(Something with train) Is Boring and Inefficient

[BezLovesFactorio]

So, I was bored of the way everyone was making their rail networks. Tired of the loops, tired of the simple twin track farl layout.

How about the Bez Rail Layout?

http://i.imgur.com/SXxTV8t.jpg


Simple rules:

a) trains on the right hand side
b) track is spaced as close together as possible
c) all blocks must be designed so that when the maximum length train is parked at a signal it is not blocking an intersection.
d) diagonal track must at all times cut a corner where ever possible.
e) 3 way rail intersections designed as 3 intersections with 3 blocks used with the train length point c in mind.
f) signals are placed on the outside of twin tracks, not the inside how left handed train operation works
g) all stations have a diagonal leadin section which will allow track spacing to be as close as possible.
h) all stations must contain only one platform, any further platforms need to branch off the line further down the line, point c again
i) stations are part of the intersection block which diagonally leads in.

[BezLovesFactorio]

What's so hard about that?
http://i.imgur.com/KCTCZhp.jpg

[vampiricdust]

I don't understand why you are talking about FARL. FARL only lays track and has nothing to do with the way you make your track. FARL could be used to make that, though doing the turns is probably better by hand, but straight aways or the first track is easily doable.

FARL mod != Laid track pattern

[MeduSalem]

I can't help it, but laying down tracks without space in between them just looks ugly.

Besides from the appearance there are other reasons why I don't put tracks so close together:

- I'm using a building-grid based on the roboports, so they need to fit in between the tracks. I can't get around that habit because I would just hate it when I need to place a roboport, but couldn't place it at max distance because of something being in the way. So I actually made it a habit of building everything around the Roboport-max distance so I can have the least amount of roboports and if I need to expand the logistics network that I don't have to get a lot of crap out of the way first to make room for the roboport.
- For same reason I also lead power lines along the track in between the tracks and some other stuff as well (Circuit Network etc), needed for Outposts.

I just can't deal with close tracks at all.



But I'll give you the credit on the fact that I'm also sick of loops already, especially at intersections.

For that reason I also switched over to 3-way intersections, but I only use forks where possible (so not fully 3-way). It's because a train doesn't really need to go in between two mining outposts for example (why should they?) and therefore limiting the trains to more straight-forward paths by removing not needed path choices and unneccessary traffic where trains go around in circles.

That said I only have one major dual-track loop enclosing my entire base in a circle, or more like an octagon, (which is also where my defense is located), but everything splitting off from there to the mining outposts far away is done by forks then. With that design I have the flexibility to branch off outwards at any direction I want, and also placing my main stations inside the base whereever I feel like, as I'm not restricted to a particular location.

[BezLovesFactorio]

What I also see a lot of in a lot of YouTube Let's Plays, is reusing track for dual purposes. For example, at the base you have 5 different types of stuff being unloaded at 5 different stations, but then for some reason they all connect into the same network of track and literally share the track. Why? Save on the amount of track you use? For what purpose? Most people only use two assemblers for the two types of track and one for the sticks. This is pretty much more then enough and most the time this production stops and is barely running for 10% of the time. Well, why not lay more track? Why go to the effort of pushing everything onto the same network?

The purpose of my layout pattern is to reduce the overall size of the junction as much as possible. The larger the junction the longer trains will be blocking it. But, I am going to make a few changes over time, keep trying to improve.

[cpy]

What have FARL to do with all of this again?

[Klonan]

I can't help it, but laying down tracks without space in between them just looks ugly.

I think it looks the best... and also another reason why side-by-side tracks are, objectively, the msot efficient:

Underground

[oLaudix]

Train track design with space between them was mainly made because it needs space for signals between tracks. Since it was efficient and looke good everyone copied it. I use space between tracks to put large poles there. With personal roboport i can lay both side of the tracks and pole in 1 click.

[hitzu]

Your intersections are very inefficient - they even cannot hold two trains to bypass each other on parallel opposing directions.

[BezLovesFactorio]

I can't help it, but laying down tracks without space in between them just looks ugly.

I think it looks the best... and also another reason why side-by-side tracks are, objectively, the msot efficient:

What I notice the most, is that it actually feels like a train network. There was always something missing, anyone who knows trains knows that parallel tracks are 99% of the time placed as close as possible. The gap has always felt ugly to me. Sure, you can put a pole and a roboport, but why can't you place that to the side? Hell, I say chuck some stone down next to the track, make it look old school. What train track running through the countryside is without a road and poles running down it? I find also that going out of your way to avoid diagonal stretches of track is also ugly and almost grid like, not to mention, it's much slower. If h=SQRT(a^2+b^2), then clearly h<a+b. Why go out of your way to avoid diagonal stretches, and shove all of your intersections together, when cutting the corner would surely reduce congestion?

[orzelek]

Bad title topic. Please change it to something else thats at least relevant to discussion at hand.
And FARL doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.

[oLaudix]

you can put a pole and a roboport, but why can't you place that to the side?

Because it looks butt ugly.

[MeduSalem]

you can put a pole and a roboport, but why can't you place that to the side?

Because it looks butt ugly.

This. xD

Main problem about putting stuff to the side of the track is that It isn't symmetric. Anything not symmetric = butt ugly, like oLaudix wrote. This simple rule applies for everything in Factorio in my opinion.

[azurelinctus]

Im going to back all this up with a pic, you simply can not do something like in this picture below with a side by said rail system. A side by side without proper intersections will have at best a lop sided weird looking loop for intersections to allow traffic to go in any direction, it looks ugly and doesn't work for a system of a great number of trains. What your picture shows there will allow the trains to go in only one way and back one way so there isn't any way you can add more trains to that set up going to other locations without going out across the path you want it to go and manually adjust it all again. Tried and tested separate your lines ( I have 2 train track spacing between) and don't use loops. See pic below, on this I have 30 trains of a mix of 1-2-1, and 1-4-1 with a couple 2-6-2 on this older save.

I'm working on a new map now with RSO (Resource Overhaul) and plan on having a 6 lane intersection, which if you have a look at videos and pics of colonel wills large rail system works perfectly and with more than double I run. You simply could not do any of this with those intersections.

[BezLovesFactorio]

Im going to back all this up with a pic, you simply can not do something like in this picture below with a side by said rail system. A side by side without proper intersections will have at best a lop sided weird looking loop for intersections to allow traffic to go in any direction, it looks ugly and doesn't work for a system of a great number of trains. What your picture shows there will allow the trains to go in only one way and back one way so there isn't any way you can add more trains to that set up going to other locations without going out across the path you want it to go and manually adjust it all again. Tried and tested separate your lines ( I have 2 train track spacing between) and don't use loops. See pic below, on this I have 30 trains of a mix of 1-2-1, and 1-4-1 with a couple 2-6-2 on this older save.

I'm working on a new map now with RSO (Resource Overhaul) and plan on having a 6 lane intersection, which if you have a look at videos and pics of colonel wills large rail system works perfectly and with more than double I run. You simply could not do any of this with those intersections.

The thing of it is, I am copying real world track layout, and you are saying that my method based on real world usage doesn't work. How is that even possible? I have a better question, in the real world, you have multiple tracks similar to your picture. But dude, this is factorio, where real estate is not expensive. Why bother combining multiple tracks like that into a corridor when you literally can run the track wherever you want. Here's the thing, if twin track is not enough, then just run another twin track a train length away from it? There is enough real estate to dedicate twin track to every possible mining outpost, true? But even having said that, here is a solution to your problems:

Rail buffers. Okay, so let's say you have a bunch of branching lines to mining outposts? Well, how about where the branches combine, stick a buffer station? Then shuttle that buffer down the line to the next branch, and then buffer again. If you ask me, you have the opportunity to never bottleneck your rail network, yet people go out of their way to do the opposite. Why? We have personal roboport, I rolled those lines out by holding down the blueprint of 30 track, and just running, I had blueprints for 30 track in every direction, hell, I could make a blueprint for the funny little corners too.

How about this, I challenge anyone to send me a savegame with their train setup they love, and I'll regig it, and get better performance out of it. The thing about rail, is that people are lazy with it, they don't even sit there and ponder whether there is any point. Some of these setups could be better done with standard belts using the same amount of space. At the moment, I am playing RSO with marathon, just set up 16 lanes of bus for the two types of plates. Running turrets around the edge, bloody biters won't leave me alone, and soon I am going to have to smash them down and make a run for the iron and copper.

[Choumiko]

So, I was bored of the way everyone was making their rail networks. Tired of the loops, tired of the simple twin track farl layout.

This has absolutely nothing to do with FARL (as others mentioned already). If you need a name for it, please stick with something else (Twin track/Double Track, whatever). All that FARL does is place tracks, signals, poles. It in no way forces a layout on the player.

[ssilk]

I changed the title, cause it was really missleading. BezLovesFactorio can change it, or someone can give me a report, if I should change the title to something

[vampiricdust]

I changed the title, cause it was really missleading. BezLovesFactorio can change it, or someone can give me a report, if I should change the title to something

Thank you very much. Choumiko's mod is way to awesome & amazing to be needlessly put down. If anything, the title should be, "Widely Spaced Rails are Boring and Inefficient" or "Rail Spacing" if you want to leave out the editorialization.

I have to say I'm very much for the spacing between tracks. Not only does it give more room to work with for signals, but I think it looks terrible when turning. The turning tends to create a slightly larger gap that is very apparent on the diagonal sections of track. Also, there are a number of players who like their signals on the inside of tracks, making their rails opposite of what is done by Bez.

[azurelinctus]

Lot to quote here but here goes

The thing of it is, I am copying real world track layout, and you are saying that my method based on real world usage doesn't work. How is that even possible?

Im not talking about real world concepts here, just this game and how it functions. Real world you have trains that run passengers down a line maybe every 10 minutes give or take and when it reaches its end it goes back the other way servicing customers on the opposing line, not much in the way of intersections needed there, in Factorio resources are all around you in any given direction and you have one base in the centre, you want more trains? they have to cross at many locations.

where real estate is not expensive

I clearly don't care about space as can be seen by my medium sized (compared to some) intersection, if anything your side by side track is claiming a lack of space.

here is a solution to your problems:

I didn't claim to have any but sure fire away.

Rail buffers. Okay, so let's say you have a bunch of branching lines to mining outposts? Well, how about where the branches combine, stick a buffer station? Then shuttle that buffer down the line to the next branch, and then buffer again. If you ask me, you have the opportunity to never bottleneck your rail network, yet people go out of their way to do the opposite.

Buffers are good but at the end destination where multiple trains arrive at the same resource outpost, if you have multiple trains running to the same resource outpost a train is either filling or emptying at either end of that line at any given time. What your proposing is using buffers when two trains arrive at a intersection at the same time if they are going to different locations, that will have one train stopping and the other continuing its journey. Spaced lines allowing for larger intersections will have those trains both going their merry way unimpeded by each other.

Why? We have personal roboport, I rolled those lines out by holding down the blueprint of 30 track, and just running, I had blueprints for 30 track in every direction, hell, I could make a blueprint for the funny little corners too.

You have to run which is slower than a train. FARL will run at full train speed, clear the trees rocks and support a blueprint. Maybe even your funny little corners.

How about this, I challenge anyone to send me a savegame with their train setup they love, and I'll regig it, and get better performance out of it.

Give me your current save and I will pass you mine, pick it apart do what you want with it I don't mind, allow me to do the same. However if you don't have at least the same number of positives or things you have learnt from my save as the critiques you give then don't bother. We can all learn from each other.

The thing about rail, is that people are lazy with it, they don't even sit there and ponder whether there is any point.

That's a bold over generalized statement right there, some perhaps do but even those who you think might not do it as good as you still ponder over what they are doing I'm sure. Even the slightest improvement requires someone to think about what they have done and what they can do better.

[Talguy]

So, on the topic of crossings, does anyone have a blueprint of a junction with chain signals? With and without double track?