# Tram & Truck fever – or to much realism

Home Forums General Discussion Tram & Truck fever – or to much realism

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
• Author
Posts
• #11835
waflija
Participant

Many Player recommend using trucks, until you have enough money to buy trains. But trains are really not necessary. – I played a whole game without a single train on hard to 1980.

Short version:
The running cost are realistic, but the map size isn’t.
In reality trains beat trams / trucks on long distance, not 2-5km. Nobody would be stupid enough to use a high-speed train like ICE or TGV for a line from cologne north to cologne south or London North to South station.
Another point is that passenger choose between car, walk and train ONLY by speed. I think there should be some “money” factor.

What do i suggest:

• bigger maps 😀
• change balance (running cost) of trams and trains.
• change acceleration and top speeds (to be more playable, less realistic)
• add an “travel cost” factor to path finding – making long-distance car travel less attractive.

Long version:
Trains were only useful in 1850 for distances over 5km with no stops. The averange distance in my living area is about 5km for interurban train (rapid city transit), 10-15km for city-to-city connection and 50-70 for high-speed trains.
An Example: The city I live in has a area of 16x16km, with about 4-5 train stations none of them connected by inter-city lines. Historically they (taa-daa!) were connected by trams. Today these got replaced by buses or faster trams.

Some simple math – assuming a line with 9min (for the train) end-to-end travel time including stops:
Cost for a small train (6 cars passenger) at 1850:  201k + 6*25k = 476k
Running cost: 120k + 6*16k = 226k / year –
Capacity: 72
Estimated frequency: 18min (which means average wait time is 9min(!) )
travel time for passenger: 9min + 9min = 18min (time to walk to station not included)
Infrastructure cost: 350-550k, running cost are also more expensive than tram…

Equal amount of trams for 72 passenger = 14 trams (70 pass)
Running cost for 14 Trams: 70k
Estimated frequency: 18min (end-to-end) / 14 * 2 = 154 sec (which means average wait time is 75sec )
travel time for passenger: 18min + 1min = 19min (picked up at his door step)
Infrastructure cost: 70k almost no infrastructure costs.

What does this mean? Trams are better:

• scalable (buy as much as you need, 1 by 1)
• less infrastructure needed
• almost no maintenance costs
• 1/4 running cost
#11856
tafelskif
Participant

totally agree!

On top, I tried connecting 2 trainstations in 2 neighbouring citys by train and by tram, and the people preferred to go by tram… >:O

#11857
Cpt.Spaghetti
Participant

and with trams you can have a much higher frequenzy for city to city connections without higher cost or other noticeable downsides.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Cpt.Spaghetti.
#11866
omoikane
Participant

I don’t agree with this because

1. Having more running cost on trams makes huge loss for some In-city branch lines.

2. Trains are much faster than trams from 1930s, and not affected by private car traffic

Faster means more opportunity to earn income and grow cities, essential to build big cities.

(you can still use trams for not-so-big adjacent cities, but that’s realistic so no problem. separate cities are much better with faster trains)

3. Tram/Bus stops have very limited capacity while train stations have enough capacity to serve one line, especially big one.

4. Trams are often ‘stuck’ with road traffic AND public transportation itself, making it annoying especially on large maps where busy checking other lines and building more lines.

5. Trams are even not enough capacity for in-city lines on big cities (over 1500 pops) around year 1950, They even have less than 20s frequency and not enough.

I think loading/unloading time needs to be fixed (faster for more cars or doors attached on that train) because that makes trains much better while not nerfing trams so that could run branch in-city lines without huge losses

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by omoikane.
#11869
crossmr
Participant

The problem is the running cost. The running cost isn’t realistic in this game. There was a thread here about modifying it, and I modified it so that lines cost more to build but cheaper to run. It needs to be tweaked, but it certainly makes the game much more realistic and fun.

Trains don’t cost as much to run in a year as they do to buy a new train. That’s ludicrous.

#11870
Enzojz
Participant

In reality, fright are not time-sensitive but cost/time per article sensitive and usually freight train network works with classification yard not direct service. It’s a pity 20 minutes rule is applied to freight.

#11872
waflija
Participant

Please do not understand me wrong, I do not says trains are completely useless. But they get useful very late. Here are some examples for connections could be done with trains:

• high capacity goods lines (e.g. wood to saw mill, oil to refinery)
• inter city connections, after 1906 with 100km/h trains (1 -2 Cities distance, like (Cities A-B-C-D) A->D, A->C)

Strange thing I noticed: There are small passenger railcars in game, they would make much sens to replace the high-duty trams, but there are no small stations available to fit them. Building a 160m platform for 15-30m railcar is just uhhm, stupid.

1. Having more running cost on trams makes huge loss for some In-city branch lines.
nope. In total the tram has 1/4 of the running costs of a similar train. – Even with a 12-car train the running cost is 1.33 for each passenger seat, an equal amount of trams has 0.97 per passenger. (And this do not include the running costs for the stations! Neither you can fill this huge train as easy as the trams.)

2. Trains are much faster than trams from 1930s, and not affected by private car traffic
They are. By people choosing car, not train. The really funny thing I experienced is people do not use private cars, if there are intercity-trams. Opposite is true for trains. (BTW: another big issue: The assumes from 1930 that every citizen has a private car…. Its like “ohhh. It is 1930, let us all buy a car! I take 8 for my family, so everybody has its own!”

Faster means more opportunity to earn income and grow cities, essential to build big cities.
Try trams. You will see the cities grow even better for some reason. I had cities grown to pop. 1000+ in 1866 only with passenger trams on hard focusing on one city, something I never managed with trains.

(you can still use trams for not-so-big adjacent cities, but that’s realistic so no problem. separate cities are much better with faster trains)
I say this is just wrong. Give trams a try and you will see. Later 60km/h trams are capable of connecting 4 near cities or 2-3 “far” cities…

3. Tram/Bus stops have very limited capacity while train stations have enough capacity to serve one line, especially big one.
Right, but 1 train = 14 trams, still much cheaper. Please have a look at the numbers I gave above.

4. Trams are often ‘stuck’ with road traffic AND public transportation itself, making it annoying especially on large maps where busy checking other lines and building more lines.
My experience from my tram fever games is: there is much less to no private traffic, when using enough buses and trams. – With trams only you can reach up to 98% coverage

5. Trams are even not enough capacity for in-city lines on big cities (over 1500 pops) around year 1950, They even have less than 20s frequency and not enough.
Right. There is a point (around 1880-1890 in my games) where a single tram line is maxed out by cities with 1200+ pop. But try 2-5 separate line connecting cities each on its own road each. Works perfectly fine up to 3000+.

#11874
omoikane
Participant

No, It does not mean trams have expensive running cost than trains. Trams with in-city branch lines (not inter-city) would huge losses if running cost of trams are increased (especially hard difficulty)

And private car should not be problem when you use train extensively for inter-city transportation. You even could destroy country roads to prevent private cars, but good ‘train’ lines even make only few private cars on the streets

Also note that you can achieve over 95% usage with trains (no inter-city trams) too. by choosing right vehicle. commuter EMUs(or DMUs) are best for adjacent cities. Ae 4/7 and Re 4/4 are also good before commuter trains are coming out. faster, heavier trains are better for longer lines (A from C or D or E in A – B – C – D – E Scheme)

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by omoikane.
#11878
waflija
Participant

No, It does not mean trams have expensive running cost than trains. Trams with in-city branch lines (not inter-city) would huge losses if running cost of trams are increased (especially hard difficulty)

Maybe I misunderstood you, but currently it is exactly the opposite as you say. Trams have in all areas lower running cost than trains. My Point is that the distance between cities is to small. On most maps the distance between cities is as width as 1 city. – For example the distance from west border of city A to East of city B is as long as city A east to city A west. – Thats what doe not make sense in my opinion and make trams so over powered.
Tram = low investment (can stop on the road, does not need it own tracks etc), high acceleration, agile in cities, but capped at 60-80km/h (which is realistic, trams here in Germany are capped at max. 80km/h, usually 70km/h. only some Rapid transit lines have 120km/h with small modified vehicle)
in-game advantage: higher frequency: more passengers.
Train: lower running cost, lower acceleration, needs straight tracks (which makes using inside cities impossible), but a higher investment.

And private car should not be problem when you use train extensively for inter-city transportation. You even could destroy country roads to prevent private cars, but good ‘train’ lines even make only few private cars on the streets

I know. But I bet you can get even better results with trams, using trains only from 1950+.

#11881
FX2K
Participant

Whilst its true that everything but trains can be more profitable, I want to play the game with trains, so regardless of how much extra profit there is to be made, I still use trains as often as possible 🙂

Buses / Trams in my game are exclusively for inner city travel and trucks for the closer city to the industry.
Everywhere else is trains.

I have also never (well maybe once to test) created a city to city tram or bus line, just because I don’t want to play truck fever 🙂

I’m not chasing the billions, so long as its in the green (even barely) I am happy.

#11885
Neldot
Participant

I second waflija’s opinion, and this is especially visible playing on high difficulty level. Intercity tram lines (together with truck lines) are the only way to make a good profit at least from 1850 until 1900, and even after 1900, trams are always a better solution for short/medium distance lines between cities.

Only longer lines become profitable by trains, but due to the limited map size (at maximum size too), it’s extremely difficult to have more than 2 long train lines on any map.

As already said, too high loading/unloading times of trains, lack of very small train stations and too high maintenance costs for trains, together with some other factor, all contribute to decrease the train lines appeal versus tram lines in the limited size maps of the game…

#11891
waflija
Participant

Right. At a “hard” game, you won’t make any profit with trains. The only way working is trams / trucks. – Which is kind of strange for a game called “train fever”

#11898
RonMaster
Participant

Well that’s not really true. I make lots of many using trains at a “hard” game. I just don’t buy them until around 1970’s. After that they are highly profitable after a few years.

#11977
Emeg
Participant

In reaction to the topic starter. He wrote “Short version: The running cost are realistic, but the map size isn’t.”

But also time is scaled, running compared to the map size much faster as in real. Time is (as Einstein said) in fact the same as space. As I see it is in Train Fever a map size much bigger as by example 16×16 km, making that also the distances between cities on the game map is scaled. Only the individual objects on the map (houses etc.) are scaled 1:1.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Emeg. Reason: Text optimalisation
#12087
Viljainen
Participant

I think the scale of the game is just fine. The issue here are the high running costs of trains compared to buses and trams. All it takes is a couple of small tweaks.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
• The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.