3 and 4 way intersections

[Avona]

In addition, I'm happy to announce Avona as a new maintainer, helping us with testing and keeping this thread up to date! Hurray

Thank you for inviting me! I hope to test many new intersections and present everyone's creations to the world!

[Avona]

As part of my onboarding, I searched the thread for any missed posts and found some:

Made an variant for 2:4 trains the original is for 3:8 trains.
https://factorioblueprints.tech/bluepri ... 05955d00c3

I have made a some blueprints myself and tested them on the testbench. Feel free to add them to the list.

...

Additionally I also tested an intersection by u/Communist_Fella with the following results:
Set 1: 105, Set 2: 77, Set 3: 48 ⇒ Score: 77

(Imagine Dune music here:)
We are Factorio Intersections! There are no intersections we do not answer! There is no faith we betray!
Intersections! Intersections! Intersections!

You will find your intersections in the updated OP. I'm doing my best to catch up with submitted intersections.

[sparr]

I'd like to see some standardized labeling in the main list to differentiate between intersections where each incoming rail can or can't get to each outgoing rail.

[Hovedgade]

After looking through the list i noticed a severe lack of unbuffered 3 way intersections. I'm sure some of you may have some goods designs to share. I know the the designs may not vary by much but a couple more designs would certainly be appreciated.
Best of luck - sincerely Hovedgade

[hansjoachim]

I'd like to see some standardized labeling in the main list to differentiate between intersections where each incoming rail can or can't get to each outgoing rail.

At the moment we only include intersection where every incoming lane can go to every direction. But do you mean lanechangers or not? Only a couple does include them. We could mentioning when the intersection allows that.

After looking through the list i noticed a severe lack of unbuffered 3 way intersections. I'm sure some of you may have some goods designs to share. I know the the designs may not vary by much but a couple more designs would certainly be appreciated.
Best of luck - sincerely Hovedgade

Yeah, I agree. We should have some more, at least with multiple rail spacings.

[sparr]

I'd like to see some standardized labeling in the main list to differentiate between intersections where each incoming rail can or can't get to each outgoing rail.

At the moment we only include intersection where every incoming lane can go to every direction. But do you mean lanechangers or not? Only a couple does include them. We could mentioning when the intersection allows that.

I had not realized so many of the 4 lane intersections don't support lane changing. I consider this to be a critical feature of an intersection, to the point that I've skipped posting about intersection designs where I couldn't implement all possible lane changes. If they are in the minority, I would very much like the lanechanger intersections to be so labeled.

[Avona]

I like this design and i hope you do too.

LHD 4-tile-gap 32x32 roundabout with diagonally symmetric interior. Scores 43 (47/36/47)

I have updated the OP with everyone's submissions! Woot! It should be completely up to date!

[Avona]

The classic: MultiCross. I wanted to parallelize it as a narrow companion to the hurricane and I finally did. The arms are less than 50 wide, which is my grid and I kept it to 250 x 250, so shorter in length than even the normal MultiCross.

I've also included 4 Tile versions! And convertible 3 ways! We have all the things!

Parallel Multicross
RHD
Score 107
S1: 115
S2: 109
S3: 99

LHD
Score 104
S1: 107
S2: 105
S3: 100

6 car trains, 250x250, 2 lane, 6 tile spacing

Parallel Multi 3 Way
Converts to 4 way with Parallel Multicross.

RHD
Score 81
S1: 86
S2: 77

LHD
Score 77
S1: 79
S2: 75

6 car trains, 250x146, 2 lane, 6 tile spacing

Parallel Multicross 4 Tile

RHD
Score 106
S1: 114
S2: 107
S3: 96

LHD
Score 104
S1: 108
S2: 106
S3: 98

6 car trains, 268x268, 2 lane, 4 tile spacing

Parallel Multicross 3 Way 4 Tile
Converts to 4 way with Parallel Multicross 4 Tile.

RHD
Score 82
S1: 88
S2: 75

LHD
Score 79
S1: 81
S2: 76

6 car trains, 268x154, 2 lane, 4 tile spacing

[causa-sui]

I strongly prefer intersections that do not support lane changes and do not support U-turns.

I know that will sound crazy to some folks and I don't want to derail this thread with debates about it. But it means I actually agree with sparr that it would be useful to be clear about this.

However, the decision to exclude intersections that do not support U-turns is disappointing.

[Tallywort]

However, the decision to exclude intersections that do not support U-turns is disappointing.

I'm fairly certain that when they said, only intersections where a train can go in all directions, they meant all directions other than the incoming direction. (so no u turn necessary)

[mmmPI]

I don't think the intersections that do not support U-turn are excluded, there are some examples in both 4 lanes and 2 lanes that do support U-turn and some that don't. I think intersections do not HAVE TO support U-turn to be included, it's optionnal. I think the debate about including them was at the time where the train logic was a bit different, U-turn was sort of a problem because it made some design of junctions transform into roundabout which could cause a train to crash on itself or get stuck. There was different possible outcome depending on the shape of the junction, so they were labeled A B C D and so on to classify their reliabiliy.

I think sparr is refering to a case only valid for 4 lane intersection, where if you label AB AB AB AB all of exit. some intersection will allow train to reach both A and B exit on a direction, while some others junction will allow train to only reach the A exit of the pair, and some other junction only the B exit of the pair. ( if the train enter from A entrance, or B entrance, does that makes a difference ? ).

[hansjoachim]

I strongly prefer intersections that do not support lane changes and do not support U-turns.

I know that will sound crazy to some folks and I don't want to derail this thread with debates about it. But it means I actually agree with sparr that it would be useful to be clear about this.

However, the decision to exclude intersections that do not support U-turns is disappointing.

Almost all intersections in the post are without U-turns. And only a few support lane changing.

[Hovedgade]

I am back with 2³ more almost identical intersections!
Because i don't want to spend my entire day testing every design I decided to only test one of them. Before expanding to see the picture of the tested design I must warn you that it has a very unfortunate shape in the middle that no longer is seen as acceptable because of a certain political group.
Blitz Roundabout
Score: 78
Blueprint: RHD, Spacing: 4 tiles, Train Length: 6 cars, 2 lanes
RHD: Set1: 92, Set2: 71, Set3: 72

Expand to see picture at own discretion

The blueprints can be copied from here:
RHD, 4 tiles spacing, Tested
LHD, 4 tiles spacing
RHD, 6 tiles spacing
LHD, 6 tiles spacing
Please note that the designs that include U-turns may experience soft deadlocks that will resolve itself once all outputs are cleared.
RHD, 4 tiles spacing, with U-turns
LHD, 4 tiles spacing, with U-turns
RHD, 6 tiles spacing, with U-turns
LHD, 6 tiles spacing, with U-turns

[causa-sui]

Gotcha, I misunderstood about the U-turns. Thanks for the explanations!

[Avona]

Here's another 12 train length intersection, this time with no smaller version:

Pinwheel
RHD
Score 75
S1: 75
S2: 74
S3: 76

LHD
Score 75
S1: 77
S2: 72
S3: 77

12 car trains, 250x250, 2 lane, 6 tile spacing

[coppercoil]

Here's another 12 train length intersection, this time with no smaller version:

Can someone make a video how trains are moving through this wavy intersection (in map mode)? Should look pretty

[Hovedgade]

I broke my promise and made something that isn't a roundabout.
I noticed that some rails could be rearranged to make a new design after thinking thoroughly about my blitz roundabout. I did add some bends that somehow increased throughput but don't ask me why it works. I expect the LHD design to be a little slower because I haven't tested it and because it physically cannot fit some signals that were intended to fit on the merge.
Rotated Michigan Left
Score: 80

RHD, Size: 156x156, Spacing: 4 tiles, Train length: 6 cars, 2 lanes
Set 1: 97, Set 2: 69, Set 3: 75 ⇒ Score: 80

LHD, Size: 156x156, Spacing: 4 tiles, Train length: 6 cars, 2 lanes
Untested

RHD Picture

(I have a feeling this could be made smaller so feel free to make a smaller design and take credit for it.)

[Avona]

Rotated Michigan Left

The OP has been updated with everything before and up to this!

[Hovedgade]

This roundabout Im going to show you is ridiculous
This intersection is the fastest 2 lane design I have ever seen and i have a feeling that the hard limit is at 138. Using this in your normal save is not recommended for size and ups reasons. I expect this design to be put into the "other" category because the design is just insane and makes use of some circuits.
Wilderbeast Turbo Roundabout 1.1
Score: 133
RHD, Size: 442x442, Spacing: 6 tiles, Train length: 6 cars
Set1: 132, Set2: 132, Set3: 135
Designed by Hovedgade

Picture

[Avona]

Be aware that set 3 for 4 ways and set 2 for 3 ways have been modified. We will be retesting all intersections with these criteria. Set 3 of 4 ways and set 2 of 3 ways now include a 10% change to go a different direction as otherwise there was unrealistic behavior in the trains.

Testbench map 4.4 can be downloaded in its own forum post, which is linked in the OP.