Engine power?

[dr.Yang]

Help me understand the power of a steam engine. How can I determine which steam engine is more powerful? The total traction capacity is not specified.

[Thelamon]

I think most of us - being railway enthusiasts - understand the real life and historical reasons for the engine variants and technical aspects,

My question for @DorniNerd is, which parameters does the railroader engine (in the current state of development) use to calculate the actual pulling performance of the in-game locos?!

This is relevant when doing a "business plan" for the optimal loco fleet (ingame price vs. in-game performance)

My impression after beeing hooked by this great game (and spending too many hours in a short time) is;

A. The current pulling performance in-game - latest Patch /experimental):
The locos performance is still mainly (solely?) based on its (drawbar) Power value.

The drawbar horsepower is not shown in-game though (same as the max speed) - so I fully rely on the quoted guide by Mr. Hommiccus, engine data, appendix D1 (see above). But the guides data seems to match my experience.

That is why in-game the P43 beats the D46 and C46 even in the freight hauling role, while beeing cheaper.

-> It is also the reason why the T22 (1.005 hp) is hands down the hidden champion of the early game especially "bang for the buck wise". An absolute bargain at 9.500 $

The next engine that beats the T22 and gives a notable performance improvement is the K35 Mikado (1.350 hp) but at 16.000 $
(At this price you could arguably team 2x T22 in MU and get better performance and more flex for the company though.)

The next big step in the line-up would then be the P43 (1.869 hp) which - in game -performes extremely well as a fast freight loco too.
It is also by far the cheapest high horsepower engine you can buy in game,.. at just 20.000 $.

B. The ingame pricing ladder of all the engines is not based on the engines (drawbar) power but purely on their nominal tractive effort:

This leads to odd prices compared to the performance you actually get in game, (And without the Guides D1 spreadsheet you have no means of realizing it, as in game you don´t get info on the locos power in hp or its max speed).

It also means that the P43 gets to be the next hidden champion "bang for the buck" as it can perform in the role of an early cheap B65 Berkshire. (in-game - current version)

Meanwhile the tractive effort remains pretty meaningless (together with other aspects - driver size, number of drivers etc. - of real freight specialists.)

In that regard the D46 and C46 are currently overpriced given their performance from a pure in-game business standpoint, (You could simply stick with the K35 Mikado and get almost the same performance for less money.)

Conclusion :
There are quite a number of unknowns, but from everything I have gathered so far my thoughts are:

1. The pricing of the locos should be based of their power (drawbar hp) - not their tractive effort. (With the Diesels getting their own pricing tier, as they have other factors going for them.)
-> This would place the P43 Pacific up to the expensive large steamers where it should be,
-> It would also give the D46 its niche (at a lower price) etc.

2. Some more info on the engine data (power, speed and other factors which impact performance in game,) could be shown in game.
It would be helpful if these would be shown in sandbox mode too.

[Knsgf]

Originally posted by Thelamon:

This is relevant when doing a "business plan" for the optimal loco fleet (ingame price vs. in-game performance)
<...>
That is why in-game the P43 beats the D46 and C46 even in the freight hauling role, while beeing cheaper.

You still seem to believe that locomotive performance is all about speed. It isn't. Both Decapod and Consolidation are lighter than Pacific - so they'll burn less fuel and water to roll themselves and an attached consist, plus they're optimised for better fuel economy at low speeds. If this was a real railroad, they would also put less wear and tear on the track. When you're dragging a bunch of coal hoppers, it doesn't matter whether they get to their destination at 30 mph or 10. The price difference between these locos is small, and fuel expenditures will quickly make up for it.

Originally posted by Thelamon:

-> It is also the reason why the T22 (1.005 hp) is hands down the hidden champion of the early game especially "bang for the buck wise". An absolute bargain at 9.500 $

The next engine that beats the T22 and gives a notable performance improvement is the K35 Mikado (1.350 hp) but at 16.000 $
(At this price you could arguably team 2x T22 in MU and get better performance and more flex for the company though.)

Right, and then continually spend twice the money on crew and maintenance. There is a reason why using a bigger locomotive was usually superior to double-heading during age of steam.

Originally posted by Thelamon:

The next big step in the line-up would then be the P43 (1.869 hp) which - in game -performes extremely well as a fast freight loco too.
It is also by far the cheapest high horsepower engine you can buy in game,.. at just 20.000 $.

The emphasis is on "fast freight". Use the right engine for the job.

Originally posted by Thelamon:

Meanwhile the tractive effort remains pretty meaningless (together with other aspects - driver size, number of drivers etc. - of real freight specialists.)

Tractive effort directly correlates to maximum tonnage - for slow freight tonnage is everything.

Originally posted by Thelamon:

In that regard the D46 and C46 are currently overpriced given their performance from a pure in-game business standpoint, (You could simply stick with the K35 Mikado and get almost the same performance for less money.)

The Mikado weighs 150 tons when fully fueled. Decapod is 177 tons. The Decapod delivers 32 % more traction while being only 18 % heavier. So D-46 has better fuel economy than K-35 when running at tonnage.

Originally posted by Thelamon:

Conclusion :
1. The pricing of the locos should be based of their power (drawbar hp) - not their tractive effort. (With the Diesels getting their own pricing tier, as they have other factors going for them.)
-> This would place the P43 Pacific up to the expensive large steamers where it should be,
-> It would also give the D46 its niche (at a lower price) etc.

The pricing should not be tied only to TE or only to hp. It should also consider running costs, axle load (which directly impacts track maintenance), number of axles, overall weight, efficiency, fuel capacity and so on.

[Thelamon]

Dear Knsgf,

I think we continue to missunderstand each other. I know full well what the real life consdiderations were.

-> What I´m looking for is information on what part of these factors the game railroader actually models/simulates in its current state of development?!

Like you I would consider the D46 as a top candidate for the type of Railroad we are running in game.
-> The way the pricing works currently it is overpriced and underperformant compared to other ingame solutions though, (looking at the standard 1.500 - 2.000 t train for mainline duty.) The economic benefits + traction advantages just don´t seem to get simulated yet.

Like you I would have trouble justifying a p43 on the - slow track - small river and mountain railroad we are playing on at all - It couldn´t do the thing it was made for: "Fast express passenger trains". (Well there is no "fast" on the railroader map).
It would also be too heavy, too expenseive to buy and too expensive to maintain to fit any RL businesspan in its day.
-> However in game the loco is dirt cheap, wear on the tracks, maintenance costs are a non issue, same as coal consumption.

PS
The info on the regular max. operating speed of a loco says a lot about its purpose. (and if you truely need it for your operation). It´s just an additional information certainly - not something super important to me,

[kildar501]

Originally posted by Walta Gaming:

Originally posted by kildar501:

If you start researching some of the truly monster steam locomotives of the day, you see a lot of horsepower ratings that rival those of the biggest diesels. There was a reason why it took an A-B-B-A set of F units to match a single locomotive in performance and power. The thing that did the steam locomotive in wasn't the lack of performance but the expense of maintenance.

Well that and the lack of multi-unit running. You can lash up 4x3000 HP diesels for fast freight or you would need 3x super steam engines each with their own crew. There are also the issues with gearing that are discussed in this thread. Diesels produce the same HP at any speed while steam engines with big wheels are slow to get started.

I have been struggling myself to find a good passenger engine due to the grades and slow route speed. I only run my passenger train at 35MPH to ensure it dosen't derail on switches. There is also no bonus to running your passenger trains faster. Engines with big wheels like the Pacific or American seem pointless because they won't make it up the Marble Grade without the train being split up multiple times. Most of the time I use the Moguel early game then GP9 late game which seems to do the job.

I used the Berkshire for mine at first. Then I switched to 2 GP9s MU'd pulling 8 Osgood coaches. I even threw on a couple of baggage cars for looks even though they don't accomplish anything right now. Runs just fine. Usually does about 15mph up the mountain. Haven't found anything short of a single locomotive that will do much better but it is 4.6% at one point......