Quickest way to make money?

[Vimpster]

I notice a lot of players, including some youtubers I watch, always recommend starting off with trucks when getting started. Where as I have always advocated starting immediately with a train line if you are trying to make money faster.

So I did a little experiment where I start a map in 1850, on hard difficulty, and spend the full $10,000,000 loan and see which gets me to a $1,000,000 balance first. The results are of course anecdotal. But they seem, overall, consistent with my previous experiences.

So using just trucks I reached a $1,000,000 balance after 6 years.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2619041420

With just a train line I did the same in roughly 5 years.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2619042129

I was actually surprised just how well trucks did. That said, the train line I made was certainly not ideal. It had a relatively long section of hill where the trains ran at 1/4 speed, and the trains were only full one way and half full the other way rather than full both ways. But to be full both ways would have required some supplementary truck lines, which is what I normally do, but for the sake of the experiment I wanted to use exclusively trains.

How about others? What have you found to be the quickest way to get started? Should I compare with boats? Could I improve my methodology of comparison?

Edit* Better test results:

Originally posted by Vimpster:

I decided to redo the tests and go for a longer term goal to better evaluate the effectiveness of each vehicle type, including ships. The new goal being which strategy can get to $10,000,000 first, which would pay off the loan. I also make use of trucks in every strategy because realistically they are always a part of a good strategy. The real question is about what you use for the bulk of your income when starting off.

Progressing with the truck strategy, it took till December 1862 to reach $10 mil.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2621564882
Using a ship strategy I was able to reach $10 mil by December 1860.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2621563856
Making use of a more reasonable train setup from my former example I reached $10 mil by August 1857.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2621564420

So it would seem that trains are even more decidedly the victor here. An interesting observation is how similar the year to year expenses are for each example. I was expecting the use of trains to make it far and away the more expensive strategy. As it happens, the truck strategy had a typical yearly expense of $1,580,000. The ship strategy had expenses of $1,600,000, and the train strategy had a expense of $1,430,000.

If anyone seriously thinks passenger transport is competitive with cargo in 1850 I am willing to do tests with them as well. But as far as I am aware it is generally conceded that passenger transport is inferior to cargo at this point in the game no matter what vehicle strategy you use.

[WYT]

Playing on hard mode without additional loans since 1850, with trains is harder to start the game than with trucks or ships. Later, trains will make more profit. In TF1 I could not start the game with trains on hard mode without additional loans, in TF2 it is possible, but only on some maps. If it is possible to use ships loaded in both directions on the map, it is easier to start the game with ships than with trucks.

[sergetechone]

Here my 2 cent.

First ... It all depend on the map and the stating year you are playing, it will determine the starting strategy.

A map with long rivers .... Going to start with trucks and ships. Trucks : Start with a short one way line., max out the line ( max rate ). Cheaper using the existing roads. If I am lucky with the map ( resources wise ) try to find a possible route with a Raw / Final Destination that is close, and the Intermediary fairly far away with only the small section of travel empty from Destination to Raw, I may use a rail line ( on land ) or truck route ( exiting roads already there ) or if close to the river, a ship line.

On a map without rivers, It all depend if I can find a Raw/Destination close together and the Intermediary/Raw fairly far away, that will be my stating point with a train line and borrow the max loan. Or with trucks, if there is already exiting roads. If I found none Raw/Destination possibility ( unless I build an industry at the right spot ), it going to be a lots of shorts one way trucks route.

On most map that start from 1920, Trucks lines is being use, if possible, usage of exiting roads and with no more additional loans, build cheap as possible.

It all depend on the map you are playing. If you can find a few Raw/Destination close together and fairly far away an Intermediary/Raw, than Train ( if possible ) or ships ( with rivers ) and with trucks as feeder line will be the starting point with a max out loan. If you not that lucky, a lots of one way lines with trucks.

The second picture of Vimpster, it as : Raw / Destination and Intermediary, but no feeder line to feed the Intermediary. An Oil well west of Kindderminister connect with exiting roads, will be the location of a potential feeder line using trucks, so the trains can be Full Both Ways.

[JohnofWem]

I managed to finish in hard mode with trains only and no extra loans in TF1 but it was very difficult for the first 40 years even with a large map and the longest fuel lines possible to afford. My challenge was to make $10B by 2050 which I managed but only just.
TF2 is much easier. You don't need to worry about trains labelled as BAD as they will still run and make a profit. So you can start with 6 oil tankers at the start and just exchange the loco when a new one is available, adding extra tankers as the strength increases.
On an extra large map and the highest number of cities and industries I had 9 fuel lines with 4 trains on each by 1915 making a profit of $37M and had also passed $1B in cash.

[Agent707]

Whatever you do, just stay away from passengers. Unless there's some magic trick to it, it's guaranteed profit loss.

I've been playing with a map I have two cities 1300 and 1500 population... Just trying to put bus routes in and around... a train station to connect them...
Been messing with it for a day or so now, ever single route loses money. Big money.

If you just want to "make money" fast and furious, just make long routes between cargo needs. Make sure to carry full loads both direction, much as possible.
You'll be making money hand over fists in no time.
Keep local traffic off your transport roads too. They just clog your lanes up.

[lemming3k]

I'm not too surprised at the results to be honest. Perhaps the truck route is a little long for early game but it seems reasonably balanced. Ships are good due to cheap startup costs so it would be interesting to see how they compare to trucks and train. The slow speed might hurt them on 5 years but they might catch up after a few more.

Truthfully though the most profitable option is to use whichever vehicle is most suitable for the situation, and often to combine different types on routes.


I disagree with staying away from passengers though. From my experience passenger routes can be hugely profitable, but again, it needs to be an appropriate route for the situation, and with adequate feeder routes where needed.
Think of it this way; If you fly a 747 between London and New York, that's a route with high demand that maximises your use of capacity and speed. If you fly it between Salisbury and Lincoln, not so much.
Direct(not circular) intracity bus/tram routes that pass through a transport hub are best. Train hubs are best for medium range intercity transport.

[Vimpster]

Originally posted by WYT:

Playing on hard mode without additional loans since 1850, with trains is harder to start the game than with trucks or ships. Later, trains will make more profit. In TF1 I could not start the game with trains on hard mode without additional loans, in TF2 it is possible, but only on some maps.

But if you are trying to progress as quickly as possible, why would you ever choose to not use the full loan, outside of trying to get an achievement? Using the full loan is always going to be better than only using part of the loan.

Originally posted by sergetechone:

First ... It all depend on the map and the stating year you are playing, it will determine the starting strategy.

It all depend on the map you are playing. If you can find a few Raw/Destination close together and fairly far away an Intermediary/Raw, than Train ( if possible ) or ships ( with rivers ) and with trucks as feeder line will be the starting point with a max out loan. If you not that lucky, a lots of one way lines with trucks.

The second picture of Vimpster, it as : Raw / Destination and Intermediary, but no feeder line to feed the Intermediary. An Oil well west of Kindderminister connect with exiting roads, will be the location of a potential feeder line using trucks, so the trains can be Full Both Ways.

For the purposes of this discussion we are using 1850 as the starting year. From what I have seen of other players, they generally think that the earlier the year you start the less viable it is to start out with a train line which is why I specifically chose to start at the earliest point.

I disagree about the map mattering though. Outside of playing on a small map, and disregarding ships since water isn't always an option, the choice between whether trucks or trains is faster should not matter about the map. One will always be better than the other unless they are so evenly matched that small variations will decide which is better.

As to your last point, about a feeder line, you are right. I was trying to stick exclusively with trains which meant I could not include a feeder line. But sticking exclusively with trains is not realistic or practical, so I redid the tests and utilised truck lines as feeder lines as you would do if you were really trying to make as big a profit as you can.

Originally posted by lemming3k:

Ships are good due to cheap startup costs so it would be interesting to see how they compare to trucks and train. The slow speed might hurt them on 5 years but they might catch up after a few more.

Indeed. I decided to redo the tests and go for a longer term goal to better evaluate the effectiveness of each vehicle type, including ships. The new goal being which strategy can get to $10,000,000 first, which would pay off the loan. I also make use of trucks in every strategy because realistically they are always a part of a good strategy. The real question is about what you use for the bulk of your income when starting off.

Progressing with the truck strategy, it took till December 1862 to reach $10 mil.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2621564882
Using a ship strategy I was able to reach $10 mil by December 1860.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2621563856
Making use of a more reasonable train setup from my former example I reached $10 mil by August 1857.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2621564420

So it would seem that trains are even more decidedly the victor here. An interesting observation is how similar the year to year expenses are for each example. I was expecting the use of trains to make it far and away the more expensive strategy. As it happens, the truck strategy had a typical yearly expense of $1,580,000. The ship strategy had expenses of $1,600,000, and the train strategy had a expense of $1,430,000.

If anyone seriously thinks passenger transport is competitive with cargo in 1850 I am willing to do tests with them as well. But as far as I am aware it is generally conceded that passenger transport is inferior to cargo at this point in the game no matter what vehicle strategy you use.

[Invictus]

I started with trucks full or almost full both ways.

After 1858, using American trains, trains are doable. Just search for a good fuel line with no dead heading, or wood/planks full both ways and trucks for the tools.

Don't be afraid to move the cargo away from its destination by train to then set up a truck delivery line longer than needed.

Edit: Also used passengers, but as a way to grow the cities. They are profitable but will only make small bucks.

[WYT]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

But if you are trying to progress as quickly as possible, why would you ever choose to not use the full loan, outside of trying to get an achievement? Using the full loan is always going to be better than only using part of the loan.

The game is too easy for me with additional loans even on hard mode. But to start TF1 with trains with additional loans on hard mode is challenging.

[lemming3k]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

So it would seem that trains are even more decidedly the victor here. An interesting observation is how similar the year to year expenses are for each example. I was expecting the use of trains to make it far and away the more expensive strategy. As it happens, the truck strategy had a typical yearly expense of $1,580,000. The ship strategy had expenses of $1,600,000, and the train strategy had a expense of $1,430,000.

If anyone seriously thinks passenger transport is competitive with cargo in 1850 I am willing to do tests with them as well. But as far as I am aware it is generally conceded that passenger transport is inferior to cargo at this point in the game no matter what vehicle strategy you use.

Those are some great results! I'm also surprised by the expenses being so similar. I had expected ships and trucks to be the cheapest in both setup costs and maintenance, so to see trains as cheaper is strange, but is perhaps a balancing decision due to higher startup costs?

Passengers might make a tiny profit in 1850 by using trams only in the largest cities, but certainly couldn't use all of the loan to create a good network. I'd say you need towns at least 600+ before passenger trains become viable, and that's still the earlier trains around 1880-90.
It'd be interesting to see comparisons but I believe there is a tipping point where passenger options become faster than wagons so can make more money, particularly post 1950 with larger towns.

[gGeorg]

Originally posted by lemming3k:

Passengers might make a tiny profit in 1850 by using trams only in the largest cities, but certainly couldn't use all of the loan to create a good network. I'd say you need towns at least 600+ before passenger trains become viable, and that's still the earlier trains around 1880-90.
It'd be interesting to see comparisons but I believe there is a tipping point where passenger options become faster than wagons so can make more money, particularly post 1950 with larger towns.

Originally posted by Agent707:

Whatever you do, just stay away from passengers. Unless there's some magic trick to it, it's guaranteed profit loss.

Passanger trams (or any inner city transport) is not for profit but as a feeder. It is the same as Viimpster use cargo road to boost train oil line efficiency. Financial stats of a feeder line doesnt matter, (well as long as it is around zero profit)

Second missunderstanding with passangers is temptation to make multi city line. Wrong!
Game gives you no benefit for such lines, contrary you get punishment becouse of payment method "platform_to_platform_stright_air_distance". As result, whenewer your line make curve to meet another city, you lose money.
Properly designed passanger line (according to game rules) is:
a) point to point
b) carefuly designed multi city line which connects several cityes of the same size in the stright line

case b) is quite difficult to set, so even if you know what to do, you can create very few such lines per map. There can be maps, like small, where no such line exist.

Thirth missunderstanding is cargo or passangers must, fallow the game rule of composing train, "wagon_speed_is_same_or_lower_speed_than_loco" ALWAYS.

Fourth mistake - players tend to compose train for "Good" performance rating. Wrong!
Most efficient train line (highest number in the rate collumn) you get on "Medium" close to "Poor" rating. For cargo early Poor rating is the sweet spot. Keep in mind, game rule sayz : " You get paid for Theoretical_max_speed_of_vehicle. " Especialy be aware you are NOT paid for actual speed, NOT paid for average speed, NOT paid for short delivery time" . Therfore acceleration or achieved speed does not matter.

test it yourself and let me know if I am wrong

[lemming3k]

Originally posted by gGeorg:

Passanger trams (or any inner city transport) is not for profit but as a feeder. It is the same as Viimpster use cargo road to boost train oil line efficiency. Financial stats of a feeder line doesnt matter, (well as long as it is around zero profit)

Second missunderstanding with passangers is temptation to make multi city line. Wrong!
Game gives you no benefit for such lines, contrary you get punishment becouse of payment method "platform_to_platform_stright_air_distance". As result, whenewer your line make curve to meet another city, you lose money.
Properly designed passanger line (according to game rules) is:
a) point to point
b) carefuly designed multi city line which connects several cityes of the same size in the stright line

case b) is quite difficult to set, so even if you know what to do, you can create very few such lines per map. There can be maps, like small, where no such line exist.

Thirth missunderstanding is cargo or passangers must, fallow the game rule of composing train, "wagon_speed_is_same_or_lower_speed_than_loco" ALWAYS.

Fourth mistake - players tend to compose train for "Good" performance rating. Wrong!
Most efficient train line (highest number in the rate collumn) you get on "Medium" close to "Poor" rating. For cargo early Poor rating is the sweet spot. Keep in mind, game rule sayz : " You get paid for Theoretical_max_speed_of_vehicle. " Especialy be aware you are NOT paid for actual speed, NOT paid for average speed, NOT paid for short delivery time" . Therfore acceleration or achieved speed does not matter.

test it yourself and let me know if I am wrong

That would largely match my observations and suggestions. Note that I said you might make a tiny profit with inner city trams in 1850, not that you should think of these as a primary source of income or a way to spend the 10 million loan. ;)
A carefully crafted intracity system with a central transport train hub would be the most effective, but only once town growth has been sufficient to promote intercity train travel.
People often put in circular routes where demand is patchy at best for half the route, or simply use too many stops or vehicles. This is partly why point to point is better as you can tailor the vehicles more efficiently the fewer stops there are.

With regards to points 3 & 4, there is often little point having an engine faster than the wagons as you rightly say profit is based on the theoretical max speed of the entire train, however the tractive effort and power becomes a factor on longer trains or ones that face elevation change, although it won't increase the profit per load.
One other factor to consider with having many wagons on a train is the acceleration time for situations such as departing a station or having to slow/stop at a signal for any reason.
Overall it's probably better to have fewer, longer trains, even to the point of double-heading them, but you'd need longer stations to accommodate this, and there are probably situations were smaller trains work better, such as on shorter lines (though 'good' or 'excellent' ratings are overkill). I wouldn't say there's necessarily a hard and fast rule on this, unless anyone has already done testing on this.

One key thing for people to remember is to think of buses/trams as "local" travel, trains as "regional", and airports for "long distance".

[Vimpster]

Some good points. Touching on gGeorg's point 3 and 4 also, I think it is important to explain the reason why one should try to adhere to the principle of "wagon_speed_is_same_or_lower_speed_than_loco". Most players are probably unaware that the speed of the loco is not a meaningful factor in the cost, where as the speed of the wagons does come at a cost. There is no downside to using a 180 kph locomotive with 120 kph wagons. No extra cost is incurred for having a locomotive that does a faster speed than the wagons since the speed of the locomotive does not affect the cost. But using 120 kph wagons with a 100 kph locomotive does incur significant penalties that one should try to avoid because you are paying for that speed of the wagons. For locomotives it seems that roughly 95% of the cost, both purchase and running cost, is derived from the power only. Not the speed or tractive effort. This is an important point that gGeorg actually brought to my attention, to which I am grateful.

As for point 4, I think it very much depends. On a flat surface and in the earlier years of the game, a poor rating is probably ideal to maximise profits. I wouldn't necessarily even be opposed to a very poor rating if the line is long enough. In the late game where it can take a much larger portion of the route for a train to reach top speed it maybe less desirable to have a poor rating. But medium should be perfectly fine. And regardless of the year, the more inclines, and more significant the inclines, the more important it is to have a medium/good rating.

I think it should also be noted that the "acceleration or achieved speed does not matter" in terms of the revenue made on delivery. The acceleration and achieved speed do however still matter since they affect how many deliveries can be made relative to how many monthly expenses are incurred.

[Lord Codswallop]

Spice it up? I play "Trains Only" maps. Then I'll have a "Trucks only" map. Trams are the wild card sometimes assisting with inter city routes, then later Planes as well. Both play styles can have Trams & Planes ;-) If I muck it all up I just restart the map. :)

[gGeorg]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

I think it should also be noted that the "acceleration or achieved speed does not matter" in terms of the revenue made on delivery. The acceleration and achieved speed do however still matter since they affect how many deliveries can be made relative to how many monthly expenses are incurred.

This balance is tricky. Hopefuly we have a tool, column Rate. As long as we get paid for unit unloaded on the platform, your profit is directly linked to column Rate.

Higher rate, higher volum transported per year. Nothing else matters. Get noticed, colum Rate is computed for each given line. So it considers the elevaations of the particular line. Iit also considers aeffect of Tractive effort (which has close to zero effect, yes I know it is not popular statement. Everyone look at powerfll cargo loco with amazing tractive effort but, it has just a cosmetic value )

I know I sound like heretic, but game rules are given. Gauss curve for "Rate" has a peak in the area where "Power rating" is evaluated by game in words with negative conotation e.g. "Poor". It is design flaw. There should better be like " overweight >>heavy> optimal <fast << overpowered " evaluation for Power rating. So player receives helping hand in a form that Optimal is best.

There is game wiki, made by developers, nicely done. Also with lot of docs for moders.
https://www.transportfever2.com/wiki/doku.php
However, the most core game rules are not even mentioned there, so players are left in dark. BTW : Thanks to Vimpster for explaining (again) one of the quirks of gameplay mechanics "wagon_speed_is_same_or_lower_speed_than_loco". You will not find it in wiki.

[uzurpatorex]

'Power Rating' is an useless stat. We should get straight 'Power to Weight' ratio, because trains with the same PtW are going to behave the same. At least in the game's rules.