New Rail Layout

[Gouada]

Hello,
I have been working on a new rail design to use in my base. The circle method, which I used previously when trains were still confusing, isn't good enough nowadays.
So, this is the design that I have come up with:

New Design.png (936.91 KiB) Viewed 17221 times

This is just a section of the track, which would run with the "one train two cargo wagon" design with an outpost in the middle. The system runs clockwise, and has enough space between the rails for roboports. I'm having trouble trying to come up with a better design for the turning circle at the end (on the left hand side), which is rather large.
Please note that the stations on the left and right hand sides are just for testing, and that this would be connected on the right side to a large main station capable of supporting 5+ trains.
Can anyone tell me if there is a more efficient way of placing the signals, and if there is a way for trains to get blockaded with this design?

Thank you!

P.S. Instead of the double track layout, should I just use the double headed trains on one track with passing points method?


EDIT: I have added in the chain signal on the above picture and added more stuff below. Thank you all for your input!

Here is a junction I've created:

Need Help.png (2.31 MiB) Viewed 17221 times

Can someone please tell me how to make it so that the two trains may pass at the same time? (The one on the left is going up, and the one in the top is going right)
The picture again but without the trains so that it's easier to see the signals. The stations are just for testing...

New Design 2.png (682.72 KiB) Viewed 17221 times

I was wondering if making a quadruple junction is just the same thing but flipped, is this true?

[MadZuri]

Double headed trains yes, single track no. You can still use that 2-lane system, but without the loops and roundabouts. They really just take up a lot of space for no real benefit and are more difficult to expand later.

[Boogieman14]

Single or double headed is purely a matter of preference. In most situations, space isn't an issue. Double headed trains take double the resources to build and are slower. The resources become a non-issue at some point of course. One very big downside of double headed trains and a no-loop design is that you'll be severely limiting train throughput in busy stations. A combined entrance/exit block means a train exiting blocks a train from entering.

[ratchetfreak]

double track has much more throughput

Put a chain in the turning loop between the main lines. It separates the pain lines so trains can pass in both directions.

The top-and-tail versus single header is a fiery debate with pros and cons on both sides. Don't get confused about the roundabout vs. intersection flame war when you are researching it.

For everything that is not stations it doesn't matter whether it can reverse out of a station. While the train is moving between stations the dead loco facing the wrong direction won't make any difference in how it acts and how you should design the track. Only that it slows down acceleration a bit.

For the stations; a single header train needs a turning track that loops back onto the main line. While a top-and-tail train can simply reverse out. However what it won't do is reverse out of the station onto the main track and then switch directions again.

Single header trains are easier to mix in the same station So you can have a universal unloading station that can handle a lot more types of trains than when all of your trains are top-and-tail.

[hitzu]

One very big downside of double headed trains and a no-loop design is that you'll be severely limiting train throughput in busy stations.

Why should one limit himself exluding one opportunity? Why not to use both?

[LotA]

What do you think of this?

8 stop station

fac.jpg (286.13 KiB) Viewed 17389 times

[Boogieman14]

One very big downside of double headed trains and a no-loop design is that you'll be severely limiting train throughput in busy stations.

Why should one limit himself exluding one opportunity? Why not to use both?

I'm not saying anyone should limit themselves. I'm just stating a fact about terminus stations: train throughput is inherently lower for a terminus station compared to a RoRo.

[ratchetfreak]

I'm not saying anyone should limit themselves. I'm just stating a fact about terminus stations: train throughput is inherently lower for a terminus station compared to a RoRo.

Did you measure the effect?

the difference is part of how long it takes for the previous train to clear the block and the next to enter from the signal it's waiting at. That's 1 additional locomotive length over just the length of the train. unless you sacrifice a inserter to add signals in the middle of your station.

[Boogieman14]

When one train is entering or exiting a train stop, no other train can enter or exit any other. In a Ro-Ro station, one train can exit stop 1 while another train is entering stop 2. No funky signaling required. (and also no measuring required to know this )

[ssilk]

I'm just stating a fact about terminus stations: train throughput is inherently lower for a terminus station compared to a RoRo.

Did you measure the effect?
the difference is part of how long it takes for the previous train to clear the block and the next to enter from the signal it's waiting at. That's 1 additional locomotive length over just the length of the train.

Exactly this can be optimized a lot in RoRo mode.

unless you sacrifice a inserter to add signals in the middle of your station.

It is not really needed in the middle.

[ratchetfreak]

unless you sacrifice a inserter to add signals in the middle of your station.

It is not really needed in the middle.

I know it's not needed but if you want max throughput then you need to have the waiting train move in while the previous one is pulling out, which you can only do if you add signals in the station itself

[Tev]

One very big downside of double headed trains and a no-loop design is that you'll be severely limiting train throughput in busy stations.

You can make your busy stations one-way only. So this isn't really downside of double headed trains.

[Gus_Smedstad]

One very big downside of double headed trains and a no-loop design is that you'll be severely limiting train throughput in busy stations.

You can make your busy stations one-way only. So this isn't really downside of double headed trains.

... but that still means providing a way for your double-headed trains to turn around, just like single-locomotive trains. With a double-headed train you can do that with a stretch of track that's smaller than a loop, of course, but it cuts into your only benefit - some minor space savings.

I don't think the decreased speed, increased train length, and issues of unpredictable car order are worth what you get in return. The decision to go double-headed is really a choice of aesthetics over efficiency, so if you don't mind the aesthetics of loops, single-locomotive trains are the way to go.

[Rockstar04]

...issues of unpredictable car order ...

This was the major deal breaker when I tried switching to double headed trains

[Tev]

your only benefit - some minor space savings.

I wonder how many people actually tried doing double header system . . . those "minor" space savings save quite a bit of hassle.

Switching system mid-game is always PITA. So you have to make a decision early. And minor savings in time (seriously I'd like someone do a test with some real numbers) imo don't offset more station placing problems throughout the entire game (except for one or two trains with set wagon order, that is tiny issue).

[Boogieman14]

your only benefit - some minor space savings.

I wonder how many people actually tried doing double header system . . . those "minor" space savings save quite a bit of hassle.

You're quoting someone other than me there I have actually used a double headed system in my previous game and I changed my main station to a loop due to the earlier mentioned throughput issues. A double headed system simply can not handle a station with more than two or three stops max.

[Gus_Smedstad]

And minor savings in time

... and train length, and restricted station order if your train isn't homogeneous. Granted, only my oil train runs multiple car types, but I'd never run an oil train as double-headed because the drawback is too severe.

Yes, I've switched from one to the other mid-game, and it wasn't a PITA, nor was the space savings worthwhile. At remote mining stations the savings is trivial, space where space is unlimited. At home base it's an issue, but that's also where throughput is an issue, and you don't want terminal stations. And it turns out you can build through stations in an extremely space efficient manner where they share a single rotary as a method of turning around, so that each additional platform is just a few lengths of track and the unloading segment. If you needed an intersection there anyway, it's zero overhead, none, so you get the benefits of single-direction trains without any cost.

Multi-platform train station

You can ignore that odd bend right before platforms 7 and 8 - I thought I needed it to ensure copper trains would pick either identically-named platform, but that turns out not to be the case.

I've thoroughly explored both approaches, and I only use double-headed trains from my personal transportation (seen parked at platform 1 in the screen shot). And only then because I'm so frequently throwing up temporary stations to hold the train once I get to a trouble spot. Double-headed is great if you're in a hurry, and if you don't care about signaling since you'll be backing out of a siding manually. In those cases, though, I'm already next to a defended mining station, and setting up the return loop on those wasn't much time compared to setting up the rest of it.

[Gus_Smedstad]

In a side note, I was curious about the speed issue, so I ran my passenger train out to Copper E India N2, my most distant station, with and without the trailing locomotive. With no other traffic to introduce delays at signals, it was 45 seconds with the trailing locomotive vs. 34 seconds without it.

Now, in practice I doubt it's all that important with normal-sized train networks. Only if you're running a really big network, as I was with the Marathon + RSO mods, or playing long after victory to make a mega-factory, would the 30% speed penalty for the trailing locomotive show itself.

[Gouada]

Thank you all for your input!
I watch Bentham's (MangledPorkGaming) "Factorio Towns" series and was thinking of doing something similar.
Should I use any specific mods to do this (I still want the vanilla experience tho) and would this rail system work well?
Also, how much throughput (like how big do the stations need to be) to make a mega factory that produces rockets?

[Gus_Smedstad]

You should play through to satellite launch with vanilla at least once. I did so something like 3-4 times before I decided to go to the next step with mods. Mods will change the balance, and I don't know of any that are an unalloyed improvement over vanilla. The Marathon mod, for example, hurts some areas of the game while improving others, and makes it much harder - I'd only recommend it to people who know the normal progression inside and out.

In vanilla, you generally don't need that much in the way of rails. People build them anyway, but often stuff is close enough that you could do it with really long belts. Train traffic tends to be light enough that you can take whatever approach you want. It's people who have played way past satellite launch, or are playing with mods that make the game much harder, that end up with serious train throughput issues.

When I returned to the game with 0.12, I didn't play with mods, and I barely needed two copper trains by the time I ended the game. I'm convinced that if I had stuck with single-locomotive trains, instead of experimenting with a double-header setup, I would have been fine with 1 train.