Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
@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 🙂
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.
@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. 🙂
I’ve seen the devs use double-headed trains on their twitch stream and a couple of the German guys have used them in their videos. I don’t speak German so I’ve no idea what they were saying lol
Some great ideas Talkietoaster! Particularly like the ideas on inter-urban transport, I sincerely hope we get something like that.
I haven’t tried it out in Train Fever but it is documented that signals are merely pathing nodes and nothing more than that. Watching videos of Train Fever in operation gives you a good idea what is and what isn’t possible, and I’ve certainly seen a great deal of failures when it comes to proper placement of signals. Hence why I decided to write a couple of guides on signalling based around pathing trains properly to ensure efficient operations.
Agreed, we do need a much more complex signalling system than is present. However, I personally feel that adding such would push Train Fever outside of its scope of operation. After all, it’s a business simulation at heart and nothing more than that really.
I’m hoping there is at least some fundamental control over things like signals via script, so a more complex system of operation can be modded to the game further down the line (no pun intended).
Ok I discussed a similar mode of operation on another thread. In theory, it is possible to mod the game, providing we have some form of control over train instructions. However, the possibility of being able to detach a locomotive from its train and the have it re-attach comes down to persistence.
Persistence is something we call in the game industry as an object that remains in a given state no matter what the circumstances. This means that for Train Fever, a train must continue to exist whether it has a locomotive or not and from what I’ve seen to-date, I’ve not seen any evidence that a train is persistent in Train Fever.
Additionally, to have such operations as you describe would require a much more complex signalling system than is presently available, and perhaps possible. It would require a networking system for each signal as each signal would need to talk to its neighbouring signal and that talk to its neighbouring signal and so on. So that the signals know the position and state of each train on the railway network. Once you’re able to do that, you can then code some intelligence into the system so that trains without a locomotive can be stationed in sidings and even marshalled, so they can be protected by signals without affecting the operation and function of running trains.
@Mansen, yes tried to create a guide but seeing as I don’t own the Steam version of the game, it won’t let me create one. I bought my game via humblebundle and I probably won’t receive my steam key until the game is released
@Stonelouse, placing signals outside of the loop will essentially cause traffic to back up on the single line section, if the loop is occupied, which you don’t want. You always want the single line to remain clear unless there’s a slot for it to go to in the next passing loop.
Consider this scenario, you have a train coming along the line from direction A (on your diagram), as well as a train coming from direction F. However, you also have trains stopped at both the platforms in the loop. As you can probably figure, all your trains are now in stalemate and neither can move unless you reverse the direction of either the trains at directions A and F to clear the section.
In a real world situation you have intelligent drivers who generally have block tokens that give them priority to enter single line sections. In Train Fever, you don’t have that luxury.
Hope this helps 🙂
@Neil-R yes, it’s very common to use passing loops at stations, given that the train needs to stop there anyway – it’s even more efficient!
So here’s a triple loop :
Note that you have 2 free blocks with either option but only in one direction. You need to decide which direction is more important to have trains waiting in.
Ok with 3 parallel tracks the layout would be a bit different. You would ideally make it so that it would be easy for trains to pass each other no matter which direction they’re travelling so that you always have a free track for a train to enter from either direction. Tracks on passing loops should always be signalled uni-directionally, so you would have two tracks that would be signalled in the same direction, and one track signalled in the other direction.
However, it’s worth bearing in mind here that passing loops should not need to be more than 2 tracks to allow trains to pass each other. If you’re approaching the need to add an additional line, then you need to think about doubling the entire line and allow block signalling to handle the additional capacity.
@fuji You’re most welcome 🙂
