Push-pull trains?

[SkySo1dier]

Request to the developers -- please can you enable the rear-facing locomotive in a train to act as a push locomotive?

This way a train with two locomotives on both ends would always have a push and a pull engine resulting in faster speed and quicker acceleration. On top of this the rear locomotive would stop being a dead weight. Thank you for your consideration!

[ssilk]

I'm sure you can put as many trains in as many positions as wanted in any directions and they behave as described.

[Boogieman14]

No they don't. A locomotive facing away from the driving direction is a dead weight (just look at the lack of smoke coming from the tail locomotive or the difference in acceleration speed between two locs back to back vs two locs facing the same direction)

(*edit* oh yeah, so I support this request )

[ssilk]

Ah. Ok, this has been already discussed.
This won't change. It's part of the game mechanics, because otherwise the two-way trains have to much advantage against the one-way trains.

[bobucles]

If train engines could path backwards, would that make EVERY train a 2-way train?

Going backwards would still be not ideal as the reverse gear is far weaker than primary drive. The pathing engine would need to accommodate that.

[Boogieman14]

In most real locomotives, there is no such thing as a reverse gear. Most locomotives will go equally fast in either direction. Also, this wouldn't change anything about pathing. As far as pathing is concerned, a locomotive can still have a front and a rear. It's just that the rear-facing locomotive would stop being a dead weight and start adding equal traction to the combination.

[ratchetfreak]

at least allow mods to let the dead weight be not so dead anymore. By setting a "reverse" set of power parameters.

I agree that the dead weight is a feature for vanilla but mods should be allowed to mitigate/remove that.

[hitzu]

Ah. Ok, this has been already discussed.
This won't change. It's part of the game mechanics, because otherwise the two-way trains have to much advantage against the one-way trains.

They don't, because this is already compensated by requiring advance knowledge of how to place signals and more comlicated layouts.

[orzelek]

I'd agree that locomotives should work equally well in both directions. Thats how most of the locomotives work now - currently used model for locomotive is more car like.

[ssilk]

Ah. Ok, this has been already discussed.
This won't change. It's part of the game mechanics, because otherwise the two-way trains have to much advantage against the one-way trains.

They don't, because this is already compensated by requiring advance knowledge of how to place signals and more comlicated layouts.

I don't understand that.
Advantages of one-way trains:
- more cargo per train at same length
- faster (at same cargo)
- much more throughput in end-game

Advantages of two-way trains:
- It's more complicated to make one-way tracks than two way tracks.
- much less space is needed (no turnings needed)
- Easier planning.

So if you add, that the trains have the same speed in each direction, you will obviously balance the game into two-way-trains direction. Which is for the end-game (or better: What might come after we can built space-plattforms) a total fail. Or better: When this will be added, the next one will suggest something to buff the one-way-trains.

[HanziQ]

Which is for the end-game (or better: What might come after we can built space-plattforms) a total fail.

Please elaborate, why would two-way trains be a fail in endgame?

[hitzu]

@ssilk
For the mid game the size of the dead end station is much less that the size of the station with the loop. But for the large multiplatform stations the difference is negligible — one can very easily make a turn around platforms that would take even less space than big and complicated two-way junctions with a small throughput. Usually for the late game my main stations are multiplatform through-stations with loops around them, but small outpost stations are dead-ends and the trains are two headed. This is easier to manage them that way after all. There is just no reason to dismiss loops just because you love dead-ends and two-headed trains. This holywar looks just silly for me. And one-headed train advocates would loose nothing if trains can learn to move backwards.

[ratchetfreak]

You can require a "controller" wagon (locomotive or unpowered but lighter control car) at the head of the train.

That way it's cheaper to build 1 loc a few cargo wagons and a control car (a 1-2-1 with the last 1 an unpowered wagon) for a 2-way system and it will have the same power/acceleration as a 1-3 single header.

It also lets the player decide on a per train basis whether a train is double or single headed as they can now.

[ssilk]

Which is for the end-game (or better: What might come after we can built space-plattforms) a total fail.

Please elaborate, why would two-way trains be a fail in endgame?

Hm. Maybe "total fail" is the wrong word. I excuse, but currently I get strong medicaments against the hurts and they admitted here in the hospital that it was a little to strong this morning. (which was in my eyes not that bad )

But to get back to the theme: With my experience a one-way-train (or two-way-rails, which is not exactly the same, depends on standpoint but this is not important for this discussion), can have about 100-400% more throughput, cause you can use the rails much, much more efficiently. And factor 2 to 5 is something, which needs to be considered in the planning.
On the other hand you can use two-way-trains in a one-way-train-setup, but not the other way around. There are many pros and cons but there is currently something like a balance between this two sights.

What I really wanted to say is, that I think, altogether the balancing between one- and two-way-trains o. k. as it is now. If you change it too much into one direction you loose the need for the other. And this suggestion is such a thing.

[ratchetfreak]

To throw some jargon into the discussion, the current implementation is a top and tail train system



Whereas people expect a true push-pull



However the resulting buff can be mitigated by using a control car for reverse and making the second head unneeded for reversing.



images from the wikipedia articles

[Boogieman14]

So if you add, that the trains have the same speed in each direction, you will obviously balance the game into two-way-trains direction. Which is for the end-game (or better: What might come after we can built space-plattforms) a total fail. Or better: When this will be added, the next one will suggest something to buff the one-way-trains.

I really don't understand this argument. Why would a one-way train need to receive a buff when two way trains get improved this way? The person using two way trains is putting in twice the materials to reach that result. And there's nothing stopping the one-way train person from putting two locomotives at the front of their trains to reach the exact same acceleration. Also, the difference in complexity between the two systems (or even a mix of the two) is negligable, they both require different approaches and both have their more and less challenging spots. Space is a non-issue in Factorio.

[hitzu]

Space is a non-issue in Factorio.

Well, it's not quite true, because space is time. Your time