I'm personaly realy against any caching idea in general. If it comes to a point when there are few trains waiting to enter a station it means one of few things:

1. For small station which has already all platform busy with trainswhat are waiting to be laoded it means there are too many trains.
2. For large station which has empty platforms but trains unable to get to them promptly enough it means that entrance is not optimal and trains block each other as they approch/break into platform.

either of these siatuation is to be dealt with, but caching is not the right solution. If there are too many trains you remove them, if station needs improvements - you deal with that accordingly.

Another thing is having an enterable depot at any point on side lines - these depots will be picked by servicing trains which might block each other and station entrance, get sidetracked onto inefficient lines and decreese performance, block mainlines with depot entering lineup or any combination of above. These are very undesireable and need to be avoided.

As I stated meny times before - any train within network should be either moving towards pcikup/drop/transfer station at speed as close as possible to maxium, or be loading somewhere (not waited to be loaded, but actualy loading). This is my understaning of train amnagement and effiency in general - trains must never wait, and network elements should not be designed in any way that promotes unnecessary waiting.

Phazorx 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally this idea isn't new: check Member Zone Archive "Swiss Inc." (the coal line in south east). I personally like this idea, it has some unrealistc touch. You can use it for spare space, build such a depot instead of a oversized station with about 50 plattforms. The other thing, it is really slow. (Maybe something like that could help: http://www.tt-ms.de/forum/attachment.php?aid=537) --Ammler 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)