Factorio Forums

1-3. Why?
1-1 or 1-2 gives you many small trains, and that means a higher risk of Jams.
Everything above 1-3 seems too large for smaller outposts.
It IS a bit slow on the acceleration, but thats ok.
I thought about going double-sided, but a 1-3-1 is definitely too slow and everything else becomes MUCH larger (something you also have to consider in Block Size, so they dont block easily) so the space i save at the ends ill need everywhere else.

Ohz wrote:

OdinYggd wrote:2-8-2-8-2

What is the difference between 2_8_2_8_2 and 6_16 ?

Engine placement .

But, more seriously, it is. It would change station designs (I don't know if they have a special station design for that type of train that makes use of the fact that they don't have to unload the middle).

In my last game (railworld, specialized factories) I mostly use 1-4 for ores, plates, circuits, etc. 1-3 for oil. Still have a few 1-2-1 (bi) running around to keep my bootstrap base alive. Then I have a 1-5-1 for FARL and several 1-1-1 with various cargos for building new outposts with different purposes (mining, oil, factory).

My railnetwork is 3 tracks (with the junctions built for 5 tracks upgrading later). The outer tracks are regular up/down traffic, the center track is for my personal transport, so it doesn't get stuck behind the slow cargo transports.

Ohz wrote:

OdinYggd wrote:2-8-2-8-2

What is the difference between 2_8_2_8_2 and 6_16 ?

At a guess - with this setup you can put another station in the reverse direction and everything will work just fine without any changes.

Why would anyone need that is another matter entirely.

At a guess - with this setup you can put another station in the reverse direction and everything will work just fine without any changes.

One could also go with 3-16-3.

Why would anyone need that is another matter entirely.

I dont know, any base that needs trains that size also needs a CPU that is currently unavailible to humanity (since Factorio only runs on x86-64 and doesnt multithread that statement might even be true).
Unless of course there is some weird single-train-multi-stop-multiple-load stuff going on.

i'm convinced some people use large trains just so they can say 'i use 4:16:4 trains" *grunt *grunt *grunt *pounds chest

I just use 1-2-1 or 1-1-Tank-1-1 bidirectionals, i havent ever made supermegabase and i play only with angelbob mods so i have better locos/wagons and need for fluids at mines.
For my "heavylifting" i just go with 1-4-1, or tank in middle.

1-2-1-2, one way.

Keeps speed high, and the distributed engines allow me to do some pretty neat blueprints for furnaces and such.

I have mostly used 1-4. working with belts in groups of 4 works pretty well, so one-belt-per-car station design fits in with that. I'm beginning to reach a point where longer trains might make sense, but so much of my infrastructure is built for 1-4 trains that I'm reluctant to change.

I use 1-4; Each side of the cargo wagons offloads onto a single side of a belt, and opposite sides merge to give 4 full output belts, my trains all run on a dual lane system and the loopbacks have signals set so it's practically impossible for them to get blocked by other trains. Usually the only thing that causes train jams is running out of fuel, which only happens if I forget to put more fuel in; before I get bots up and running to fill the fuel chests automatically.

2-5-2 Ore Trains
2-4-2 Plate Trains
1-2-1 Circuit / Module Trains

My Setup:

Early Ore Train: 1-5-1 (Biderection) Ore-Ore-Supply-Ore-Ore
Later Ore Train: 4-8 (Onedirection) First waggon also contain supply.

Larger Trains are easier to controll.

Almost no one is specifying whether their 1-2-1 are bi-directional or uni-directional.

Maybe we should start calling them 1<2<1 vs 1<2>1? This would also allow you to specify 1<2 as a "normal" train and 1>2 as a pusher train? Or would that be 2<1 and then we don't have a way to specify a two-loco one-car pull-style train? This is hard...

How about <1-2<1 and <1-2-1>?

My last save used 2-4-2. I've used 1-2 in my first few playthoughs because of Bentham's influence. I want to upgrade to larger trains sometime in the future, but that's for another time.

My preference is as long as possible. In free play I suppress this inclination, but in sandbox maps I let loose.
My current best is 28-406, but I'm in the midst of preparations on a narrow-focus sandbox 4 tall ribbon world for the testing of a 777-7777. For a start.
I'm fully expecting it to crush my performance, but I'm really hoping that it won't crash my map.

Baile nam Fonn wrote:4 tall ribbon world for the testing of a 777-7777.

What will your train do once it arrives at the end of the track ? U-turns will ne problematic on a 4 tile wide ribbon .

Koub wrote:

Baile nam Fonn wrote:4 tall ribbon world for the testing of a 777-7777.

What will your train do once it arrives at the end of the track ? U-turns will ne problematic on a 4 tile wide ribbon .

I don't expect it will reach the end of the track. It should run out of fuel first. After making some notes for science, I'll mine it and proceed to the next test. Assuming that the game hasn't crashed before then, of course.

impetus maximus wrote:i'm convinced some people use large trains just so they can say 'i use 4:16:4 trains" *grunt *grunt *grunt *pounds chest

But 4-16-4 are tiny though...
*grunt*

Seriously though I actually need extremely large trains to support my oversized rocket factory. Which will definitly be completed someday in the future...

Baile nam Fonn wrote:My preference is as long as possible. In free play I suppress this inclination, but in sandbox maps I let loose.
My current best is 28-406, but I'm in the midst of preparations on a narrow-focus sandbox 4 tall ribbon world for the testing of a 777-7777. For a start.
I'm fully expecting it to crush my performance, but I'm really hoping that it won't crash my map.

I like this guy!

What are the largest trains you actually use for automated long term logistics and not just build-fuel-<run on test track>-mine?

Qon wrote:What are the largest trains you actually use for automated long term logistics and not just build-fuel-<run on test track>-mine?

Upon a minute or two of extra consideration, I opted for a reload of a starting line save instead of picking up a train that couldn't fit into a single inventory and flying back over a track that takes no less than 2 hours to traverse.

Here's where I have to blush, though: automated logistic use? 1-1. I'm serious. I've never launched a rocket, since I tend to run off after a newer, crazier factory idea long before that happens.
For my current freeplay factory, only train buffer will be used, for everything. The map settings are punishing too. I've discovered only 1 coal deposit outside of the starting area; it's only large enough to employ 8 miners, with a base yield of 27k.
It's connected to my starting area by a thin line of more than 1k rails.
My planned longest train consists of a single locomotive pulling a single cargo wagon followed by two fluid wagons.

Baile nam Fonn wrote:

Qon wrote:What are the largest trains you actually use for automated long term logistics and not just build-fuel-<run on test track>-mine?

Here's where I have to blush, though: automated logistic use? 1-1.

I don't even...

You could only go smaller if you transported the coal in the locomotives fuel slot without any wagons!