T-22

[kildar501]

Can we please have the tender capacity revert back on the T-22? 3500 gal of water with 12 tons of coal is really lopsided. I loved the T-22 as it was before.......aside from that middle drive axle hopping and the cylinder steam evac not showing. It was the perfect lower tier engine!!!

[x1Heavy]

That does not sound too good for the T22. It should have been left as is on the tender. Thats one reason I loved one of the starter engines it had good water capacity for the work we did with it.

It also guided me to engines with huge tenders. Nothing less than 10K water on hand for a days work.

[Thelamon]

Originally posted by kildar501:

Can we please have the tender capacity revert back on the T-22? 3500 gal of water with 12 tons of coal is really lopsided. I loved the T-22 as it was before.......aside from that middle drive axle hopping and the cylinder steam evac not showing. It was the perfect lower tier engine!!!

I very much agree!
Why break a perfectly good engine by reducing its water cap?
THe T-22 was such a nice engine (bar the hopping driver wheel). Why break its back by reducing its watzer cap?

[al_batros]

Maybe the T-22 was just too good?
I did a test run in Sandbox the other day, 25 coal hoppers, empty Sylva to Alarka Jct., T-22 lead engine and a second T-22 that was part of the consist, but being towed (set to Manual, MU off, CutOut on). Total weight ~700to, AEWP set to 25mph. Only a slight slowdown up the hill from Bryson to Alarka Jct for the single T-22.
And on the way back everything full, both T-22s in MU config, total weight ~1950to.
-> 6.8 to coal, 5.500 gal water for the roundtrip for both engines combined.
C-55 for the same route, same number of hoppers, same total weight: 4.4 to coal, 7.400 gal water.
No time difference. On the way back the MU´d T-22s ran the same speed or slightly faster up the hills at Governors Island and towards the Cowee tunnel.
So besides more handling effort to coal and water two engines instead of one, MU´d they can easily compete with a C-55 ;-)


The easiest way to "revert" the change is by editing Definitions.json in
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Railroader\Railroader_Data\StreamingAssets\
AssetPacks\ls-460-t22
Go to line 1386 (about 3/4 down) and change ""maximumCapacity": 3800.0," to your desired value.
(Do a backup first, though... - and after that test in Sandbox)

[kildar501]

Originally posted by al_batros:

Maybe the T-22 was just too good?
I did a test run in Sandbox the other day, 25 coal hoppers, empty Sylva to Alarka Jct., T-22 lead engine and a second T-22 that was part of the consist, but being towed (set to Manual, MU off, CutOut on). Total weight ~700to, AEWP set to 25mph. Only a slight slowdown up the hill from Bryson to Alarka Jct for the single T-22.
And on the way back everything full, both T-22s in MU config, total weight ~1950to.
-> 6.8 to coal, 5.500 gal water for the roundtrip for both engines combined.
C-55 for the same route, same number of hoppers, same total weight: 4.4 to coal, 7.400 gal water.
No time difference. On the way back the MU´d T-22s ran the same speed or slightly faster up the hills at Governors Island and towards the Cowee tunnel.
So besides more handling effort to coal and water two engines instead of one, MU´d they can easily compete with a C-55 ;-)


The easiest way to "revert" the change is by editing Definitions.json in
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Railroader\Railroader_Data\StreamingAssets\
AssetPacks\ls-460-t22
Go to line 1386 (about 3/4 down) and change ""maximumCapacity": 3800.0," to your desired value.
(Do a backup first, though... - and after that test in Sandbox)

The T-22 was like the Chevy Silverado or F150 of the game, IMO. I use them for everything. The old tenders had a good range combined with a good performance of the locomotive itself. It's still a good engine. I'll still use them. Just going to be a bit more annoying having to refill the water so much more often.

[al_batros]

Originally posted by kildar501:

The T-22 was like the Chevy Silverado or F150 of the game, IMO. I use them for everything. The old tenders had a good range combined with a good performance of the locomotive itself. It's still a good engine. I'll still use them. Just going to be a bit more annoying having to refill the water so much more often.

I´d say: As with the F150, many features are optional or even "aftermarket".
If you show up at your loco dealership, you´d probably get the tender sized the way you want it :-) At least that´s how I´m running my railroad. (Did the same for the T-17)

Here is a mod (Railloader & StrangeCustoms required) that should set the tender size back to the original values. No guarantees, use at your own risk etc.
https://sharemods.com/fnjex06k4ko4/AB_T22_12_5.zip.html
You might even customize the mod sizings itself... Feel free.

[DorniNerd]

Originally posted by kildar501:

Originally posted by al_batros:

Maybe the T-22 was just too good?
I did a test run in Sandbox the other day, 25 coal hoppers, empty Sylva to Alarka Jct., T-22 lead engine and a second T-22 that was part of the consist, but being towed (set to Manual, MU off, CutOut on). Total weight ~700to, AEWP set to 25mph. Only a slight slowdown up the hill from Bryson to Alarka Jct for the single T-22.
And on the way back everything full, both T-22s in MU config, total weight ~1950to.
-> 6.8 to coal, 5.500 gal water for the roundtrip for both engines combined.
C-55 for the same route, same number of hoppers, same total weight: 4.4 to coal, 7.400 gal water.
No time difference. On the way back the MU´d T-22s ran the same speed or slightly faster up the hills at Governors Island and towards the Cowee tunnel.
So besides more handling effort to coal and water two engines instead of one, MU´d they can easily compete with a C-55 ;-)


The easiest way to "revert" the change is by editing Definitions.json in
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Railroader\Railroader_Data\StreamingAssets\
AssetPacks\ls-460-t22
Go to line 1386 (about 3/4 down) and change ""maximumCapacity": 3800.0," to your desired value.
(Do a backup first, though... - and after that test in Sandbox)

The T-22 was like the Chevy Silverado or F150 of the game, IMO. I use them for everything. The old tenders had a good range combined with a good performance of the locomotive itself. It's still a good engine. I'll still use them. Just going to be a bit more annoying having to refill the water so much more often.

Yeaaa... It was lowered due to the numbers not matching the real world engine.

[al_batros]

Originally posted by DorniNerd:

Yeaaa... It was lowered due to the numbers not matching the real world engine.

Oh, I see.
Boilerpressure got a slight increase, but the "totalHeatingSurface" was lowered from 3000 to 1815. That´s where a lot of HP will be lost. - Time to re-run the hill climb races.
You´ve just killed a few business models ;-)

Initial Test:
now needs 3 T-22s in MU to pull 25 loaded 2-bay coal hoppers up to the Cowee tunnel in order to get to 23mph at the 50 mile marker.
Just two T22s in MU only get up to 17mph.
-> The accepted answer flies out of the window, as it was done on the "old" config with the larger heating surface...

[kildar501]

Originally posted by DorniNerd:

Originally posted by kildar501:

The T-22 was like the Chevy Silverado or F150 of the game, IMO. I use them for everything. The old tenders had a good range combined with a good performance of the locomotive itself. It's still a good engine. I'll still use them. Just going to be a bit more annoying having to refill the water so much more often.

Yeaaa... It was lowered due to the numbers not matching the real world engine.

<SIGH> Why do I feel like I just lost the V-8 option on a sports car? Oh, well......we got a wye at Sylva so I'll take it as a trade off!!! :-)

[GHKtruc]

Originally posted by al_batros:

Originally posted by DorniNerd:

Yeaaa... It was lowered due to the numbers not matching the real world engine.

Oh, I see.
Boilerpressure got a slight increase, but the "totalHeatingSurface" was lowered from 3000 to 1815. That´s where a lot of HP will be lost. - Time to re-run the hill climb races.
You´ve just killed a few business models ;-)

Initial Test:
now needs 3 T-22s in MU to pull 25 loaded 2-bay coal hoppers up to the Cowee tunnel in order to get to 23mph at the 50 mile marker.
Just two T22s in MU only get up to 17mph.
-> The accepted answer flies out of the window, as it was done on the "old" config with the larger heating surface...

Is there any other difference ? I wanted to use this on a Bryson to Andrews route for pax but I wonder how bad this HP reduction affected performance ? Does it still have enough water to do the route in one shot ?

[al_batros]

Originally posted by GHKtruc:

Is there any other difference ? I wanted to use this on a Bryson to Andrews route for pax but I wonder how bad this HP reduction affected performance ? Does it still have enough water to do the route in one shot ?

Up the hill from Bryson to Alarka Jct it now pulls at least ~100 to less. From 700 doing ~20mph it´s now down to 600 and sweating at 18mph. (total weight incl. loco)
Up from Barkers to Cowee tunnel with 10 fully loaded pulpwood cars and ~800 to total weight it´s down from 28 at the 50mile marker to 21.
The 25 coal hopper MU consist I used in the race against the C-55 is down from 25 to 17 at the 50 mile marker and 21 to 13 right before the tunnel...

Best thing you can do: Create a fresh sandbox save, set up the consist, let it run and see what happens.

What I am currently struggling with - or do not yet understand:
2x T-22(new) in MU can pull 19 coal hoppers up to Cowee tunnel, doing 22 at the 50 mile marker and 19 before the tunnel. (1535 to total weight)

But a GP 9, with supposedly 1750 HP, struggles with the same 19 coal hoppers:
- 14 hoppers 1100 to: 20mph @ 50 marker
- 17 hoppers 1300 to: 17
- 19 hoppers 1450 to: 16
Two T-22s MU´d + 19 fully loaded coal hoppers so much faster than a GP9?

[Thelamon]

We don´t know how far the T-22 got nerfed.
But they used to have around 1.000 drawbar hp and were the strongest lower tier engines in the game.
An MU of two pre-patch T-22 would of course outperform a single GP9.

Not sure what is left of the T-22 now , which apparently got nerfed in every aspect, water capacity, engine power etc.. (Would be nice if the patch notes were more specififc on what has been changed insted of "T-22 improved"...)

PS
Time to ditch the T-22s (they have been the mainstay of my company so far). R.I.P. T-22

[al_batros]

I went back to the Main branch, copied the T-22 from there and did a line-by-line comparison of the "Definitions.json" files.

Changes regarding "Performance":
"maximumBoilerPressure": 175.0, (old: 170)
"totalHeatingSurface": 1815.0, (old: 3000)
Tender:
"maximumCapacity": 3800.0, (old: 5000) (Water)

All other changes I would currently regard as "eyecandy" or "manual usability" when you are using the controls in cab.