Hmm.. thorny problem:
I'm running a "working-things-out" scenario, in which I've got a seven
platform station with access only via one end ( it's in the middle of
a city ). No matter what I try I can't seem to design the approaches
well enough to prevent huge tailbacks ( the game's about 30 years in,
so it's just starting to be a problem ). What's the favoured design
in this situation?
Thnx,
Si.
Station approach design
-
Chris Doherty
Re: Station approach design
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Count Dastardly wrote:
| Hmm.. thorny problem:
|
| I'm running a "working-things-out" scenario, in which I've got a seven
| platform station with access only via one end ( it's in the middle of
| a city ). No matter what I try I can't seem to design the approaches
| well enough to prevent huge tailbacks ( the game's about 30 years in,
| so it's just starting to be a problem ). What's the favoured design
| in this situation?
this is going to be the premise of the challenge i'm going to post in a couple
of days, provided people are interested that is. dealing with a ___HUGE___
amount of backed up trains. money shouldn't be a problem, just laying out the
track in a way that alleviates the pressure of over 50* trains trying to get
onto a 4 platform station. >:)
i've worked a solution and i don't know how much better i can get it, and
there's usually about 15 trains lining up or on overflow tracks. i'll be
interested to see what you guys can come up with.
* this figure is subject to change as it's from memory, so i can't actually
check.
Count,
FWIW, i don't know if you will be able to improve the throughput of this
station without making it RO-RO, which you've already stated can't be
done. Are you using dual-tracks?
| Hmm.. thorny problem:
|
| I'm running a "working-things-out" scenario, in which I've got a seven
| platform station with access only via one end ( it's in the middle of
| a city ). No matter what I try I can't seem to design the approaches
| well enough to prevent huge tailbacks ( the game's about 30 years in,
| so it's just starting to be a problem ). What's the favoured design
| in this situation?
this is going to be the premise of the challenge i'm going to post in a couple
of days, provided people are interested that is. dealing with a ___HUGE___
amount of backed up trains. money shouldn't be a problem, just laying out the
track in a way that alleviates the pressure of over 50* trains trying to get
onto a 4 platform station. >:)
i've worked a solution and i don't know how much better i can get it, and
there's usually about 15 trains lining up or on overflow tracks. i'll be
interested to see what you guys can come up with.
* this figure is subject to change as it's from memory, so i can't actually
check.
Count,
FWIW, i don't know if you will be able to improve the throughput of this
station without making it RO-RO, which you've already stated can't be
done. Are you using dual-tracks?
-
Count Dastardly
Re: Station approach design
Chris Doherty wrote:
space ).
I can't seem to get away from the "funnel" problem. It'd be nice if the
game had proper routeing ala A-Train...
Si.
Three in, two out, narrowing down to two at the crossover point( noCount,
FWIW, i don't know if you will be able to improve the throughput of this
station without making it RO-RO, which you've already stated can't be
done. Are you using dual-tracks?
space ).
I can't seem to get away from the "funnel" problem. It'd be nice if the
game had proper routeing ala A-Train...
Si.
-
Steve
Re: Station approach design
Have you tried building tunnels?
You lower two triangles of land and build a tunnel out (lowering two other
points where you want it to come out) and then you can have a more expansive
route out there.
-----STEVE!-----
"I need a better sig." -Me
You lower two triangles of land and build a tunnel out (lowering two other
points where you want it to come out) and then you can have a more expansive
route out there.
-----STEVE!-----
"I need a better sig." -Me
-
Chris Doherty
Re: Station approach design
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Dan Ros wrote:
| >track in a way that alleviates the pressure of over 50* trains trying to get
| >onto a 4 platform station. >:)
|
| Ooh goody!
I'll look forward to that.
|
| But - wouldnt the simplest solution be to build another station and
| route some trains there instead?
of course, but where's the challenge in that?
| >track in a way that alleviates the pressure of over 50* trains trying to get
| >onto a 4 platform station. >:)
|
| Ooh goody!
I'll look forward to that.|
| But - wouldnt the simplest solution be to build another station and
| route some trains there instead?
of course, but where's the challenge in that?
-
Chris Doherty
Re: Station approach design
On 23 Nov 1999, Steve wrote:
| Have you tried building tunnels?
|
| You lower two triangles of land and build a tunnel out (lowering two other
| points where you want it to come out) and then you can have a more expansive
| route out there.
if you build a tunnel where 'the other end' of it doesn't have a nice flat
face to come out of (but a pointy one), the game will smooth it for you when
you build the tunnel.
| Have you tried building tunnels?
|
| You lower two triangles of land and build a tunnel out (lowering two other
| points where you want it to come out) and then you can have a more expansive
| route out there.
if you build a tunnel where 'the other end' of it doesn't have a nice flat
face to come out of (but a pointy one), the game will smooth it for you when
you build the tunnel.
-
Adrian Savage
Re: Station approach design
Count Dastardly <dastar...@sux.net> wrote in message
news:383A228B.DA5442D0@sux.net...
-----A>--++++++--B>\-<>C---D>------E>/\<>2=========
---<P----<O/-<K-\ \<>F---G>------H>\/<>3=========
\---------<J------<I/\<>4=========
IMPORTANT NOTE: Station *throat* multiplex is split (i.e. not all one
block)-
The two separate multiplex blocks are L12E and H34I.
This is a technique similar to that used by real railways on the approach to
busy terminal stations. The concept is to split a large station into a
number of smaller platform groups, each with their own approach and
departure tracks; conflict in the *throat* area is thus reduced with more
*parallel* movements available at the same time.
An incoming train climbs over exit track LMNO on a bridge, then waits at
pre-signal B until either C or F shows green. The train takes the clear
track and proceeds into the appropriate half of the station.
Note that a move into platform 1 or 2 can be made at the same time as
another movement takes place in or out of platform 3 or 4. After *commercial
activities* have been completed, the train departs the station on the
appropriate exit track.
The layout shown above shows two tracks widening to four for one (max.)
train's length on the approach to a four-track terminal. The concept can be
extended to incorporate:
More platforms (in total or per group)
More separate approach tracks
Longer approach tracks
Why so many signals?
The approach tracks CDE and FGH shown above can only hold one *full-length*
train each. What are the intermediate signals D and G for? I hear you ask.
These ensure that when trains are waiting on both lines for a free platform,
the first one that starts moving will clear the pre-signal B as soon as
possible thus enabling subsequent trains to shuffle up close behind.
On the departure tracks additional signals M and J also create a first block
less than train length. This is so that by the time the second of two
closely-departing trains has struggled into motion and across the multiplex,
the first block beyond is clear, thus preventing stoppage over the critical
multiplex block; we can assume that (most of the time) the previous train
will have accelerated clear of the subsequent long block by the time the
front of the second train has reached the signal at the end of first block.
Assumptions: Maximum train length 5 squares
TTDPATCH with pre-signals enabled
Tips for Best Performance:
This type of station always works well with many trains where they unload
only. If some trains load here as well they shouldn't wait for a full load
unless plenty of traffic is always on offer, in which case *full load* is a
bit academic.
Key to Diagram:
STRUCTURES
++++++ bridge including ramps (three squares long)
note: may obscure a *vertical* element below
-)..(- tunnel(three squares long)
TRACK
-- or || plain track orthogonal
/ or \ plain track diagonal
/- left-hand turnout
\- right-hand turnout
\/
/\ scissors crossover (e.g. station throat
multiplex)
== platform track
SIGNALS (Identities (ID) shown as required for reference)
X> one-way signal with ID (L>R)
<Y one way signal with ID (R>L)
<>Z two-way signal with ID
Hope this is of some help Tycooners
Mark Townend
news:383A228B.DA5442D0@sux.net...
/<N------------<M------<L\/<>1=========Hmm.. thorny problem:
I'm running a "working-things-out" scenario, in which I've got a seven
platform station with access only via one end ( it's in the middle of
a city ). No matter what I try I can't seem to design the approaches
well enough to prevent huge tailbacks ( the game's about 30 years in,
so it's just starting to be a problem ). What's the favoured design
in this situation?
Thnx,
Si.
Here's an Idea (view fixed-width):
-----A>--++++++--B>\-<>C---D>------E>/\<>2=========
---<P----<O/-<K-\ \<>F---G>------H>\/<>3=========
\---------<J------<I/\<>4=========
IMPORTANT NOTE: Station *throat* multiplex is split (i.e. not all one
block)-
The two separate multiplex blocks are L12E and H34I.
This is a technique similar to that used by real railways on the approach to
busy terminal stations. The concept is to split a large station into a
number of smaller platform groups, each with their own approach and
departure tracks; conflict in the *throat* area is thus reduced with more
*parallel* movements available at the same time.
An incoming train climbs over exit track LMNO on a bridge, then waits at
pre-signal B until either C or F shows green. The train takes the clear
track and proceeds into the appropriate half of the station.
Note that a move into platform 1 or 2 can be made at the same time as
another movement takes place in or out of platform 3 or 4. After *commercial
activities* have been completed, the train departs the station on the
appropriate exit track.
The layout shown above shows two tracks widening to four for one (max.)
train's length on the approach to a four-track terminal. The concept can be
extended to incorporate:
More platforms (in total or per group)
More separate approach tracks
Longer approach tracks
Why so many signals?
The approach tracks CDE and FGH shown above can only hold one *full-length*
train each. What are the intermediate signals D and G for? I hear you ask.
These ensure that when trains are waiting on both lines for a free platform,
the first one that starts moving will clear the pre-signal B as soon as
possible thus enabling subsequent trains to shuffle up close behind.
On the departure tracks additional signals M and J also create a first block
less than train length. This is so that by the time the second of two
closely-departing trains has struggled into motion and across the multiplex,
the first block beyond is clear, thus preventing stoppage over the critical
multiplex block; we can assume that (most of the time) the previous train
will have accelerated clear of the subsequent long block by the time the
front of the second train has reached the signal at the end of first block.
Assumptions: Maximum train length 5 squares
TTDPATCH with pre-signals enabled
Tips for Best Performance:
This type of station always works well with many trains where they unload
only. If some trains load here as well they shouldn't wait for a full load
unless plenty of traffic is always on offer, in which case *full load* is a
bit academic.
Key to Diagram:
STRUCTURES
++++++ bridge including ramps (three squares long)
note: may obscure a *vertical* element below
-)..(- tunnel(three squares long)
TRACK
-- or || plain track orthogonal
/ or \ plain track diagonal
/- left-hand turnout
\- right-hand turnout
\/
/\ scissors crossover (e.g. station throat
multiplex)
== platform track
SIGNALS (Identities (ID) shown as required for reference)
X> one-way signal with ID (L>R)
<Y one way signal with ID (R>L)
<>Z two-way signal with ID
Hope this is of some help Tycooners
Mark Townend
-
Adrian Savage
Re: Station approach design
Chris Doherty <xbl...@smug.adelaide.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.991123193749.8367B-100000@mulder.smug.adelaide.edu.au...
-----A>--++++++--B>\-<>C---D>------E>/\<>2=========
---<P----<O/-<K-\ \<>F---G>------H>\/<>3=========
\---------<J------<I/\<>4=========
IMPORTANT NOTE: Station throat multiplex is split (i.e. not all one block)-
The two separate multiplex blocks are L12E and H34I.
This is a technique similar to that used by real railways on the approach to
busy terminal stations. The concept is to split a large station into a
number of smaller platform groups, each with their own approach and
departure tracks; conflict in the throat area is thus reduced with more
*parallel* movements available at the same time.
An incoming train climbs over exit track LMNO on a bridge, then waits at
pre-signal B until either C or F shows green. The train takes the clear
track and proceeds into the appropriate half of the station.
Note that a move into platform 1 or 2 can be made at the same time as
another movement takes place in or out of platform 3 or 4. After commercial
activities have been completed, the train departs the station on the
appropriate exit track.
The layout shown above shows two tracks widening to four for one(max.)
train's length on the approach to a four-track terminal. The concept can be
extended to incorporate:
More platforms (in total or per group)
More separate approach tracks
Longer approach tracks
WHY SO MANY SIGNALS?
The approach tracks CDE and FGH shown above can only hold one *full-length*
train each. What are the intermediate signals D and G for? I hear you ask.
These ensure that when trains are waiting on both lines for a free platform,
the first one that starts moving will clear the pre-signal B as soon
aspossible thus enabling subsequent trains to 'shuffle up' close behind.
On the departure tracks additional signals M and J also create a first block
less than train length. This is so that by the time the second of two
closely-departing trains has struggled into motion and across the multiplex,
the first block beyond is clear, thus preventing stoppage over the critical
multiplex block; we can assume that (most of the time) the previous train
will have accelerated clear of the subsequent long block by the time the
front of the second train has reached the signal at the end of shorter first
block.
Assumptions: Maximum train length 5 squares
TTDPATCH used with *pre-signals* enabled
Tips for Best Performance:
This type of station always works well with many trains where they unload
only. If some trains load here as well they shouldn't wait for a full load
unless plenty of traffic is always on offer,in which case *full load* is a
bit academic.
Key to Diagram:
STRUCTURES
++++++ bridge including ramps (three squares long)
note: may obscure a *vertical* track element
below
-)..(- tunnel(three squares long)
TRACK
-- or || plain track orthogonal
/ or \ plain track diagonal
/- left-hand turnout
\- right-hand turnout
\/
/\ *scissors* crossover (e.g. station throat
multiplex)
== platform track
SIGNALS (Identities (ID) shown as required for reference)
X> one-way signal with ID (L>R)
<Y one way signal with ID (R>L)
<>Z two-way signal with ID
Hope this is of some help
Mark Townend
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.991123193749.8367B-100000@mulder.smug.adelaide.edu.au...
/<N------------<M------<L\/<>1=========On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Count Dastardly wrote:
| Hmm.. thorny problem:
|
| I'm running a "working-things-out" scenario, in which I've got a seven
| platform station with access only via one end ( it's in the middle of
| a city ). No matter what I try I can't seem to design the approaches
| well enough to prevent huge tailbacks ( the game's about 30 years in,
| so it's just starting to be a problem ). What's the favoured design
| in this situation?
this is going to be the premise of the challenge i'm going to post in a
couple
of days, provided people are interested that is. dealing with a
___HUGE___
amount of backed up trains. money shouldn't be a problem, just laying out
the
track in a way that alleviates the pressure of over 50* trains trying to
get
onto a 4 platform station. >:)
i've worked a solution and i don't know how much better i can get it, and
there's usually about 15 trains lining up or on overflow tracks. i'll be
interested to see what you guys can come up with.
* this figure is subject to change as it's from memory, so i can't
actually
check.
Count,
FWIW, i don't know if you will be able to improve the throughput of
this
station without making it RO-RO, which you've already stated can't be
done. Are you using dual-tracks?
Here's an Idea (view fixed-width):
-----A>--++++++--B>\-<>C---D>------E>/\<>2=========
---<P----<O/-<K-\ \<>F---G>------H>\/<>3=========
\---------<J------<I/\<>4=========
IMPORTANT NOTE: Station throat multiplex is split (i.e. not all one block)-
The two separate multiplex blocks are L12E and H34I.
This is a technique similar to that used by real railways on the approach to
busy terminal stations. The concept is to split a large station into a
number of smaller platform groups, each with their own approach and
departure tracks; conflict in the throat area is thus reduced with more
*parallel* movements available at the same time.
An incoming train climbs over exit track LMNO on a bridge, then waits at
pre-signal B until either C or F shows green. The train takes the clear
track and proceeds into the appropriate half of the station.
Note that a move into platform 1 or 2 can be made at the same time as
another movement takes place in or out of platform 3 or 4. After commercial
activities have been completed, the train departs the station on the
appropriate exit track.
The layout shown above shows two tracks widening to four for one(max.)
train's length on the approach to a four-track terminal. The concept can be
extended to incorporate:
More platforms (in total or per group)
More separate approach tracks
Longer approach tracks
WHY SO MANY SIGNALS?
The approach tracks CDE and FGH shown above can only hold one *full-length*
train each. What are the intermediate signals D and G for? I hear you ask.
These ensure that when trains are waiting on both lines for a free platform,
the first one that starts moving will clear the pre-signal B as soon
aspossible thus enabling subsequent trains to 'shuffle up' close behind.
On the departure tracks additional signals M and J also create a first block
less than train length. This is so that by the time the second of two
closely-departing trains has struggled into motion and across the multiplex,
the first block beyond is clear, thus preventing stoppage over the critical
multiplex block; we can assume that (most of the time) the previous train
will have accelerated clear of the subsequent long block by the time the
front of the second train has reached the signal at the end of shorter first
block.
Assumptions: Maximum train length 5 squares
TTDPATCH used with *pre-signals* enabled
Tips for Best Performance:
This type of station always works well with many trains where they unload
only. If some trains load here as well they shouldn't wait for a full load
unless plenty of traffic is always on offer,in which case *full load* is a
bit academic.
Key to Diagram:
STRUCTURES
++++++ bridge including ramps (three squares long)
note: may obscure a *vertical* track element
below
-)..(- tunnel(three squares long)
TRACK
-- or || plain track orthogonal
/ or \ plain track diagonal
/- left-hand turnout
\- right-hand turnout
\/
/\ *scissors* crossover (e.g. station throat
multiplex)
== platform track
SIGNALS (Identities (ID) shown as required for reference)
X> one-way signal with ID (L>R)
<Y one way signal with ID (R>L)
<>Z two-way signal with ID
Hope this is of some help
Mark Townend
-
Bill Hayles
Re: Station approach design
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:11:53 +0000, Count Dastardly <dastar...@sux.net>
wrote:
think of it as an improvement, not a cheat, as it reflects real practice
more accurately than the original. If I'm playing without the cheat, I
always make the platform the funnel - i.e. one line in, with closely
spaced signals to hold the stack, and one line out for each platform,
but the platforms not interconnected with each other.
El inglés loco
The mad Englishman of Benitachell
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es
wrote:
This is where Joseph's presignals option really comes into its own. IChris Doherty wrote:
Count,
FWIW, i don't know if you will be able to improve the throughput of this
station without making it RO-RO, which you've already stated can't be
done. Are you using dual-tracks?
Three in, two out, narrowing down to two at the crossover point( no
space ).
I can't seem to get away from the "funnel" problem. It'd be nice if the
game had proper routeing ala A-Train...
think of it as an improvement, not a cheat, as it reflects real practice
more accurately than the original. If I'm playing without the cheat, I
always make the platform the funnel - i.e. one line in, with closely
spaced signals to hold the stack, and one line out for each platform,
but the platforms not interconnected with each other.
El inglés loco
The mad Englishman of Benitachell
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es
-
Steve
Re: Station approach design
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.991123221442.9496G-100...@mulder.smug.adelaide.edu.au>, Chris
Doherty <xbl...@smug.adelaide.edu.au> writes:
-----STEVE!-----
"I need a better sig." -Me
<Pine.GSO.3.96.991123221442.9496G-100...@mulder.smug.adelaide.edu.au>, Chris
Doherty <xbl...@smug.adelaide.edu.au> writes:
Yes, I know... but you might get a 100 square long tunnel!if you build a tunnel where 'the other end' of it doesn't have a nice flat
face to come out of (but a pointy one), the game will smooth it for you when
you build the tunnel.
-----STEVE!-----
"I need a better sig." -Me
-
Anthony Houghton
Re: Station approach design
Count Dastardly <dastar...@sux.net> wrote in message
news:383A6869.A0F4261C@sux.net...
1) Make sure that the entrances to the two exit routes are
protected by two-way signals, and the far ends by one way (but
you knew that didn't you),
2) Make sure that none of your trains are set to load; in this
situation clearing the platforms quickly is more important than
high loading.
3) If there is no room for a second station, think about building
a factory (or whatever) somewhere else, and diverting some of
your trains to it. There's a limit to what can be achieved even
with the best layout.
--
Ant
news:383A6869.A0F4261C@sux.net...
Three things you could try.FWIW, i don't know if you will be able to improve the
throughput of this
station without making it RO-RO, which you've already stated
can't be
done. Are you using dual-tracks?
Three in, two out, narrowing down to two at the crossover
point( no
space ).
I can't seem to get away from the "funnel" problem. It'd be
nice if the
game had proper routeing ala A-Train...
1) Make sure that the entrances to the two exit routes are
protected by two-way signals, and the far ends by one way (but
you knew that didn't you),
2) Make sure that none of your trains are set to load; in this
situation clearing the platforms quickly is more important than
high loading.
3) If there is no room for a second station, think about building
a factory (or whatever) somewhere else, and diverting some of
your trains to it. There's a limit to what can be achieved even
with the best layout.
--
Ant
-
Anthony Houghton
Re: Station approach design
Adrian Savage <113102.1...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:81eium$enq$1@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
--
Ant
news:81eium$enq$1@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Hmmm. Ingenious. But who is Adrian Savage?Hope this is of some help
Mark Townend
--
Ant
-
Chris Doherty
Re: Station approach design
On 23 Nov 1999, Steve wrote:
| >if you build a tunnel where 'the other end' of it doesn't have a nice flat
| >face to come out of (but a pointy one), the game will smooth it for you when
| >you build the tunnel.
|
| Yes, I know... but you might get a 100 square long tunnel!
that's what the zoom feature is for
| >if you build a tunnel where 'the other end' of it doesn't have a nice flat
| >face to come out of (but a pointy one), the game will smooth it for you when
| >you build the tunnel.
|
| Yes, I know... but you might get a 100 square long tunnel!
that's what the zoom feature is for
-
Tomdebom9
Re: Station approach design
In article <383A228B.DA544...@sux.net>, Count Dastardly <dastar...@sux.net>
writes:
busses and truck depots in the town so that you have more access to the station
writes:
try the cheat where you move the station out of the town but keep a airport andHmm.. thorny problem:
I'm running a "working-things-out" scenario, in which I've got a seven
platform station with access only via one end ( it's in the middle of
a city ). No matter what I try I can't seem to design the approaches
well enough to prevent huge tailbacks ( the game's about 30 years in,
so it's just starting to be a problem ). What's the favoured design
in this situation?
Thnx,
Si.
busses and truck depots in the town so that you have more access to the station
-
Boudewijn
Re: Station approach design
Adrian Savage <113102.1...@compuserve.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
81eium$en...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
81eium$en...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Wow!...
Hope this is of some help
Mark Townend
-
Adrian Savage
Re: Station approach design
Anthony Houghton <a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:383b2981$1$7554@znews.zetnet.co.uk...
news:383b2981$1$7554@znews.zetnet.co.uk...
Mark Townend (lurker until recently)Adrian Savage <113102.1...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:81eium$enq$1@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Hope this is of some help
Mark Townend
Hmmm. Ingenious. But who is Adrian Savage?
--
Ant
Adrian Savage is a friend and business partner (with newsgroup access)
-
Anthony Houghton
Re: Station approach design
Adrian Savage <113102.1...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:81kaun$81v$1@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
--
Ant
news:81kaun$81v$1@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Welcome to the group, MarkMark Townend (lurker until recently)
--
Ant
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests