Lots of short lines vs few long lines

[Krik]

Hello trainsmen!

So what is better? So what do you prefer?

I find short lines (usually only connecting two cities or factories) better to babysit. It is more clear how good they perform and you can tweak them easier (less trains to upgrade because you usually only need 1 or 2 of them). At the moment that is my prefered way of handling things.

But what about long lines that stretch across the whole map and connect several cities, factories and more? How do you handle them? Are there cases where one should use them instead of short lines?

And one more question:
Should long lines be a circle (A -> B -> C -> A) or just reverse at the end (A -> B -> C -> B -> A)?

[genemead]

My take:
I prefer point-to-point. As you found out, easier to adjust for demand of only two cities are involved (A>B may only need one train, while B>C may need 2). It's also easier to adjust the fequency of each city.

I've tried both Loops (multiple cities with 2 tracks, one going clockwise, the other counter-clockwwise) and a "main line" with one to several trains going up-and-back between several cities.
The problem with either one is the middle cities (with a Loop every city is a "middle city") a train arriving rarely complely empties and therefore can't load all the passengers that it would like to load. After a few runs, the "middle cities" have large backlogs of waiting people (a train only completely unloads at the ends).

I get people love the concept of l-o-n-g trains, "main lines", and "hubs". But see all those people and cargo icons stacked up? Thats a lot of potential profit just sitting there! Doesn't matter that you have a long train that makes you a bunch with every delivery- all I see is the additional money I could've made.

[Robbedem]

I prefer longer lines because it looks prettier. :)
But even than I rarely have a line that connects more than 4 towns, because for it to work, you need to have towns that are more or less on a straight line and have about equal distance between eachother and similar terrain.*
So not many towns meet those requirements. ;)


*
- straight line is required because of payment system
- equal distance and similar terrain because of locomotive max speed (you don't want to use an expensive fast train if it can only do a very small part of the route at high sped)

[canophone]

I do all of them.

Everything but the loop lines on this map: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1386162482

I have loop lines on this map (though not as visible):
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1378686975

[mr. faster]

I prefer the point to point lines.

As you said it is easy to control, people who wish to get from point A to point C will not overload your train, preventing people who wish to board at point B from getting on the train, as they stay on it.

The downside is that even if you time the trains to reach the station at the same time - it takes the passengers time to move from platform 1 to platform 2 - and the train might leave without them.

Mr. Faster

[gGeorg]

Long multistop lines are prettier and more satisfiing to build. However, here is one nasty bug long waiting for fix, which might get long passanger lines to trouble.
When train upgrades, it delete passangers which are heading for further stations. So if your maginicent arterial line has 10 cities in a row, on upgrade you loose 9/10 of your profit.

Bug is known to devs, waiting for a year to fix :-/

Also payment method says you get paid for stright air distance so fancy mega loops connecting 12 cities are surprisingly doing lees profit than expexted. Best setup would be a 1:3 map conecting cities in line.

Cargo is ok, becouse of game rules, you make 99,99% of cargo routes point to point. Also passanger point to point is ok.

[canophone]

Originally posted by gGeorg:

Cargo is ok, becouse of game rules, you make 99,99% of cargo routes point to point. Also passanger point to point is ok.

For me, that's more closer to 70%.

[chrisasnyder]

It isn't the length of the lines or how many you have that's important. What's important is the amount of time they move empty. The game is balanced to allow a cargo train to run one direction full and return empty to make money. 50% of the distance traveled is empty. A setup that does better than 50% will do really well. A setup below 50% will loose money.

This is why multistop cargo delivery lines always fail. Cargo will go to the cheapest destinations first, which means the first stop will see the bulk of the delivery. Then as the train moves to the next stop, it's running nearly empty. Then for the longest part of the trip, it's running totally empty back to the pickup point.

To make the multistop cargo lines work, you have to have things get off the train and things get on the train at each stop. Or at least at the other end so the long trip back reduces the empty ratio. These setups are challenging to setup and the most interesting to get balanced and stable.

Passenger trains don't have the cargo multiplier, so they require people in both directions. Multistop passenger lines work better because you have by default people getting on and off at each stop. These will do ok, providied they are in a straight line. Curves loose money.

[𝓕𝔁]

I do both, but I do notice a potential issue with A>B>C>D>C>B>A style lines, for passengers at least

If the train can carry 100 people and there are 100 people waiting at A, B and C....
50 want to go A to B
50 want to go A to C
100 want to go B to C

When the train arrives at B, 50 people will remain on board, so 50 people will be left waiting at the station. Obviously a simplified example, but in such chains, I always find I have to make my trains able to carry at least 50% more than they need to, otherwise some of the stations (not those at either end) seem to fill up and stay full up with passengers.

With A>B then B>C you don't get that issue and its easier to see what is going on.

[canophone]

Originally posted by RWB FxUK:

I do both, but I do notice a potential issue with A>B>C>D>C>B>A style lines, for passengers at least

If the train can carry 100 people and there are 100 people waiting at A, B and C....
50 want to go A to B
50 want to go A to C
100 want to go B to C

When the train arrives at B, 50 people will remain on board, so 50 people will be left waiting at the station. Obviously a simplified example, but in such chains, I always find I have to make my trains able to carry at least 50% more than they need to, otherwise some of the stations (not those at either end) seem to fill up and stay full up with passengers.

With A>B then B>C you don't get that issue and its easier to see what is going on.

Hmm, multi-stop lines, I find use less trains than point-to-point lnes.. Though more wait at stations for longer and only the end trains in the series of trains get few passengers. I'd suggest 70-90 percent full, 80% of the time.

Obviously adjustments are easier on point-to-point and shorter lines.

[Vimpster]

Originally posted by chrisasnyder:

It isn't the length of the lines or how many you have that's important. What's important is the amount of time they move empty.

Though I agree that filling the trains up for as much of the journey as you can is most important for profits, the length of a line should not be discounted as unimportant.

I'm sure you know this but for the sake of those that have not thought about it, since the distance between pick up and delivery determines the amount you get paid (all other factors being equal) and since the downtime caused by slowing down for the stops takes up the same time/distance regardless of how long the line is, than longer routes are inevitably more efficient and result in higher profit margins than shorter routes since a higher percentage of the route is traveled at top speed. This of course assumes the longer line does not make additional stops along the way.

[canophone]

Long and short mix lines: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1387529172
Near loop lines: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1387526617
Loop lines: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1387526591

[Vimpster]

When doing a loop with trains I think what canophone has is the way to go, just a loop between 3 towns. That way the trains are likely to fully unload at each stop. Assuming of course there is a counterloop. Even then it is kind of important for the towns to be similar in size to avoid having a disproportionate amount of traffic on certain sections over others.

[genemead]

I've hooked up three towns before, but instead of a loop I run a train back and forth between each town with tracks runing between each town (A>B&C, B>A&C, C>B&A). That way anyone can go to any town, no waiting. And you can adjust for demand between any two towns.

[canophone]

Most of my lines are never loop lines, but I will make them on occasions where I see them as suitable... I'm no big fan of loop lines, having seen real loop lines IRL, which also are usually not that great.

[Tossi]

I feel in my games that long lines that stop at multiple cities attract passengers more easily though I might be wrong.