# Increasing Line Capacity With Passing Loops

Home Forums General Discussion Increasing Line Capacity With Passing Loops

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)
• Author
Posts
• #3499
Tossi
Participant

Wheee! You finally came to see it! ^^ I am happy and btw I liked your videos about Train Fever.

Oh, and I was so obsessed with this argument that I even made demonstration of the problem using OpenTTD

http://youtu.be/2bhZDKLMjno

#3501
douglas
Participant

OMG. A video is worth a billion words. Thank you so much for it.

#3502
Steve
Participant

@Tossi, Pretty sure I mentioned in my guide that it would only work for 2 trains using the route, if you had four trains then you would have two passing loops.

And I quote >

“It’s important to note here that if you have two trains running on the line, you will require 1 passing loop somewhere along the middle of the line. If you have four trains running, you will require 2 passing loops at a third interval on the line. So essentially, once you have two trains running, for each additional train you’re running, you will require an additional passing loop along the line. At a ratio of 2 trains to 1 passing loop, so 8 trains will be 4 passing loops.”

Thank you for your input but clearly you didn’t read the guide in its entirety before you posted. 🙂

#3504
Steve
Participant

Ok having read all the recent posts, it’s clear that people are misinterpreting what I posted.

The key thing to understand here is that no train should be permitted to enter the single line section unless there is a clear protected slot for it to wait in and therefore entry to the single line section should be controlled. If you experience gridlock, then your line is over-capacity and it requires expansion (as I explained in my guide under “Important thing to note here…”).

So in the examples provided by Tossi, in that four trains are being used on a line clearly only designed for two trains, what you’re proposing in your diagram is pushing the line over capacity and hence will fail. The solution in this case would be to expand the controlling sections to allow the protection of four trains – so to be as clear as I can be: four trains === two passing loops.

Remember that the aim of allowing trains to pass each other on only one track is a process of reducing construction and running costs to an absolute minimum while maximising on returning revenue. Should you reach a point where it is no longer viable to have trains pass each other then, as I mentioned in my guide, you should consider upgrading the route to two tracks.

I hope this clarifies things, if my guide wasn’t clear enough to start with.

While posting, please bear in mind that some people might not instantly get what you’re saying, have a little patience – there’s absolutely no need for hostility.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 12 months ago by Steve.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 12 months ago by Steve.
#3515
Tossi
Participant

Erm sry if I sounded hostile, that was never my intention. I only meant to show that the design is flawed and please allow me to explain once again why is it flawed.

The design you showed can lead to grid lock if you have 4 or more trains given bad timing no matter how many passing loops you have on the line. You can have 4 trains and 10 passing loops and there is still possibility that gridlock will happen. Please look at the diagram below.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=305427716

If there is something that needs explaining I am really open for discussion and will try to convey the explanation as best as I can.

#3517
Steve
Participant

@Tossi, thank you for your detailed explanation, this clears things up a little and highlights that poor timing can and will cause obstructions.

Ok with that, we’ll need some better signals then for it to work with more than 2 trains – something I already intend to investigate as soon as I get my hands on the game.

Reducing the loop to only 1 signal in each loop will mean that the signals will never clear as the rear of one train will simply lock exit from the loop and trains will sit in stalemate.

Watch this space 🙂

#3520
Tossi
Participant

Actuall reducing the loop to only 1 signal will fix it as Train Fever uses path signals. Please look at this diagram:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=305446033

In the line on the bottom you can put 7 trains and they will never gridlock. It is demonstrated in video I gave link to at the top of  page 3 in this thread.

Also please trust me a bit more. I may not have Train Fever yet but I played train games before and have solved my fair share of  gridlock problems on my own a long time ago.

#3522
GeoffersH
Participant

For those not familiar with signalling, I can see quite a few problems occurring when planning routes with single track lines, where passing loops will be required.

Building dual track lines would be the best option, for traffic going in both directions, from town to town, with single track spurs to industry. Even in 1850, nearly all of the main line railways in Britain were built with dual track, so this would not be unrealistic when planning routes.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by GeoffersH.
#3524
Mansen
Participant

This is why we have these guides to hold your hand, Geoff. It is literally as simple as building three of these loops (One outside each station and one in the middle) and you’re good to go. The benefits outweigh the issues by far, because of the game setup.

Unless you happen to be playing on Easy; where the economy is practically a sandbox in comparison, you’re going to need every cent early on. More rail also means more upkeep, which adds up as well.

You’re unlikely to be needing more than two trains on a single track at the start – Be it industry or passengers (One exception being a Coal/Ore/Goods line). Once my City to City Intercity rails begin attracting enough people to warrant another two trains, I just add them to the existing single track.

Now let’s say my needs change – I want to connect up more cities along this track or industries along the length. I’ll simply demolish the loops and convert it into a double track system with new loops for the “offspring” lines that link up to it. Put down one way signals at intervals and you’re good to go.

#3526
Tossi
Participant

Of course dual tracks will always be the best solution, but isn’t it fun to solve line capacity problems with as few resources as possible? Creating something that will look like it can get stuck at any moment but never getting stuck in the end?

Also since we are at it I would like to post here an important rule about placing signals and junctions that will prevent you from experiencing unexpected gridlocks.

When placing a signal behind a junction it should never be placed at a distance shorter than the length of the longest train on the line.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Tossi.
#3527
Mansen
Participant

The economy balance is likely to change – But a single track passenger line between two cities along the river usually sets me about two-thirds of my entire starting budget (This is on Easy I might add). Include local bus lines in both cities and you’re looking at a very heavy investment.

And that’s not including the upkeep over time on maintenance for the railtracks. 🙂

#3530
Steve
Participant

Well my original guide still stands, it is entirely prototypical and will still work providing the timing isn’t precise. Also, it would be particularly difficult (however, not impossible) to know the exact centre of your rail line, which would naturally set the trains into a standardised uniform rhythm. Offsetting the loops a metre off centre in either direction would solve the issue and create non-uniform timing – if you wish, you can check my math using your own equations.

However, the entire point is moot since the issue will be entirely resolved as soon as I get my hands on the game, assuming of course we can mod the signals.

#3531
Steve
Participant

@Tossi, I’m not saying you’re wrong here. In fact, you raise some very valid points. However, you cannot justify the expense of doubling the entire line simply owing to a pathing issue in that the trains might get stuck at some point owing to precision placement of the loops.

The fact is, and I proved it in math, that unless you position your loops in precise distances from centre then it is entirely improbable that the pathing of the trains will ultimately result in stalemate unless the capacity of the line is such that you’ve ultimately created a situation in which it would be inevitable that trains cannot path appropriately.

Also, you make a very valid point in that signal distances should always be longer than your longest train. If you would like, I can add this instruction to my guide and credit you for your submission?

#3532
Mansen
Participant

Perhaps not – But removing the entry signals goes a long way for an “overcapacity” system as you put it, until such a point where you’d consider a double track rail. Sure there’s going to be some waiting, but it beats a possible gridlock that you’re not alerted to by the game, or having to double track the entire length. 🙂

#3534
GeoffersH
Participant

Going off what you have said Mansen, regarding the amount of cash available at the start, it may be best to just use road transport to start with and get the industries producing, so that more funds are available to get at least a few rail lines in place. Best not to be too ambitious early on in the game I suppose.

Anyway Steve seems to be on track (excuse the pun) with his signalling explanations and it will no doubt help others new to these games to get trains running to the best advantage on single line workings.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)
• The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.