Dual or Single

[HOTEC]

Are they a dual track hex or single track hex as circled in yellow? Map art file does not help.

[DeletedUser44]

I had an extremely hard time, given the manual, telling the difference as well.

I had to zoom in real close before I could get a clue.

The circles you have actually both show a double-track (coming from the East) connecting to a single-track (coming from the West).

Hope you did not intend to post a trick question? [;)]

[HOTEC]

Not hard time but frustration. Inconsistency in the manual found is not the first time, it is not the last, I am sure. My best guess is the manual prepared without second read not to mention the legal vetting of such manner. You see the one showing 3 single and 1 dual in yellow circle. As shown in following attachment, it is the case of 3 dual and 1 single in black circle not far from the yellow one. The best guess is the move across the hexside determining that the hex is dual or single. It has to be confirmed as it is not mentioned in the manual. The tiles are to be changed after confirmed.

Read in conjunction with the table in Section 22.4.3, their difference are clearly shown. Strategic movement is not my interest but the movement of freight does. You know how many of these in the WitE2, not few I can tell. Its impact should not be underestimated. I am not intent to post a trick question but I want a clear picture to plan for playing the game. In particular, I am going to defeat the Soviet AI. For error on safe side, I assume that it is a single track because it is the worse scenario for freight movement. Perhaps, WitE3 shows this information in hex pop-up.

I like WitE. This is the game I want as I said it in 8 year ago. Yes. My frustration is causing by expectation of toooo much.

Thanks anyway.

[Zovs]

They are both (single and dual track) it just depends on the exact hex the rail is entering or exiting. It's pretty straight forward and standard in most complex war games. No trickery or magic here, if a single line comes into a hex that particular line is single track and if a dual track goes into a hex that is dual track. In the case where ore than one or more lines go into or out of a hex it just depends on if that hex crossed is a single or dual track. One hex (like in your screen shots) can have multiple lines (Lowicz) where single lines come in from three direction and one dual track exits out.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: HOTEC

Not hard time but frustration. Inconsistency in the manual found is not the first time, it is not the last, I am sure. My best guess is the manual prepared without second read not to mention the legal vetting of such manner. You see the one showing 3 single and 1 dual in yellow circle. As shown in following attachment, it is the case of 3 dual and 1 single in black circle not far from the yellow one. The best guess is the move across the hexside determining that the hex is dual or single. It has to be confirmed as it is not mentioned in the manual. The tiles are to be changed after confirmed.

Read in conjunction with the table in Section 22.4.3, their difference are clearly shown. Strategic movement is not my interest but the movement of freight does. You know how many of these in the WitE2, not few I can tell. Its impact should not be underestimated. I am not intent to post a trick question but I want a clear picture to plan for playing the game. In particular, I am going to defeat the Soviet AI. For error on safe side, I assume that it is a single track because it is the worse scenario for freight movement. Perhaps, WitE3 shows this information in hex pop-up.

...

I've read a fair few incorrect posts on this forum since the game was released but this one really stands out.

Maybe, just, reflect on it a wee bit before posting that sort of allegation?

[RedLancer]

Single / Double rail is set by hex and not the line. Congestion is by hex too no matter how many lines are present. The art shows by line because it looks better.

[oldMarinePanzer]

Is there any way for construction units to expand a single rail line into a double (during the game)?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: oldMarinePanzer

Is there any way for construction units to expand a single rail line into a double (during the game)?

no, not by that mechanism. I think its a bit like the discussions of German exploitation of the Caucasus Oil reserves, something that might have been feasible in a post-war environment but not that feasible while active operations are ongoing.

Just going by UK experience, its hard to expand a single track rail to dual due to all the infrastructure problems (that sets aside land acquisition as I assume no one would be 'asking')

It might be possible to set new rail lines by event as there were a few that were brought into use post-1941. No idea how feasible this would be in practice as the map is one of the things set when you start a scenario (so I believe that changes to hex content etc do not affect existing games).

Roger

[oldMarinePanzer]

Roger, but shouldn't this enhancement be considered? Logically, construction units would only have to build a 2nd rail line next to the existing one, using the existing one to transport the construction materials & vehicles so that the work could be MORE easily built. In theory, wouldn't an additional line take longer to build that converting the existing line to a country's preferred usage (like German to Russian or Russian to German), but NOT quite as long as building a new line from scratch? Maybe adding a 2nd rail line should take double/triple rail construction points rather than the conversion of a line's points? Is this too complex to code? I would think in a game that might last 2-4 years this COULD be an option. I would think that if the Germans held the Caucasus long enough and might/could have had the resources for long enough they COULD have eventually obtained that oil for their own use?

[loki100]

In principle I agree.

I think there is a useful distinction between the game with the standard VP system and that with the no early end rules.

The reason I say that is if the Axis player has got the sort of operational security that would indeed have allowed them to exploit the Caucasus, or to redesign the Soviet rail net, then in a standard game they have won. If we assume this sort of reflects holding the Baku-Astrakan-Stalingrad region that is the VP for mid-43 win and even if that slips past, its a HWM that the Soviets can't match in December 44. Less clear cut but I'd say the Soviets are not going to regain any real operational tempo. So broadly the game is designed to time out when the Axis reaches those thresholds.

The no early end scenario I believe just leaves in the December 44 and the Berlin VP tests, so feasibly a dominant Axis player can carry on pushing east against an ever weakening opponent. In that world, the sort of resource diversion to long term exploitation is plausible?

Now for me personally, the no early end scenario really doesn't appeal but thats a matter of taste. What is true is that it seems to throw up some odd issues that occur due to playing past where the game design would have ended the game (its not really a designed scenario, more one with the VP constraints eliminated). How easy it is to remove these issues is again well out of my knowledge.

All of which is a long of saying (a) I'm genuinely not sure if the map can be changed in game and (b) that sort of transition to a post active conflict exploitation model is sort of outside the game as designed.

Roger

[panzer51]

I think its a bit like the discussions of German exploitation of the Caucasus Oil reserves, something that might have been feasible in a post-war environment but not that feasible while active operations are ongoing.

Well, Germans only controlled the oil for something like 5 months before being forced to evacuate. But I see no reason why they couldn't extract and use oil given a functional railroad and a port such as Novorossiysk.

For the railroads I don't think there should be no expansion to double-track; Germans actually had to reduce some of the double track lines to single track as they were short of rails.

[Denniss]

most of oil wells were destroyed through sabotage before capture

[Gunnulf]

I think that's the angle here, lack of iron rails. I'm not a railway engineer but I think there is a big difference between the FDB teams repairing/widening the existing network largely converting the iron and lumber resources already in location, versus turning up with hundreds of kms of new iron rails to add a parallel line. Impossible? No. Challenging logistically? Certainly.

[panzer51]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

most of oil wells were destroyed through sabotage before capture

The problem was the Germans only had control for less than 5 months and no functional port. Most wells were simply filled with concrete.

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: RedLancer

Single / Double rail is set by hex and not the line. Congestion is by hex too no matter how many lines are present. The art shows by line because it looks better.

I had no idea. I completely assumed it aligned with the map graphics and rail data would be calculated based on the crossing of each hex-side and not based on the center-of-hex.

I am blown away by this.... How does the game resolve multiple rail lines entering/leaving a hex then? Which rail-type has precedence? Dual? Single?

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf
I think that's the angle here, lack of iron rails. I'm not a railway engineer but I think there is a big difference between the FDB teams repairing/widening the existing network largely converting the iron and lumber resources already in location, versus turning up with hundreds of kms of new iron rails to add a parallel line. Impossible? No. Challenging logistically? Certainly.

I think that doubling rail wasn't a priority either because the number of tracks is not that important at the end; other bottlenecks like rolling stock availability (locomotives, cars), number of rail docks for trains (linear platforms where freight can be handled)... and all the manpower needed to load and unload such freight, would account for many times more restrictions than the number of available tracks on a given line.

Moreover, one need also to consider all the complex ouvrages (bridges, tunnels, etc.) to be added along the way in order to increase the number of tracks for a railway.

Now, think about it:

One "standard" military train was made of (with variation) one locomotive plus 25 boxed cars, each with a 20 metric tons freight capacity. Meaning, 500 tons capacity per train for less than 500 meters of track used. At a conservative average speed of 60 km/h (1 km per minute), 2 trains per minute (1,000 tons) could be used on a single track railway for one way trafic. Hence, a capacity to "deliver" (with infinite rolling stock and unloading capacity) 60,000 tons per hour, which is equal to 1,440,000 metric tons of freight per day for a single track line!

Now, if one would use it both way, allocating 12 hours for trafic one way and the next 12 for reverse trafic, each daily capacity would represent half this ammount (720,000 tons) minus the ammount of freight lost during track clearing time. For simplicity, consider that this railway is 60 km long (1 hour), then, the track clearing time in order to reverse the trafic would ammount to 120 trains lost (1 hour of trafic) or 60,000 tons of freight... meaning there still would be a daily capacity of 660,000 tons able to be delivered at each end of the line.

But this 12 hours trafic would also mean 1,320 trains runing daily thru this single track line, hence 1,320 engines and 33,000 rail cars... Now, we'll also have to build 1,320 platforms and find the manpower for unloading as many trains!

Finally, this is what will determine the capacity and not the number of tracks. It will be based, like sea ports, on the capacity to handle freight as it is what will slow down the rotation of the rolling stock, and such rolling stock only exist in limited number.