I took a look at your intersection.
4way 4 lanes with any train size
zero buffers
Set 1= 33 trains per min
Since it is a roundabout it can deadlock if trains change direction in the middle of the intersection.
One annoying problem is that two trains cant take right when coming from the same direction because you allow two routes for the inner lane.
The same problem occurs for straight as the outer lane has two routes for going straight. The shortest route would block trains in the inner lane for going straight and left.
At this throughput, two lanes would be better and save a lot of rails
4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
- Attachments
-
- Immortal_sniper1s intersection
- regular.png (4.69 MiB) Viewed 6453 times
-
immortal_sniper1
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
the picture was on factorio prints
-
immortal_sniper1
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
i will try to make some improvements 3 circle design with # in the middle
-
immortal_sniper1
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
- Contact:
-
immortal_sniper1
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:54 am
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
above i posted an better designhansjoachim wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:02 am I took a look at your intersection.
4way 4 lanes with any train size
zero buffers
Set 1= 33 trains per min
Since it is a roundabout it can deadlock if trains change direction in the middle of the intersection.
One annoying problem is that two trains cant take right when coming from the same direction because you allow two routes for the inner lane.
The same problem occurs for straight as the outer lane has two routes for going straight. The shortest route would block trains in the inner lane for going straight and left.
At this throughput, two lanes would be better and save a lot of rails
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
I looked at the intersection, its better.
You made some good improvments.
If you want to use in a busy area I belive that you should change a couple things.
There are still three major problems I want to adresse.
Left turns:
Trains on the inner lane have to first turn right, onto the outer lane, then turn left. This blocks trains on the outer lane to go straight or take left turn. Meaning every train taking a left turn blocks a train unnecesary.
Lane switching
If you have a 4 lane system you need some sort of lane switching. You can make some that dont bottleneck your network.
If it is to be in the intersection it should be one with buffers. It severly limits throughput.
Having even a bad lane switcher after the intersection instead of in it will increase throughput.
In the intersection you have every directions gets to drvie every fourth turn. idealy two trains then drive from that direction. If one of them wants to switch lanes only one train gets to drive. If this happens often it can halve the potential throughput.
U-turns
Its kind of the same with U-turns. If a train takes a U-turn it blocks many paths, if it did it out of the intersection it would block far less paths.
Sum,
Adding two buffers (red), removing the posibility to switch lanes and take U-turns (blue), and leting trains go directly left instead of going to the right first (green).
- Attachments
-
- InkedPicture of intersection_LI.jpg (2.69 MiB) Viewed 6291 times
-
- Here is my take on it, Letting as many trains as possible pass the intersection per round, buffering up all the directions. No unnecessary crossings, no U-turns.
- My intersection demo.jpg (2.37 MiB) Viewed 6297 times
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Nice work there with the tests.
Im suggesting a test that includes trains that want to turnaround and railchange.
Im suggesting a test that includes trains that want to turnaround and railchange.
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
That is possible on the test bench.
The only reason I see for adding it would be to show why you shouldn't allow U-turns or lane switching in your intersections.
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Where do you suggest the turnaround to be done then?hansjoachim wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:42 pmThat is possible on the test bench.
The only reason I see for adding it would be to show why you shouldn't allow U-turns or lane switching in your intersections.
I think its probably better at a crossing then in another place where they block traffic again. But it depends alot on the rest of the rail setup im sure.
- Quad Rail Crossings.jpg (633.05 KiB) Viewed 6231 times
- Neue Bitmap.jpg (130.87 KiB) Viewed 6231 times
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
[/quote]
Where do you suggest the turnaround to be done then?
I think its probably better at a crossing then in another place where they block traffic again. But it depends alot on the rest of the rail setup im sure.
[/quote]
A rail networks capacity is defined by its bottlenecks not by how many intersections there are.
Adding lane switching to an intersection can be done without reducing throughput but most of the time people add them to the same "block". When that is done there are scenarios where very few trains can pass the block at the same time.
You can set up your network so that no trains have to switch lanes or take U turns.
If you have to I would have them between your 3/4 way intersections.
A good U turn intersection needs buffers before crossing every lane/merging.
Even better would be to let the trains turn around off the mainline.
Where do you suggest the turnaround to be done then?
I think its probably better at a crossing then in another place where they block traffic again. But it depends alot on the rest of the rail setup im sure.
[/quote]
A rail networks capacity is defined by its bottlenecks not by how many intersections there are.
Adding lane switching to an intersection can be done without reducing throughput but most of the time people add them to the same "block". When that is done there are scenarios where very few trains can pass the block at the same time.
You can set up your network so that no trains have to switch lanes or take U turns.
If you have to I would have them between your 3/4 way intersections.
A good U turn intersection needs buffers before crossing every lane/merging.
Even better would be to let the trains turn around off the mainline.
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
The best way for a turnaround would be to not cross any lanes. But above you have your lanes too near to each other so the turn around needs to first cross to the outer lanes and then cross back to the inner lanes.
Why not make the lanes further apart so you can put a turn around between the inner lanes directly?
PS: the lanes can come in to the intersection near to each other and then widen before the turn around.
Why not make the lanes further apart so you can put a turn around between the inner lanes directly?
PS: the lanes can come in to the intersection near to each other and then widen before the turn around.
-
zOldBulldog
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Or if he doesn't want to modify his entry/exit to the intersection, use a technique similar to the one I used here:mrvn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:15 am The best way for a turnaround would be to not cross any lanes. But above you have your lanes too near to each other so the turn around needs to first cross to the outer lanes and then cross back to the inner lanes.
Why not make the lanes further apart so you can put a turn around between the inner lanes directly?
- turnaround.png (4.34 MiB) Viewed 6200 times
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
The connection of the inner and outer line in the turnaround part was planned to make rail change possible.
When i put that crossing in a diffrent place there would be another place where the trains have to wait (maybe less long per wait but more often)
which result in more travel time due to more break and start moving on actions and may result in more energy consumption. Less intersections where they could block each other means less traffic to pile up. (or that is what my thought was about)
When i put that crossing in a diffrent place there would be another place where the trains have to wait (maybe less long per wait but more often)
which result in more travel time due to more break and start moving on actions and may result in more energy consumption. Less intersections where they could block each other means less traffic to pile up. (or that is what my thought was about)
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
That's exactly what I had in mind.zOldBulldog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:35 pmOr if he doesn't want to modify his entry/exit to the intersection, use a technique similar to the one I used here:mrvn wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:15 am The best way for a turnaround would be to not cross any lanes. But above you have your lanes too near to each other so the turn around needs to first cross to the outer lanes and then cross back to the inner lanes.
Why not make the lanes further apart so you can put a turn around between the inner lanes directly?
turnaround.png
-
zOldBulldog
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Here is another contribution to the list of 4-way intersections.
I have not benchmarked it but it is a variation on the Standard intersection (plus the return loops before entering the intersection) so I would expect it to clock around 60 and unless I messed up to have no deadlock potential.
Forum discussion page: viewtopic.php?f=194&t=63066
Factorioprints page: https://factorioprints.com/view/-LPNlfISFe-D9aoDepBp
Description:
Designed with the goal of achieving a balance of compactness, high throughput and supporting any size trains.
Some considerations:
- The return loops on the inner lanes before entering the intersection help reduce traffic that goes through it. The same for the outer turns. Using similar loops on your lines will allow you to use mainly exit/merge/lane changes instead of intersections, which (at least for me) has significantly improved my network's ability to keep trains running at full speeds.
- It is Left Hand Drive (LHD). Why? Because even though in real life I drive on the right lane, I noticed that the left exit from trains makes LHD much more natural in Factorio, as LHD typically leaves the things you want to access on the side of the train that you exit. Also, LHD allows placing the signals on the inside, which leads to cleaner interactions between rail and neighboring belts/structures/water. So, after a little RHD use I ended up switching to LHD for my rails.
- You need lane changers (between inner and outer lanes) a train length away from this intersection. So, if you are using 4 locomotive 8 wagon trains you would roughly need between 2 1/2 to 3 chunks of straight rail before the lane changers.
I have not benchmarked it but it is a variation on the Standard intersection (plus the return loops before entering the intersection) so I would expect it to clock around 60 and unless I messed up to have no deadlock potential.
- tictactoe.jpg (394.68 KiB) Viewed 6082 times
Forum discussion page: viewtopic.php?f=194&t=63066
Factorioprints page: https://factorioprints.com/view/-LPNlfISFe-D9aoDepBp
Description:
Designed with the goal of achieving a balance of compactness, high throughput and supporting any size trains.
Some considerations:
- The return loops on the inner lanes before entering the intersection help reduce traffic that goes through it. The same for the outer turns. Using similar loops on your lines will allow you to use mainly exit/merge/lane changes instead of intersections, which (at least for me) has significantly improved my network's ability to keep trains running at full speeds.
- It is Left Hand Drive (LHD). Why? Because even though in real life I drive on the right lane, I noticed that the left exit from trains makes LHD much more natural in Factorio, as LHD typically leaves the things you want to access on the side of the train that you exit. Also, LHD allows placing the signals on the inside, which leads to cleaner interactions between rail and neighboring belts/structures/water. So, after a little RHD use I ended up switching to LHD for my rails.
- You need lane changers (between inner and outer lanes) a train length away from this intersection. So, if you are using 4 locomotive 8 wagon trains you would roughly need between 2 1/2 to 3 chunks of straight rail before the lane changers.
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
zOldBulldog Intersection
I tested your intersection
Set 1 (random)= 49
set 2 (planned) = 41
Set 5 (right only) = 17
This is the result with a very good laneswitcher. With a poor one, set 1 and 2 would be lower.
Right turns are this intersection's main problem.
The right turns only test would have double the throughput if the center is fixed, which would also increase set 1 and 2.
In the center, all the lanes are in one block. Which doesn't allow train from north drive west, while trains from south drives east.
I tested your intersection
Set 1 (random)= 49
set 2 (planned) = 41
Set 5 (right only) = 17
This is the result with a very good laneswitcher. With a poor one, set 1 and 2 would be lower.
Right turns are this intersection's main problem.
The right turns only test would have double the throughput if the center is fixed, which would also increase set 1 and 2.
In the center, all the lanes are in one block. Which doesn't allow train from north drive west, while trains from south drives east.
- Attachments
-
- zOldbulldog's intersection.png (7.26 MiB) Viewed 6042 times
Last edited by hansjoachim on Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
zOldBulldog
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Thank you hansjoachim, I obviously messed it up when I moved things to support the returns and it resulted in those tight to each other turns in the center.
Would it be safe to assume that widening the intersection enough to put signals in the center would achieve that?
Would it be safe to assume that widening the intersection enough to put signals in the center would achieve that?
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Yes, you can just expand the intersection by a few tileszOldBulldog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:29 pm
Would it be safe to assume that widening the intersection enough to put signals in the center would achieve that?
-
zOldBulldog
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
Done. With any luck maybe I managed to address that issue without creating any new problems.hansjoachim wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:25 amYes, you can just expand the intersection by a few tileszOldBulldog wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:29 pm
Would it be safe to assume that widening the intersection enough to put signals in the center would achieve that?
- bulldogTicTacToeIntersection.jpg (8.31 MiB) Viewed 5999 times
-
hansjoachim
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: 4-way intersections: Throughput and deadlocks [image heavy]
There were many misplaced lights which butchered the throughput, also there were a lot of unnecessary lights.
I fixed it up and now it runs as best as it can.
set 1 (random) 61 trains/min
set 2 (planned 50% straight,15% left, 35% right) 49 trains/min
set 5 (right turns only) 35 trains/min
There are still some things I would want to change with it. Like not requiring trains to switch lanes back and forth, and also add another waiting area for trains going straight/right. Which would increase the throughput by 20-40%. It would have to be made first for me to tell exactly.
Here is the blueprint without the necesary laneswitcher. Also the distance from the main block to the second signal on the output lanes should be a train length.
Here is a blueprint of the laneswitcher used
I fixed it up and now it runs as best as it can.
set 1 (random) 61 trains/min
set 2 (planned 50% straight,15% left, 35% right) 49 trains/min
set 5 (right turns only) 35 trains/min
There are still some things I would want to change with it. Like not requiring trains to switch lanes back and forth, and also add another waiting area for trains going straight/right. Which would increase the throughput by 20-40%. It would have to be made first for me to tell exactly.
Here is the blueprint without the necesary laneswitcher. Also the distance from the main block to the second signal on the output lanes should be a train length.
Here is a blueprint of the laneswitcher used
- Attachments
-
- Oldbulldog improved intersection.jpg (341.57 KiB) Viewed 5988 times