Transport Fever 3: Compare Cargo Routes by Annual Results
To compare cargo routes in Transport Fever 3, look at annual cargo throughput and annual revenue together—not just the payment for one delivery. In one dated comparison, the shorter route showed less payment per cargo item but more estimated income per year because its reported cargo rate was higher. The longer route’s annual result was in the same range, but its track and upkeep costs were not reported, so the figures do not establish which route made more net profit.
The comparison below preserves the reported route values and adds kilometre conversions. It is a copyable snapshot, not a universal result for every map, cargo type, or difficulty setting.
| Test date | Route | Direct distance (reported) | Direct distance (converted) | Frequency | Cargo rate (units/year) | Payment shown (16 items) | Annual revenue (reported) | Track build / upkeep cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Oct 2026 | A | 1.5 mi | 2.414 km | 4 min 39 s | 84 | $103,801 ($6,487/item) | $544,908 | Not reported |
| 1 Oct 2026 | B | 5.3 mi | 8.530 km | 17 min 46 s | 22 | $352,226 ($22,014/item) | $484,308 | Not reported |
Unit conversion example: multiply miles by 1.609344 to get kilometres.
Route A: 1.5 × 1.609344 = 2.414016 km, or 2.414 km rounded to three decimal places.
Route B: 5.3 × 1.609344 = 8.5295232 km, or 8.530 km rounded to three decimal places.
The short route’s reported annual revenue is $60,600 higher than the long route’s ($544,908 − $484,308). That is a comparison of the reported annual revenue figures only. The test does not include the construction and upkeep totals needed to calculate net profit. In the same test, the short route was straighter, while the longer route climbed a slope and detoured around a lake; that difference matters when comparing infrastructure costs.
For a separate throughput estimate, use:
Annual capacity per vehicle = (365 ÷ round-trip days) × vehicle capacity
For example, with an illustrative 60-day round trip and a capacity of 20, one vehicle moves about 121.7 units per year: (365 ÷ 60) × 20. A line needing 200 units per year would require 2 such vehicles under this simplified calculation: 200 ÷ 121.7 = 1.64, rounded up. These are example inputs for showing the calculation, not verified Transport Fever 3 vehicle statistics. The estimate also does not calculate profit.
Route length alone is not enough to choose between the two setups. In the dated test, Route B paid more for the 16-item delivery, while Route A had a higher reported annual revenue and a much higher cargo rate. A longer route may still make sense if it carries return cargo or connects useful stages of a supply chain, but the comparison needs the extra revenue and extra track, station, vehicle, and upkeep costs entered separately.
Income depends on delivery time and aerial distance, while different cargo categories have different delivery deadlines. Faster specialized loading facilities cost more than basic options. So a short route with slow loading can still be a poor fit for time-sensitive cargo; a faster facility may help, but its additional cost must be included before calling it profitable.
Use the dated table as a starting point: copy the columns, record both routes under the same save, cargo, and difficulty, then add construction and annual upkeep from the game before comparing net results. The available comparison supplies a useful contrast in distance, frequency, throughput, and revenue; it does not supply enough cost data to declare a winner.