Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
2. IDK, what are you referring to? But If you mean that the paths come together on that part. You'll need a Path/Black signal to prevent the Train from Colliding. But If you still have a Dual Train Track on that part. You don't have to do anything.
Edit : Some typos.
1) Ok so you are saying in some instances you'd have like a "Y" where the two lines merge into one, go into or around the station and then leave on the other side?
2) Clarified my point a tad, but essentially instead of having a large rail network in a complete circle, there are some part where it is point A to B to C. To leave the area after point C, you'd have to go back to Point B
1. It fully depends on you. However, if your train only has 1 head, you shouldn't merge it before going into the Train station. Just merge it after the Train station to have them go back on the other rail.
2. I think you mean you'll make a U-turn before the end of the Train line. You can, but make sure you put in the Path/Black signal to prevent the Trains from colliding on that U-Turn. The train will use the fastest route to the Train station. So, if you have a U-Turn, instead of going back to A, they'll use the U-Turn to go back to B.
The second one is an example of one where you might want to fork a line off the mains in order to have a station. If you are using single ended trains you will have to make sure it can pass through the station and loop back to the main line going in the direction you want it to travel for the next destination.
https://static.satisfactory-calculator.com/data/megaprintsInGame/3/9/7/d/397d13d9aee3ce3572a22022f4c50cf8553a668a-1.jpg?v=1661336235
https://preview.redd.it/simple-expandable-train-station-design-v0-9az185ie60nd1.png?auto=webp&s=cdf436d47a038ab2c7fe2f45ec9b659726ecdf9f
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3340971456
I'd recommend not making your rails in a way where a track can be used to drive both ways if there is more than a single train, it's possible to make it work especially with short distances, but it's simply easier to have two tracks like you have two sides of a road in real life, each side goes a different way. Easier to handle with signals. Less collision potential, less waiting around for other trains to make way.
And if you want to branch off somewhere from the main rail, you just make a small intersection, like this one for example:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3340971415
Here trains can go either forward or turn left, then come back from the stations at the end of those roads back the main rail down The stations on the first screenshots are down the forward path, and that train coming back will pass this intersection and go back down to the main hub through other intersections. Add a couple of signals to make sure trains don't enter a busy intersection and you're good to go.
All you need to figure out in order to build a fully functioning rail network of any size is in those two screenshots above. The hardest part are signals, but they are not that hard to use. The trick is to realize that they are dumber than you think they are so don't overthink them. You'll understand how they work soon after you place a few down and see the colours changing. And I'll already answer a question you'll inevitabely ask yourself: "Yes, you have to divide your whoooole railway into small blocks if you want multiple trains to drive on it smoothly and without crashing". Which means putting down a lot of signals. A LOT. You can see some of that on the second screenshot.
https://imgur.com/a/OZdh3jm
The source site is the Satisfactory Calculator (same place as the interactive map) so I guess it doesn't like to share lol
Hey, this is a nice design. I might steal it if I ever decide to build another stop somewhere. I'm used to the S and C shaped station loops I learned how to do in Factorio.
Even some RL cargo yards (at least the ones in my city) use reversible freight trains for lighter loads that are just being moved between two points instead of multi-stop freight car exchanges.
Personally I find them cleaner to work with, or at least smaller footprints to build.
EDIT: I should note that even in factorio most of my freight lines were single material transport. I never really ended up with a factory that needed to move multiple goods (at least not enough to justify 5-10 freight cars of different goods) to keep it operational.
The cool thing is that you can actually do pretty well with this through tier 4 (not sure about after that) AND you can make both sides of the trip productive IF you plan it out a little bit.
For instance, I am running a big hub in the northwest corner of desert dunes. I'm railing the coal and sulfur (I'll add some silica eventually) from the geyser area down to my turbo fuel grid between grassy fields and the dunes, which is where I've also started my aluminum production. On the way back, I'm taking aluminum products which use a portion of that coal, silica, and I think eventually sulfur if I remember correctly, back to my hub.
On another train line from my first rubber/plastic factory on the dunes/northern forest coast there is nothing to take back there, but the train just delivers plastic/rubber/packaged fuel to the hub, and a few other things from my starter base (cable motors and copper sheets) so that one is A loads > B loads > C unloads (nothing on return trip) and then back to A. No biggie, it's cheap, takes about 5 minutes, and most everything is just ending up in the sink unless I need it.
Super simple. Nothing crashes. Is it the most efficient? I don't know. Does it work? Yep. I'm almost at nuclear with just this.
Doesn't help answer your question, but I'm just saying there's other simpler ways to do things perhaps at the cost of awesomeness and efficiency. I love factory games, but I don't care about perfection unless I have to (like aluminum will back up if you don't get the ratios on the fluids right).
There's nothing really wrong with it. It's just that it's not a very scaleable solution if you are planning to go big.
Reversible trains use the same rail to travel back and forth, this immediately creates an issue when you want to add a second train since now you have two trains wanting to go opposite direction. There are two ways to solve this: Add another dedicated rail for new train, or make a zone in a middle of your existing rail where it splits into two, creating a way for the trains to pass one another. (like this[docs.ficsit.app])
The first solution is simple, but quickly gets out of hand with more trains. With just three trains we are operating with more rails than you'd have with a standard two way system. The second solution is better, but also has a hard ceiling. 3-4 trains should be able to continuously use a railway with a passthrough lane(s). But as you add more they will start to overcrowd, and eventually you'll end up with a deadlock where you have two trains on the opposite sides and a third one in the passthrough, nobody able to pass.
So it's a good solution if you only operate a couple of trains and the distance is not that big, since for the passthrough to work on a single rail system it needs to make up majority of the track, anything that is using the main rail is blocking the traffic in the opposite direction so you want that part to be as short as possible. And if your track is long, your double passthrough lane will end up being very long too (or have many shorter ones), but at that point you are essentially making an unnecessarily complex version of a dual rail system anyway, so why not just do that?.
The main two advantages of having separate rails for each direction is expandability and capacity. It can fit a A LOT of trains at the same time, just like a road going in one direction can fit a lot of cars. It is also easy to expand, both by adding more trains and stations to existing rails, and by creating brand new offshoots to reach new places that all connect to the same network. And all you need to do that is to make a new intersection in whatever new direction you want to go it, at whatever point of the network.
My current rail network still only has one way in each direction and it's already servicing 8 trains as of today. And by the looks of It I could likely double that amount before I started having issues with congestion.
The beautiful thing about a good train setup is that once you've made it, it's incredibly easy to add to it. What would normally take making a completely new rail going across the map for a new double headed train can be as simple as a small extension of a rail to add a new station or two on top of the existing ones. Or instead of dragging a few belts 3000 meters you just build a new train station right next to what you want to move, connect it to the nearest rail with an intersection, and then build stations in your main base.
It is a really big initial investment, but once you get that over with moving resources across the map becomes quick and painless. I spent two evenings building two separate rails covering the top and the right side of the map. But now that I've done it , getting whatever I need to my base, or even exporting things somewhere new is a much faster process. Whenever I need a resource and it's in those two big section of the map, all I have to do is go there, build a new station, connect it to that main rail I built that's nearby, and bob's your uncle. Fast, easy, fun. No dragging multiple belts long distances, no automating trucks, just a simple train station or two with some rails.
The only issue I run into is when I do use the rare multiple stop train and for get to double check that it will be entering the next station pointing the correct direction since the "front" changes at each station. :P
Certainly truth in the scaling and how it looks. I think blueprints have helped with this quite a bit though. Tracks are much easier to lay now and still look at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing.
I will eventually (probably) use a two line system (maybe) with splitters/signals, but in my previous playthroughs back around gosh I think update 7, my skill-issues tended to have me trying to diagnose wtf was happening to my trains half way across the map, which of course made my drones break, and then my power grid breaks, etc. That got VERY old very quickly.
Total skill issue, and unfortunately, not particularly enjoyable for me to fix so I've just been doing single rails on this playthrough and it's worked wonderfully so far.
I derive enjoyment from completing something, hopefully a bit aesthetically pleasing, and knowing, 100%, this will not fail--it might not be as useful as a more scalable design 30 hours from now, but it will save me from dealing with unforeseen complexity/chaos in the future. I think I gain the time back I may lose on efficiency by not having to worry about the future diagnostics if that makes sense. But that's what's so awesome about Satisfactory. You get to decide if future proofing is more important than eventual scalability is more important than immediate ease is more important than things looking pretty is more important than giving in to ADA's demands in a timely manner.