Allow trains to regard a station as closed if only one other station is open

[damerell]

After reading this reddit query (which is described below), I'd like to propose a facility where a stop on a train schedule can be marked in a way that will cause the train to regard it as a closed station if only one (or no) station on the schedule which is not so marked is open.

The OP had a train which went dropoff->refuel->pickup, where there are multiple pickup stations which open when they have a full load. The result was that the train ran repeatedly between "dropoff" and "refuel" when there was no load to collect. If this feature was implemented, the "refuel" station could be so marked, and then when no pickup station was open the train would wait at "dropoff".

(I am aware there are existing ways to improve this situation.)

[FuryoftheStars]

Sounds like a variation of existing suggestions, like dynamic schedules and the like?

[damerell]

Sounds like a variation of existing suggestions, like dynamic schedules and the like?

From what I've seen, suggestions of that kind tend to be complex. It's easy to have scope creep in such a proposal. My aim here is to make a proposal which is specific, limited in scope, and which I personally would benefit from.

(The obvious question you might ask is "isn't it overly specific". I would say no, because it helps with the "should this train run at all" question which otherwise is sometimes hard to answer without circuits all over the map.)

[FuryoftheStars]

Well, I would argue that "scope creep" is a non-issue with the suggestions seems the devs don't have to implement a suggestion exactly as suggested, nor do they have to take into consideration the various tack-ons and variations throughout the life of the thread. I'm just saying that this sounds very much like many threads I've seen attempting to accomplish the same exact thing, just with yet another method. In fact, I think a few of the threads that are linked to right in the OP of the Dynamic Train Schedule thread are simple suggestions on attempting to accomplish exactly your goal. *shurg*

[ssilk]

I see that similar.

And I would say this can be implemented just with circuits. A little bit complicated (not too much) and another good use-case for some kind of radio-transmission of circuit-signals. But there are good mods for that.

[coppercoil]

another good use-case for some kind of radio-transmission of circuit-signals. But there are good mods for that.

No need for a mod for that. I connect all electric poles with red+green along railways, and every remote factory is on a global netwowk.

Global Network

GlobalNetwork.jpg (3.16 MiB) Viewed 4686 times

[mrvn]

After reading this reddit query (which is described below), I'd like to propose a facility where a stop on a train schedule can be marked in a way that will cause the train to regard it as a closed station if only one (or no) station on the schedule which is not so marked is open.

The OP had a train which went dropoff->refuel->pickup, where there are multiple pickup stations which open when they have a full load. The result was that the train ran repeatedly between "dropoff" and "refuel" when there was no load to collect. If this feature was implemented, the "refuel" station could be so marked, and then when no pickup station was open the train would wait at "dropoff".

(I am aware there are existing ways to improve this situation.)

This problem is solved by the train limit. You can pick whether a station should be skipped or waited for:

1) enable/disable station

Stations are skipped when all stations with that name are disabled.

2) train limit

Trains will wait at the previous stop until a station has less trains headed towards it than it's train limit. A station with train limit == 0 will have no train go to it but also not get skipped.

You can combine the two: Have one station somewhere with train limit = 0 to prevent skipping and then enable/disable other stations with the same name.

[ssilk]

another good use-case for some kind of radio-transmission of circuit-signals. But there are good mods for that.

No need for a mod for that. I connect all electric poles with red+green along railways, and every remote factory is on a global netwowk.

Ya, but you don't want to do that on a map with a diameter of 10 kilometers, you need eventually more than two wires and you don't want biters to fuckup you whole installation.

But this gets a bit sidetracked, there are more threads:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=92546 wireless circuit net after sattelite launch
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12652 Connection of circuit network over distances.

[coppercoil]

Ya, but you don't want to do that on a map with a diameter of 10 kilometers, you need eventually more than two wires and you don't want biters to fuckup you whole installation.

Why not? The wiring is blueprinted; you do use blueprints for railway, don't you? Oh yes, this will not work with existing base built using obsolete blueprints
If biters uninstall your electric poles, factory becomes unpowered, so signals will be useless anyway.
Two wires ought to be enough for anybody most basic cases. There are not so many alternatives if you don't want game-changing mods.

[damerell]

This problem is solved by the train limit.

What would stop the train cycling between dropoff and refuel in this scenario?

[mrvn]

This problem is solved by the train limit.

What would stop the train cycling between dropoff and refuel in this scenario?

Yes. As said even having one station that has the train limit reached makes the trains stop with "Destination full" and wait for a spot to open up instead of cycling through the other stations.

Try it in your game. Simply put down a station anywhere on the map named the same as the stations the trains always skip. Set the train limit = 0 and no more skipping. You don't have to change anything else.

When you build new stations you can wire them to set train limit = 0 when closed and 1 when open.

[ssilk]

Why not? The wiring is blueprinted; you do use blueprints for railway, don't you?

No, I like to have it more realistic looking.
Mostly using the train layer mod. Which has also a feature to add wires.

But the danger to miss one wire or some pole gets destroyed and your logistic runs amok is in my eyes in any case (blueprinted, raillayered) too high with such a big network.

Two wires ought to be enough for anybody most basic cases. There are not so many alternatives if you don't want game-changing mods.

It makes things in my eyes useless complex. In reality nobody would build it so, she/he would use one wire and multiplex the signals.

[coppercoil]

But the danger to miss one wire or some pole gets destroyed and your logistic runs amok is in my eyes in any case (blueprinted, raillayered) too high with such a big network.

I like solving dangers! Let's add a control lamp every 10th pole that checks presence of some control signal. Still unreliable? Every "control pole" can emit a signal "online"; alert if total count decreases significantly.

[mrvn]

Have a speaker at every train stop that checks for a control signal. If missing raise an alert.

[ssilk]

What a horrible thought. I try to build realistic and you put a check-lamp every 200 meters, which doesn’t fix anything if it gets destroyed.