Found the internet!LLCCCC vs <LCCCC<L ?
Is there any functional difference?
If you're super ghetto, LCCCL lets you have the ass-end of the train hang off into a curve and leave all cargo accessible despite the entire train not being "within the station", which seems like an immediate "benefit" (of dubious value/usage, but one nonetheless.) In fact, it would seem a CCCC<L<L "pusher", if possible, would be the most flexible.
Yet LLCCCC seems to be by far the most common setup used.
If they're all the same speed, I could see benefits to ease of expansion from 2-4 to 2-6-1 or 2-8-2 due to existing cargo cars not changing station position. However, given the relative complexity adjusting station layouts/running arbitrary configurations, it seems by far most optimal to pick one configuration and stick with it (for "common scenario" trains) which makes the expansion argument a bit moot.
Only for the frontmost car. As long as there's one locomotive on the front, facing forward in the train's travel direction, the drag is as low as it gets.
Trying to wrap my head around this. Im pretty sure that it makes no difference in factorio where the cargo trains are. The resultant forces on the track in real life should be equal although oppisite, leading to the same friction
I've toyed around with "just" linking 1-4-1s together. So a larger train is 1-4-2-4-1. In theory it makes partial train lengths more practical.
Interesting! With this layout you could empty or load a train in two parts with a 4 wagon loader/unloader by having the train stop at one stop and then stop at another 6 wagon lengths away. This would allow you to transport material with one train without having to upgrade your stations.
AFAIK there's no difference in the locomotive/waggon sequence e.g. <L<LCCCCCCCC or <LCCCCCCC<L or <LCCCC<LCCCC.
BUT: if the locomotives are facing in different directions, e.g. <LCCCCCCCCL> (so you could drive on a single track in both directions) only one on of them is providing power while the other one is dead weight.
please correct me if i'm wrong.
LLCCCC Mostly you have answered your question, it is usually about expansion. Adding to then end of a train is easier when expanding a depot. I am usually moving to 2-8-2 at that point
CCCCLL could work too but expansion will be tricky. Altho if you have biters on and impact a behemoth swarm, you could lose a couple cargo wagons on impact running with nuclear fuel. Then you are just sad at the resource loss. I don't know if it is even possible but it might be worth a test.
![User avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="256" height="256"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![Silver](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="32" height="32"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
4
3
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1920" height="1080"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
It's just my personal preference, not criticizing anyone or anything but I don't like beacons. When I aim for the production efficiency (in terms of speed, number of prod., etc.), it's inevitable to spam the beacons around the factories for the maximum efficiency. And I feel like that's very ugly and spoiling the joy to place belts & conveyers in limited space...
I'm just curious if there are any other people feeling like so. If so, how do you deal with your feelings?
thanks,
Engineers
Automating Production
