Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
What throttle setting did you use to generate these numbers? My experience is that lower throttle settings use significantly less fuel.
Also, the difference you noted for the first 0.1 ton of coal to water ratio is almost certainly due to rounding. That is, if a tender holds 4.0 tons of coal, it will read 3.9 tons once the unrounded value reaches 3.95 tons. As such, the first 0.1 tons is really only 0.05 tons.
Also, for this testing I used full throttle. I did 4 runs for each engine, but kept the throttle at 100% as to not change too many things in between runs.
1st Run: Engine only, 100% throttle, reverser all the way forward
2nd Run: Engine only, 100% throttle, reverser pulled back once 10 mph reached.
3rd Run: Engine pulling 635 tons, 100% throttle, reverser all the way forward
4th Run: Engine pulling 635 tons, 100% throttle, reverser pulled back once 10 mph
Each engine gave the same numbers for all for of their runs, which is why I said it must only be due to the throttle and not the weight or reverser.
It certainly does lower the consumption when the throttle is lowered.
I didn't test the ratio of water to fuel burned with the throttle lowered though...now I have something to do today!