Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
To see why you need this, imagine that you are a bus driver, driving circles A -> B -> C -> A ...
You always drive at max speed. I am in the bus, and have measured that each leg takes 10 minutes exactly.
So far so good. You drive around, and arrive everywhere exactly on time.
Now suppose we add a depot between A and B. It takes 1 minute exactly to service the bus. To keep things simple, assume servicing is done every time we drive A -> B (if not, it takes longer to run into trouble, but the end result is the same).
In this situation, A -> B takes 11 minutes instead of 10. However, I didn't measure it again, and still use 10 minutes time for each leg.
In my book, you arrive 1 minute too late at B. Since you are already driving at max speed, you cannot increase speed to catch up, and thus you will also arrive 1 minute late at B, and similarly at C and at A.
The second round of A-> B, you're going to be 2 minutes late at B. With no way to catch up, you stay 2 minutes late.
Pretty soon my times are completely useless.
What happens here is that any second you loose is not recoverable. The time table doesn't account for it.
The solution is pretty simple, add some duration to each leg (eg 10.5 minutes for each leg). If we are ahead of time, we wait until the right moment to leave has arrived. If we are late, we leave as soon as possible.
Since you driving at max speed makes us arrive early, eventually we will catch up again (unless we stop at another depot of course).
I don't know if depot servicing on route is common, probably not. Most people prefer to play without breakdown. I do play with breakdown and servicing enabled, as I like the additional challenge that it brings. As you found out, precise timing isn't possible any more (with just servicing already, with enabled breakdowns it gets worse). You have to build additional tracks and platforms to handle lack of predictable arrival times.
Decide whether you like a challenge, and play accordingly
Maybe I hadn't elaborated enough there. Let's say a fleet of my trains calls at stations A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and lastly H; on the return leg, the order of called at stations is simply reversed. Yet from A to B and from H to G are single Go-to-nearest-depot orders (X), i.e., A X B C D E F G H, then H X G F E D C B A. My (our?) problem is that the trains will immediately respond to their servicing needs wherever they be along their routes, which invalidates any utility/usefulness to there existing a Go-to-nearest-depot order. You see, ordering which depot a train must call at bears no problem, but letting a train circumstantially select which 1 of the huddled 2, 3 or even 4 nearby depots to call at has so far been both completely useless and MEDDLESOME (grrrrr), because my trains will go, e.g., ..D X E.., ..C X B.., etc., etc., which more often involves lengthy and awkward detours.
I've used this method successfully for 4-horse mail wagons running on shared orders and shared timetables from 1700, and they'll run flawlessly for more than 200 years, until they are replaced by automobiles. But like Alberth says, you need to give your vehicles some slack to enable them to catch up with the timetable. I'll usually give them 4 days on each station rather than the default 1 day; they'll shorten that interval (and still take all available cargo) if they're late.
By the way, members' fixations on horses & wagons fascinates me, and so I'm now resolving to try them out myself in my next map.
this behaviour is wrong. you should provide a savegame that shows this and open a bug report.trainrover wrote:My (our?) problem is that the trains will immediately respond to their servicing needs wherever they be along their routes, which invalidates any utility/usefulness to there existing a Go-to-nearest-depot order.
- Valey Daley Axes, 29th Aug 2251.png
- (509.06 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests