Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
my current train network only contains trains that cycle between exactly two main stations—one per city. That means that a passenger who wants to travel from town A to town D has to switch trains in towns B and C. This allows me to fine-tune the number of trains between any two cities.
I’ve seen people who instead create train lines that connect multiple cities. While this is obviously more realistic, I wonder if this also has some in-game benefit. Do passengers, for instance, travel faster from A to D in such trains, supposing they still stop at B and C?
For the case of manual cargo distribution it’s obvious that the trains going through towns will dump all their passengers at any stop anyway, essentially mimicking the ‘one train—two towns’ approach, only with multiple train connections serviced by the same train. I’m interested in the case of symmetric or asymmetric cargo distribution.
Thank you for your time.
If you're just going to for most efficient, keep doing point-to-point routes.
thank you for your insight.
In addition to being more realistic, I can see one advantage of servicing multiple stations instead of only 2: passengers going from A to D would have to unload and re-load at station B, same at station C. Depending on your choice of rolling stock, this may take a while as trains always have to fully unload. Your trains therefore stay longer in stations, which reduces your stations' capacity.
In congested cities where station expansion isn't possible, this can have an impact on station throughput.
That's not true. If you give the train a "no unloading" order, it won't unload at that station.
This leads to an interesting way of using through trains. When there are two clusters of towns which are far apart from one another, you can build the station in every town and join them in a loop, allowing the trains to unload only at the first station of each cluster. A train would visit each of the closely spaced stations in sequence, picking up additional passengers, and unload them all in the other cluster.
Here's an example. Suppose there are towns A1 and A2 located next to each other, and towns B1 and B2 located at some distance from the first two. The set of train orders will look like this:
- Go non-stop to A1
- Go non-stop to A2 (no unloading)
- Go non-stop to B1
- Go non-stop to B2 (no unloading)
You say it yourself, this does not work with Cargodist...
Even though i should have mention it, my point was made in a Cargodist context. With no unloading, passengers won't reach their destination and it will mess everything up.
If you never unload passengers at a station, that station will never become eligible as a destination, and Cargodist will never send any passengers to it. This is proved by the fact that traditional feeder services work perfectly well with Cargodist.
Let me make this clear. The multiple pickup loop I have described in the previous post will work poorly with Cargodist not because passengers aren't unloaded at A2, but because some passengers that have been loaded at A2 will want to go to A1. These passengers will travel the long way through B1 and B2, taking up places and incurring late delivery penalties. Nevertheless, even those passengers will eventually reach their destinations.
P. S. It turns out I was wrong... Even though the feeder service does indeed work with Cargodist, the multiple pickup loop does not. Some passengers are scheduled to the stations like A2 and B2, on which the trains never unload. I believe this is a bug in the distribution algorithm.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests