At what rough distance does it pay to switch from road vehicles to train, plane, or boat?

[What Zitt Tooya]

I'm trying to figure out at what distance it pays to upgrade the transportation method for something

[Vimpster]

I don't know that there is any particular answer to that. At least one very important variable to determining the answer in a given situation would be what vehicles are available to you at the time. Other variables would include whether or not you are transporting in one direction or not, and whether you are transporting people or cargo, as well as what difficulty you are playing.

[larry_roberts]

I think it's more to do with the quantity of cargo you are likely to pick up. If it's only a short distance you can use a cheap loco and cheap wagons to keep cost's down or extend the the track to add more cargo (different cargo types even), or extend the line to take finished goods to a city (even if it means wagons are only used on half the journey, e.g grain on one half the journey, food on the other half)!. You can usually find a way to make a goods train line make a profit (even if it's only a small one)! With passengers it's more difficult, if the passengers aren't there how can you make a profit?!. I've never played on 'hard', Vimpster is right that might make it much more difficult!.

[bballjo]

Interesting question, I'll try to do some testing.

[canophone]

I tend to go right to trains and boats from the beginning, unless it's not feasible. But in Transport Fever 2, best to always start with cargo.

[Huperspace]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=907739751
is from first part but that might as well count for this one

[bballjo]

Here are the results: https://youtu.be/KsgMg8Wgp4w

[Huperspace]

Originally posted by bballjo:

Here are the results:

can you make the same for all 3 difficult settings?

[bballjo]

Originally posted by Huperspace:

Originally posted by bballjo:

Here are the results:

can you make the same for all 3 difficult settings?

Interesting, I'll try to have that by next Friday if real life allows.

Thanks for the request! :)

[BobthenotsoGreat]

There is no definitive answer. Trucks and ships operate differently to trains though for a couple of reasons.....

The former are capacity and power in one. They operate under their own steam, so to speak.

Whereas (cargo) trains have a separate power unit with its own purchase and running cost and then each wagon determines the capacity and the revenue. So there will always be an additional running cost to trains but this is counteracted by increased revenue due to the loco's speed. Theoretical speed is the best determination for revenue per km. It doesn't matter if it runs slower then the theoretical for the revenue, you get paid the same, but costs will increase with slower transit times. In addition you may be looking to hit a rate rather then top speed so will be forced to add additional trains, or wagons to each. But with trains longer is better for profitability, but you do get diminishing returns for lower power ratings as costs increase per slower journey.

As a general rule though trains make more money when moving full all the time then trucks or ships.

The other factor is the downside to mixed capacity. A large train dumping off for say trucks to redistribute causes waves of delivery from high to low. This can reverberate all down the line causing problems with productivity right up the chain to fluctuations in population at the end delivery.

The later in game you go though, the better return you get from trains that are balanced performance to load. As a general rule, the further up the chain you are to raw resources, the better a train will perform as you can guarantee rates. The closer you get to town deliveries, the more you should be relying on trucks as they cope better with the variability. But all of that is map dependant.

Finally, infrastructure costs and vehicle costs play a large part in working out if to start with a ship or train as opposed to trucks. 2 truck stops and a depot 130k and off you go. 2 train stations or docks plus depot plus tracks, switches bridges etc...... If you have a decent rate to hit, no problem, its a one off fixed cost but if its low rate, is it worth it...yet. Only you can answer that.

[bballjo]

Originally posted by BobthenotsoGreat:

There is no definitive answer. Trucks and ships operate differently to trains though for a couple of reasons.....

The former are capacity and power in one. They operate under their own steam, so to speak.

Whereas (cargo) trains have a separate power unit with its own purchase and running cost and then each wagon determines the capacity and the revenue. So there will always be an additional running cost to trains but this is counteracted by increased revenue due to the loco's speed. Theoretical speed is the best determination for revenue per km. It doesn't matter if it runs slower then the theoretical for the revenue, you get paid the same, but costs will increase with slower transit times. In addition you may be looking to hit a rate rather then top speed so will be forced to add additional trains, or wagons to each. But with trains longer is better for profitability, but you do get diminishing returns for lower power ratings as costs increase per slower journey.

As a general rule though trains make more money when moving full all the time then trucks or ships.

The other factor is the downside to mixed capacity. A large train dumping off for say trucks to redistribute causes waves of delivery from high to low. This can reverberate all down the line causing problems with productivity right up the chain to fluctuations in population at the end delivery.

The later in game you go though, the better return you get from trains that are balanced performance to load. As a general rule, the further up the chain you are to raw resources, the better a train will perform as you can guarantee rates. The closer you get to town deliveries, the more you should be relying on trucks as they cope better with the variability. But all of that is map dependant.

Finally, infrastructure costs and vehicle costs play a large part in working out if to start with a ship or train as opposed to trucks. 2 truck stops and a depot 130k and off you go. 2 train stations or docks plus depot plus tracks, switches bridges etc...... If you have a decent rate to hit, no problem, its a one off fixed cost but if its low rate, is it worth it...yet. Only you can answer that.

I don't disagree with any of your points. Theoretical top speed definitely has a high impact on your earnings. One of the things I thought about changing is to increase the incline for each route to max, and see if that changes anything, which I would assume it would.

Also agree that there is no definite answer, and a lot depends on the map itself. My example is very simplified and idealized, but I think it brings a point across, that trains can be profitable very early on even at lower rates. I highly anticipate that this is highly impacted by the game difficulty, where the maintenance costs increase.

[Vimpster]

Nice work on the video and your testing. I have to say though that it was far from comprehensive, in the sense of covering all the variables involved. But also there was a rather significant disparity in your rates in the end. That first example for instance with the 500 meter distance, the trucks had a 50% higher rate than the train. Had the train had the same rate as the trucks it would definitely have made more money considering that at a 50% disadvantage it was able to break even.

I feel there are two particular aspects that were missing from the test to make it really useful though. For one the trains from differing eras were not being compared at the same distances. If the question is at what distance trains become viable/unviable, than why would you not test each era at a variety of distances each, and all the same distances as each other?

The other aspect of it is that, for the most part there are a variety of locomotives to choose from in each era point you chose and if you were truly trying to gauge if trains are viable at a certain distance you would try to use the most appropriate locomotive for the situation (distance/weight). I would expect that using a high power locomotive makes less sense at shorter distances and with shorter trains but more sense at longer distances and with longer trains. Keeping in mind that the power of the locomotive is pretty much the sole determining factor in the running costs of a locomotive in this game.

[BobthenotsoGreat]

Originally posted by bballjo:

Originally posted by BobthenotsoGreat:

There is no definitive answer.

I don't disagree with any of your points. Theoretical top speed definitely has a high impact on your earnings. One of the things I thought about changing is to increase the incline for each route to max, and see if that changes anything, which I would assume it would.

Also agree that there is no definite answer, and a lot depends on the map itself. My example is very simplified and idealized, but I think it brings a point across, that trains can be profitable very early on even at lower rates. I highly anticipate that this is highly impacted by the game difficulty, where the maintenance costs increase.

There is an elevation bonus when going uphill. 2% per 10m I believe. No bonus on the way down but you receive an acceleration bonus when going downhill so return journeys are usually faster. Depends on where the slope is.

Watched you vid and I can appreciate how much time that takes so no complaints but as vimpster pointed out, with that setup you could do so much more.

For it to be improved I would concur that distance and frequency need to be matched. In addition With trains you can have say 4 trains pulling 10 wagons each or 2 pulling 21 each (the extra one to offset slighlty lower frequency due to acceleration or inclines) as it is this variability that can make the difference in choices.

Also, maintenance costs do not increase with difficulty, revenue decreases. All vehicles running costs are 1/6th of the purchase price regardless of difficulty. If you receive 100% of revenue for easy, you receive 80% for medium and 60% for hard (best guess). In TPF1 it was 100, 75 and 50.

Or to put it another way, running full both ways for every $2 in running cost you receive $6 on hard $8 on medium and $10 on easy. This assumes a perfect line (reality differs). Train variability differs though.

[bballjo]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

Nice work on the video and your testing. I have to say though that it was far from comprehensive, in the sense of covering all the variables involved. But also there was a rather significant disparity in your rates in the end. That first example for instance with the 500 meter distance, the trucks had a 50% higher rate than the train. Had the train had the same rate as the trucks it would definitely have made more money considering that at a 50% disadvantage it was able to break even.

I feel there are two particular aspects that were missing from the test to make it really useful though. For one the trains from differing eras were not being compared at the same distances. If the question is at what distance trains become viable/unviable, than why would you not test each era at a variety of distances each, and all the same distances as each other?

The other aspect of it is that, for the most part there are a variety of locomotives to choose from in each era point you chose and if you were truly trying to gauge if trains are viable at a certain distance you would try to use the most appropriate locomotive for the situation (distance/weight). I would expect that using a high power locomotive makes less sense at shorter distances and with shorter trains but more sense at longer distances and with longer trains. Keeping in mind that the power of the locomotive is pretty much the sole determining factor in the running costs of a locomotive in this game.

All very good points. I'm not sure how the rate got off that far, especially in 1850, because I matched them at the time of them leaving the depot, but yes, that 50% was rather significant.

The distance...I choose the first distance where a short train could get an achievable line rate, which was just below 200, if I wanted trucks to be a realistic option... another test I may do is set all distances to the minimum they all could do, which would be 5000...but that seems high. Anything lower than that and the line rates went above 500 really fast, and at that rate trucks would just bunch up, and would be waiting more than anything.

Definitely agree, this test is far from comprehensive...I see it more as a starting point to see what everyone cares about, so you comment is helping me greatly to plan and adjust the next test.

The loco however, I rather pick more random...the 3/5 in this test was a terrible choice on the first look, but the profit I got from that was rather surprising, and made me glad I picked that one...but you point is valid. How would you define what the best loco is for each of the 4 test eras?

[BobthenotsoGreat]

Originally posted by bballjo:

The loco however, I rather pick more random...the 3/5 in this test was a terrible choice on the first look, but the profit I got from that was rather surprising, and made me glad I picked that one...but you point is valid. How would you define what the best loco is for each of the 4 test eras?

Match the loco speed to the wagon speed. Theoretical speed is capped at the slowest part of the train (at least it was in TPF1) but I haven't checked. So the "eras" should be more to the date the wagons change as that is the time you should be making your choice to change it up to trains. Having a 160kmph loco pulling 80km wagons drastically reduces profit as the loco will not receive its 160km rate, the train will receive the wagon speed equivalent (if it didn't change for TPF2).

Having a train that happens to go faster then the wagons purchased for its pulling power is not a bad choice though. It just wont be as profitable, but rate becomes more important then profit, late game.

[bballjo]

Originally posted by BobthenotsoGreat:

Originally posted by bballjo:

I don't disagree with any of your points. Theoretical top speed definitely has a high impact on your earnings. One of the things I thought about changing is to increase the incline for each route to max, and see if that changes anything, which I would assume it would.

Also agree that there is no definite answer, and a lot depends on the map itself. My example is very simplified and idealized, but I think it brings a point across, that trains can be profitable very early on even at lower rates. I highly anticipate that this is highly impacted by the game difficulty, where the maintenance costs increase.

There is an elevation bonus when going uphill. 2% per 10m I believe. No bonus on the way down but you receive an acceleration bonus when going downhill so return journeys are usually faster. Depends on where the slope is.

Watched you vid and I can appreciate how much time that takes so no complaints but as vimpster pointed out, with that setup you could do so much more.

For it to be improved I would concur that distance and frequency need to be matched. In addition With trains you can have say 4 trains pulling 10 wagons each or 2 pulling 21 each (the extra one to offset slighlty lower frequency due to acceleration or inclines) as it is this variability that can make the difference in choices.

Also, maintenance costs do not increase with difficulty, revenue decreases. All vehicles running costs are 1/6th of the purchase price regardless of difficulty. If you receive 100% of revenue for easy, you receive 80% for medium and 60% for hard (best guess). In TPF1 it was 100, 75 and 50.

Or to put it another way, running full both ways for every $2 in running cost you receive $6 on hard $8 on medium and $10 on easy. This assumes a perfect line (reality differs). Train variability differs though.

I'm loving this.

All these are great points from both of you, and I would like to incorporate them in future tests.

Matching the line rates, yes, that's important...it is a little strange that they got that far off, considering they started out pretty close, I wanted to avoid having extra deliveries if I allowed lines to be in motion, and also felt like trucks would have an advantage if there are already x trucks transporting items, when the train is still loading...maybe this is a no issue since I only counted the second year anyways.

I'm sure you are right about the revenue vs maintenance cost...it seems to make the same difference in the end, less profit...

Could you elaborate more on the elevation bonus? I've never heard of that before.