KoblerMan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:41 pm
This is a player design challenge, you can argue it adds complexity to the game that the player has to account for, but people like me say this is what makes the game fun.
At that point it's up to the player how they want to solve this problem. The easiest thing to say would be "don't do this in the first place, har-har" but that doesn't really address the problem. Also, this is already something you have to consider if you use double-headed trains. Contribution of locomotive power makes absolutely no difference to this.
It does indeed makes the game fun
. Contribution of locomotive makes no difference i agree. I just wanted to highlight that double headed trains induce more thinking than the straightforward single headed train in the design challenge. (imo)
KoblerMan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:41 pm
I would argue that moving from a two-track, one-way main line to converge into a two-way single line, single-block station is more complex than just designating the station as its own one-way block section, like what you would do with a single-headed train
I don't think it is more complex, in one case you have a single junction (entrance = exit), in the other one you have 2 junctions ( one entrance and one exit).
The more complex is still (imo) doing a junction for a two-track, one-way main line crossing the path of another one. Which would be required with any kind of trains ( i'm assuming past a certain scale), and imo is enough to call the difference in complexity of signaling for single headed train or multidirectionnal train null, or even in favor of the double-headed train since a station would be a learning step for junctions. It forces player to properly use chain signal at least in one case, which can help for later puzzle, such as signaling a junction.
mmmPI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:20 pm
When talking about throughput i tend to not think about single or double headed trains. In the discussion i think it would be more precise to differenciate the station's throughput, the trains' throughput on a track, and the material's throughput on a track or overall. Station for double headed trains are a bit slower to allow a 2nd train after the 1rst one due to the impossibility for the 2nd train to be halfway in the station while the 1rst one is only halfway out. Which i think is what is called lower throughput in the previous discussion. It can be counteracted by having more stations, which wouldn't take necessarily more space than a Roro/loop station.
KoblerMan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:41 pm
Again this is a player design consideration. One-way stations can be divided up into different block sections if you really want to do this just to optimize throughput. But at this point you could also just place signals everywhere in a straight line to make block sections one tile long each so that trains effectively never stop unless they're right on top of each other.
I daresay, having that level of granularity is wholly unnecessary and the resource cost would make it not worth the effort. Ultimately though that's the player's choice. So, where would you draw the line?
It can be necessary at stations, while having it everywhere is wholly unnecessary. here is where i would draw the line
.
But you can't divide a station into many many tiny blocks to increase the station's throughput of train if it's a dead-end terminal station, like the common station for double headed trains. You can only do this for roro/loop station. It is not only player design consideration.
Even if you speed up double headed trains (or increase their acceleration ) it would still require them to exit the station entirely before another one takes their place, vs having 2 train following each other in quick succession for single headed train wich can be further exploited by spamming the station with regular signal.
KoblerMan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:41 pm
Throughput in this sense has to do with acceleration. If rear-facing locomotives contributed to the total power, double-headed trains with N locomotives would get up to speed just as fast as single-headed trains with N locomotives.
As it is right now, throughput and fuel efficiency is lower on double-headed trains because they accellerate more slowly. The long-distance implications are a lot more significant than how quickly you can get trains to accellerate over a very short distance, like going from a stacker into a station.
I understand the balden portion as a contradiction. If what is more significant is long-distance implications, then there are no difference between single or double headed trains in terms of throughput on tracks. (not station's throughput !)
Double headed-trains do not always accelerate slower than single headed trains. (LCL accelerate faster than LCCCC). It is not single vs multi directionnal, it is train composition the main factor. (assuming same fuel).
If you were to compare the material throughput, i think it would be fair to consider 2 setups with the same footprint, and try to unload or load the same amount of material. In one case you would have a single loop station, in the other one you could have 2 dead-end station.
Meaning that throughput of trains on track is impacted the most by train composition =
acceleration speed = not favouring any kind.
However , throughput of trains in a single station = granularity for loops = favouring single headed trains.
BUT in overall throughput of material, you could easily compare 1 single headed train station vs 2 double headed train station. If you do not consider station vs station, but area on the map and expected loading/unloading of material.
( this may sounds like i'm cheating to proove my point , using 2 stations vs one, but it is only a change in perspective, if you consider throughput of material on a particular area, is it better to have only 1 singleheaded station, or 2 doubleheaded station? i tend to see things this way when designing)
All this to nuance the asseration that double-headed trains have less throughput. I think it's true only with a set of initial assumptions that are not the one i choose when playing.
KoblerMan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:41 pm
Having multiple stations is a design consideration, and the example you gave with locomotives to cargo wagons affects accelleration, but none of this affects top speed. So, higher thoughput would be situational depending on how far away your outposts are, what kind of stackers you have, how many stations, etc. In other words, it's player-designed. That means how competent something is depends on how players do it
Yes, and in this case i hope i have explained well enough my reasonning that makes me say double-headed train don't have 'lower throughput'. It depends on what throughput you are considering, trains in network, trains in stations, material per area, material per station .... and more importantly how they are implemented.
Maybe my wording was not precise enough, in my native langage, throughput, flow rate ,bandwidth and others are often translated by the same word: "débit" which makes it difficult to grasp the subtle nuances and use the appropriate word in english
number or train crossing a rail in a time period,
number of trains entering and leaving a station in a time period, number of material being loaded/unloaded in a time period and/or per area, : for all of those i used the word throughput. Only the bold one is favouring single-headed trains, but the station being bigger, if you include "per area" you don't necesarily conclude to the lower "throughput" depending on your designs, not depending on the intrinsic nature of double-headed train.
KoblerMan wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:41 pm
mmmPI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:20 pm
Take a train with 100 loco facing one direction. add a loco on the opposite direction. ( to show that player's intent ). Now the train is able to reach max speed on each direction.
Also let's be honest here. In what realistic scenario is anyone ever going to see 100 locomotives in one direction and 1 in the other? If you're a player and you've done that, then I can conclude that you've failed at the game in spectacular fashion.
Well i was not precise here, the current behavior already allows one such trains to reach max speed on either direction. But one will be very slow
. So slow that it wouldn't even make sense to try.
The proposed change, would make it way faster to reach the max speed in the "wrong" direction so much that the acceleration could seem as fast in either way for human eyes.
Wouldn't that give incentive to players to do what you consider failing at the game in a spectacular fashion ?:D
More realistically, and taking into account the fact that in a 2-station-schedule trains flip every time their front and back. Here is how i would attempt to abuse the new rule :
Make your trains LLLLCCCCCCCCL (4-8-1) for example, and this way you have them leaving the main base with 4 loco pushing at full power and 1 at 60% acceleration,good for busy area. When they leave an outpost they would be much slower to reach max speed due to having only 1 loco pushing at full power and 4 at 60% but it'd be in desertic area so no problemo
.
To reformulate previous question in a less provocative way : Wouldn't that be an undesired side effect of the proposed change ?
(side question : what happens if the lone loco run out of fuel ? all 4 should stop contributing ?)
I also want to nuance the assertion saying that fuel consumption is favouring single headed train. i'll try to make it quick. The longer the distance without braking the easier it is to neglect the cost in fuel for carrying some locos as dead weight. ( you only increase travel time by a short margin in %). Instead one could see the rear-facing locos as carrying the fuel for the way back.
Or in other words LCCCL train have almost twice as much autonomy as LCCC train. It takes 2016.67 second to burn a single uranium fuel cell. with the LCCCL train you can go 2K second in one direction, AND 2K second in the other one after that. ( or 8K and 8K if you fill up locos with fuel). Sure in 2K second you will cover more distance with LCCC than with LCCCL due to the lower acceleration at first. but it tend to become negligible over long distance at full speed. and i think the tradeoff doesn't bring shame to bi-directionnal train. (they are my favourite already and i don't think they NEED to receive a buff even though i wouldn't mind
).
LLLC trains, is less fuel efficient than LCCCCC trains once max speed is reached. because you burn 3x times as much fuel to maintain the same speed. Or am i missing something ?
One smaller buff that could be thought off would be to use backward locomotives as counting toward braking power instead of the proposed acceleration. it has less impact but would make more sense in my eyes