Possible. But then you should remove the following rail signal completely. (Just the one.)
No. Not if you're optimizing for speed.
In the first image, yes they are parking spaces. I thought I should have chain signals on the way out of the parking spaces, no? And then a rail signal just after the tracks merge.astroshak wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:32 pm First Image : replace the Chain Signals in the stacker with Rail Signals. Those are parking spaces, right?
Replace the Rail Signal(s) after the stacker with Chain Signals. I usually put a Rail Signal right after the Train Stop just to ensure that the next train can enter immediately.
Second image : generally looks good, but replace (as mentioned in first image) the Chain Signal at the train Stop with a Rail Signal. Also, at the entrance to the stacker, replace the Chain Signal with a Rail Signal.
At the Station Inlet image, you have a couple of Rail Signals that should be Chain Signals.
Otherwise, they look quite serviceable.
You mean like this?Jap2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:40 pm In the second image, there should be a chain signal between the tracks so that trains can run on them in parallel (right now they share a block, so only one train can use the whole segment at a time). This isn't currently an issue, as the trains on the far left track have to turn, but if/when you extend that upwards it might become a small problem.
Yes.je11693 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:38 pmYou mean like this?Jap2.0 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:40 pm In the second image, there should be a chain signal between the tracks so that trains can run on them in parallel (right now they share a block, so only one train can use the whole segment at a time). This isn't currently an issue, as the trains on the far left track have to turn, but if/when you extend that upwards it might become a small problem.
Train signals 7.png
How does this look? I moved the chain signals, moved the rail signal, and added a couple of rail signals closer to the loading bays. And yes, I launched my first one earlier today with a satelliteeradicator wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:15 pmPossible. But then you should remove the following rail signal completely. (Just the one.)No. Not if you're optimizing for speed.
There are many speed optimizations that could be done. Tighter signal spacing etcpp. But all of the signals are set right and won't cause any problems. And it doesn't look like those are meant for high-speed traffic.
Example tighter signal spacing:
faster.jpg
On the entrance i'd remove the signal to prevent trains from commiting to the route if there's no space free. But that highly depends on how the rest of the network looks:
nodeadlock.jpg
Personally i mostly space my signals so the look asthetically pleasing. If you're interested in high-speed signaling i'm sure the search function can find something.
(Yay, your first(?) rocket!)
I am now trying to scale up my iron ore and copper by using train systems. I have logistics bots, but using belts for now.!) Nope, that broke it. You still need a chain signal before the branch.
The difference is where the train waits when both of the lower left bays are already occupied. In my version it waits on the main track, so it's easier to send it somewhere else for debugging, while in your version it'd wait inside the "branch" so to get it "unstuck" you'd have to manually drive it back in reverse mode. If the two bays are never occupied at the same time then there's no difference.
Does this work? I put two chain signals after the parking spaces, and left enough room on the rightmost red section for a full train before the next rail signal so a train could pull up behind the one in the loading bay on the right.eradicator wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:03 pm Generally i meant to say: It all looks fine, don't change it. The pictures where merely ideas not "you have to do this now!!" instructions.
Nope, that broke it. You still need a chain signal before the branch.
The extra rail signal before the chain signal is a questionable "speed optimization" though and not really needed.
whatimeant.jpg
The difference is where the train waits when both of the lower left bays are already occupied. In my version it waits on the main track, so it's easier to send it somewhere else for debugging, while in your version it'd wait inside the "branch" so to get it "unstuck" you'd have to manually drive it back in reverse mode. If the two bays are never occupied at the same time then there's no difference.
Many things work, including your original solution. As long as you don't have any problems with your own solutions it's probably more fun to use those instead of mine if you don't understand mine yet :). And you're the only one who knows your exact base layout and strategy.
The train goes to the station nearest to it taking into account penalties for other trains, red signals, and a few other things. The simplest way to make a train go to the station with the most/least resources is to disable those with too few/many, although that's not always the most optimal solution.
What do you mean by penalties for other trains?Jap2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:15 pmThe train goes to the station nearest to it taking into account penalties for other trains, red signals, and a few other things. The simplest way to make a train go to the station with the most/least resources is to disable those with too few/many, although that's not always the most optimal solution.
Trains will try to avoid paths with other trains in them.je11693 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:50 pmWhat do you mean by penalties for other trains?Jap2.0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:15 pmThe train goes to the station nearest to it taking into account penalties for other trains, red signals, and a few other things. The simplest way to make a train go to the station with the most/least resources is to disable those with too few/many, although that's not always the most optimal solution.
I thought maybe there was a way to specify stations using the circuit network. It would also be useful, for example, when you have multiple sites and all the loading bays at one site are currently being used by trains, to be able to automatically re-route a third train to the second site rather than have it sitting idle whilst the trains in the loading bays fill up.
Yeah I think you are right. It's probably easiest to just label them numerically and have one or two trains going back and forth between each outpost.eradicator wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:14 pm If you want to use the same station name on all ore outposts then disabling stations that are in use/not full enough/whatever via circuits. But don't complain when the circuits get too complicated once you start having 10 outposts just for iron. It's also suboptimal for train routing when they suddenly want to turn around in the middle, which is very difficult to prevent with circuits. The easiest option is still to just give each outpost a different name.
