Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've wondered for a while how the early and tiny F9 could be so fast and handle grades so well. Well, I wonder no more. The data simply must be wrong.

I did some checking today because I also wondered why such a great engine ever became unavailable. Not only did all sources show it manufactured for only a few years (~1949 - ~1953), but I also found that it was only about 1700 HP with a top speed at about 65 mph. These numbers are much more believable than the apparent 3000 HP and 110 mph.

Even if I mod the EXE, I'll need to fix my US History map somehow because I can't count on anyone using my mod. Unfortunately, the best fix for a map is to delay the F9's appearance and use it to represent something having its speed and traction. That's unfortunate because it's completely incompatible with a mod that corrects the power.

What to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the engine stats make no sense. The GG1 is incredibly unrealistic (albeit the saviour for every human player).

Also, I never understood the reliability ratings for the modern locomotives. How did the developers seriously reckon that an engine like the Thalys is less reliable than a mid-19th century steam train?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the engine stats make no sense. The GG1 is incredibly unrealistic (albeit the saviour for every human player).

How did the developers seriously reckon that an engine like the Thalys is less reliable than a mid-19th century steam train?

It only makes sense if there's a steady increase in global reliability over time against which engine ratings are relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience, there isn't though. And with the speeds they run at, after a couple years the breakdown chance of a Thalys is at a ludicrous 15%.

Also dumb; a TGV takes a hill about as well as a Consolidation. Don't know how they figured that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the game engine for RT2 was open source so that this kind of change could be made. But I think you are right, few players would really care.

I thought the stats for the game was close to being correct. It has been interesting to note that this history was not copied in the game more correctly.

It would have been interesting to just sit in on the discussions of the developers as they put the game together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after a couple years the breakdown chance of a Thalys is at a ludicrous 15%.

Reminds me of my 4-6-2 Pacifics in the early 20th C. I had one recent game with about 400 of them, and by age 4 there were several burning out every month, and one fatal crash almost every month.

a TGV takes a hill about as well as a Consolidation. Don't know how they figured that.

It's ridiculous. One of the hallmarks of TGV (and similar trains) is enormous power-to-weight ratio and having every bogey provide tractive effort. That means that dedicated high-speed passenger tracks are built with impunity with grades up to 4%. (They also have large radius curves at ~7km).

I wish the game engine for RT2 was open source so that this kind of change could be made.

"This kind of change" involves only data, not the game's programming logic. Since I've cracked most of the data, we can "fix" all of the discrepancies mentioned thus far. The engines named in the game could act as reference sources describe them.

What I don't know is how to introduce whole new engines to fill the gaping holes, especially in later years. Why doesn't the game have a large, fast diesel? Given that void, I am tempted to change the service date range of the F9 in my scenarios (perhaps with a dialog box with a design note) instead of reducing it to its historical weakness and speed. Either that, or I would need to beef up one of the later diesels (the Amtrak-liveried FP45 ?) to fill the end-game passenger diesel role.

I thought the stats for the game was close to being correct. It has been interesting to note that this history was not copied in the game more correctly. It would have been interesting to just sit in on the discussions of the developers as they put the game together.

It may have been more illuminating to watch the fingers of the data-entry person who mis-typed the data.

I am willing to edit a raft of engine stats as part of my game-mod project (the one in the game-mod thread that already has a few extra industrial conversions). However, before I do so, we would need to solve two strategic problems:

1) How do we provide / preserve reasonable engines for all needed roles on all continents in various time periods?

2) How do we produce a new "printable appendix" of train stats to go with the modded game? I know it's a straightforward spreadsheet task, but I'm not in the mood for finding the representative grade/load speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst part is that there's absolutely no reason to go diesel in the late game. The E111 is the best all-around engine since the GG1, and is much cheaper and faster than either diesel counter-part (AMD 103 or Dash-8). Throw in the Eurostar for long distance passenger runs, and those are the only two engines you use late game. It's not even close in terms of what's the better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst part is that there's absolutely no reason to go diesel in the late game.

That was sort of my point. The game needs a 6000+ HP diesel, especially a fast one.

As for reasons to choose diesels, scenarios can cook them up. How about expensive electricity and/or e-track? Cheap diesel fuel? Simply limited engine selection? There are reasons that electrification hasn't yet spanned low-population regions. If a scenario incorporates enough of those reasons, then players would do well to choose accordingly.

My US History map withholds the fastest engines until a company makes certain "improvements" (event choices). This is to reflect the 1947 ICC ruling that established speed limits for various classes of track in the US. If you never opt for the improvements, then the E111 would end up being your best passenger engine (the Eurostar would never appear for your company).

The E111 is the best all-around engine since the GG1, and is much cheaper and faster than either diesel counter-part (AMD 103 or Dash-8 ).

I like the E111's power, but... If I plan my engine replacement right, then a fleet of GG1s bought in 1970 will survive until the Eurostars replace them in 1994, skipping the E111 for pax. Its modest acceleration is a problem for low-priority heavy freight, so I use E60CP's for that (and eventually Class 232's). I end up using E111's only for new passenger trains created during the awkward gap between the last GG1 and the first Eurostar.

Throw in the Eurostar for long distance passenger runs, and those are the only two engines you use late game. It's not even close in terms of what's the better option.

Don't underestimate the value of acceleration on trains that may be forced to stop and restart. If your map allows you the luxury of low-traffic and completely separating all freight tracks from passenger tracks, then the E111 could be the workhorse for the freight system. Unfortunately, that's sometimes... difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frequently, I find it cost effective if I've 3-5 metropolises to build a dedicated high-speed line, and then set up Eurostars to run 5 pax + diner, and throttled down Thalys engines with 3-4 mail cars. I select the straightest route, flatten it, and then let the trains run. It's a massive capital investment, but pays off huge.

In my last NYC to LA runthrough, I built a dedicated high speed line from Washington/Richmond and New York through to New Orleans, Dallas, and Houston. I was able to build 90% of it in two long stretches; east of Richmond to west of Tallahassee, and then from there to just south of Dallas. The Eurostars payed off their purchase cost in three years, and the Thalys in two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the freedom one has in a scenario that opens with an empty map in the era of high-speed rail...

Take a look at my US History map sometime. You should start it in the 1820's or 30's to justify an empty map. You then get to play for ~170 years before Eurostars and Thalys become available (and only then if you push every tech option).

By then, the AI companies will be transcontinental, their spidery track clogging approaches to all major cities. The metros themselves will have had 170 years of growth to clog themselves. Even the countryside will be dotted with enough farms and mines to interrupt most straight paths of any length.

You can dynamite some of obstacles (for a price), but others will fall within AI-companies' station radii, rendering them immune. Figure in some inconvenient river crossings, and late-game track becomes gnarly, sometimes impossible.

I am now in the 1990's on that map. Building a new, isolated line to be dedicated to high-speed passengers would be almost impossible anywhere outside of Mexico. Next time I play my own map, I am staking out some key rights-of-way that I know I'll want a century later. I might even separate pax/mail from all other freight starting about 1840.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the freedom one has in a scenario that opens with an empty map in the era of high-speed rail...

Take a look at my US History map sometime. You should start it in the 1820's or 30's to justify an empty map. You then get to play for ~170 years before Eurostars and Thalys become available (and only then if you push every tech option).

By then, the AI companies will be transcontinental, their spidery track clogging approaches to all major cities. The metros themselves will have had 170 years of growth to clog themselves. Even the countryside will be dotted with enough farms and mines to interrupt most straight paths of any length.

You can dynamite some of obstacles (for a price), but others will fall within AI-companies' station radii, rendering them immune. Figure in some inconvenient river crossings, and late-game track becomes gnarly, sometimes impossible.

I am now in the 1990's on that map. Building a new, isolated line to be dedicated to high-speed passengers would be almost impossible anywhere outside of Mexico. Next time I play my own map, I am staking out some key rights-of-way that I know I'll want a century later. I might even separate pax/mail from all other freight starting about 1840.

Yeah, I've played it once already. Though I need to play it again; first time through, I did it with no revenue handicaps. Most of the AIs built lines without 2 towns; the two that did I swallowed up easily. I achieved transcontinental status very quick, and won by 1905. With the +20/-20 I'm sure it would be more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was sort of my point. The game needs a 6000+ HP diesel, especially a fast one.

What you need is a SD90MAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD90MAC

I am all for adding and changing engines for the purpose of historical accuracy. I think we could use some more engines in the game, if that was possible.

Also, for fast passenger service during the 30's, how about the Zepher's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB%26Q_9908

They were the first to travel at 100 MPH.

Not sure the speed but the E9 was used for passenger service, especially by the Burlington Northern in Chicago, during the years 1954-1964:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_E9

The E units were all at or over 2000 HP, whereas the F units were all under 2000 HP, except for the FT demonstrator.

The F9 (and all F units) were for freight, hence the slower speed.

Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the engine stats make no sense. The GG1 is incredibly unrealistic (albeit the saviour for every human player).

Also, I never understood the reliability ratings for the modern locomotives. How did the developers seriously reckon that an engine like the Thalys is less reliable than a mid-19th century steam train?

I disagree about the GG1 - it's top speed for passenger service was 100MPH. The top speed for freight was 90MPH.

It also was probably the engine that had the largest pulling power of any engine of it's time (65,000 pound force at the rail, as opposed to a diesel's power coming from the torque of the torque converter, as well as gearing, wheel diameter and locomotive weight).

It's pulling power was so high due to the wheel arrangement the GG1 had.

Was it great on reliability? That I don't know. But I do know from talking to people in the railroad business that the GG1 could pull very heavy loads at a good speed, something that the RRT2 engine doesn't do really well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wondered for a while how the early and tiny F9 could be so fast and handle grades so well. [..] I also wondered why such a great engine ever became unavailable.

I probably have never bought an F9, even by mistake. In the 1950s, the last Mikado's are serving well, along with electric lines where they seem plausible. And then the GPs came.

I'd would like to buy off the person who decided to discontinue the GP9 and the GP18! With mucn better reliablity and the same or better speed under load, the GP18 is the best choice for express goods/autos. I generally don't want to see anything below "Good" in diesel reliability. I'll admit that the real horsepower of the GP doesn't come close to 6000, but to keep these engines was the only time I used a cheat code in RT. It'd be great if these engines, or a more reliable SD, stayed.

It does get kinda boring to haul everything from coal to pax with the same white E111, especially on U.S. maps. I try to throw in some Eurostar or Brenner (when is the ground around curves really flat?) only for their visuals.

How did the developers seriously reckon that an engine like the Thalys is less reliable than a mid-19th century steam train?

V1.53 did improve overall reliability of new engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd would like to buy off the person who decided to discontinue the GP9 and the GP18! With mucn better reliablity and the same or better speed under load, the GP18 is the best choice for express goods/autos. I generally don't want to see anything below "Good" in diesel reliability. I'll admit that the real horsepower of the GP doesn't come close to 6000, but to keep these engines was the only time I used a cheat code in RT. It'd be great if these engines, or a more reliable SD, stayed.

You probably wouldn't have to 'cheat' anymore to do this.  It's probably something in Jeff's spreadsheet you could look up in the exe file and fix.  I'm assuming engines have 'discontinuance' dates that could be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 but to keep these engines was the only time I used a cheat code in RT

 

If I would use show me the trains cheat, I'll go with all GG1. It's the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I succeeded in changing the discontinuation dates which I took from the appendix to the official strategy guide. The date is stored in the exe as a single word following the introduction date.

I'm new here. Could you direct me to the Jeff's spreadsheet?

The GG1 is an excellent engine; and I have less trouble using it for freight due to its rusty appearance. I also enabled the 1020, which is kinda ugly and might look good for moving wood/coal/iron in Europe. For the first time seeing the GP18 side by side with the Dash-9, I realize it is equal or significantly better than it in every aspect.

I wonder if the AI will use the enabled engines also (doubt it since they lack in top speed). I wish it did, because it's no fun watching FP45s stuck on AI's grades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a crazy theory as to why the F9 has superpowers.

 

It's supposed to be a F7 AB set like the F3 in the game.

 

In the manual's train appendix, there is a F7 in parentheses next to the F9.

 

The F7 has 1500 horsepower per unit, so 1500 HP Cab Unit plus 1500 for the Booster, 3000 hp total.

 

However, that does not explain where the 110 speed come from.

 

And also, the SDP40 is useless. Can we change it to a SD40-2?

 

And what's up with the Ten-Wheeler's and Mastodon's Reliability? They were both excellent locomotive designs, and the 4-6-0 was very popular. The Mastodon didn't catch on though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago, Milwaukee, Saint Paul & Pacific RR had an electric locomotive that could haul passenger trains at 120 MPH.

 

I found a set of 6 DVDs at the library that was interesting.  Mostly about the RRs in the 1940s and 1950s.   (Steam, Electric and Diesel)

 

The DVDs were called:  America's Railroads by Walter P Gray.  The collection of short videos are old but most were in color.

One shot showed old RR cars being burnt.  (I guess they were too old to use in a bad economy)

 

A link to the Polar electric engine site, follows:    This site allso contains info about Tom Swift a RR writer which is a bit confusing.

  There is a picture of the Milwaukee's electric locomotive; I think was called a PE-3.     It had 4400 HP.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swift_and_His_Electric_Locomotive

 

PS:

 

Click on the source infomation under inventions and find useful  locomotive wheel notations and the names.   ( 4-12-4 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...