Factorio Forums

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:43 pm**

cpy wrote:Name one.

Intersection that can provide more than one train to pass at the same time.

There the train from the west would block the whole intersection, even for the train from the east.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:21 pm**

cpy wrote:Name one.

Like hitzu pointed it out already: Crossings/Intersections (except for roundabouts maybe) are generally highly inefficient due to lacking the space needed for placing signals required to seperate the two-way traffic into seperate blocks.

Terminal stations may be ugly too as you can't perform an in-line lane shift between the tracks thanks to the curve radius. But you need to do that to get the train to the other track when it changes direction on leaving the station. The only way to solve that is to make an awkward jump to the side like that, which I think is one of the most ugly things I can imagine when it comes to rails:

(Picture is from this thread: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 971#p94057 )

That's one additional reason why I always leave 2 spaces between tracks, next to being able to put Roboports and Electric Poles as well as signals and other stuff theree that I want to follow the train tracks. The later reasons are not actually a real hinderance though, just my personal preference.

With other words it's so not worth it to try saving on space when building a rail network as you may encounter several annoyances and maybe even a bottleneck depending on the type of intersections you use.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:02 am**

hitzu wrote:
cpy wrote:Name one.
Intersection that can provide more than one train to pass at the same time.

There the train from the west would block the whole intersection, even for the train from the east.

How exactly you avoid this with separated tracks if you have space there?

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:40 am**

cpy wrote: How exactly you avoid this with separated tracks if you have space there?

Place signals on vertical rail between horizontal ones.
Like this

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:14 am**

You can always add a track separator if you really need one.

: crossing2.jpg (238.57 KiB) Viewed 10361 times

: t-junction.jpg (355.64 KiB) Viewed 10361 times

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:33 pm**

cpy wrote:
ssilk wrote:Other off-topic: In most cases it's not a good idea to build the rails close together.
Name one.

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 983#p96983

But the above solution looks like a compromise. (Even that I still would prefer to have more space between, cause you can also cross the tracks by another rail. In my eyes a self-limitation. More space, more options.)

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:53 pm**

DaveMcW wrote:You can always add a track separator if you really need one.

That T-junciton looks very pretty and interesting... But would you approach hitzu's intersection of both tracks the same way? At least it would look funny then... like admiting that placing tracks too close results in workarounds.

But in the T-junction it doesn't look too bad after all because it integrates very well into the design.

Does anyone actually have a "pretty" 4-way intersection in general that works without sacrificing any efficiency? I mean not a roundabout, because that's been beaten to death already. Somehow I haven't seen anything in particular that didn't suffer from problems.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:31 am**

MeduSalem wrote:I mean not a roundabout, because that's been beaten to death already.

You are so prejudiced.

Roundabout is simple and powerful, why would you need anything else.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:42 am**

DaveMcW wrote:You are so prejudiced.

Roundabout is simple and powerful, why would you need anything else.

Can't help about it. I'm always exploring further alternatives and possibilities... some of them turn out to be good and valid, but others not so much... and for some I simply deny their existence because they are ugly and/or boring or verge on cheating. xD

Anyways I'm still using roundabouts myself in all 4-way intersections because of how there's simply no "pretty" alternative in those situations other than not having 4-way intersections in the first place.

At least I haven't found a 4-way intersection that offers enough space to actually place all the necessary chain signals, which then means it isn't working 100% effective. Either the left turns are the problem or the intersecting straight pieces. In either case a roundabout is much simplier to do and at least as effective then.

Which is why I have asked myself if someone else figured out how to do it with a maximum of a 4 tile (roboport) space between two tracks. I pretty much gave up after 3-4 hours trying various alternatives. I know that one can do it if incorporating even more space between tracks, but then you can almost go for a roundabout already because it takes as much overall space.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:01 am**

Now with chain signals, making a simple diamond intersection is straightforward enough for single rail applications.

: Diamond.png (1.89 MiB) Viewed 10271 times

I have found an effective way to use single rail with passing sidings on maps where stone supply is initially a problem, as was mine. Chain signals were instrumental in making longer blocks as well as having the entire line be able to support more trains overall, increasing efficiency.

: FactorioRail2.png (1.68 MiB) Viewed 10271 times

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:38 am**

I definitely have to try some of those desings. I used chain signals even on exit, and that was stupid.

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:05 pm**

Morofry wrote:Now with chain signals, making a simple diamond intersection is straightforward enough for single rail applications.
Diamond.png
I have found an effective way to use single rail with passing sidings on maps where stone supply is initially a problem, as was mine. Chain signals were instrumental in making longer blocks as well as having the entire line be able to support more trains overall, increasing efficiency.

FactorioRail2.png

the entire 2 way section should have only chain signals

and the exit signal after the split should be a normal signal, otherwise it's deadlock central

Posted: **Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:54 pm**

If I had used nothing but chain signals, the entire line would be unusable by all but one train. Putting a normal signal in separates the chained blocks as the chain signals do, in fact, chain on each other continually. Regular signals placed close behind certain chain signals causes the train to straddle 2 blocks (one controlled by chain, one by normal), blocking everything behind it. It took multiple tries to get this to work properly without jamming and so far this method works perfectly.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:16 am**

Saturating express belts from chests

: belts.jpg (95.74 KiB) Viewed 10858 times

The left design is bigger but cheaper, the real deal is the right one.

Those are the best designs I could come up with in order to saturate blue belt
So far best results are (sometime you have to check the sync of inserters, some might not work right away)
with 18 inserters, 2 of them not working for 1/4 of time. Belt looks fully saturated.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:21 am**

Anyone know how to build logistic circuit to calculate delta in fixed time interval? I would like to build system to check every X sec if value is rising or dropping.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:43 pm**

Neotix wrote:Anyone know how to build logistic circuit to calculate delta in fixed time interval? I would like to build system to check every X sec if value is rising or dropping.

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 265#p93265

Probably this can help. Logic unit calculates difference between previous and current value = it means rising or dropping.

Posted: **Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:24 pm**

Morofry wrote:Now with chain signals, making a simple diamond intersection is straightforward enough for single rail applications.
Diamond.png
I have found an effective way to use single rail with passing sidings on maps where stone supply is initially a problem, as was mine. Chain signals were instrumental in making longer blocks as well as having the entire line be able to support more trains overall, increasing efficiency.

FactorioRail2.png

As ratchetfreak already said, this will cause deadlock. Imagine on the first picture tranin stopped right in the middle of dimond intersection waiting for signal to go right and on the second picture additional oil train waiting on the top line. And then connect two pictures. Now you have a deadlock. Yes, you will need plenty of trains for them to deadlock, but number of trains is still far less then number of normal signal, so we can name this approach deadlock prone. In two-way lines you will need sidings here and ther for trains not to deadlock.

Posted: **Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:49 pm**

gizmo wrote:
Morofry wrote:Now with chain signals, making a simple diamond intersection is straightforward enough for single rail applications.
Diamond.png
I have found an effective way to use single rail with passing sidings on maps where stone supply is initially a problem, as was mine. Chain signals were instrumental in making longer blocks as well as having the entire line be able to support more trains overall, increasing efficiency.

FactorioRail2.png
As ratchetfreak already said, this will cause deadlock. Imagine on the first picture tranin stopped right in the middle of dimond intersection waiting for signal to go right and on the second picture additional oil train waiting on the top line. And then connect two pictures. Now you have a deadlock. Yes, you will need plenty of trains for them to deadlock, but number of trains is still far less then number of normal signal, so we can name this approach deadlock prone. In two-way lines you will need sidings here and ther for trains not to deadlock.

Well, in two-way lines it's better to use a roundabout instead of an intersections. In my my longest lasting map to date, I use this blueprint I extracted using the blueprint-string mod by DaveMcW

Code: Select all

H4sIAAAAAAAA/6VY7W6bMBR9lai/IYoN2KCIZ6kQoBYpg4nQaVPEuw/bTAVs42PvTyMVH879PPeaZrg8hrp6XN7LV9tP3dS1z/L16qsfbfn2nMaq+/ic4uXn
8Rb9HJ7L86EvX7/LmJDoz/KXz1HTjW0t/5/NEY7MtkiCIEmmA7kHcGdrAtla6IyYkwqY+PuY6EDMx0Q3FfOR64zfPtZf46+2McFSCbuZDRXn42f30VdHWHZV
yaBXi6l2RqozZnvG+rPqejMvXXmThdfNletU1I1iOip1h4RtLLMj7a4V5ohi5Ub05Cco8b+Q3vbEQKAWjEAyIBMq6/mWgEGeCVgRksDcu4WSEy5XXZI1ivxq
0TXXC9byYQHZjyXSX08Vzl9OCw0GiWmhWUnQ6IjaNEQHUBsi9S01s7oKm/r2Q66hsARyLTSIa1Sx4QJhGYCO4FHP2UDWUs6uFj77VBHiKSltUuSqE+7Au2c9
FE55FjsqB/rmqMuDVHpAAodIvHYK3Y5HlyMJot+itJnZpvMKZd5CIUMGGSXblHkLmPQa2R9kAzDz0DoH5Z6hUq6EbkVr3xzkERqwUnuKsI2j8FUGHm5mduTD
FnjZTMRX/kXdEovunW4dxDIyHGNxbyE0vItjPOB9b9XnwjZLT+RZLTmE2JYUbMk5bppAbFVGUqBlmTr4H1vG0TzwOix1PmAJU0DL6n5+b9v7Ce/TezKoSHUb
IVh2ArPr501zDVN1+X3AdnWGLkFi+vqHVAaHh3WEukcT5r8rrRbz7aR3sLFviN/dVnS8wUz8q03AByaFO0ymOerqoReftrq+aUU5m96zvF49ppFea/M838d2
+hr7y/u97Zu/YZsUDzsTAAA=

I use it everywhere, where I have more than a three way split/merge, and where I have a lot of splits/merges close together. there is literally only one case where this would deadlock, and that is if a train needs to do a 315° clockwise turn, because it has to cross over it's own path, which means it has to stop at the very next chain signal. that can be easily fixed though, by putting a regular rail signal one signal removed from the exit it has to take. it might actually be possible to use this for two way rail systems.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:59 pm**

In my one way rail network I use "buffers" for intersections:
https://imgur.com/gallery/H53oy9u
So I do not see how roundabout is "better". Not saying it is worse, but that would be nice to see your design without extra fiddling with mods and strings.

Posted: **Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:56 pm**

Off the top of my head, that design is horrible for expanding and scaling.
If you add even one train that's longer than your buffer blocks, you have to retrofit *all* your buffer blocks to be long enough, or you've just backed up all the trains that use the intersection behind that train.

In the example setup, you literally can't support trains more than one engine and one cargo wagon/engine without blocking one of the intersections.
The only way to prevent that is to make the buffers bigger, and a) you might not have the space to expand into, or b) you just signed up for remaking every intersection you're going to use.

With most of the more viable designs, you lay it once, and it's done until you either start on an entirely different magnitude of trains, (as in those 10 cargo wagon trains that you see on some extra-long games,) or decide to add an entirely new rail line.

So while this design would work for a couple short trains, it's horribly inefficient at best for anything larger.
And if you're only using a couple trains, then you might as well build a separate rail line for each of them, eliminating the need for buffers, or even signals.

I do agree that it's much better to post a screenshot than a blueprint string when trying to show a clever build.

(to be clear, I'm not being malicious/troll-y/etc.)

Factorio Forums

Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds

Re: Let's see your clever builds