He is not suggesting to give trains proper logistic requests like tanks and spidertrons have. He is very clear about that:


Correct. He's suggesting something else.


Understanding the underlying principles must be step one before actually asking for them to be changed.


He just wants the train ...

TL;DR
The current priority system lets us set 'pull' priority, i.e. when a train departs, if there are multiple open stations, which one it will head to. We also need a way to set 'push' priority, i.e. when a station opens up, if there are multiple waiting trains, which one will come to it.

What ...

I feel that would have the problem of where the ghost should go.

It can't just attach a ghost to a moving train, that makes the train switch to manual and would immediately disconnect anyway if its already in motion.

And it's unlikely every part is going to be destroyed instantaneously. It could ...

... won't fight it.

https://mods.factorio.com/mod/station-renamer-combinator

One heads up on this whole approach, mine included: renaming re-paths trains already en
route. Two fluids on one stop means a train heading there for heavy oil can retarget when
the name flips to light oil. Standard fix is ...

Have you tried using groups and train interrupts? In my set up I'm able to have generic cargo trains that go to cargo pick up stations when they're enabled and from that inventory they're able to automatically go to that resource's cargo drop off station. That cargo train is part of a "cargo" group ...

... except the 'interrupt wildcards') is the signal wildcard. Which will then perfectly align with my interrupt schedule for picking up/dropoff:

- All trains wait at a 'pickup depot' until:
- A some supply that can be picked up (a.k.a. a trainload ready)
- That isn't already waiting at the 'dropoff ...

Again apologies for my imprecise language.
We are agreed that once a train is en route, there is no need to distinguish between destination full or no path.
If the train is not en route, it is at a station, and for an interrupt to trigger it is trying to leave the station. At that point there are ...

Again apologies for my imprecise language.
We are agreed that once a train is en route, there is no need to distinguish between destination full or no path.
If the train is not en route, it is at a station, and for an interrupt to trigger it is trying to leave the station. At that point there are ...

... en route" is fine.


Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately this is not a state that currently exists so it cannot be made into a condition. Trains never search for a path until they reserve a destination slot and leave the current station, so there is no such thing as "no path while at ...

Assuming we achieve a separate "Destination full while at station" condition, what is your proposed use for separate "Destination full while en route" and "No path while en route" conditions? I don't have a clear picture of why these should trigger different behaviors.


Sorry if I wasn't clear ...

... any destination-full events that occur while underway.

"Scheduled destination full": all destination full events that would otherwise result in a train sleeping at a station. Sleeping at a station is a special case, because interrupts can be triggered by circuit network signals to the station.


I ...

... any destination-full events that occur while underway.

"Scheduled destination full": all destination full events that would otherwise result in a train sleeping at a station. Sleeping at a station is a special case, because interrupts can be triggered by circuit network signals to the station.


I ...

... The suggestion as written is that by combining "Destination full or no path" with "Not at any station", the interrupt would only trigger when a train finds itself without a destination while underway (or having just been turned to automatic).

An alternate, potentially more intuitive way to ...

radical_larry wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2026 10:18 am Then don't let trains leave their loading station unless they have somewhere to dump it.

I don't. This is to handle the case where something goes wrong, such as the destination stop being deconstructed or a section or rail removed while the train is en route.

... Introduce one or both of the following:

a modest penalty for segments forcing repath by being unreservable
a small constant penalty for each train / reserved segment on the path that is independent from the segment length


These two penalties could intertwine and complete each other by ...

TL;DR
When you insert a manual temporary stop in a train schedule, any interrupt that would trigger on leaving the current stop should trigger.


What?
When a train in automatic leaves a stop, it checks for any interrupts and applies them. The same should happen when the player forces the train to ...

TL;DR
Rail stations that does not allow a train to pass, unless it is its destination/origin.

What?
Implement a checkbox in rails stations, or a circuit condition, to disallow the passing of trains that does not have that rail station as origin or destination. Essentially treating that point as ...

TL;DR
Train signals that increase train pathing costs, so that could build main train highways and have trains use them instead of cutting through blocks for a shorter path.


What?
A new type of train signal that increases the pathing cost of a train route that crosses it. Could be configured to ...

It seems the root of your complaint is that changing train limits does not cause trains to seek a new destination (this is distinct from just repathing to the current destination), but changing priorities does cause them to seek a new destination.

If the change you suggest is made, then someone will ...

I appreciate the feedback, but I chose a simple example just to explain the _beginning_ of problems that come from this.

To distribute evenly trains, it's "easier" to have the priority fixed, and you open limit slot in the lower priority one only when the high priority one has a train en route. If ...