Question pertaining to signals and trains

[budynekm]

Hello, I've been playing OpenTTD for about a month now with some friends, and it has been great.

My question is: Am I able to make a loop where, I have a power station and two coal mines on the track, and if I put two trains on the track, can I have it that both trains will try to go to the first coal mine, but if its occupied by the other train, ignore it and go to the next coal mine? If so, how?

[Nite Owl]

I have not done this sort of thing myself but I am fairly certain it can be done with Conditional Orders. Have a look at the wiki or play around with Conditional Orders in a test game to figure it out.

[Alberth]

I don't think conditional orders will work, they only seem to cover the situation of the train itself, not its surroundings.

The only solution I can come up with is

double_coal.png (412.75 KiB) Viewed 538 times

both trains just have the station at the powerplant in their orders. Note that you must remove the "non-stop" part of that order.
By setting it up like this, the train will constantly want to go to the powerplant, but will stop at every station it encounters (ie one coal mine).
The signals ensure that the second train goes to the station which is not in use.

Since the coal mine is not in the orders, you cannot ask it to full load.

[bjgttd]

It is usually more effective and always easier to separate those trains, make each run on it's own rails and serve it's own mine.

[Eddi]

for a proper mind-f***, search for "self regulating network" (you have been warned!)

[Voyager One]

Variant B:

1. Make a bypass at each coal station.
2. Assign following orders to trains:
Goto Station A
Goto Powerstation
Goto Station B
Goto Powerstation

This way, each train will service both stations but will go at each station alternately. By good planning and timetabling both stations could be well serviced.

[Nite Owl]

I know it would not be very efficient but could not the conditional order jump be set to "if load percentage = 0". This would then make the second train arriving at that station realize that there is no cargo available as it is being loaded onto the first train and it would then jump to the order for the second station. Again, I have no practical experience using this method and have not run the experiment so I could be wrong.

Train 1
1) Coal Mine A Orders
2) Conditional Order: jump to order 3 if load percentage = 0
3) Coal Mine B Orders
4) Power Station Orders

For Train 2 you would simply switch Coal Mines A and B. Go to Coal Mine B first and then have the Conditional Order jump to Coal Mine A. As I said, not very efficient but possibly doable?

[BlueDeath]

I know it would not be very efficient but could not the conditional order jump be set to "if load percentage = 0". This would then make the second train arriving at that station realize that there is no cargo available as it is being loaded onto the first train and it would then jump to the order for the second station. Again, I have no practical experience using this method and have not run the experiment so I could be wrong.

Train 1
1) Coal Mine A Orders
2) Conditional Order: jump to order 3 if load percentage = 0
3) Coal Mine B Orders
4) Power Station Orders

For Train 2 you would simply switch Coal Mines A and B. Go to Coal Mine B first and then have the Conditional Order jump to Coal Mine A. As I said, not very efficient but possibly doable?

interessting thoughts

Trains shared orders
1) Coal Mine A Orders
2a) Conditional Order: jump to order 3 if load percentage = 0
2b) Conditional Order: jump to order 5 if load percentage = 100
3) Coal Mine B Orders
4) Conditional Order: jump to order 1 if load percentage = 0
5) Power Station Orders

for that try you would need to have an empty track in the station, but theoretically they should change between stations untill they are loading.
But I do not know wether this is economic.
maybe there should be another option: 2b

[YNM]

Actually, if it's a full Ro-Ro config, using the orders pointed by Voyager One is enough efficient - Trains will alternate between the two loading points evenly.

The orders given by Nite Owl may overload the other station, while BlueDeath orders may make trains just running around and around - im still not sure, though.

Myself more often make two separate "sets" of shared-order trains (one always goes to A, the other to B) - amount may different because of distance and production.

[BlueDeath]

Actually, if it's a full Ro-Ro config, using the orders pointed by Voyager One is enough efficient - Trains will alternate between the two loading points evenly.

The orders given by Nite Owl may overload the other station, while BlueDeath orders may make trains just running around and around - im still not sure, though.

Myself more often make two separate "sets" of shared-order trains (one always goes to A, the other to B) - amount may different because of distance and production.

what a conclusion

Well, I use that sort of "separete set" orders too. Even grouping trains to access them easily.
But as the question was about having a loop and orders therefor we thought about possible solutions.

Never the less: an interesting point is the questions which of these designs is more economic? It might be separet set later on, but is it in the beginning?