Passenger routes: multiple stops or single stops?

[RazLSU]

If you have a bunch of stations in a line/chain, is it better for passenger/mail runs to use long routes with only 2 stops (back and forth), or one comprehensive route that stops at each station along the way?

Also, if using multiple stops, is it better to use multiple stops on the way back as well, or go all the way back to the original station without stopping?

[SGreenwell]

I might be mistaken, but I believe that passengers behave "logically" in this game, IIRC. Meaning - It's better to have long lines with multiple stops, vs. "express" routes. If passengers want to get from A to C, they'll go A to B to C, instead of just not taking the train altogether. Also, passenger and mail revenue buildings apply to the final stop.

[PaganFears]

Passengers have no set destination in this game. It's usually more profitable to take them on a longer ride. If you set up a line with multiple stops they'll get off at the first station accepting passengers unless you set the flag for no unloading at that station.

[SGreenwell]

Originally posted by PaganFears:

Passengers have no set destination in this game. It's usually more profitable to take them on a longer ride. If you set up a line with multiple stops they'll get off at the first station accepting passengers unless you set the flag for no unloading at that station.

Ah, shoot, thanks for the clarification! I'm probably mixing things up with Transport Fever or Railroad Tycoon 3, given how many of these games I've played.

[Lord Bludgeon]

Profit isn't the only consideration, albeit a good one. Cities grow, based on how well they are serviced. You may not make quite as much with shorter chopped up routes as you would with longer single routes, but as the cities grow they provide more passengers. It's a matter of style/choice, but I prefer multiple stops and city growth for the long haul.

[Centurion]

My strategy is to run a bunch of local mail/passenger trains at regular priority connecting 2-3 cities in a line. Often, early in a game this is all you can do. I like that mid-western map that starts around 1935 and my initial move is usually to run a P/M train between Columbus and Indianapolis, which is about as far as the money stretches if I want to also buy out my stock. And I will just connect strings of small/mid cities like this. But then I will start running express trains, all passenger, with faster engines that only connect the larger cities and bypass the small ones. Like running a long express from Pittsburgh to Chicago, or St. Louis to Kansas City.

The shorter runs make a little money and grow the cities. The long express routes generate great revenues, especially if they become named trains, and further grow your major cities.

[RazLSU]

Thanks all

[Justin]

Passengers scale heavily with distance - so the best option tends to be long runs between major hubs. You have to scale that to distances appropriate to the engines of the era - early 1800s is far more tolerant of short hops than late 1900s. If I have a line of cities like (A-B-C-D) I will stagger a pair of trains across A->C and B->D.