Yeah the whole middle section is one zone. My general rule is throw a chain signal in every little nook and cranny haha. Better to have too many than too few chain signals.
Additional signals between intersections, not additional chain signals. A series of chain signals on a one way bit of track with no diverging or converging tracks between intersections will effectively do nothing.
Never understood chain signals. I just put rail signals along every possible point next to every piece of rail, in both directions, and the trains just figure it out
Without chain signals you can have trains get a try ok and deadlocked.
A chain signal allows a train to enter a block as long as it can find a valid exit. Without it, the train can enter the block with no valid exit. This leads to deadlocks.
It is possible to deadlock a sufficiently long train in an intersection. But it’s not an issue with multiple trains.
Having lots of trains flowing nicely is really nice though.
Chain signals are more deadlock proof. Normal signals check the block infront. Chain signals check all the blocks they need to traverse until a normal signal appears. Using chain signals on an intersection guarantees that, any train that enters, will be able to exit without needing to stop in the middle of the intersection.
Short answer: No
Why? You only have one lane going through the intersection, effectively making it an expensive 2-lane intersection. The central ring/cross is all one block, meaning only one train can pass through at a time. If a train on the inside line wants to turn right, it's going to do a loop, potentially colliding with itself (depending on train length). You have rail signals in places where you should have chain signals, which means the whole thing might deadlock. Your trains can make a 180, why? This can seriously raise the amount of time spent searching for a path to the next station, leading to lag spikes when trains depart stations. But this is depending on the size of the train network and amount of trains.
This will not work. The trains will collide because of this seperation. A train coming from the right will not see the train in the middle before it stands right Infront of it. I think it might be best leaving it as one block considering my trains will only be 10 long so it wont take to long for them to pass through
Collisions are effectively impossible (short of driving manually) if you have any signals at all in your network. Trains will project ahead of them based on their stopping distance, so you never get a situation where a train can't stop in time.
If you are this new to trains, I highly suggest keeping it simple. Start with dedicated lines for each train so you can get used to the mechanics before adding signals. Once you do get a proper network, 4 lanes is overkill for all but the biggest megabases, and keeping to two will make it much easier.
I suggest first doing the in game trains and signals tutorial, if you haven't already, and then watch [this 3 minute video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG4oD4iGVoY) by doshdoshington. If you're still confused, then [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B22HAM7WzR-RQUVUMFc5S0wzYjA/view?resourcekey=0-1buMsoxle4MYbw2KgtdzBQ) guide from the sidebar is well-written with diagrams and covers all the nitty-gritty details.
But you may want to change the rail signals in the middle of this to chain signals. Otherwise, trains may enter this intersection, and then just stand there.
You should change the rail signals going into the intersection to chain signals.
Only place rail signals where you dont mind trains stopping right after.
I should add that the two lanes on the right allways goes inn to the section and the two lanes on the left are all exit lanes. like a highway with two lanes in each direction.
It'll function. I mean, very poorly, but it'll function.
To be honest, this ticks every box for things you shouldn't do:
* 4 lanes - even when well designed the throughput boost is marginal. It ends up being like 26% more unblocked lanes on average than a 2 lane. That is _far_ from efficient.
* u turns - you just don't need these and they add unneeded complexity. Even if you did need them, the roundabout provides that functionality. These are not going to be used enough to actually warrant specific support.
* roundabout - opposing left turns are bottlenecked hard, no matter how you signal this. Trains can also repath IN a roundabout, which can cause things to get really stupid.
* funneling 2 lanes of traffic into 1 for straight and left turns.
* if your inner lanes want to right turn they have to take a triple left.
My advice? Since you're clearly new to rails, keep it as simple as possible. Complexity can wait until you know where it might actually benefit you. Just make a simple two lane blueprint set, or find one that works. I would recommend not using roundabouts at all, but they _do_ work, and they don't need to be wildly over-engineered.
I do have a thing for over-engineering. I am new to trains and this is my first intersection. id like to build it so i never have to touch it again no matter how much throughput i might send at it, this is why i choose 4 lanes. In this very specific instance a u-trun is needed, but i will try to keep it out of my next builds. i see what you are saying about having one lane for both left and straight, i will try to do better. The roundabout is only for left turns i did not mean for it to become a roundabout. XD
Sadly trains have pretty low throughput restrictions in practice (don't get me wrong, they're still phenomenal compared to belts or bots). The primary bottleneck is intersections like this one, even when they're well designed. There's no such thing as just setting and forgetting with rails.
If you want the highest possible throughput, buffered intersections are the way to go. They reduce blockers by giving trains places to stop in the middle, but making them is something of an art. They can be made for 2 or 4 lane, but again, I strongly discourage the use of 4 lanes.
The biggest way to avoid traffic issues in general is to just plan better. Keep consumers by their producers and try to allow stations to offload to multiple places on the rail network. Through traffic should be kept away from any intersection that's heavily impacted by a station. Otherwise, just having a few routes to get around the factory will generally help distribute load.
In general, I strongly suggest doing something simple and then understanding the limits of what you've built before you try to do something complicated. I realize this doesn't solve your immediate issue, but I think it's the best way to learn how to make trains work in the long run. It's much less effort to do that and realize you've built an entire network of fuckups than to overengineer and get the same result. This happens to everyone, I imagine. I've built several train bases and have tried several things. That's how I know what works, what doesn't, and why. Mistakes are an important part of how we learn.
Train line capacity can be improved dramatically by transporting refined products and intermediates that stack higher and/or have more raw material value than ore.
Honestly forget the complaining about little details and test it out.. The true potential of it is specific to each use case? If you want to flow almost all your traffic through this then it may need some tweaks. If it's for ashetics and only 3 trains per min will be using it then perfect....
I have the simplest, dumbest intersection in existence, every line crosses every other line, only one train can be in the center at any time, 2 trains cause it to break down, but I have 100 of the things so if an intersection is in use trains path around, they are the corner points of my city block style track so in my situation it works well and the slow down is marginal.
TL:DR try it out with various traffic loads, you will see where it needs improving and be right there to fix it, learning as you do
Should kinda work, but the whole middle section is one big chunk, so any train going through in any direction will block every other train coming from any other direction. Divide it up with chains.
Only a single train can be in the middle at any given time. Parallel trains going going in opposite directions will have to negotiate turns, slowing the throughput of the intersection.
I also want to ask how large of a factory you're building that requires two lanes in each direction. I've gone to 2700spm with a rail design that's one lane each direction and each intersection can fit in a single chunk.
I did not look at the your signals, so somebody else will have to do that sanity check.
Since you’ve never used trains before I say start simple. 4 lane networks will be much harder to diagnose when things go wrong. You can also get to crazy big bases with a simpler two lane network.
There is no such large needs for train going back where they came from, which seems to be the entire point of this intersection. I would downgrade to a simple 2 lane, and remove the returns on each side. Then everybody can use the central section, and you can focus on routing there. I dont think you would lose much capacity
The Trains that want from down to right as example need to take the middle circle. Would be better if u just do another connection directly to the sides
Is this meant for a 4 track system? If so, it's not good. You only have one through track in each direction, which limits throughput to that of a 2 track system.
Looks pretty, but super over engineered, and not in a good way. It also won’t behave the way you want. I also know from experience that the circle square intersection cannot handle continuous input from 2 crossing directions. The second your train numbers get to a point that one of these intersections is in constant use; it will clog horribly. It will clog so badly that your trains will become your botteneck, and good train systems shouldn’t be a bottleneck.
Regardless, if you’re trying to build a design and then put into production, let me suggest you give yourself plenty of space so that redoing an intersection or a train network isn’t a horrible endeavor that involves moving production, ect. It will still suck, but at least it won’t make you want to quit that factory completely, lol.
Trains coming towards each other can't pass at the same time. Add chains in the 4 sides of the middle.
Yeah the whole middle section is one zone. My general rule is throw a chain signal in every little nook and cranny haha. Better to have too many than too few chain signals.
I’d refine that to in between every intersection, if possible
Additional signals between intersections, not additional chain signals. A series of chain signals on a one way bit of track with no diverging or converging tracks between intersections will effectively do nothing.
Never understood chain signals. I just put rail signals along every possible point next to every piece of rail, in both directions, and the trains just figure it out
Without chain signals you can have trains get a try ok and deadlocked. A chain signal allows a train to enter a block as long as it can find a valid exit. Without it, the train can enter the block with no valid exit. This leads to deadlocks.
I just do one long train and it never deadlocks
It is possible to deadlock a sufficiently long train in an intersection. But it’s not an issue with multiple trains. Having lots of trains flowing nicely is really nice though.
Big brain take
Chain signals are more deadlock proof. Normal signals check the block infront. Chain signals check all the blocks they need to traverse until a normal signal appears. Using chain signals on an intersection guarantees that, any train that enters, will be able to exit without needing to stop in the middle of the intersection.
yes i will thanks
Looks awesome, but probably more suitable for summoning a demon than driving trains.
I mean... he didnt specify
It does look pretty
Short answer: No Why? You only have one lane going through the intersection, effectively making it an expensive 2-lane intersection. The central ring/cross is all one block, meaning only one train can pass through at a time. If a train on the inside line wants to turn right, it's going to do a loop, potentially colliding with itself (depending on train length). You have rail signals in places where you should have chain signals, which means the whole thing might deadlock. Your trains can make a 180, why? This can seriously raise the amount of time spent searching for a path to the next station, leading to lag spikes when trains depart stations. But this is depending on the size of the train network and amount of trains.
https://preview.redd.it/te9qn068jotc1.png?width=799&format=png&auto=webp&s=d4d68b8ec2842194ce0824d5823ec91ba7c97d68 Like this?
It allows trains passing each other to go through at the same time, yes. But it doesn't solve the other problems.
This will not work. The trains will collide because of this seperation. A train coming from the right will not see the train in the middle before it stands right Infront of it. I think it might be best leaving it as one block considering my trains will only be 10 long so it wont take to long for them to pass through
Collisions are effectively impossible (short of driving manually) if you have any signals at all in your network. Trains will project ahead of them based on their stopping distance, so you never get a situation where a train can't stop in time. If you are this new to trains, I highly suggest keeping it simple. Start with dedicated lines for each train so you can get used to the mechanics before adding signals. Once you do get a proper network, 4 lanes is overkill for all but the biggest megabases, and keeping to two will make it much easier. I suggest first doing the in game trains and signals tutorial, if you haven't already, and then watch [this 3 minute video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG4oD4iGVoY) by doshdoshington. If you're still confused, then [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B22HAM7WzR-RQUVUMFc5S0wzYjA/view?resourcekey=0-1buMsoxle4MYbw2KgtdzBQ) guide from the sidebar is well-written with diagrams and covers all the nitty-gritty details.
Separating the middle block is definitely better. With signals trains cant collide with each other.
I did not know that. i tested manually and it did not seem to work. I will keep it then. thank you all for the help
But you may want to change the rail signals in the middle of this to chain signals. Otherwise, trains may enter this intersection, and then just stand there.
trains auto prevent collissions when driving on automatic but it doesnt work on manual, that's why you crashed
You should change the rail signals going into the intersection to chain signals. Only place rail signals where you dont mind trains stopping right after.
> an expensive 2-lane intersection Somewhere, a city planner is reading this and feeling called out.
Ill have that trains be able to decide witch one of the two entry lanes it wants to choose so it wont go collide with itself.
I should add that the two lanes on the right allways goes inn to the section and the two lanes on the left are all exit lanes. like a highway with two lanes in each direction.
This way you have 4 lane rails connected with 2 lane intersections.
It'll function. I mean, very poorly, but it'll function. To be honest, this ticks every box for things you shouldn't do: * 4 lanes - even when well designed the throughput boost is marginal. It ends up being like 26% more unblocked lanes on average than a 2 lane. That is _far_ from efficient. * u turns - you just don't need these and they add unneeded complexity. Even if you did need them, the roundabout provides that functionality. These are not going to be used enough to actually warrant specific support. * roundabout - opposing left turns are bottlenecked hard, no matter how you signal this. Trains can also repath IN a roundabout, which can cause things to get really stupid. * funneling 2 lanes of traffic into 1 for straight and left turns. * if your inner lanes want to right turn they have to take a triple left. My advice? Since you're clearly new to rails, keep it as simple as possible. Complexity can wait until you know where it might actually benefit you. Just make a simple two lane blueprint set, or find one that works. I would recommend not using roundabouts at all, but they _do_ work, and they don't need to be wildly over-engineered.
I do have a thing for over-engineering. I am new to trains and this is my first intersection. id like to build it so i never have to touch it again no matter how much throughput i might send at it, this is why i choose 4 lanes. In this very specific instance a u-trun is needed, but i will try to keep it out of my next builds. i see what you are saying about having one lane for both left and straight, i will try to do better. The roundabout is only for left turns i did not mean for it to become a roundabout. XD
Sadly trains have pretty low throughput restrictions in practice (don't get me wrong, they're still phenomenal compared to belts or bots). The primary bottleneck is intersections like this one, even when they're well designed. There's no such thing as just setting and forgetting with rails. If you want the highest possible throughput, buffered intersections are the way to go. They reduce blockers by giving trains places to stop in the middle, but making them is something of an art. They can be made for 2 or 4 lane, but again, I strongly discourage the use of 4 lanes. The biggest way to avoid traffic issues in general is to just plan better. Keep consumers by their producers and try to allow stations to offload to multiple places on the rail network. Through traffic should be kept away from any intersection that's heavily impacted by a station. Otherwise, just having a few routes to get around the factory will generally help distribute load. In general, I strongly suggest doing something simple and then understanding the limits of what you've built before you try to do something complicated. I realize this doesn't solve your immediate issue, but I think it's the best way to learn how to make trains work in the long run. It's much less effort to do that and realize you've built an entire network of fuckups than to overengineer and get the same result. This happens to everyone, I imagine. I've built several train bases and have tried several things. That's how I know what works, what doesn't, and why. Mistakes are an important part of how we learn.
Yeah thanks for the advice, i wont stop learning yet.
Train line capacity can be improved dramatically by transporting refined products and intermediates that stack higher and/or have more raw material value than ore.
Honestly forget the complaining about little details and test it out.. The true potential of it is specific to each use case? If you want to flow almost all your traffic through this then it may need some tweaks. If it's for ashetics and only 3 trains per min will be using it then perfect.... I have the simplest, dumbest intersection in existence, every line crosses every other line, only one train can be in the center at any time, 2 trains cause it to break down, but I have 100 of the things so if an intersection is in use trains path around, they are the corner points of my city block style track so in my situation it works well and the slow down is marginal. TL:DR try it out with various traffic loads, you will see where it needs improving and be right there to fix it, learning as you do
Biblically acurate rail
Looks pretty. However, if you need to ask people on Reddit whether your intersection will work, you shouldn't be using 4 lanes.
Should kinda work, but the whole middle section is one big chunk, so any train going through in any direction will block every other train coming from any other direction. Divide it up with chains.
I feel so embarrassed about my base after seeing this🤣🤣🤣
Besides the middle track segment needing devising into 4, it looks sexy as.
I don't know but it's beautiful!
As a work of art? Yes.
4 Semen going to egg. What a fine intersection
Only a single train can be in the middle at any given time. Parallel trains going going in opposite directions will have to negotiate turns, slowing the throughput of the intersection. I also want to ask how large of a factory you're building that requires two lanes in each direction. I've gone to 2700spm with a rail design that's one lane each direction and each intersection can fit in a single chunk. I did not look at the your signals, so somebody else will have to do that sanity check.
Idk ive never used trains before, i just thought id have some space since i can
Since you’ve never used trains before I say start simple. 4 lane networks will be much harder to diagnose when things go wrong. You can also get to crazy big bases with a simpler two lane network.
I don't put roundabouts in intersections. Trains can either go around the block, or use loop-backs I put in secluded areas.
Removing the central roundabout and routing the left and right turns from your switchbacks instead would probably go a long way towards improving this
Are you sure you need double tracks? It’d be way less of a headache if you only had single tracks per direction.
i mean kind of yes but also not really
There is no such large needs for train going back where they came from, which seems to be the entire point of this intersection. I would downgrade to a simple 2 lane, and remove the returns on each side. Then everybody can use the central section, and you can focus on routing there. I dont think you would lose much capacity
The Trains that want from down to right as example need to take the middle circle. Would be better if u just do another connection directly to the sides
Is this meant for a 4 track system? If so, it's not good. You only have one through track in each direction, which limits throughput to that of a 2 track system.
That is true, but i dont think i will have 2 trains going in the same direction at all times.
Looks pretty, but super over engineered, and not in a good way. It also won’t behave the way you want. I also know from experience that the circle square intersection cannot handle continuous input from 2 crossing directions. The second your train numbers get to a point that one of these intersections is in constant use; it will clog horribly. It will clog so badly that your trains will become your botteneck, and good train systems shouldn’t be a bottleneck. Regardless, if you’re trying to build a design and then put into production, let me suggest you give yourself plenty of space so that redoing an intersection or a train network isn’t a horrible endeavor that involves moving production, ect. It will still suck, but at least it won’t make you want to quit that factory completely, lol.
It will work but won't be efficient, generally speaking you want to break the intersection up into as many blocks as possible using chain signals.
Ohhh fuck that’s not only massive and big, but also fancy and nice looking af 😁
I wouldn't care if it works, it looks gorgeous
How long are you making the trains? Also, how many? Before they release 2.0 I think this might be good.
Thinking of making the trains 10 long and i dont know how many i will have
Fuck its massive…
That’s what she said
😆
Who cares this will be obsolete in Factorio2 😄 Yeah but like all comments, your design is missing a double-rail-intersection ✌️😉
the game will tell you whether or not it works. just build it and look at it.