Re: [DL] Passenger Train Economics

[Frempath2@netscape.net]

deadlands@gamerz.net wrote:
>
> --- Bryce <SandChigg@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I think they would just charge
> > higher prices for
> > cargo and freight.  
> 
> Response from the Marshal...
> 
> And now, a brief note in response to the guy who says
> I was underestimating freight.
> 
> On a steamboat (whose passenger costs are the same as
> a trains) deck space costs 1 cent a mile because you
> are basically cargo. Lets say that for a railroad it
> costs 2 cents a mile for cargo, doubling the cost and
> making it a lot more efficient to ship something down
> the mississipi then by black river.


Why is it more effecient?  I would argue that it is not more effecient for all but the largest most base materials, that is why there are so few riverboats now and so many trains.  And with this false assumption in the very begging of the problem, the rest falls apart.

I dont have the books in front of me but if the system shows a river boat with the same effeciency as a train, they are sadly mistaken.  Both move by pushing off of an object.  Water has much more "give" than steel, therefore you will get more return for the energy spend from a train.

If you are really set in holding on to your cost for rail transport, fine, do it, its your campaign.  If you want expensive rail transport, again fine, do it, its your campaign.

All in all remember, its a game, I've never seen a system that doesnt have bugs.  Fix the fuel consumption rate to reflect the cost you want.:)

g'day
frempath

 
> Now lets assume they can pack 6 times as much cargo in
> a cargo car as passengers in a regular car. So we go
> to some quick math again...  100$/ .02$ per person
> weight in frieght = 5000 units 5000 units / (6 x 30
> units per car) = 28 cars.
> 
> But since they migh be really crowding it (and at this
> point I am not sure if this is even physically
> possible because it means that for every 200 pound
> person you could fit in a vehicle you can replace him
> with 2400 pounds worth of cargo) we'll use the doubled
> passenger figures.  5000 units / (6 X 60 units per
> car) = 14 cars
> 
> Even with that minimum number of cars now generated
> that is still 7 less frieght/passenger cars then is
> needed to make a profit then on the longest train I
> have seen to date. That also makes freight cars the
> biggest money producer for a rail line, capable of
> generating 7.20$ per car per mile as opposed to a
> passenger cars mear 3.00$ per mile when filled with 60
> people. This also assumes that they are constantly
> full and do not go even a single trip with less then
> capacity.
> 
> As you can see, this still doesn't seem to explain the
> missing revenue. Now if there are a bunch of services
> that make up for this that I am unaware of and don't
> take up a whole lot of space my estimates could be
> drastically off. That's why I am asking the question
> in the first place. I may be mistaken in some of my
> base assumptions (for example ghost rock in bulk might
> costs 25$ a pound instead of 100$) in which case I
> would like to know which ones. But so far I have tried
> to estimate in the railroads favor and they still keep
> coming up short on breaking even, much less turning a
> profit.
> 
> Anyway I hope this helps to illustrate the reasons for
> my curiosity about how much it costs to make a train
> go.
> 
> Marshal Black
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>     unsubscribe deadlands
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
> 
> 
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/