Option to limit what trains can arrive at a train stop

[mrvn]

TL;DR

The train stop GUI should have an additional field to limit what configuration of trains can arrive at the station.

What ?

In the GUI for train stops there should be an extra window to configure what kind of trains are allowed to choose this station as their destination. Like so:

train-stop-limiting.png (70.48 KiB) Viewed 2639 times

Each row represents a train configuration. First row is a train 2 "Locomotive 1", 3 "Cargo wagon 1" and 2 "Locomotive 1". Those come from Nullius where there are multiple levels of locomotives and wagons.

The second row uses a short form for longer trains using a count for repeats. The user can use a count or not. The locomotive with a red background (comes from LTN) is a virtual signal denoting any locomotive. One usually doesn't care what type of locomotive a train has but for cargo and fluid wagons the size can be critical. The orange background denotes that the item is currently selected and the count could be adjusted in the count input field.

The input matrix should expand to the right and down to always allow an extra wagon or train to be added. Although with the count feature there hopefully won't be really long trains to enter. The matrix should allow adding any type of locomotive, cargo wagon or fluid wagon. Also the virtual signals "any locomotive", "any cargo wagon", "any fluid wagon", "any not locomotive" signals. For each locomotive there could also be a virtual signal for the locomotive in backwards direction, which would have the icon of the locomotive mirrored. Alternatively a negative count could be used to represent backwards locomotives.

As an optional special case a count of 0 could mean any amount. For example a refueling station could accept trains with "Locomotive" + 0 "not locomotive". Meaning any train that has one and only one locomotive at the front.

Why ?

As one starts one builds simple short trains. One locomotive, one cargo wagon. As one expands there is demand for more goods requiring larger trains to cope with the amounts. But a station designed to handle ore trains with 1 cargo wagon won't fare well if a train with 3 cargo wagon arrives. So currently one has to use all new names for mines, ore smelter, oil pump jacks or oil refineries to include the size of the trains they service. By adding this feature one could keep a consistent naming scheme across all stations but still have the right trains arrive at the right stations.

Other stations that would greatly benefit would be refueling stations. For them it is critical that they know where the locomotives will be. They will be users of the "any not locomotive" signal for their train constraints.

Last, with the backwards direction locomotives, it would allow protecting terminal stations where trains without a backwards facing locomotive would become stuck.

And then when there are mods that introduce different kinds of locomotives, cargo wagons and fluid wagons it becomes a whole new game for station designs. The inventory size of wagons can change and bad things happen when the buffer chests or tanks aren't matched to the train. Or the size of locomotives or wagons can change. Now the inserters and fluid pumps need to be a totally different locations.

This feature would allow making the train network more robust and more fun. Allowing for a mixture of train configurations without having to mangle the train stop names to denote train types as well as the stops function.

[NotRexButCaesar]

Just give the stations different names & put different trains on different schedules
It does not need to be ‘mutilated;’ just put the train configuration at the end: ‘Iron-ore 1-4’ or ‘Iron-ore 1-2-1 T1.’

In my opinion, changing the name is not only equivalent but better: it makes it easy to see from the map view what type of station you have.

[ssilk]

Besides that: How would you configure 1-way trains, where I put one loco in the front, four cargo in the midle and one at the end? Or trains, where I put the locs in the center?

[mrvn]

You just enter them like in the example. Both of them have forward facing locomotives at front and back. I didn't include an example with a backward facing locomotive. That would have the locomotive facing the other way in the icon.

You can enter L 2xC L 2xF L if you like too. Just enter the pattern your train has.

[mrvn]

Just give the stations different names & put different trains on different schedules
It does not need to be ‘mutilated;’ just put the train configuration at the end: ‘Iron-ore 1-4’ or ‘Iron-ore 1-2-1 T1.’

In my opinion, changing the name is not only equivalent but better: it makes it easy to see from the map view what type of station you have.

Is ‘Iron-ore 1-4’ using the normal locomotive, the crawler locomotive, the smelting locomotive, the locomotive mk2? Which of them is T1, which T2? Mods do have non-linear progressions of trains so numbering isn't trivial and gets confusing.

And how do you deal with station accepting multiple types of trains? Do you list them all in the name?

Note: you can always use different names. This suggestion caters to people who don't like cluttering their train station names with the train configurations.

[NotRexButCaesar]

Just give the stations different names & put different trains on different schedules
It does not need to be ‘mutilated;’ just put the train configuration at the end: ‘Iron-ore 1-4’ or ‘Iron-ore 1-2-1 T1.’

In my opinion, changing the name is not only equivalent but better: it makes it easy to see from the map view what type of station you have.

Is ‘Iron-ore 1-4’ using the normal locomotive, the crawler locomotive, the smelting locomotive, the locomotive mk2?

The vanilla locomotive: that was an example for different train sizes.

Which of them is T1, which T2? Mods do have non-linear progressions of trains so numbering isn't trivial and gets confusing.

I intended the T to stand for tier.
You can abbreviate the name for non-linear progression or multiple mods:
crawler -> Cr.
smelting -> Sm. or Sg.
locomotive mk2 -> mk2

And how do you deal with station accepting multiple types of trains? Do you list them all in the name?

That or add two stations. How many different combinations are you using?

Really, you can use whatever system or combinations you want.

[mrvn]

And how do you deal with station accepting multiple types of trains? Do you list them all in the name?

That or add two stations. How many different combinations are you using?

Really, you can use whatever system or combinations you want.

The problem with stations accepting multiple types of trains is that they have to be named the same way as the station that accepts only one type of train of each type. The goal is that the station accepts trains with the original schedule for the each type of train. So for example ore trains for the "LC smelter" or for the "LCCC schmelter". That's impossible. If you have to make trains with a dedicated "LC or LCCC smelter" schedule then what's the point.

You can't have a smelter accepting LC trains, a smelter accepting LCCC trains and one station that can accept both and have the trains pick whatever is free that fits. You want the station accepting both because you already had all the mines producing LC trains when you started building bigger smelters and mines. You can't do it with names. So then you have to either build 2 stations for the same smelter or a station that accepts LC trains and reloads the ore on LCCC trains.

It's in those transition times when you start rolling out new configurations that the naming scheme way falls short. Plus I feel it looks ugly.

[NotRexButCaesar]

The problem with stations accepting multiple types of trains is that they have to be named the same way as the station that accepts only one type of train of each type. The goal is that the station accepts trains with the original schedule for the each type of train. So for example ore trains for the "LC smelter" or for the "LCCC schmelter". That's impossible. If you have to make trains with a dedicated "LC or LCCC smelter" schedule then what's the point.

You can't have a smelter accepting LC trains, a smelter accepting LCCC trains and one station that can accept both and have the trains pick whatever is free that fits. You want the station accepting both because you already had all the mines producing LC trains when you started building bigger smelters and mines. You can't do it with names. So then you have to either build 2 stations for the same smelter or a station that accepts LC trains and reloads the ore on LCCC trains.

Oh, I had never run into this problem because if I switch train size it is because I am building something completely new (usually I play vanilla*.) I never considered that a person would be switching their train types & building other things at the same time.

I see now why you suggested it, but still think that you can do whatever you want to do with the current system:
You can add both stations to the schedule & disable full stations, so that a train skips the one station type when it fills, moving to the next.
You could have different train types for different station types, with a ‘general’ station & a station specific to one train type, with trains of that type assigned to it.

[mrvn]

You can add both stations to the schedule & disable full stations, so that a train skips the one station type when it fills, moving to the next.
You could have different train types for different station types, with a ‘general’ station & a station specific to one train type, with trains of that type assigned to it.

The first would means that when ore is low then trains would go to both stations. Making the trains take even longer and cause more of an ore shortage. It also means on upgrade you have to go through all the existing trains and modify their schedule. Something that gets increasingly more annoying the larger your base gets.

Can we please stop discussing encoding train types in station names. Everybody does it. This suggestion is not going to be solved by you explaining what is inferior and ugly. I didn't suggest this because I don't know I can name stations differently but because it doesn't work for me.

[NotRexButCaesar]

The first would means that when ore is low then trains would go to both stations. Making the trains take even longer and cause more of an ore shortage.

It would do the opposite? Even if it did do that, the problem is not lack of ore concentration, it is not enough ore production. Changing the train schedule will not change long term production as long as you consume all the ore you produce.

This suggestion is not going to be solved by you explaining what is inferior and ugly. I didn't suggest this because I don't know I can name stations differently but because it doesn't work for me.

Suggestions are not solved, problems are solved; the problems you have can be solved with the current features.

Your opinion that the naming is ugly is not the same as the current solution not working.

[mrvn]

The first would means that when ore is low then trains would go to both stations. Making the trains take even longer and cause more of an ore shortage.

It would do the opposite? Even if it did do that, the problem is not lack of ore concentration, it is not enough ore production. Changing the train schedule will not change long term production as long as you consume all the ore you produce.

This suggestion is not going to be solved by you explaining what is inferior and ugly. I didn't suggest this because I don't know I can name stations differently but because it doesn't work for me.

Suggestions are not solved, problems are solved; the problems you have can be solved with the current features.

Your opinion that the naming is ugly is not the same as the current solution not working.

Sure. It's just working badly. Suggestions aren't just about impossible things. Sometimes there are just to make things better.