Train build

[Typerim]

For my first post, I thought that something simple would suffice
So what ratio do you use for trains?
And with that, do you put multiple train layouts in the same system?
And last, do you connect all your rails, or do you keep different lines seperate?

[Serenity]

1-4 or 1-4-1 is fine at the start. Plenty of volume. Later on you can use larger trains if you need to move more. Some people have even built megabases with 1-2 trains.
For more wagons than 4 adding more locomotives is a good idea though

Same with the other question. Having everything connected is perfectly fine at the beginning. Or even for an entire game. With a really huge base though and lots of trains it can be a good idea to separate ore and plate trains for example.
It's also just convenient to be able to get everywhere with a player/shuttle train

[Rjskeet]

Hey Typerim,
I personally use all different kinds of trains, mostly single direction trains going from 1-2( 1 engine to 2 wagons) for small shuttles, 1-3 for my oil trains, 1-4 for plate hauling and coal/ stone jobs, and for railworlds i use 1-6 to 1-10 for massive ore haulers. I try to avoid bidirectional trains but they are good options if you do a towns style game like benthams. or if you want to use half the rails. not to mention bi directional system scale drastically the more rails you use but so does the complexity.

[Acacel]

I like to use bidirectional trains, they don´t need a loop to get back to the base and there is no dead end when the rails are build correct.
So in my base the alrounder is the 1-2-1 setup. Last game I played around with 2-4-2 and 1-3-1. Al rails are connected to one big system for the use with passenger trains (or ore trains that are used for this job). The different trains in one network (first desinged for the 1-2-1 trains) only led to porblems in junktions which were easy to fix as soon as I noticed them.

[Typerim]

So, people only use bidirectional for the abillity to back up out of stations.
Doesn't that get a problem when multiple trains are set up to go to the same station?

[BillH]

So, people only use bidirectional for the abillity to back up out of stations.
Doesn't that get a problem when multiple trains are set up to go to the same station?

Not if you set up your station entry point with enough room for trains to wait, either via a stacker or careful planning of your rail line.

[Zavian]

So, people only use bidirectional for the abillity to back up out of stations.
Doesn't that get a problem when multiple trains are set up to go to the same station?

You just need waiting bays or a stacker, and to signal things properly. Many people who use bi-directional trains will also have a mostly one-directional rail network. Only the stations, and maybe some of the branches will be bi-directional. But if you really want to, you can build an entirely bi-directional rail network. Just be aware that in general a dual track rail network has better throughput.

[Typerim]

So, people only use bidirectional for the abillity to back up out of stations.
Doesn't that get a problem when multiple trains are set up to go to the same station?

You just need waiting bays or a stacker, and to signal things properly. Many people who use bi-directional trains will also have a mostly one-directional rail network. Only the stations, and maybe some of the branches will be bi-directional. But if you really want to, you can build an entirely bi-directional rail network. Just be aware that in general a dual track rail network has better throughput.

But doesn't that make it inefficient? Using a dual rail is more fuel efficient with a single headed train and just using a RIRO station.

[Hanse00]

There are of course always tradeoffs to things.
I personally prefer the extra cost of a loco and fuel, for the simplicity I feel it adds to my rail network.

Instead of having to waste space with loops, I like to build my stations as the one in my drawing below.
With the correct use of regular (green) and chain (yellow) signals, I can get a nice compact 2 train station.

As others mentioned, just because my trains are bidirectional, doesn't mean the majority of my network is 1 track only. I simply use the 2-head setup as an easy way to get in and out of stations.

[Zavian]

But doesn't that make it inefficient? Using a dual rail is more fuel efficient with a single headed train and just using a RIRO station.

There are advantages and disadvantages. If you are building a dedicated route that will only need one train just shuttling back and forth (eg perhaps connecting your first oil field to your refinery), then using just a single track is simpler and faster build (especially if you are hand building, before you have bots running), and only needs half the rails. Later on you could upgrade it to dual track if you want. For mining outposts which are only going to ever have one train assigned, then you can build the spur from the mainline as a single track without problems. (If you want you could also add a PAX station and some waiting bays, but if I want waiting bays, I would just build a dual track spur).

For me the main advantages of single headed trains are shorter trains for the same cargo capacity, with better acceleration than the equivalent double header. That leads to smaller exit blocks after junctions, smaller stackers and smaller junction buffers (if you include buffers in your junction design). Better acceleration and shorter trains improve junction and rail network throughput, and also improve the downtime as a train is leaving and another train is entering a station. If you add extra signals, you can further reduce the amount of downtime whilst a train is leaving and another train is arriving in a station. (Technically you can build a RIRO station for your double header trains and achieve the same benefit, but if you are going to do that regularly, then why not just build single headed trains?)

Double header trains have stations that look more compact, and perhaps look neater and tidier to some players. (Personally I feel the larger stackers/waiting bays and longer stations mean that they end up taking up about the same amount of space, except for single track spurs that are only going to support one, or maybe a couple of trains). They also eliminate all occurrences of trains pathing through a station (since trains can't path through a terminus style station), and if you have no loops, they can even reduce pathfinding time, by eliminating approximately half the possible rail blocks, since they are now inaccessible. That might be significant if you are suffering UPS problems, and train pathfinding is taking up a significant amount of time, but personally I think I would still prefer the better rail throughput of single headed trains, and just try to keep more of my rail network as just dual track, rather than 4 tracks.

Also double header outpost construction trains should probably be symmetrical, since they swap which end is forward every time you enter a terminus station.

[Serenity]

Fuel efficiency is completely irrelevant. Trains use very little fuel

Loops vs double headed is a matter of taste. I don't like loops, but if done right you can also do relatively compact stations. Integrating stackers into stations with loops is also easy. And what space you save in loops you need elsewhere as double-headed trains are longer. But usually I do double-headed

Also double header outpost construction trains should probably be symmetrical, since they swap which end is forward every time you enter a terminus station.

If you go from the supply station to a construction site and back it doesn't matter. Same orientation. The train gets turned around when you visit an uneven number of stations. It's possible to have a special station to turn it into the right direction, but you need to pay attention to the orientation before you go home.