internal length and have a body length just shy of 88' externally. There were first introduced in the mid-1960's, which ties in well with one of the boxcar era change dates (end 1964/start 1965). Although not the most common even in the US and Canada (and non-existent in the rest of the world) these cars are still in use by several companies.

Here's a look at how they compare with the C double bauxite hoppers, and with one unit of the H10 Double. Wheelbase is a bit shorter, but overall length is about the same as the H10 Double. They should have acceptable in-game behaviour (which means they'll look a bit funny sometimes, like everything in RT3).

If these are introduced to the game in 1965 for the G era, that mean no bigger boxcars in 1990 for the H era. They'll already be as big as they can get, so the H era will need another way of distinguishing it. The obvious trick here is graffiti. It was almost non-existent before the 1980's, but common by 1990, so G era and H era can use the same model but different skins: basic livery for G and with graffiti for H. This will work.

Since there would be no extra modelling work required (only a bit of renaming and skinning) it would be easy to extend this to have different coloured skins for different cargoes. For example, the three in the shot above could be clothing, furniture and paper. This probably won't be done for the testing stage but will be an easy upgrade later.

That led to another thought. The original use of the 86 footers was for high volume/low density cargo, and that's how they are still used. Although I think keeping all boxcars the same weight, and same change dates, is best for all-round playability that doesn't necessarily mean all boxcar cargoes have to use the same model. It would be quite simple to have a generic 50 or 60 footer for the denser cargoes (ammunition, goods, rubber, etc) and an 86 footer for less dense cargoes that take up more volume for the same overall weight (clothing, furniture, etc).

This would give more variety in the looks of consists, and possibly easier cargo recognition, without being much more work to code and without complicating gameplay. It would also be a natural feed-in to the intermodal era. The shorter boxcars could be replaced by double-stacked well cars post-1990, and still run in conjunction with 86 footers for the less dense cargoes.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I can't speak for anyone else, but around here, I see more cargo containers on flatcars and wellcars than I see boxcars. Though, what I see more than anything is open hoppers full of coal and tankers with hazard labels prominently displayed. I was trainspotting over the weekend (there was report of a live steam excursion to be running) and a cursory look at what was in the yard at Huntington WV and Charleston WV, the spattering of boxcars were a hodgepodge of sizes, all steel, but not much uniformity in size. Also, the tankers were of various sizes, my friend who is a driver for Norfolk-Southern says that's because all liquids are not the same weight per cubic foot. Which makes some sense, as I recall mercury is a liquid and it's way more heavy than water.

Anyway, back on point, what I did note about the newer-looking boxcars is a switch to what appeared to be white or off-white fiberglass roofing on some of them. Whether that was to reduce weight or some other reason, I cannot guess. No few of them had double-doors, which I guess is to allow a fork-lift or some other manner of loading/unloading machinery easier access to the interior. But it was neither fiberglass roofing nor double doors was a consistent truth. The only consistent truth was coal hoppers, full or empty, some of which looked like they may have been in service since Eisenhower was president. No few of them looked like they had been in more than one derailment, which isn't surprising considering the state of the tracks in this part of the world.

Back to my driver friend, he assures me that there are long stretches of rail hereabouts that can not handle 80-ft cars, so what I saw may be down to "region" more than "era".

[Gumboots]

Yes it'll vary depending on area. The 86 footers are "hi-cube", like the newest Trinity reefers and like a lot of US boxcars built over the last few decades. if you have lower clearances on your local lines they won't be able to run. Although any line which can handle double-stack well cars would be able to handle the others.

Anyway boxcars of whatever size are still in widespread use, so I think it makes sense to have some in the post-1990 roster. Particularly considering that double stacking didn't even start before the mid-80's. But yeah there's scope for doing COFC as well. That makes for nice long units with good visual interest.

Edit: BTW, there are still large chunks of Australian and European line where you can't run double-stacked, and you can't use it anywhere at all in the UK as far as I know. So lotsa boxcars and COFC in those areas.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I recall seeing TOFC quite often in the 1980s and early 1990s, but that seemed to give way over night to COFC. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw TOFC. A while back, I considered making a TOFC goods cargo replacement a while back, but, truth be told, an hour's research informed me that semi-trailers have undergone more length changes in the past 60 years than boxcars have.

[Gumboots]

I'd considered TOFC, but the amount of work and polys required to make it look slick was more trouble than I was interested in. I don't like the look of TOFC much, so meh. This is all a bit of a joke anyway, since no matter what cars you model for a default set they'll probably be wrong (technically) for most scenarios.

Over here we don't use the same boxcars as you lot. We're big on "louvred vans", which are similar to a boxcar but with louvred sides to give ventilation without letting rain in. All sorts of stuff got carried in those. They have a far more curved roof than US boxcars too.



But Australian freight uses a lot of COFC these days. Usually two 40' containers end to end. We're not big on the 53's over here (although they are starting to appear). Most of them are standard international shipping containers. Some double stacking, but with limited route availability.

Anyway since I'm on a US rolling stock theme to start with I'm going to stick with it for now. I've been looking up a range of cars and have picked up some more information, so the meshes for the various boxcars are more accurate. Turns out in the 1920's automobiles were shipped in 50 foot boxcars instead of the standard 40 foot. The same size was often used for furniture and other light but bulky cargoes. So I revised the autoracks to start with a 40, then go to a 50, then to a flatcar, then to the old style open-on-top-but-with-side-shields type, and finishing up with the fully enclosed type that's been in use since the 90's.

So I'm pretty happy with the basics for autoracks, boxcars and reefers now. Will get onto doing the game files for them.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Heh. The USA had a number of regional boxcar variations, including several of the louvered van sort, but they were most used in the desert southwest region on the Southern Pacific and across the "deep south" where it gets miserable hot on Seaboard/Atlantic Coast Line (etc). Although you might see them as far north as the Reading and Potomac Valley. They typically looked like any other boxcar save that they had a second door that looked more or less like a barred jail cell door set up in an either-or arrangement with the typical solid door. I've heard such doors called a "hobo screen door" and read about hobos in the 1920s and 1930s preferring such cars for crossing the Arizona/New Mexico desert for obvious reasons.

To be precise, these weren't ventilated reefers or cattle cars, although they might have seen use as such. Their primary design purpose was to prevent varnish from bubbling on furniture, lumber warping, paint pots blowing off their lids, and that sort of thing. I've seen photos of steel versions as well as wood, but I am not sure when they were in use, and I myself have never seen one. I figure they disappeared from rails about the time trucks took over the lion's share of freight transport.

[Gumboots]

Sounds similar to our ones. They were used for shipping pretty much anything that you wanted out of the weather, but didn't want to cook. Fruit, pallets of bagged cement, furniture, hitchhikers, paper, whatever. Usually not stock or milk though, AFAIK. Stock went in stock cars, and milk went in reefers. These were still the ice bunker type into the 1970's.

[Gumboots]

Hey this is funny. I was just checking out the stock cars to get a handle on those too. Turns out that although the default A, B and D cars carry cows, the C car doesn't. It carries sheep. Even better, it still sources them from the game's cattle ranch, of course. Must be some strays that wandered into the rancher's land, so he flogged them off in a hurry.

Which got me thinking, it would be easy enough to model the 85 foot "pig palace" used by Northern Pacific. Could put any critters inside it. Maybe throw in some elephants just for a laugh.

SP has a couple of "stock palaces" which were much the same, but taller as they were for cattle.
Details: http://espee.railfan.net/sp_fcss-18.html

[Gumboots]

Ok, we're having them. I couldn't resist.

Turns out that quite a few companies ran 85' double level stock cars for a period. Some for cows, others for smaller critters. I've just modelled one up based on the dimensions of the Southern Pacific "stock palace", and added in the second deck and a lot more cows. The skin is just the default PopTop stock D at the moment, but looks decent enough for now.

So these are going to be introduced in 1975 for the G era, and the same model will be kept for the H era with some small skinning changes to distinguish it. Obviously this is not realistic, because stock traffic dropped to virtually zero during the 80's, but since RT3 insists they're a viable cargo ad infinitum we might as well have something to ship them in.

[Gumboots]

Redundant post.

[Gumboots]

And the default Era B PAX wagon... well, I am sure some American movie-makers have made that seem to be the norm, but the truth of the matter is that for most of the period between 1850 and 1900, that design was not the norm, even in the USA. TBH, between 1850 and 1900, your Era B caboose looks more like what most nations saw riding the rails as a PAX wagon than the hump-spined thing in RT3. The shape seen as the default Era B PAX wagon, Dining Car, and Mail Car in RT3, is a definite anachronism created by Hollywood using whatever rolling stock was cheap and available for making period films....

The devil is in the details

Jim, you are very inconvenient. As a result of your comments I started looking stuff up. Very interesting. Very time-consuming. I can't remember where you mentioned it, but one of your comments was about early wooden beam trucks vs archbar trucks coming in around the Civil War period. So I went a-lookin', and one thing led to another. I think I now know more about the evolution of freight and passenger trucks than any sane person would want to know, but there are probably many insane people who still know more.

Anyway this resulted in me realising that a lot of the default modelling makes no sense at all. It's an odd mixture. Some of it is very accurate. Other bits are off the planet. Some of the early models have weird supposedly trucky things under 'em which don't look like anything I've been able to find on an actual car. Plus wheels are the wrong diameter and spacing. Etc, etc. Having found this out, I want to fix it. This is probably a mistake, but whatever.

Short version is that I'm revamping the boxcars, etc to have wooden beam trucks when they should have, and switching to archbars and whatever else when appropriate. I'm also looking at changing the stock cars and boxcars and early reefers to use the same basic mesh and UV mapping, since that will make customising easier in future. Which is all chewing up time but is keeping me entertained. I'll try to draw a line under it soon so I can get this stuff rolling out the door.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I live to serve

But in this one instance, I fear you are mistaken. I don't recall ever commenting about the trucks. Perhaps it was Hawk? My area of focus for nattering is above the bogies, usually fixating on the clerestory: Monitor, Continental, Hooded, Duckbill, Broken duckbill, Bullnose, Broken bullnose, with or without roof apron, and all points in between.

In any event, I am more than content that you thought of me as the reason for your research. It's almost like being loved.

In my own feeble attempt, I did much the same thing, modifying the default PassA mesh so it lost the curved bottom to become a universal model for all wagons except the open hopper. It made skinning them ever so much easier.

[Gumboots]

Crap. I've searched the forum and can't find that comment anywhere. It must have been on a different site.

Ok, so what must have happened is I went looking for stuff around the 1850's to 1860's (due to your comments about pax coaches in that period) and ran into the truckish stuff somewhere, then got intrigued. Anyway the B era freight cars will have the right trucks now: rigid wooden beam mongrels of things, with 33" wheels on a 48" wheelbase. Then the C era gets archbars. And decent wheels.

They were bugging me before because they just didn't look right, but I didn't know how they were supposed to be. As soon as I found accurate info I was like "Yup. that looks right".

Have done a bit more. About enough for a test pack, I reckon.

[Just Crazy Jim]

As boxcars go, those are dead sexy. I'll take two of each.

I saw a pair of monstrosities as open hoppers yesterday afternoon. They were obviously shop-slopped mongrels: Cargo containers with trucks slapped on the underneath and the tops cut off with a welding torch. The work crew had the pair of them loaded with beat-up wooden ties, that I am guessing they replaced with new, as there were a number of flatcars with fresh ties on them. I don't know what part of the spur they were working, but there was a powerful lot of sun-beaten, desiccated wood in that monstrosity. Must be miserable work in the weather we're having, so I figure the crew felt about like those crude hoppers looked.

Where I'm going with this is a stupid idea of an Era J (or K (or L)) that is all Mad Max, post-apocalyse, nuclear wasteland... (sings) we don't need another era....

[Gumboots]

Umm, yeah. That could be over the top.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I was having dinner with my friend who's a driver for Norfolk-Southern this evening and we got onto the topic of "future rail". He informed me that there were already several designs being tossed around for freight wagons. With rail infrastructure in a generally sorry state, the brass hats are increasingly concerned about derailments and all the costs that might include, so the general trend being discussed is "how to make a rail car survive a derailment without spilling the contents". What he had heard about sounded more or less like something approaching an armored car. Double-hulled tankers inside a heavily-reinforced and ribbed hangar-shaped shell. So triple-hulled in fact. Boxcars with the basic same hangar-shape with the ribbed shell. As far as he knows, it's all just talk at this point. He suspects that the choke point on any real development is the Catch 22 of all that added weight making derailments more likely and that added weight that isn't cargo will just make all power units half as profitable to run.

Be that as it may, he's confident that the brass hats will continue to add an inch or two every so often, because "they only know how run railroads like the Harkonnens run planets." (Dune reference)

Anyway, what he described is something like this:

[Gumboots]

Yeah I can see that being a problem for payload. You'd be basically doubling the weight of the empty car, but would still be restricted by the same axle loading. It'd make a lot more sense to prevent derails in the first place.

And I got the Harkonnen reference.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Yeah I can see that being a problem for payload. You'd be basically doubling the weight of the empty car, but would still be restricted by the same axle loading. It'd make a lot more sense to prevent derails in the first place.

And I got the Harkonnen reference.

Agreed. But (at least in the US rail industry) the sort that get elevated to command positions when the shareholders are calling the shots tend to be weak on long-term thinking and strong on higher returns. Me, I find it ironic that I typically have an easier time making money in RT3 than it seems you can in the real world rail industry.

Good on you for being well-read.

[Gumboots]

Might as well put this here too, since it's probably not worth reviving the pax appeal thread.

To good distinctions between freight, mixed and express we were planning to extend the pax appeal scale. I've kicked around umpteen schemes, but think I have it sorted now. The new scale has to:

1/ Not push pax prices insanely high on the highest ratings.

2/ Give us more scope for reducing pax fares on non-express locos.This is the most important bit. Due to trade-offs for fuel consumption, grunt, and reliability, pax appeal is about the only way of stopping freight locos being used for everything.

3/ Work with the old scale's 90%, 100%, 110% and 120% pax appeal values, in case someone uses a loco that hasn't had its hex code adjusted. This means ratings of 90%, 100%, 110% and 120% are locked in.

I think the new scale should bump the top level to 140% fare instead of the default Ultra Cool's 120%. This can be used in conjunction with an 85% passenger price event in the editor, to bring it back down to an effective 120%. That should be the standard option for scenarios where you don't want boosted pax prices.

Scenario authors could still boost pax prices by 17% for specific scenarios without running into the price spiking bug, because the game will still be processing it as the standard 100% pax price if the 85% event is omitted, and the extra revenue will come from the new boosted ratings.

The number of ratings should be kept fairly low, since humans have trouble remembering too many things at once. The extra new ratings have to come from hijacking language strings in the sandbox time options, so go for the minimum of mess there. I think this is the best option:

Code: Select all

	;---------------------------------------------------------------------
	;	#ID     Rating Name     Revenue     Hex value       Default string
	;---------------------------------------------------------------------
	;	2703 - Ultra Cool      140%        12 00 00 00     Frozen at 8 am
	;	2702 - Very Cool       130%        11 00 00 00     Frozen at 7 am
	;	2688 - Looks Sharp     120%        03 00 00 00     Ultra Cool
	;	2687 - Looks Good      110%        02 00 00 00     Looks Sharp
	;	2686 - Acceptable      100%        01 00 00 00     Acceptable
	;	3173 - Ugly             90%        00 00 00 00     Ugly
	;	2697 - Very Ugly        80%        0C 00 00 00     Frozen at 2 am
	;	2696 - Gruesome         70%        0B 00 00 00     Frozen at 1 am
	;---------------------------------------------------------------------

This gives us a top rating with double the revenue of the bottom rating, has names that make sense, will play well with old loco hex coding if anyone does that (they'll just make 15% less pax revenue than normal) and should generally do the business. The sandbox time options would then look like this, which I think is still pretty clean:

Code: Select all

Normal day/night cycling
Frozen at midnight
Very Ugly
Gruesome
Frozen at 3 am
Frozen at 4 am
Frozen at 5 am
Frozen at 6 am
Very Cool
Ultra Cool
Frozen at 9 am
Frozen at 10 am
Frozen at 11 am
Frozen at noon
Frozen at 1 pm
Etc, etc.

This will work.

[RulerofRails]

Scale looks good.

Probably is not important here, but my understanding (never did a rock-solid test) is that passenger and mail prices are immune to the price breakout bug. I'm pretty sure that different formulas are used than those for freight traffic. If the devs managed to duplicate that bug for different formulas, they reached a new level.