Want to buy Tunnels for Trains / Railway Tunnels

[Tami]

I want to buy Tunnels for my Trains like the Belts orWater Tunnels.

Ich will diese Tunnels, jetzt! ♥

[Der_Doodle]

The Problem i see with this is the "distance" you need to get from upside to below on a train.

Since you have to go alot deeper then a Belt or Pipe has to go and you can not use a high angle to chance your height level. (Pipes can basicly go 90° Turns to go underground and even Belts could work with a 90° move with a Paternoster style elevator)

Your train shouldnt have more then a 20° (or even less not sure) chance of height.

So roughly speaking to go underground you need maybe 30 tiles of lenght in this game from the "upper" level to the "underground" level. This makes it quite abit complex.

[ssilk]

We discussed that very much. Currently I would give bridges a good chance, but tunnels...

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/sea ... rain&fid=6
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... nel#p22977

[Loscil]

Joined cause obviously the same topic. --ssilk


---------------------------------
I can't begin to fathom the need of some good railway tunnels. Yes, surely you would say "but thats why the railway signals are".

And while that might be true, we all know deep down that tunnels is something that is outright lacking right now. It's game content that should be there. If we have underground belts, why don't we have railway tunnels? That'd be fabulous and useful.

And not only that, all that hassle to make a successful X crosses with railway signals between completely unrelated railway networks that happen to have to cross each other. Just place a tunnel and bam, no more hassle.

To make my point clearer, just take a look at this:


See this? To this point I can't figure out how to make a successful cross because if I tried to put some signals, some of them would be eternal red for one network. Why. Why why why. Why do I have to put signals if I can simply plop down a couple of tunnels and call it a day?

Thanks for your attention.

[Robbedem]

Solution for now: you need to put 8 signals on the incoming and outoing tracks. Don't put signals in the middle, that will cause deadlock.

Still, bridges/tunnels could be usefull, but the ramps would have to be long to be realistic. Therefore, the next thing people will ask: curved bridges/tunnels and curved ramps, stations with multiple floors, metro system,...

This is called feature creep and the developers should make sure that new features are worth the time and effort.
Therefore only features that are an important part of the scope of factorio should be implemented. Trains are already a bit of an extra, so adding bridges and tunnels would be even more extra and in the end factorio isn't meant to be a train network building game.
So, while I am certainly not against this idea, I don't consider this a priority. (but maybe the devs will)

[Loscil]

Solution for now: you need to put 8 signals on the incoming and outoing tracks. Don't put signals in the middle, that will cause deadlock.

Still, bridges/tunnels could be usefull, but the ramps would have to be long to be realistic. Therefore, the next thing people will ask: curved bridges/tunnels and curved ramps, stations with multiple floors, metro system,...

This is called feature creep and the developers should make sure that new features are worth the time and effort.
Therefore only features that are an important part of the scope of factorio should be implemented. Trains are already a bit of an extra, so adding bridges and tunnels would be even more extra and in the end factorio isn't meant to be a train network building game.
So, while I am certainly not against this idea, I don't consider this a priority. (but maybe the devs will)

I hope too, I'm predicting that bridges will come in a long time because there are features that are more important such as endgame content and expansion of the petrochemical industry. (According to the planned feature)
But maybe not, I saw the other friday fact that they were working on gates and rail gates, so bridges (or tunnels) might be a possibility.

[ssilk]

I think bridges are much more possible than tunnels. That's because I mentioned them I the links above.

[Loscil]

Solution for now: you need to put 8 signals on the incoming and outoing tracks. Don't put signals in the middle, that will cause deadlock.

Like this, m8?


Keep in mind that both ends of the rail network are this way:


The network is continuous and let trains just keep driving forward, this let me put multiple trains simultaneously (all in the same direction). When I tried to put signals, unsurprisingly, they got eternal red.

[Balthazar]

This really needs to be added, as soon as you get a larger network going there is constant stoppage. The only way you CAN work around this is by splitting up each line to hold multiple trains that can cross at once, so a 1 by 1 line get split into 4 by 4 then you can get trains through faster, but the results are huge and cumbersome for a really silly problem. I don't care if the tunnels are long, just make the entrances twice as long as a wagon, or hell just teleport them across. Having big tunnel entrances also means you wont have to add graphics for train moving up n down.

[ssilk]

The network is continuous and let trains just keep driving forward, this let me put multiple trains simultaneously (all in the same direction). When I tried to put signals, unsurprisingly, they got eternal red.

You need to think in blocks! (You know, you can hold your mouse over a track and you see the belonging block number? If the number is equal, it is the same block!
The possibility that a train can drive into a block makes the incoming signals red!
So you need to place 16 signals, for every incoming track in both directions.
This is a good example for how to handle (or not handle) with blocks.

[Robbedem]

If the tracks are one way only, he only needs 8 signals. be carfeull to put them in the right direction though!
Another and IMO better solution would be path based signals like in OTTD. With this kind of signals trains only have to stop if they would end up on the same piece of track, meaning that trains can still pass eachother, even if they enter the same block.

[Balthazar]

Guys he's not asking for help setting up his railroad, he's talking about a legitimate complaint with the rail system

There is no way to cross a rail line without interrupting it. This imposes a hard limit on how much train you're able to have on your map with no way of circumventing it. you could never do something like this in factorio, it's just impossible

The Problem i see with this is the "distance" you need to get from upside to below on a train.

Since you have to go alot deeper then a Belt or Pipe has to go and you can not use a high angle to chance your height level. (Pipes can basicly go 90° Turns to go underground and even Belts could work with a 90° move with a Paternoster style elevator)

Your train shouldnt have more then a 20° (or even less not sure) chance of height.

So roughly speaking to go underground you need maybe 30 tiles of lenght in this game from the "upper" level to the "underground" level. This makes it quite abit complex.

This is completely irrelevant. I keep seeing these realism arguments everywhere, there is NOTHING stopping the cars from just disappearing with an overhang of 6 tiles like they do with underground belts. It doesnt matter whether they get airlifted over the other track by an angelic gaggle praising the lord, or loaded into a train cannon and shot across. Realism is not a good argument for game design, who the fuck wants to play realistic games where you get shot once, lie on the ground writhing in pain, tears and regret for the life you could've lived? You can carry 4km of railroad in your pocket, REALISM DOESN'T MATTER

This is all we need:

[ssilk]

Well, some things I want to mention:
- what if the train stops out of coal inside the tunnel?
- what if you are in the train, if your are in a tunnel out of coal?
- what if you jump out of a train in a tunnel?
- can I run through the tunnel?
- If yes, then the biters might also run through it.
- and maybe some cases I forgot.

Everything is solvable, but I think with bridges this is much more easier.

[Tami]

You cannot leave the Train, if you there is no room to spawn afaik.
Biter cannot use Beltstunnels right now.

Sollution:
If a train is in Tunnel and you rightclick the tunnel, you get access to the Train interface aswell, similiar with rightclick a train and get the option for the interface of the train.

If you are within a train within the Tunnel and you leave the Train, you spawn an any of the entrance of the tunnel. You cannot enter the Tunnel as human, also not as nonhuman liveform.

If you deconstruct a tunnelentrance, the other tunnelentrance keeps present, but all trains inside the Tunnel gets deconstructed too. While a second entrance doenst exists, you cant enter the tunnelentrance.

[ssilk]

Ok, now it is a more or less useful suggestion.

[Lukesleftleg]

I've got to say that I agree with Balthazar.

I think that the one thing that's missing from the rail network is a way for a line to cross another without interruption to either service (although pre-signals would also be a very nice addition one day).

The underground system mentioned above would work and also be consistent with the belts and pipes going underground (and I love the idea of using Pringles packs for the graphics, that works really well ), but bridges would also work just as well for this purpose, although I imagine this might require another above ground layer, rather than just adding to the existing underground layer.

[MF-]

What if there are more trains in the tunnel?
Simply won't because you won't be allowed to place signals inside?

The underground belts is possible simply because the items are relatively flat and short.
Players cannot enter those simply because they aren't flat and short
Inclinations locomotives are able to climb are pretty limited.

Still, allowing the player to ride through a tunnel (possibly under a body of water...) while forbiding biters to do the same feels like "the perfect wall"

Not to mention the collision-detection complications.
Do items underground even exist as entities with position in the code? They might be on a simple waiting list instead.
Also, I don't think items on a belt actively check their position. I'd expect the belt logic do be doing that....
While trains sure are "self-aware" and count their collisions themselves.

[ssilk]

What if there are more trains in the tunnel?
Simply won't because you won't be allowed to place signals inside?

True for DTTD, but for factorio with multiplayer you can drive a train by manually and then this "what if you are in a train stranded inside a tunnel?" is a serious problem. That's why I pointed so strong to it above.

There are some worst cases, not all are mentioned yet in this thread.

[Balthazar]

True for DTTD, but for factorio with multiplayer you can drive a train by manually and then this "what if you are in a train stranded inside a tunnel?" is a serious problem. That's why I pointed so strong to it above.

There are some worst cases, not all are mentioned yet in this thread.

Those are good points, but can't be that hard to fix.

Take control away while in a tunnel so you can't control or exit, and it will just leave? Or exiting will just kick you out of the tunnel? May be a problem if exit is deadlocked though...
I think its fine to kick the player if they're dumb enough to drive into a tunnel with no exit path. Not everything has to be idiot-proof :p

The underground belts is possible simply because the items are relatively flat and short.
Players cannot enter those simply because they aren't flat and short
Inclinations locomotives are able to climb are pretty limited.

'

No, players cant enter those because they're just tiles that move items, there's nowhere to put the player, the items just vanish and reappear. This isn't reality, it doesn't have to be reality, there is no reason to make this assumption. You can put a DRONE BAY, ELECTRIC FURNACE, ASSEMBLER, RADAR, OIL REFINERY, MINER, PUMPJACK, or hilariously enough, 50 LOCOMOTIVES on a conveyer belt and they go under just fine. Flat and short my ass, all those items are larger than you. You can actually take a train of the rails, put it and all of its contents on a conveyer belt, and move it under the rails using conveyer belts, but you cant let it move on its own, doesn't that strike you as unrealistic?

[ssilk]

Take control away while in a tunnel so you can't control or exit, and it will just leave? Or exiting will just kick you out of the tunnel? May be a problem if exit is deadlocked though...
I think its fine to kick the player if they're dumb enough to drive into a tunnel with no exit path. Not everything has to be idiot-proof :p

Maybe you don't understand me?

There are several problems, with a player in a tunnel, and not everything is the fail of the player.

- What If train stops in tunnel? (Due lack of fuel for example) You cannot fill in new fuel, you cannot exit, or if you can exit how can you bring the train out of the tunnel.
- Train is destroyed in tunnel (For example because the other player drives in too ). Where is the player then?
- The tunnel is mined, while inside. Possible? If not, how can I mine it, when there is something, which always blocks?

...pfff... and there are now more than a handful of those exceptions left. Someone has to decide what happens and all of them are game-relevant decisions. You will see, that the tunnel cannot work as simple as the underground belt or underground pipe. It is quite different.

BTW: Similar problems happens also with player on a bridge.