Nuclear fuel should be better than rocket fuel

[Zaflis]

I'm just trying to justify using of nuclear fuel in trains. 10 rocket fuel has 2250 MJ and nuclear fuel while having max stack of 1 item contains 1210 MJ. Meaning that train with a single load of rocket fuel will run almost twice as long time. Solid fuel's 50 item stack values 1250 MJ with almost just the same speed difference from rocket fuel, but it's clearly worst tier fuel.

Uranium is such exotic resource, i'd like it more if it felt more impactful in game. Speed difference of 180% vs 250% is good but efficiency is important aswell, so...

Make nuclear fuel stack to 3 or 4?

[Koub]

Well, from a balance standpoint, you have to choose between efficiency (nuclear fuel gives best acceleration) and energy density (rocket fuel FTW). I think it's a good thing, not having one fuel type better in absolutely all aspects than the others.

[Zaflis]

I hope it will last long enough then on a very long railway. I can see that solid fuel is actually still twice as efficient than rocket fuel when it comes to MJ per light oil, so i guess they all have their perks. However making of nuclear fuel involves Kovarex setup and sulfuric acid mining, all of which is pretty expensive. I wouldn't mind if it would last at least as long as rocket fuel, considering it is even made of rocket fuel.

How is the fuel consumption calculated though, based on distance or time? If it's time then the speed means it's actually more valuable than we take it for.

[eradicator]

Uranium is such exotic resource

Not really. The fields are huge, and you barely need any. I just calculated that my 2GW power plant needs less than 1M uranium ore to run for 200 hours at maximum output, and even the close fields are at least 5M. For trains it is likely the same. And faster trains means they get to their target faster, and cause less congestion.

[JimBarracus]

How is the fuel consumption calculated though, based on distance or time? If it's time then the speed means it's actually more valuable than we take it for.

Since the fuel duration is given in time I guess the time counts when the locomotive accelerates/moves at full speed.

Anyway, a locomotive filled with nuclear fuel (which by the way is 4; 3 in stock and 1 active) can power a train for 134 minutes straight.
I doubt anyone has to cover such long distances that they even need one nuclear fuel for one trip.

Rocket fuel can power a train for 193 minutes which is almost one hour longer than nuclear fuel.
The amount of fuel a train can carry is huge and I think no one has trouble with the distance a train can cover when filled up with any fuel.
Even the wood planks can power a train for 500 seconds.

[bobingabout]

my mod changes the stack sizes to fix the problem.

the problem is it does a lot more than just that so...

[Zaflis]

Anyway, a locomotive filled with nuclear fuel (which by the way is 4; 3 in stock and 1 active) can power a train for 134 minutes straight.
I doubt anyone has to cover such long distances that they even need one nuclear fuel for one trip.

Rocket fuel can power a train for 193 minutes which is almost one hour longer than nuclear fuel.
The amount of fuel a train can carry is huge and I think no one has trouble with the distance a train can cover when filled up with any fuel.
Even the wood planks can power a train for 500 seconds.

Note that on average the amount of fuel stored in the tank is half of a full amount. So nuclear fuel is not stored 4 rods but you need to calculate it with 3.5.

[Zavian]

Note that on average the amount of fuel stored in the tank is half of a full amount. So nuclear fuel is not stored 4 rods but you need to calculate it with 3.5.

Actually, from the point of view of calculating "Is this train going to make it to the next refuelling station?" You should be calculating with 3.0, since you don't know how much fuel is in the engine.