[FRDF] Depots

[PJayTycy]

I feel the first "vote" coming up here

When are vehicles serviced ?

1. When stopped (loading/unloading) at a station with such a facility.
2. When stopped in a seperate service area to be serviced.
3. When running through a station with such a facility (even without stopping).
4. When running through a seperate service area without stopping.

Did I forget somebody's idea?

[Hyronymus]

1. When stopped (loading/unloading) at a station with such a facility.

[Zuu]

Is this right?:

Service = check oil, wheels, brakes etc
Repair = repair dammages

If repairs hapen every 10 year or so that someone suggested, I suggest that Repairs can be done somewere more far from the normal rute (at a deport?). While Service is done at stations/service falicities.

[Hyronymus]

Sounds right to me .

[Zuu]

As PJayTycy wrote, depending on the scaling there can be use for service fallicities between stations. Althought it is unrealistic I think that PJayTycy have a good argument for leting trains to be served without stoping.

We just have to make sure that the player have to pay enoght for each such fallicty either per reapiar or per year, so that it's not economical to put them everywere.

Optionally we can have cheeper fallicities that trains must slow down at.

[Steve]

Is this right?:

Service = check oil, wheels, brakes etc
Repair = repair dammages

If repairs hapen every 10 year or so that someone suggested, I suggest that Repairs can be done somewere more far from the normal rute (at a deport?). While Service is done at stations/service falicities.

Using that terminology, a service would happen before every journey, there is no reason for the user to control such a trivial thing. We only really need to consider the major repair and renewal of parts that keep a train running year by year.

[Hyronymus]

We only really need to consider the major repair and renewal of parts that keep a train running year by year.

That's your opinion, not necessarily ours too . How would you enable the major repair and renewal of parts btw?

[Steve]

Well, i don't see why bother including the first thing. Perhaps you can explain that? And i'll be calling a service the bit where they repair the train, as that makes more sense to me than a normal check-up like you describe.

I would prefer an extended stop in a station between unload and load whilst the train was serviced. Perhaps when it gets past a date since last service, it'll stop in the next station and service.

[Edit, slight rewording]

[Hyronymus]

Uhm, easier english? I don't get what you mean (feel free to blame me ).

[Zuu]

Is this right?:

Service = check oil, wheels, brakes etc
Repair = repair dammages

If repairs hapen every 10 year or so that someone suggested, I suggest that Repairs can be done somewere more far from the normal rute (at a deport?). While Service is done at stations/service falicities.

Using that terminology, a service would happen before every journey, there is no reason for the user to control such a trivial thing.

Ok, thats sounds resonable. Just a waste of memory and CPU to service trains at every train stop.

We only really need to consider the major repair and renewal of parts that keep a train running year by year.

I would prefer an extended stop in a station between unload and load whilst the train was serviced. Perhaps when it gets past a date since last service, it'll stop in the next station and service.

Ok, but if that is done on a regular station, what extra does it add? Well, you can have an option that sets how regular trains should be served. Not that i'm aginst it, but I cant see that it adds A LOT to have trains beeing served every 10 year or so on a station.

Perhaps we shall use Hyronymus idea that stations must be linked with a depot to ba able to serve trains.

[Hyronymus]

In my opinion my suggestion solves two problems:

• - engines are constructed (bough) in a depot connected to the line where it will be put into service (it doesn't get more realistic IMO)
  - everytime a train passes the Station + Depot combination it's being serviced

Service: a check-up on the oil, water and sand evel. NO REPAIRS . A service cannot to be specified, every time a train passes a Station + Depot combination it will be serviced. Turnaround time on a Station + Depot takes slightly longer.

Repairs: vehicles get damaged now and then, we haven't discussed how to deal with them yet (I'll start a discussion topic about it)

EDIT: Vehicle breakdowns

[Steve]

Damages should follow a reliability probability like TTD and Loco. When they visit a depot/stationallowingservice the % is set to 100.

A service cannot to be specified,

Then what's the point of having them? We only need to worry about breakdowns. I said that above and asked for your reasoning for needing it, any chance that you'll give a reason?

I think it's important that services don't just happen at every station, there needs to be something to show that it has the capability to service trains. A depot for building trains (which looks like an additional platform?) would be nice and not too out of place.

I think i'd prefer some sort of Depot-station hybrid rather than having random depots along routes.

[Hyronymus]

I think it's important that services don't just happen at every station, there needs to be something to show that it has the capability to service trains. A depot for building trains (which looks like an additional platform?) would be nice and not too out of place.

I think i'd prefer some sort of Depot-station hybrid rather than having random depots along routes.

That just nicely sums up my entire proposal then. Thanx for agreeing with me. With saying services cannot be specified I meant that if a train passes a Station + Depot combo (call it hybrid) you cannot order the train to skip service. Or maybe you could, I don't think making it skipable causes much termoil. Last, my proposal means you won't need depots somewhere down the line. Only one depot for all directly connected stations being serviced.

[Zuu]

As most Stations is direct connected in a network you only would need one deport then.

Well, thats good for one thing, networks will become better to use. Maybe there should be a radius for the deport. so that it serves trains at stations within a given radius, that are direct connected with the station that is linked with the deport.

[Hyronymus]

I like the radius idea. Are you thinking of a fixed radius in squares or in stations?

[Hellfire]

So, are we going for the station+depot hybrid then?

[Zuu]

So, are we going for the station+depot hybrid then?

I think so, if not PJayTycy thinks that he needs service between stations too.

[Steve]

If we're having a depot that isn't directly used, but rather services any trains in the station next to it, i think it should be restricted to just that station or a very small area around the depot. Also consider we may want a way to not force a service as you go through. If a station is very busy, you want turnover rates to be as small as possible, but you may want the depot for building new engines onto the line. Some way to limit the amount of serving at that station would be nice. Goes with something i said at the start.

[ChrisCF]

If it makes a difference, lots of stations have mobile filling machines which can be used to refuel diesel-powered units while at the platform, and terminating trains that aren't due out for a while get cleaned inside. I see no reason why we can't use this to boost a train's state of repair by a point or so at each stop, moreso at the termini of its journey.

[Steve]

moreso at the termini of its journey.

But our journeys will never end. They'll just start over again!