Quality should increase train wagons capacity.

[AntiElitz]

Trains are great, but stacked belts outclass them in raw throughput.
If the legendary version of Cargos had increased cargo size, they’d be a much stronger alternative and stay competitive in late-game setups.

[freeafrica]

+1, also just generally (w/o considering quality) I feel like trains are weak compared to how cheap/fast belting is...

[juliawtapp]

I like this idea, or at the very least I like the idea of trains being better.

Maybe there is a reason that train wagons aren't affected meaningfully by quality, but maybe not? steel / logistics chests were originally unaffected by quality and were patched to be bigger with quality AFAIK

On that note, maybe quality train locomotives could accelerate a bit faster and have a slightly higher top speed, too.

[CyberCider]

On that note, maybe quality train locomotives could accelerate a bit faster and have a slightly higher top speed, too.

This is already provided by quality fuel. But I think braking force would be more useful anyway. It’s actually quite important for throughput.

[juliawtapp]

On that note, maybe quality train locomotives could accelerate a bit faster and have a slightly higher top speed, too.

This is already provided by quality fuel. But I think braking force would be more useful anyway. It’s actually quite important for throughput.

given the fact that quality fuel does do that, and the fact that braking force is not an infinite research, it does make sense that they could have better brakes.
anything more interesting than increased health (not super useful) would be welcome for me.

[Koub]

[Koub] Merged innto an existing thread with the same suggestion, and moved back to Balancing subforum.
See also viewtopic.php?t=119199

[Xandrii]

Quality Wagons should have an increased storage, similar to quality chests.

Why is this so important? I love train grids and with quality, productivity, better modules/beacons the production and consumption increased by a lot (more than +150% aka legendary), however the wagons size stood the same. This is a huge issue because the wagon unloads in ~1-2 seconds, so trains become actually inefficient (high deliver time, low transfer rate). The best adaptive solution would be to have quality wagons (like quality chests) an increased storage (do not forget liquid wagons).

Optional it would also be amazing to have a higher speed/acceleration or quality trains, for the sake of train grid players in Space Age.

[eugenekay]

Previously:

• 119199
• 118785
• 120768
• 123163

And probably several more.

This was implemented as CargoWagonPrototype property quality_affects_inventory_size in Version 2.0.29. There are several mods to enable this.

[Koub]

[Koub] Merged a couple of threads with the same or similar suggestion.

[crimsonarmy]

Just noting for anyone who isn't aware:
Trains are a couple orders of magnitude higher throughput over belts when running at max speed (theoretically); the bottleneck that everyone is talking about is loading/unloading (specifically trains getting into and out of the station).

[asa159]

Just noting for anyone who isn't aware:
Trains are a couple orders of magnitude higher throughput over belts when running at max speed (theoretically); the bottleneck that everyone is talking about is loading/unloading (specifically trains getting into and out of the station).

that is a blanket statement that is either true or false depending on the distance train needs to travel.

let's say we have a 1-4 train. let's put legendary nuclear fuel in it. it's max speed is 356 km/h or 98.9 meters/s. let's round it up and call it 100 meters/s. a tile is exactly a meter so it can move 100 tile/s.
that train can load mere 8000 coal or stone. multiply them and it can move 800,000 tile coal/s. let's say we need to take it to another city block that is 50 tile wide, 25 city block away.

800,000 / 25 / 50 = 640 coal/s

less than 3 green belts worth of coal throughput. this is not an "order of magnitude" more.

and if you have an actual base with rail signals and this train needs to wait other trains sometimes? needs to slow down? needs to accelerate? needs to load and unload? you can expect less than a full belt per train. and you can request only so many trains at once because otherwise it might create another congestion in your rail network.

[crimsonarmy]

Just noting for anyone who isn't aware:
Trains are a couple orders of magnitude higher throughput over belts when running at max speed (theoretically); the bottleneck that everyone is talking about is loading/unloading (specifically trains getting into and out of the station).

that is a blanket statement that is either true or false depending on the distance train needs to travel.

let's say we have a 1-4 train. let's put legendary nuclear fuel in it. it's max speed is 356 km/h or 98.9 meters/s. let's round it up and call it 100 meters/s. a tile is exactly a meter so it can move 100 tile/s.
that train can load mere 8000 coal or stone. multiply them and it can move 800,000 tile coal/s. let's say we need to take it to another city block that is 50 tile wide, 25 city block away.

800,000 / 25 / 50 = 640 coal/s

less than 3 green belts worth of coal throughput. this is not an "order of magnitude" more.

and if you have an actual base with rail signals and this train needs to wait other trains sometimes? needs to slow down? needs to accelerate? needs to load and unload? you can expect less than a full belt per train. and you can request only so many trains at once because otherwise it might create another congestion in your rail network.

I am not referring to one train going back an forth but rather a (ideally) continuous line of trains. What you are proposing is like having an unsaturated belt.

[asa159]

I am not referring to one train going back an forth but rather a (ideally) continuous line of trains. What you are proposing is like having an unsaturated belt.

That is actually one way travel speed. if one train was going back AND forth, it would equal to just 1.33 green belt. without loading and unloading and slowing/accelerating and traffic taken into account of course.

[crimsonarmy]

I am not referring to one train going back an forth but rather a (ideally) continuous line of trains. What you are proposing is like having an unsaturated belt.

That is actually one way travel speed. if one train was going back AND forth, it would equal to just 1.33 green belt. without loading and unloading and slowing/accelerating and traffic taken into account of course.

Two tracks?

[asa159]

Two tracks?

two belts? stop this strawman argument. I had already addressed in my first comment that you can run multiple trains. But you can't request an infinite amount of them.

Space age upgraded the belt capacity by 5.33x and pipe capacity infinitely but trains stayed the same, apart from a minuscule increase in top speed with unreasonable legendary uranium fuel.

and your original argument that trains have order"S" of magnitude more throughput is just wrong. it's wrong in theory, it's laughable in practice.

[coffee-factorio]

Just noting for anyone who isn't aware:
Trains are a couple orders of magnitude higher throughput over belts when running at max speed (theoretically); the bottleneck that everyone is talking about is loading/unloading (specifically trains getting into and out of the station).

I did benchmark this over several kilometer track. A 1-4 like you're talking about takes 750 meters to accelerate and I can occasionally find and maintain ore patches in that space that don't run out. This is assuming I give it rocket fuel. Since I can more or less fulfill it's i/o capabilities with 2 stacked red belts, I would consider giving a 1-4 legendary fuel a mistake and would recommit the modules to a better idea.

With larger trains moving longer distances it's different. But the model you're discussing doesn't really compete with stacking in a space where 50-200 ips of 3 materials can become 24K ESPM of science. It's also a first impression of a system where you can run a 64 car object that can deliver five minutes of inventory, as far as I know larger trains like that aren't benchmarked and that was more of a fun project rather than something needed.

[mmmPI]

Just noting for anyone who isn't aware:
Trains are a couple orders of magnitude higher throughput over belts when running at max speed (theoretically); the bottleneck that everyone is talking about is loading/unloading (specifically trains getting into and out of the station).

that is a blanket statement that is either true or false depending on the distance train needs to travel.

let's say we have a 1-4 train. let's put legendary nuclear fuel in it. it's max speed is 356 km/h or 98.9 meters/s. let's round it up and call it 100 meters/s. a tile is exactly a meter so it can move 100 tile/s.
that train can load mere 8000 coal or stone. multiply them and it can move 800,000 tile coal/s. let's say we need to take it to another city block that is 50 tile wide, 25 city block away.

800,000 / 25 / 50 = 640 coal/s

less than 3 green belts worth of coal throughput. this is not an "order of magnitude" more.

and if you have an actual base with rail signals and this train needs to wait other trains sometimes? needs to slow down? needs to accelerate? needs to load and unload? you can expect less than a full belt per train. and you can request only so many trains at once because otherwise it might create another congestion in your rail network.

The math are wrong, following your reasonning the throughput of a rail is directly proportionnal to the carrying capacity of a train, so if you were trying to make the longest train possible for whatever reason , attempting to play smart or something , then you would have to conclude that the rail has an infinite throughput. If your train could carry 8 billion coal, ( just scale loco and wagon accordingly) then it would carry 800 000 000 000 tile coal/s you can divide by 25 and 50, it will yield a gigantic number that is not more correct than the 640 coal/s unfortunatly.

I'm not judging on the conclusion, just on the argument.

I done the math pre 2.0, and haven't updated for legendary stuff in the settings but it's fairly easy to do for yourself if you fiddle with it in this => https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zbyd2gllkp it gives the max throughput of a rail line in wagon per minutes depending on trains configuration, and whichever their speed.

[crimsonarmy]

Two tracks?

two belts? stop this strawman argument. I had already addressed in my first comment that you can run multiple trains. But you can't request an infinite amount of them.

Space age upgraded the belt capacity by 5.33x and pipe capacity infinitely but trains stayed the same, apart from a minuscule increase in top speed with unreasonable legendary uranium fuel.

and your original argument that trains have order"S" of magnitude more throughput is just wrong. it's wrong in theory, it's laughable in practice.

I form a loop and have an arbitrarily large number of trains. Why are you measuring the throughput of trains rather than tracks. In magical ideal fairyland (what my initial comment was about), endpoints don't matter and width is what is relevant.

[coffee-factorio]

I form a loop and have an arbitrarily large number of trains. Why are you measuring the throughput of trains rather than tracks. In magical ideal fairyland (what my initial comment was about), endpoints don't matter and width is what is relevant.

It's usually a technical foul to invoke fairy land. In this case though, I think the main problem is the perception that a cargo size of 40 is inferior. It makes for a bad conversation, because there's an assumption that the thing doesn't solve use cases other than ore delivery. There's a 750 meter area where rail operations for ore are questionable. But that kind of holds regardless of the size of the cargo wagon.

When you get out of that operations area though, or the mindset that you're using this for ore runs. A single 1-1-1 delivering parts to a planned base can be filled up by bots, sent 500 meters to unload into passive provider chests. And that cuts out 500 meters of latency in your first 20 hours of play. You'd have to have a pretty good idea of what you where building but it's something I've done with larger projects and bigger trains. Making the cargo wagon uncommon at that stage, with a larger container size would be interesting.

If the game where about preventing people from making bad life choices, like making a 1-4-1 out of uncommons in the early game. It wouldn't be very interesting.