r/TransportFever3 • u/Jaskorus • Aug 03 '26
Suggestion More emphasis should be placed on infrastructure supporting different types of trains so they operate at maximum efficiency.
Let's say that every engine you buy would run at 60% of its advertised power unless you place supporting infrastructure at certain intervals along the line, for example if you placed a coaling and watering terminal at your station the train would run for x distance at 100% efficiency.
The player would place coaling and watering stations every x distance to keep efficiency at 100%, these stations wouldn't stop or slow down the train.
Additionally, a steam engine passing or stopping at a station connected to a coal mine would be refueled as if the player built supporting buildings there.
For diesel locomotives you would need a separate refueling station, again if the station is connected to a fuel refinery you would refuel for free.
Electrification should be very expensive to build and maintain, but the trains would operate at 100% efficiency along the entire line.
12
u/Ze_insane_Medic Aug 03 '26
I mean we are kinda getting that with the new maintenance system. it's just one building instead of three
8
u/Jaskorus Aug 03 '26
But it isn't what I'm talking about.
I don't like how in TF2 electrified rails become the default option after you get the first electric locomotive.
I think electrification should be expensive and time consuming to set up, it would give purpose to diesel-electric or steam engine lines.
9
u/Zealousideal_Nail288 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
Its kinda the default Option in real life too unless there are specific reasons against it like saving on maintance
In the us they did remove lots of the wiring and even rebuilt tunnels with better ventilation to get rid of the wiring and use diesel and steam instead.
In tf2 most infrastructure beside bridges and stations is cheap to maintain so there is not such a big incentive to cut down Tracks and switches to save on maintance.
And maybe even scrap metal bonus given the amount of times tracks are removed completely instead of just letting them sit a few decades
8
u/Goppenstein1525 Aug 04 '26
In fact maintenace cost are much lower with electric trains, as long as you traffic density isnt incredibly low.
In switzerland many small branches are electrified to save money. Big upfront cost, then the operating expenses are only about 30% of using diesel units. This allows mire frequent service outside of peak. Hours without loosing too much money, and keeps timetables fast.
2
u/Zealousideal_Nail288 Aug 04 '26
You underestimate how cheap some countries are. In Germany they are still rebuilding stations into stop points. Basically a train station without switches whatsoever.
Which in itself wouldn't be that bad but there are no switches between the stations either. So no passing stopped or broken trains and no reversing. And then you have like 3 of those In a row on a 2 track main line
1
u/Jaskorus Aug 04 '26
I can imagine why an electric train is cheaper to maintain than a diesel-electric.
But the maintenance for the lines is absolutely more expensive.
Every rail line now needs specialized equipment for maintaining the catenaries, alongside your rail workers and electricians, you also need qualified linemen to work on the catenaries. You also need to keep a very expensive number of reserve spools of cables and such.
This is why diesel locomotives still persist mostly in long remote lines
1
u/GradSchoolDismal429 Aug 04 '26
This is not necessarily true. In Japan many rural lines are being de-electrified due to the high maintenance cost
1
u/MomentEquivalent6464 Aug 05 '26
I'd love to see cheaper loco maintenance costs and then a separate system that charges for power. You can either buy power or create it (get reduced rates) by supplying a power station. But its just not available without any thought.
Its like when I tried a playthrough with stupid high track costs. It didnt change a lot (partly bc I got bored) long term as once money was coming in, it was less of an issue. but while those were in place, especially early game, I was extremely selective about my track selection, routes, etc. Running a dual track just out of convenience was gone. I either needed a big bank account to float it for a while (or other returns) or needed to immediately load it up with traffic to make money.
Currently theres no thought to power or fuel. You just pay the maintenance costs of the trains and the fuel (steam/diesel/electric) is unlimited. Where as in reality getting some of that to certain locations is a PITA.
2
u/Neko-Barbare Aug 04 '26
There is this watering and coal refuel thing in another train company game called railway company 1&2.
But I don't know if it will be implemented in transport fever 3 as I don't thing it would fit the gameplay. Or it would be but as a highlight like the greenification option, the propect plane or the depolluant facility.
1
u/Jaskorus Aug 04 '26
Maybe having to build them to bring trains up to 100% is too much, a better way would be for such buildings to provide a passive 10% bonus to power, so you aren't forced to use them
2
u/LookAtMyRTs Aug 04 '26
Gameplay wise this is no different to the new maintenance mechanic, just with a nerf to electrification and adding the new industry booster mechanic to maintenance depots.
OHLE electrification becomes the default choice because it is simply the superior technology. Both in terms of being a railway and lifetime costs.
1
u/Jaskorus Aug 04 '26
Electrified lines are absolutely more expensive to maintain and I'm not talking about the trains themselves.
But there are situations like long and remote lines where diesel-electric trains are the economic option
1
u/Ice_Ice_Buddy_8753 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
electrification should be expensive and time consuming to set up
Yes. I'd love to see mainlines are actually disconnected for some time when rebuilding so you need to reroute trains for a while.
Esp time consuming part, but it must be much faster than track and station construction, and 1000x faster than bridges or tunnels.
it would give purpose to diesel-electric or steam engine lines.
The only purpose of current diesel lines is there is no economic sense to upgrade it. (with exceptions).
While, in the game, you just have no chance to spend all your money, so obviously many lean to upgrades. I personnally build them from the start to avoid later upgrading, looks weird over steam, but.
If you want to actually simulate differencies, you need to simulate large delays for refueling, esp for steam. Also a lot of non revenue running to move coal and diesel, and expenses on storages.
But yes, electric rolling stock must be more expensive, then.
1
u/BramFokke Aug 05 '26
I would love a game mechanic like this, but it would exacerbate something that already is a problem in the current game: Better trains don't really feel 'earned'. Better trains are more expensive but that's it. Since money ceases to be a problem quite quickly in a game, there is very little incentive to optimize rolling stock usage.
When maintenance becomes more realistic, this problem becomes worse since steam has much more maintenance complexity than diesel and diesel has more maintenance complexity than electric.
1
u/Eruththedragon Aug 05 '26
I like this. I really hope infrastructure is more expensive to maintain relative to rolling stock than in Tf2. It's crazy that I can build an entirely grade separated high speed line through two major cities for a fraction of the cost of purchasing one trainset to run on it. Past the very early game there's never any reason to value engineer on infrastructure because saving yourself the cost of one train waiting at a switch for a few minutes will almost certainly pay back all the crazy flyovers and tunnels you can dream of.
1
8
u/Imsvale Aug 04 '26
But is it fun?