Difference between revisions of "LBR Mainlines"
From #openttdcoop wiki
m (R&D:LBR Mainlines moved to LBR Mainlines) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Left | Bidirectional | Right | Left | Bidirectional | Right | ||
| − | '''Current stage: ''' | + | '''Current stage: ''' Research complete |
| + | |||
'''Pros:''' | '''Pros:''' | ||
* Takes up less track than an LL_RR mainline and can be compressed more | * Takes up less track than an LL_RR mainline and can be compressed more | ||
* Downgrades to LR more easily where needed | * Downgrades to LR more easily where needed | ||
* Allows both over and undertaking | * Allows both over and undertaking | ||
| − | * | + | * Very easy to upgrade to L_L_R_R in future (Although the junction limitations remain) |
'''Cons:''' | '''Cons:''' | ||
* More complex signalling | * More complex signalling | ||
| − | * | + | * Probable lower capacity than LL_RR (This has itself never been tested |
* Junction positions are restricted | * Junction positions are restricted | ||
'''Minimum width:''' 5 tiles: Primarily (L__B__R), Connectors (L_L_R_R) | '''Minimum width:''' 5 tiles: Primarily (L__B__R), Connectors (L_L_R_R) | ||
| − | == Observation Log == | + | {{R&D_header|R&D Overview}} |
| − | === 29th July 2006 == | + | {{R&D_content|LBR Mainlines|[[User:OwenS|OwenS]]|checked|Done|checked|Done|checked|Done|Suitable and works well for moderate traffic|wip}} |
| + | {{R&D_content|L_L_R_R Overtaking Mainlines|[[User:OwenS|OwenS]]|checked|Done|checked|Done|checked|Done|Works well for high volumes of traffic|checked}} | ||
| + | {{R&D_content|Multi speed trains with LBR and L_L_R_R Mainlines|[[User:OwenS|OwenS]]|checked|Done|checked|Done|checked|Done|Works well with closely spaced overtaking points|checked}} | ||
| + | {{R&D_footer}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Initial Observation Log == | ||
| + | === 29th July 2006 === | ||
With some signalling tweaks, trains are using it to overtake. They are also, however, using it to cut corners. Cheeky trains.... | With some signalling tweaks, trains are using it to overtake. They are also, however, using it to cut corners. Cheeky trains.... | ||
We do not have enough traffic to determine it it's complexity and additional size will pay off. | We do not have enough traffic to determine it it's complexity and additional size will pay off. | ||
| Line 36: | Line 43: | ||
We have also developed the first junction for this design. | We have also developed the first junction for this design. | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | === Final observation === |
| + | This system did allow overtaking, but some things should be specially noted: | ||
| + | * Closer diverging points should exist, since trains can wait a while or stop | ||
| + | * L_L_R_R should be done and is easily possible in busy points of the network | ||
| + | * LBR (L__B__R) is easily upgradable to L_L_R_R when there isn't stuff in the way | ||
| + | |||
| + | Overall, it allowed a higher volume of traffic than a normal LR mainline would have handled. It in comparison to an LL_RR mainline has not been done; However it could be assumed that with well designed junctions it would be similar. Look at the [http://openttdcoop.ppcis.org/blog/files/sandbox_archive/SandboxGame_11_Final.sav Savegame] to observe our first implementation | ||
| + | [[Category:Research]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:36, 21 August 2006
by OwenS
Overview
LBR Mainlines are arranged in a 3x1 configuration, of:
Left | Bidirectional | Right
Current stage: Research complete
Pros:
- Takes up less track than an LL_RR mainline and can be compressed more
- Downgrades to LR more easily where needed
- Allows both over and undertaking
- Very easy to upgrade to L_L_R_R in future (Although the junction limitations remain)
Cons:
- More complex signalling
- Probable lower capacity than LL_RR (This has itself never been tested
- Junction positions are restricted
Minimum width: 5 tiles: Primarily (L__B__R), Connectors (L_L_R_R)
| Idea | Player | Draft of idea | Testing | Completed | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LBR Mainlines | OwenS | Done | Done | Done | Suitable and works well for moderate traffic |
| L_L_R_R Overtaking Mainlines | OwenS | Done | Done | Done | Works well for high volumes of traffic |
| Multi speed trains with LBR and L_L_R_R Mainlines | OwenS | Done | Done | Done | Works well with closely spaced overtaking points |
Initial Observation Log
29th July 2006
With some signalling tweaks, trains are using it to overtake. They are also, however, using it to cut corners. Cheeky trains.... We do not have enough traffic to determine it it's complexity and additional size will pay off.
Also, I am adding a new peice of work to go with this: Determine if, using the LBR system, it is possible to run differing speed trains on the same network without aversely affecting the faster train's speed. Currently, we have several different speed locomotive sets:
- ICE-3: Fastest
- ICE-1: Seccond fastest (Used to GOB, since it was originally just the town drop)
- BR182: Electrified freighter
- ICE-TD: To TNT, which isn't electrified
- DE-AC33C: For non-electrified freight
Currently, there are no noticable problems with this configuration.
We have also developed the first junction for this design.
Final observation
This system did allow overtaking, but some things should be specially noted:
- Closer diverging points should exist, since trains can wait a while or stop
- L_L_R_R should be done and is easily possible in busy points of the network
- LBR (L__B__R) is easily upgradable to L_L_R_R when there isn't stuff in the way
Overall, it allowed a higher volume of traffic than a normal LR mainline would have handled. It in comparison to an LL_RR mainline has not been done; However it could be assumed that with well designed junctions it would be similar. Look at the Savegame to observe our first implementation
