Passengers behaviour and amount?

[itchy2]

Hi all,

I learned how to calculate the rates / transport capacities for the production supply chains but I'm not gettling the logic behind the passengers?

- Where can I see the amount of passengers per city?
- How behave the passengers if there are two different routes (to two different cities) available?
- Will train and boat lines compete about the available passengers?
- Is there any chance to increase passenger volume (besindes growing the city)?

Is there a difference in track routing.
Example:
1)
City 1 --> City 2
City 1 --> City 3

2)
City 1 --> City 2 --> City 3

From a logical perspective I should have a better utilisation of the trains in option 2, but this is a game, not the reality. What do you think?

Thx and KR
Itchy2

[Kniff]

The more connections to other cities a city has the more targets the citizans get (what you can verify by cklicking on the city name) and the more the city grows.

1) has the advantage the people reach faster their targets and can travel again then

some people chose the fastest other the cheapest line , I dont think you have an impact to it.

[Vimpster]

To see all the potential passengers in the city and how they are divided between possible locations, you click on the name of the town and then click on the destinations tab. It will break down all the possible places that are reachable by the town using either personal transport or your transport services, and it will also give a percentage of how many are using your transport to reach said destinations.

Yes there is competition. If nothing else you are competing with the people's own means of transport (walking, personal car). But if you provide multiple transport options then you will also be competing with yourself to some extent, even if your services aren't going to the same locations.

Increasing the size of the town, or the size of the connected towns, is the only way to increase passenger volumes beyond what the current destinations allow for.

With your two examples you will increase the destinations number the most with your first example, which will potentially increase the destinations growth bonus for the town. The reason for this is that the more direct the route the more destinations get registered as being within reach. In your second example the stop over in City 2 would decrease the directness of reaching City 3 and so fewer possible destinations would be picked up in City 3.

However from an economical point of view your second example could potentially be the better one since you are consolidating two routes worth of passengers into a single line. If each route on its own does not warrant enough passengers to make a profitable line then consolidating them like that could make two otherwise unprofitable lines into one profitable line.

[itchy2]

many thanks for your responses.

I checked the tab "targets". It's quite interessting.

My current setup looks like this:

Route 1: City 1 --> City 2
Route 2: City 2 --> City 3

The routes share a train station in City 2.

If I check the tab targets for City 3 I have:
City 3: 25% route usage
City 2: 97% route usage
City 1: 100% route usage

This means the KI is intelligent enough to do a train change in City 2. Creating a direct connection Between City 1 and City 3 or creating a combined route: City 1 --> City 2 --> City 3 would not add any value. Did I got this correctly?

Thx and KR
Itchy2

[Kniff]

the added value is they reach faster their target and travel again
the added value could be that the city gets more targets and grows faster then (the targets in the city view not the target cities)

[Vimpster]

As Kniff said, there is added value from making a more direct (faster) route. You will see more destinations being found in the destination city and thus more passengers wanting to travel there and an increase in the growth bonus for each city.

[Kniff]

on the other hand would give you

City 1 --> City 2 --> City 3

more passengers on the City1-2 line (if you have different lines) that was a reason for me to chose that solution in the early game years to maximize the 1-2 line profit.

[kamykaze13]

You have two trains now and two lines. If you combine those to one line with two trains and make it City 1 > City 2 > City 3 > City 2, it's pretty much the same.

But people from city 1, wanting to travel to city 3, don't have to change trains in city 2, which would decrease their traveltime. No?

[Kniff]

They only pay if they reach their target or change trains, so it depends if the three cities are along a straight line or if its more a triangle because they pay for the distance between source and target not for the length of your train line.

[kamykaze13]

Ok, but that wouldn't make any difference.
If they go from city 1 straight to city 3 and you get paid 2000 per peep,
you would get 1000 per line, per peep if they had to change trains, because the distance doesn't change.
It could lead to a more steady flow of cash, to have two seperate lines, instead of peaks with one line.
But if their traveltime gets decreased, maybe more peeps would be inclined to use your service, which would result in a higher profit overall.

[Vimpster]

Originally posted by kamykaze13:

Ok, but that wouldn't make any difference.
If they go from city 1 straight to city 3 and you get paid 2000 per peep,
you would get 1000 per line, per peep if they had to change trains, because the distance doesn't change.

The distance does change though. You are paid based on the distance between where they get on and where they get off, regardless of where their final destination is. So if the 3 cities were in a triangle you would be transporting them further distance if you forced passengers going to City 3 from City 1 to go to City 2 and transfer to a new line to reach City 3. In fact if the triangle is an equilateral triangle you would make twice as much money per person by sending them to City 2 and forcing them to transfer rather than sending them straight to City 3. But of course you would end up with fewer people wanting to make the journey in the first place.

[kamykaze13]

I think you misunderstood, what i meant, or my wording was bad.
If you have a line

city 1 > city 2 > city 3 > city 2

People hop onto the train in city 1 and want to city 3, the train goes to city 2 first, but they don't have to get off the train to change lines. So the distance doesn't change, but the traveltime should decrease. This is what i meant with straight to city 3.

[Vimpster]

Yeah, I must have misunderstood you then. Sorry.

[kamykaze13]

Nothing to be sorry about.^^
I could've explained better as well.