Two tracks on one tile

[resurrection]

I was trying to search for it bu for naught. Only Project #1, which is a concept currently and far from release. So I wonder if anyone had ever tried to make tracks more like in real life - close together, two lanes on one tile? Since road vehicles work just fine this way I thought it might work for trains too. Or maybe not?

[oberhümer]

It works on diagonals.

[Gremnon]

dual-track in one tile has been suggested many times before, and AFAIK, turned down many times before.
I think it's something to do with the map array not being able to handle it. A search should have turned up the old topics on this, and probably still contain the reasons why it wasn't implemented.

[resurrection]

2Gremnon: Thx for answer.

Anyway, did you ever see two train tracks as close together as two road lanes?

Yes, everywhere.

[Badger]

A road vehicle is normally not as wide as a road-lane whereas a train is much wider than the rails it sits on and therefore cannot be as close together as a 2-lane road without derailments, crashes etc.

[Rindis]

By wiki, narrow track ('narrow' referring to the distance between double tracks) is commonly 4m (~13 feet) or slightly less from track center to track center. That's probably what I see most of the way up the peninsula on CalTrain every day. US Interstates use a 12-foot lane width (center-to-center would be the same), and a minimum of 9-feet for crowded urban areas is considered potentially unsafe. Considering that the graphics show room for sidewalks in road tiles, straight double tracking wouldn't be out of the realm of reason.

[Eddi]

well, it would fit both graphically as well as "realistically", but the biggest problems you'll probably face are:

• adding more rail bits per tile on the map array
• user interface (autorail etc.) for the new rail bits
• converting old savegames to new format [forbid creating rails "in the middle"? or have transition tiles instead?]
• fit 3 or 4 track bits on diagonal rails? [together with new graphics] [4 signals on one tile?]
• creating stations for double track rails

[audigex]

Just about anything is possible - it's just a case of how much work is involved.

Eddi gives a good set of technical issues, but there are also gameplay issues - OTTD can be fiddly enough with 2 pieces of track on a diagonal, never mind 4. Extra zoom levels would probably be a necessity. I also can't really see the graphics fitting on the diagonals, but I could be wrong on the scale.

It's very true that in OTTD trains are a long way apart when passing - trains in reality are pretty close together because there's no need for much margin of error (a train is either on the rails or has crashed, in which case seperation is probably the least of your problems). How many times have you been on a train with windows rather than air conditioning, and absolutely crapped yourself when you pass another train with a closing speed of 150mph+?

[Rindis]

I, personally, am not really supporting it, I was just objecting to the 'it's not done in real life' objection. However, I'd probably limit it to track that goes 'with the grain' to avoid some of the other hassles (though technically the ~1.4 tile lengths across the diagonal should leave room for a 3rd track...). Allow switching between single and double tracks (which means transition tiles). Possibly forbid double-track tiles in stations since a lot of them spend extra room on platforms... though I suppose industrial hopper loading stations might do it....

Anyway, while I'm throwing around random ideas that are generally impractical, I'd like a winning lottery ticket.

[Brianetta]

Possibly forbid double-track tiles in stations since a lot of them spend extra room on platforms...

I don't see why. Most tracks at a real station only have a platform on one side, in stark contrast to TT.

[Gremnon]

You can, of course, use half-stations, or whatever they're called, where the platforms only appear in every other gap.

I think that makes sense.

[EXTspotter]

How many times have you been on a train with windows rather than air conditioning, and absolutely crapped yourself when you pass another train with a closing speed of 150mph+?

Loads of times. One obvious place is along the Sea Wall at Teignmouth and in the cliff tunnels. Speed limit is 80mphish. If you are in a 150 with windows which open, doing say 55mph and an HST comes in the other direction doing 80mph in a tunnel, the "shock" make me jump sometimes.

[audigex]

Sorry, my point wasn't an ironic "this never happens" - I was pointing out just how common it is. Real tracks are veeery close together because they know exactly how much clearanca the carriages will have... unlike motorways where a lane is often twice the width of a car to allow for the inevitable "weave" that most drivers exhibit. A train can't move sideways, so you know exactly how far it will reach to either side.

And yeah, Dawlish can be excellent when the waves are just not quite high enough to shut the sea wall down, and a 125 comes the other way... on one particularly noisy combination of a 125+wave I very nearly needed new pants.

[kvtb]

Hi, I don't think it is required to have two tracks on the same tile to get a more realistic looking game.
It's a scale thing. If everything else becomes larger, then the problem is also solved.
E.g.: a house shouldn't be one tile, but 2x2 tiles. Large office blocks 3x3 or 4x4 tiles, industries 6x6 tiles, etc.
May be this is already feasible using the 32-bit graphics by rendering it in a different size (as an automatic, batch process)?

[Grandmaster]

If everything gets bigger, then the maps itself most also grow. 8192 x 8192 is not big enough anymore and 512 x 512 is just to small.

It is a good idea, but i think that if it is a scaling thing that you can better leave it as it is right now.

[peter1138]

This one crops up every now and then. It won't happen, logically a tile is the smallest unit on the map. (Yes, diagonal rails are a special case.)

So, 'Grandmaster', how does doubling the size of some things require a map 16 times bigger?

[Grandmaster]

So, 'Grandmaster', how does doubling the size of some things require a map 16 times bigger?

If the buildings are getting bigger, then the towns are also bigger when you keep the amount of buildings the same. On a map that stays the same size, the towns will be closer together. So if you still want the travel time to be the same as now, you must place the towns further apart. That would mean that the maps must be bigger.

[siu238X]

well, it would fit both graphically as well as "realistically", but the biggest problems you'll probably face are:

• adding more rail bits per tile on the map array
• user interface (autorail etc.) for the new rail bits
• converting old savegames to new format [forbid creating rails "in the middle"? or have transition tiles instead?]
• fit 3 or 4 track bits on diagonal rails? [together with new graphics] [4 signals on one tile?]
• creating stations for double track rails

For me, it looks like that path-finding would be causing the worst problem.

Indeed, if you discuss such kind of things, you will know how impractical porting real-life scenery into the gaming world is. I prefer (O)TTD's wide rail gap than model-town like recent transport-sim games (e.g. Locomotion)

[tonyf12]

Isn't that the default in Railroad Tycoon. Maybe you should give that a go then . (It's been so long since I played it so I could be mistaken).