USA 1924: M-300 vs Atlantic+Six Axle Passenger Car

[SBGaming]

So, in my current Medium Difficulty Freeplay, I've gotten to 1924, and the M-300 has popped up. I wanted to see how these compared to what was currently available, that being the 4-4-2 Atlantic and Six-Axle Passenger Cars. At the time I was running An Atlantic with Six-Axle Passenger Cars on a line that while having a hill, the Atlantic only dropped down to 75kph before it reached the top of the hill, but this particular test was run on a flat route between a couple cities along a river.

4-4-2 Atlantic + 3 Six-Axle Passenger Cars
Price: $4.079M
Running Costs: $684K/year
Capacity: 54
Speed: 100kph
Weight: 265t
Power: 700kW
Tractive Effort: 100kN

M-300 "Skunk" (4 cars)
Price: $4.04M
Running Costs: $648K/year
Capacity: 52
Speed: 100kph
Weight: 100t
Power: 800kW
Tractive Effort: 120kN (*)

(*) The Train Details don't list Tractive Effort, but I'm guessing since all contribute to Power, they also contribute Tractive Effort.

As you can see, the stats are relatively similar when it comes to purchase price, capacity and running costs, though the Atlantic is slightly higher in each, but they each have the theoretical top speed of 100kph.

The M-300's have a fraction of the Atlantic's weight, and come with far more Power, and I presume Tractive Effort. In my non-scientific test run to see how the M-300's would do, I had an Atlantic set off from the station, and bought the M-300 after it had lefft the station. Both trains started from a standing stop so the M-300 didn't have the advantage of rolling out of the depot and straight onto the line.

I monitored the M-300 until it hit it's top speed, and then paused to see how far it had gone before hitting top speed. I then checked where the Atlantic was before it, and what it's speed was, and it was just getting to 100kph. I unscientifically compared the distances each train had travelled by eye, and it took the M-300 about half the distance to reach 100kph than it took the Atlantic to do the same.

I'm curious, how many people here have underestimated the M-300? What do you do between 1924 and 1935 when the more reasonable 150kph Streamlined Coach New Mexico pops up?

I'll admit the M-300 is nothing special to look at, and there's just something about the look of the Atlantic with the Pullman Six-Axle's, but I have to admit, I quite like the speed at which the M-300 gets up to speed, which for rail will make you a lot of money and improve your frequency. Both trains because of their theoretical top speed will make the same per passenger, so over the long run, the M-300 which will get to and stay at it's maximum top speed more often will have the advantage.

I just wish that I hadn't just put the Atlantics with Six-Axle Passenger cars on the line just a few years prior to the M-300, because now I'll have to manually replace these.

[L.Z]

I'm glad to see someone using the "Skunk", but my objection is that, they were not run as multiple units IRL. They were used as a sort of "rail tram" so to speak - an inexpensive alternative to trains for low capacity lines. Here's an example of one in Nevada that I have toured; it is now beautifully restored. It has an amazing "Jules Verne" vibe which is unforgettable.
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/3/6/1436.1348023623.jpg

The info here might help understanding:

http://www.nsrm-friends.org/nsrm44.html

[SBGaming]

Yep, they look a bit weird as multiple units, and that info is similar to what I came across, though relating to the California Western Railroad, where they were intended for those low capacity lines to reduce the expenses of operating the larger Locomotives on the lower demand lines at the time.

The nice thing about the game is that it can be used in non-historical ways. While the CWR used these for their low capacity lines, I could probably explain it away in game as wanting an alternative to the slower accelerating Steam Engines, and looking for an alternative to the traditional single-railcar use. Alternatively I could just crowd the line with these things, rather than running them as multiple unit single trains. The line is long enough as it recently got expanded to two additional cities from the three that it was running, and there will be another one city added to the line in the near future. Once High Speed Rail becomes available though the main lines will probably be switching to something else.

I was planning to use the Mogul+Clerestory Passenger Cars until 1935 when the more reasonable weighted Streamlined Coach New Mexico comes out, but the M-300 Skunk provides an interesting alternative to the Pullman.

[uzurpatorex]

Compare m300 with a far more reasonable 5-7 car atlantic setup.

[SBGaming]

Originally posted by uzurpatorex:

Compare m300 with a far more reasonable 5-7 car atlantic setup.

Which is about 10 M-300's. Given the M-300's much better Power to Weight Ratio, and the fact that the Atlantic will likely struggle even more under twice the number of wagons, unless you're going extremely long distance where the Atlantic can maximize the time spent at top speed, the M-300 will still be competitive, since it will get to it's top speed well before the Atlantic is able to. If you have frequent stops and starts, or any sort of hills for the Atlantic to climb, it's going to be falling behind.

Case in point, the exact same hill in my freeplay game that the Atlantic with 3 Six-Axle Passenger cars struggled to climb, and dropped to 75kph by the top, the 4x M-300 consist blew up the hill without breaking a sweat, and stayed at 100kph.

Since the Atlantic and the M-300 have the exact same Top Speed, their payout per passenger will be identical. With the faster acceleration and better ability to hill climb, you're going to see better frequency and thus it will make up for it's reduced

Also consider, that if you were to run the M-300's separately, frequency on the line would improve, drawing in more passengers.

1 4-4-2 Atlantic + 6 Six-Axle Passenger Cars for 108 capacity is approximately $6.46M (running costs of $1080K/year), compared to 91 capacity for 7x M-300's at $7.07M (running costs of 1176K/year). If you look purely at the numbers without taking into account the performance of the vehicles how they perform in game, then you may come to believe the Atlantic even has a chance to come out ahead. How many more trips can the M-300's do compared to the Atlantic? As I mentioned the more hills and stops and starts the trains have to do, the better the M-300 will do.

[Saint Landwalker]

As you know, I absolutely underestimated the M-300 until I got to the Great Depression scenario in the USA campaign. Now I'm 100% on board.

• Cons: They look awful.
  
  
• Pros: Basically everything else, logically.

Well, okay, maybe 95% on board. That's a big Con.

For Power:Weight (and therefore, acceleration and ability to reach and maintain top speed), they really can't be beat for the era they're in. They're only slightly slower, in theoretical top speed, than the Milwaukee Road EP-2, but they're enormously less expensive. They're much lighter in terms of tons-per-passenger than their contemporary American passenger cars—and cheaper and self-propelled, to boot. On top of all that, their outstanding Tractive Effort-to-Weight ratio makes them the best hill-climbers in the American arsenal in the early 20th century.

No matter how you slice it, really, I think that from a statistical and profit-maximizing perspective, they're the clear winner from 1924 until 1935. I'd go so far as to wonder if they'd hold that title even after the Hiawatha and Streamlined Coach New Mexico become available, on a cost-for-cost basis.

[uzurpatorex]

Originally posted by SBGaming:

1 4-4-2 Atlantic + 6 Six-Axle Passenger Cars for 108 capacity is approximately $6.46M (running costs of $1080K/year), compared to 91 capacity for 7x M-300's at $7.07M (running costs of 1176K/year).

Let's assume 20 year life span

Atlantic + 6x6 axle = 28.06 / 108 = 260k / seat / lifetime
7xM300 = 30.59 / 91 = 336k / seat / lifetime

40 years

Atlantic + 6x6 axle = 49.66 / 108 = 460k / seat / lifetime
7xM300 = 54.11 / 91 = 595k / seat / lifetime

ratio about 0.77

Running them uncoupled will cause infrastructural strain, those are not buses, they require signalling.

How many trips they are going to make is dependant on the route, but in order to cover the cost/seat M300 needs to complete ~4 trips for each 3 trips atlantic does.

I would rather try to use a set of 2xm300 and 2x6 axles. I think that even fits on 80 meter stations.

That being said - train cars are too friggin expensive and the entire thing is circumstantial.

[Saint Landwalker]

Considering that the Power:Weight ratio on an Atlantic + 6×Six-Axle Passenger Car train is an appalling 1.75, while the M-300's Power:Weight ratio is 8.00, I feel pretty good about assuming that the M-300s will make at least 33% more trips over the same period of time compared to the barely-mobile Atlantic consist.

The infrastructural issue isn't really that much of an issue. M-300s don't spend a lot of time in stations (because of their small capacity and quick acceleration), so as long as you've set up your signalling appropriately, things can still run smoothly. Additionally, if you feel like you've hit the infrastructural ceiling with the number on the line, you can just start slapping some of them together. On USA #6, I eventually started using "doubles" of two M-300s — Half the infrastructural demand, but identical performance (and unlike a long string of them, doesn't look completely horrible).

[matrix47]

Originally posted by Landwalker04:

Considering that the Power:Weight ratio on an Atlantic + 6×Six-Axle Passenger Car train is an appalling 1.75, while the M-300's Power:Weight ratio is 8.00, I feel pretty good about assuming that the M-300s will make at least 33% more trips over the same period of time compared to the barely-mobile Atlantic consist.

This will happen on distances of up to ~4.1 km on flat terraign (~213 seconds for Atlantic, ~164 seconds for M 300). Longer distances will allow Atlantic to run at full speed long enough to make up for its slow acceleration. So Atlantic will win at long point-to-point routes (starting from ~8 minutes frequency for one train, which may be usable).
That said, M 300 does look overpowered, especially if used with combination of one six axle.
Of course, M 300 would be a clear winner if the line goes uphill for a significant fraction.
On the other hand, some tricky shorter routes will still work well for Atlantic (city -> run downhill -> flat run -> run uphill -> city).