Shared Tracks vs Dedicated Tracks

[Sassums]

Currently have a decent set up making decent money. However it is 3 different lines sharing the same set of two tracks (one in each direction).

I am curious if it would be more beneficial 3 sets of double tracks (one in each direction) for each line or if the current set up is the most effective.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

My preference, if the distance between stations is far enough, is to set up a 4 track line. I usually take a feeder track off the main tracks to any stations and use two tracks for express or faster goods trains. By using lights to control the slower track i give priority to the faster track.

if the distance is shorter I generally use a 1 up 1 down configuration using passing points to offer at least some control over differences in train speeds. Sometimes I also have these tracks parallel to a station with a bypass track with way-points allowing me to set 'through trains' that bypass the station.

[Tsubame ⭐]

As long as you have the money to build the tracks, sure. Given the high emphasis on high frequency lines and rather low train capacity, you will eventually have to do this anyway.

Problem with shared tracks is that due to very high frequencies, trains keep bumping each other and as result slowing each other down, and decreasing profits as result. Whatever money you spend on the dedicated lines will be quickly recouped.

If you can speed lines up by tunelling or elevating it, so be it, a small expense that will also be recouped as well.

[canophone]

I have a strategy when using 3 track railways... but two tracks usually isn't enough if you have multiple lines, especially at different speeds and weights.

[Sassums]

Originally posted by mmmcheesywaffles:

My preference, if the distance between stations is far enough, is to set up a 4 track line. I usually take a feeder track off the main tracks to any stations and use two tracks for express or faster goods trains. By using lights to control the slower track i give priority to the faster track.

if the distance is shorter I generally use a 1 up 1 down configuration using passing points to offer at least some control over differences in train speeds. Sometimes I also have these tracks parallel to a station with a bypass track with way-points allowing me to set 'through trains' that bypass the station.

This I never thought of - I do have trains passing through stations that other trains have to stop at.

Originally posted by mmmcheesywaffles:

My preference, if the distance between stations is far enough, is to set up a 4 track line. I usually take a feeder track off the main tracks to any stations and use two tracks for express or faster goods trains. By using lights to control the slower track i give priority to the faster track.

if the distance is shorter I generally use a 1 up 1 down configuration using passing points to offer at least some control over differences in train speeds. Sometimes I also have these tracks parallel to a station with a bypass track with way-points allowing me to set 'through trains' that bypass the station.

This ill have to tinker with - not sure i would be able to get it to work as described....

[mmmcheesywaffles]

The key thing is to recognise that solutions need to match the scenario. There is no 'off the shelf' solution. i try to keep the main lines as straight as possible for speed. So I usually have to tinker with every route. If a route has a high need for lots of slower trains I may dedicate 2 tacks for those and avoid points by building lots of small tunnels and bridges so the faster trains can cross under the slow route.

sometimes it is better to have 2; 4 or 6 tracks and use the middle of 6 to provide fastest routes. especially when nearing busy areas. But my main line is usually a 4 track that punches through the landscape as straight as possible.

On some slow routes I use smaller faster trains to maintain speeds until the bigger engines are available. However, I try to build my tracks for the faster trains to minimise the rebuilding of crossing points. Acceleration speed is the big factor, so I minimise the number of bends when possible.

[Taity]

For me it comes down to a few factors:
- Length of the line;
If the length is long enough, i will have more than one available lane per direction (up to 3 lanes each way) tho can go more if needed

- If Cargo, Passenger or both;
If i only have Cargo OR Passenger i will only have two lines (one up and one down). If there will be Cargo AND Passenger going in the same direction i will split these two so the slower freight trains either do not slow down or block passenger trains, or reduce the chance/amount a slowdown or block occurring.

- If having multiple lines using same path(s);
Like above, but further expanded. If i have long corridors of rail that have stops at numerous stations along that same path, i will split the tracks according to speed. This often results in having a 3x3 or 4x4 rail corridor (three/four lines up and three/four lines back). That way i can split each line to an appropriate rail to manage speeds. This results in slowest freight occupying the outermost rail line in either direction to limit or reduce time spent potentially blocking other rails/lines, and the fastest trains being in the two centre rail lines resulting in the fastest travel with the least chance of being stopped/slowed by other lines or vehicles.

- Individual Speed(s) of all units on all lines;
As above the speed of any line (or vehicle) using a single rail lane/corridor will determine how many tracks are needed. Before 1900's two or four lane rail corridors are fine (one for freight, one for passenger). After 1930 with the increased max speeds of vehicles having four lanes minimum is required, with 6 lanes being preferred so you can have freight on one lane (max speed 130 km/h) Slow-Mid speed passenger on the next lane (anything under 250 km/h) and anything above 200 (increase to 250 when 300+ km/h units are available) one the centre most lines. This coupled with smart track planning can reduce the amount of delay's you face from other lines on the same lane or other lanes that cross lane in question.

- Total Amount of Throughput on the lane;
The more vehicles you have using the same dedicated lanes, the higher your chances become of lines blocking or slowing down other lines on the same lane, as well as at any point where other lanes/lines might cross that lane (for example crossovers at stations). With the use of signals and planned routes you can increase the amount of vehicles you can have using a single lane, however there will come a point where you will need to add in another lane to alleviate the demand for that lane or face slow downs, delays and even blockages caused by congestion

[Sassums]

Thanks! Do you use waypoints to keep each line on the correct set of tracks (to keep the slow vehicles on the outside and quicker ones in the center)?

[Taity]

Originally posted by Sassums:

Thanks! Do you use waypoints to keep each line on the correct set of tracks (to keep the slow vehicles on the outside and quicker ones in the center)?

I do use waypoints for road vehicles, for trains i don't use waypoints, i instead add signals into the line orders selecting the appropriate signal to ensure the correct line is used.
This coupled with smart track and signal planning (especially at and around stations and junctions) will ensure that lines follow the desired paths with minimal setup and can be further expanded on to assist with reducing the chances of a delay/block occuring or reduce the length/impact of a delay/block at stations/junctions where multiple lines cross paths as well as assist with separating your lines according to speed to help reduce vehicles of different speeds and/or acceleration from affecting other vehicles.

[Tsubame ⭐]

You can just use train signals to direct trains to the proper local/express tracks.

Waypoints are mostly for specific places where a signal could cause blockages.

[Sassums]

Ah thank you - I was unaware I could actually select the signal as a waypoint of sorts to make sure the train goes into the correct track

[mmmcheesywaffles]

The danger of selecting a signal as a waypoint is that if you later change that signal your waypoint is lost.

[lemming3k]

I try to keep my infrastructure to a minimum so create trunk lines and share as much as possible where the speed and directions are the same.
Currently this splits into 3 main categories:
Freight.
Passengers.
High speed passengers.

Only when they reach (or would exceed) capacity will I add parallel tracks, but this usually only occurs for freight.
If the game allowed express designations then I could perhaps narrow that down to 2 as freight and passengers have similar speeds at many game points and could overtake, but there is still the capacity issue. As it stands mixing these at high capacity carries too much risk that something will end up stopped a signal, take ages to get back up to speed, and slow the whole network. Doing this at lower capacity looks nice, but is less efficient. Depends what you're going for and how much you need to deliver I guess!

High speed is best left on its own tracks as it reaches substantially higher speed and you don't want to risk it slowing down at any point.

[Sassums]

Agreed - I've always split Passenger and Freight due to Passenger achieving a substantially higher speed throughout the network.

[Vimpster]

So I think the long and the short of it is, dedicated tracks are naturally more efficient, at least in terms of the profit and operation of the lines is concerned. But that many players (myself included) prefer to sacrifice that efficiency for the sake of a more realistic, interesting and perhaps more fun way of playing in which we try to make the most out of our railways by sharing it among multiple lines. The extent to which we share our railway depends on our personal tolerance level for congestion/delays.

[Sassums]

Originally posted by Vimpster:

So I think the long and the short of it is, dedicated tracks are naturally more efficient, at least in terms of the profit and operation of the lines is concerned. But that many players (myself included) prefer to sacrifice that efficiency for the sake of a more realistic, interesting and perhaps more fun way of playing in which we try to make the most out of our railways by sharing it among multiple lines. The extent to which we share our railway depends on our personal tolerance level for congestion/delays.

Ah thank you much better way of looking at it.