Boarding-only stops, intercity route settings, etc...

[Lmallet]

I don't think it should necessarily be "unload all"... now that I think about it, because that would make the feature less useful.
So, perhaps not a maximum, now that I think about it, but just a button for each stop in the line that forbids any loading at that point?

That makes more sense.  After all, an unload all button would only really be useful for the last stop on a schedule, and not an intermediary stop.

[dloddick]

That makes more sense.  After all, an unload all button would only really be useful for the last stop on a schedule, and not an intermediary stop.

Great ! You got what I mean !

and skreyola got what I mean too !

what I request is having such "Unload all" button during schedule creation
ya likely at the last stop

My ideal thought is like this:

Line Management ( Line 1)

1. Stop A
2. Stop B
3. Stop C
4. Stop D ( Unload all )

emm... on the other hand
whether the button of " Loading only" should be added
I have no idea on it...

[Lmallet]

emm... on the other hand
whether the button of " Loading only" should be added
I have no idea on it...

I am not too sure this has any use.  Why would you have a station where people can get on, but not get off?

[jamespetts]

I am not too sure this has any use.  Why would you have a station where people can get on, but not get off?

It's quite common in reality. It's used, for example, at Watford Junction station on the West Coast Main Line, between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Preston/Liverpool/Glasgow. Watford Junction is a station about 30-40 miles North of London, served by slow stopping trains and regional semi-fast trains to London; the latter are medium density services that call at only one or two intermediate stations between Watford and London.

Also, however, some expresses to the North call at Watford: on the way out for pick up only, and on the way back for set down only. The idea is that the passengers from Watford to the North can get a direct fast train, without the fast train being burdened with the large numbers of regional passengers travelling between London and Watford.

[Lmallet]

It's quite common in reality. It's used, for example, at Watford Junction station on the West Coast Main Line, between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Preston/Liverpool/Glasgow. Watford Junction is a station about 30-40 miles North of London, served by slow stopping trains and regional semi-fast trains to London; the latter are medium density services that call at only one or two intermediate stations between Watford and London.

Also, however, some expresses to the North call at Watford: on the way out for pick up only, and on the way back for set down only. The idea is that the passengers from Watford to the North can get a direct fast train, without the fast train being burdened with the large numbers of regional passengers travelling between London and Watford.

I have to admit I am not familiar with British rail operations.  Do they physically prevent passengers from getting off at these stations?

[jamespetts]

I have to admit I am not familiar with British rail operations.  Do they physically prevent passengers from getting off at these stations?

I don't think that they stand guard at the doors saying "nobody may leave!", no. But they will not advertise the train from London as stopping at Watford, and, when the ticket inspector comes around, any tickets for Watford will not be accepted as valid on the train, the passengers having to pay for at least a single to the next stop, which might be as far away as Coventry or even Preston: orders of magnitude more expensive than a ticket to Watford.

[Lmallet]

I don't think that they stand guard at the doors saying "nobody may leave!", no.

I would not want that job.  

I have learned something today.  Thanks! 

[wlindley]

In the final days of "real" (private) American passenger trains, there arose a truly Byzantine set of rules, with a myriad timetable footnotes as: "g. Handles passengers only for St. Louis or beyond or from Albuquerque or beyond; checked baggage only for Kansas City or beyond or from Winslow or beyond, except Sundays" which effectively became a way of driving away, or at least extorting high ticket prices from almost all local travelers. Thank the ICC and over-regulation for helping spell the end of most passenger service in the USA!

[dloddick]

In short
there are different cases of "Unloading all" , "Loading Only" or even "Unloading Only"
in reality in different parts of the world

the questions comes along are
whether the Simutrans engine can operate these features
and whether the developers would add these features ..

[Lmallet]

In the final days of "real" (private) American passenger trains, there arose a truly Byzantine set of rules, with a myriad timetable footnotes as: "g. Handles passengers only for St. Louis or beyond or from Albuquerque or beyond; checked baggage only for Kansas City or beyond or from Winslow or beyond, except Sundays" which effectively became a way of driving away, or at least extorting high ticket prices from almost all local travelers. Thank the ICC and over-regulation for helping spell the end of most passenger service in the USA!

Similar techniques are still in use today, albeit usually applies to freight lines now that passenger service is somewhat rare.  Service abandonment usually requires government permission (it is that way in Canada, and I am pretty sure it is the same in the US), however the government usually refuses abandonment as long as a line is profitable or seen as necessary.  Railways will resort to minimal maintenance and reducing the number of trains on a line until it becomes so impractical to use, shippers will often simply opt to use trucks instead, and when the abandonment hearing comes, the railways will say the line is a poor performer, which is usually accepted.

the questions comes along are
whether the Simutrans engine can operate these features
and whether the developers would add these features ..

Well, Prissi mentionned it would be fairly easy to implement (unless I misunderstood his comment).  If he thinks it is worth adding the feature, well, only he can answer that, I am sure he already has enough on his plate as it is.  James could also see some value for ST-Exp.  

Edit: and yes, I would want such functionality. 

[skreyola]

I would like to see a feature for schedules of making a particular stop "No Load".

[dloddick]

I would like to see a feature for schedules of making a particular stop "No Load".

This sounds great also !

[Brambo]

In short
there are different cases of "Unloading all" , "Loading Only" or even "Unloading Only"
in reality in different parts of the world

the questions comes along are
whether the Simutrans engine can operate these features
and whether the developers would add these features ..

These 3 features would be great to have

[stmaker]

I like this feature that one bus goes to a few stops until the last stop where everyone has to get off. I know in my country they will do that on bus interchanges.

[dloddick]

Very sorry for putting up this thread ended long time ago

Recently, Simutrans 110.0 has been released.
As long as I remember, the developer said that some of the features suggested in this thread are easy to implement
so I wonder those features can appear in coming release ...

Feature discussed:
1. Unload all
2. Unload only
3. Load only

and to be wished to see them in line management of a line
as like as the minimum load and month wait time option ....

sorry for any inconvenience caused...

[jamespetts]

I like this feature that one bus goes to a few stops until the last stop where everyone has to get off. I know in my country they will do that on bus interchanges.

I've done some testing recently, and this is possible with the existing code (and works for trains, too). Just set the convoy to stop twice at the terminal stops, and then set a minimum load (possibly with a maximum weight or (in Experimental) a convoys/month setting) at the first of the terminal stops. The convoy will pull into the terminal, and, assuming that it's just going to go back the way that it's just come, let off all the passengers then wait for the appointed time. Once that time has elapsed, it will move to the next point on the schedule (the same stop), and let the passengers on. This has a particular advantage for Experimental, as the passengers will count the time that they spend waiting on a convoy that is reversing or waiting for a load, etc. as travelling time, reducing the average speed, whereas this method will instead increase the waiting time, which is halved to simulate the efficiencies in waiting times brought about by published timetables (fewer people will turn up for a 'bus or a train just after one has left than just before one is due to depart if they know the timetable).

[Mattoon Pool]

Hi,

Try to think about the following situation: the bus goes through the stations A, B and D. At D he waits and goes back - D, C,B and A, aka C is one-way stop. In the current version of Simutrans, it means all passengers from B to C now sits in the bus all the way to D (imagine more stops), take space.

As a solution I propose the 'Full Exit Mark' in the bus / line schedule window. At the marked stop, all passengers would have to leave. When planning a route for a passenger in a current version of Simutrans, the game doesn't look on the whole schedule - it skips the stops after the very same, aka waiting for the bus in reverse direction. The change would be, that the game would also not consider any stops after the Full exit marked stop.

In the proposed case, there would be no direct route between B and C (D would be the Full mark stop) and passengers wouldn't take up the space. It'd also make the game a bit more realistic.

[wlindley]

This is the same situation as this -- except with passengers instead of coal.

[Ters]

Since the bus doesn't stop at C on its way from A to D, passenger would have to go to all the way to D and back to C. I would even say it's realistic that they do so even if it wasn't allowed. As a loophole, they could buy a ticket from A to D, step off the bus, walk right on again and buy a ticket to C. The result is the same: they take space going from A to D.

Due to the way Simutrans loads passengers and cargo, I think passengers going to B and D will have higher priority than passengers going to C. So passengers going to C won't take up space in the bus unless there is free capacity. They will accumulate at the stops, though.

[wlindley]

Yes the passenger may deboard at D, and ride back to C -- but he will pay two fares (A to D, and D to C).  Under the current system, he rides quite a ways for free, occupying space that would have been taken by additional fares.

[prissi]

AT D passengers to C (the next stop) will be loaded first. Thus, even if the bus is fully emptied, the C would just get again onto the bus.

[isidoro]

But as Matoon Pool suggested, passengers going to C wouldn't get on board in the first time, since the route is interrupted when unload is forced, isn't it?

[Ters]

The route would be interrupted, yes, but realistically not broken. Passenger for C would just board as passengers for D. Only if we assume there is another line connecting A and C would anything change, as passengers going from A to C would then prefer that direct line to the one that forces them to exit and reenter the bus at D.

[isidoro]

But then, as prissi says, nothing can be done, since once the passengers are unloaded they can't be distinguished from the ones already at the station and they will board again.

Line 1: A - B - D* - C - B...

Passengers from B to C cannot be routed through line 1.  Though line 1 can take passengers to C from D* arriving there by other means.  In the program route searching is interrupted when you reach the same station in a line, that mark would mean the same, as if D has been already visited, though not.

[AP]

But then, as prissi says, nothing can be done, since once the passengers are unloaded they can't be distinguished from the ones already at the station and they will board again.

Would it not be that they would never have boarded at the first place, since there would be no connection to their destination via that vehicle route, because of the forced disembarkation order in the schedule?

[Ters]

Would it not be that they would never have boarded at the first place, since there would be no connection to their destination via that vehicle route, because of the forced disembarkation order in the schedule?

Only if the bus does not allow boarding at D, and there is no route from any other stop on the schedule, except A, to C.

[Roland Deepson]

Apologies for the late interest in the thread.

This is the same situation as this -- except with passengers instead of coal.

Respectfully, I doubt that these two threads describe the same problem, though I do agree that their symptoms and solutions may coincide.

There "exists" a route for pax bound for C-stop in this scenario, and if the route exists, the pax will generate according to other factors (population density and so forth.)  This will continue until and unless this possibility is either eliminated, or offered a rule-friendly alternative.  I tend to think of pax as ad-hoc freight contracts.  Coal deliveries and factory output contracts are essentially static, responding only to consumption and storage availability at the loading dock.  The traffic levels may fluctuate, but the endpoint routing itself is borderline immutable -- the player simply controls profitability and efficiency in between the two endpoints.

I'm experimenting with undergound-only pax infrastructure within cities, as I left my simulation running for a few hours while I slept and I built up a decent bank of capital to work with.  My idea is to convert to a complete hub-and-spoke system, eliminating all circles and pathing issues.  This may impact travel times, as I'm not sure if layover times are calculated for speed bonuses, and I anticipate that I will reveal numerous flaws within my own plan.  If you'd like, I will keep before-during-after savegames allowing others to help me determine outcomes and identify flaws.  Currently, I plan organic ad hoc pax loops and line routes within cities at 0% load thresholds, but the ebb and flow of pax demand is maddening.  As a result of low carriage densities, my local mail / pax loops tend to run heavily in the red.  However, I do daisy-chain intercity runs.  All cities get a "Hereville Terminus" station plopped at the edge of the initial development, such that city expansion will eventually envlope the stop and it becomes central.  I always load origin intercity runs at 100% threshold, so these runs tend to run consistent profits for me.  However, as this is daisy chain and not hub/spoke, backlogs and crowding is difficult to contend with.  I anticipate that true hub/spoke within cities, and at regional hubs between cities (eventually encompassing the entire map with perhaps 3-5 major hubs of 4-10 cities each) will generate "lower" profits, but that these profits will be sustainable and reliable.  With underground construction, I can place all runs with 100%'s at the hubs, adding to capacity as cities sprawl and climb with individual routes -- my own professional experience with real world logistics and freight / pax distribution leads me to guess that no single spoke in this setup will require more than two vehicles, one for pax and one for mail.  With consistent outbound 100% loads, my deadhead mileage costs will be as minimized as the game mechanic allows.  Potential problems will likely result from having to keep track of so many line schedules, however.  Isn't the limit 8000?  We'll see, as I don't itnend to lose focus on friehgt as well.

My hope is that, once fleshed, I can investigate the possibility of driving freight infrastructure undergound within cities as well.  This will still leave me within the 50kph speed limitations of city driving, but should all but eliminate topside congestion issues that are so notorious.  Again, I'm not so much anticipating monstrous profits as reliability within those profit margins, aiming to reduce or eliminate the boom/bust cycles.  With underground construction, I can also assure little to possibly no station coverage overlaps or gaps without relying on artificial extensions, which I find annoying to implement.  As queues increase, I'll simply replace these single vehicles with larger capacity ones instead of adding further vehicles or expanding tile coverage in the stop -- though I wouldn't be against upgrading the plot tiles themselves if the need arose.

One likely downfall to this idea I have, however, is that my maintenance costs could possibly become unsustainable, though I cannot confirm this without experimenting.

Ideas or thoughts would be appreciated.

In the event of multiple pathing options, pax and freight will favor the briefest and / or most direct route available.  Offer one.  Install a spur line (with 100% loads, if you prefer) taking from A to C.  This will interact with your existing route to specify that your primary route A-B-D-C-B-A will continue to offer exits for "downward" C-stop pax, but the direct "upward" spur line will prevent upward pax on the primary line.

[MagnusA]

Sometimes I want to use a stop as "loading only" or "unloading only" on the line/schedule level. Typically I have a intercity bus line and a local intracity bus line sharing stops in the city. I don't want the pax using the intercity line for local travels. There is a risk that the bus goes almost empty to the next city because the local pax' has got all the available seats, leaving the intercity pax' behind.

Therefore I would like to at least disallow unloading on the way out of the city. In the illustration below this would be the case for stops A2 and A3 for the intercity line (but not for the intracity line).

Intercity line: A1--A2--A3--------B1
Intracity line: A1--A2--A3

Is there a way to achieve this? If this is not possible in current release, this might be considered by the development team?

[Ters]

This is a common question. As far as I remeber, the answer has always been "no". You can try searching for the previous discussions.

[Carl]

There has been some inconclusive discussion of this (e.g. here: http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=2816.0). Can't recall it ever being flat out denied, though I may be wrong.

Pick-up only and set-down only are certainly useful features of real transport schedules, which it would be nice to have in-game -- but whether the benefits would outweigh the difficulty of implementation and other possible side-effects, I don't know.

[Roads]

Transporting passengers is not my thing and neither are big cities, I'm a cargo guy but I do transport some passengers.  What works for me may not apply here at all but I try never to have a situation such as this:

A1--A2--A3 rather I always do: A1--A2, A1--A3, then I would do A1 to B

Maybe this does not apply since my cities are always pretty small.

[jk271]

I can imagine "unloading only" stops. For example line A1 (forest) - A2 (sawmill) - A3 (material's wholeseller) can use stop A3 as "unloading only" to avoid unintended routing of wood/logs. Furthermore "unloading only" stops could be marked as skippable - allow skipping "unloading only" station A3 in case of no cargo present in A2 having destination to A3.

I have not found any usage for "loading only" stops. The reason you are writing should be solved by modification of routing algorithm to prefer long-distance passengers/cargo. Preference can be optional and specific to particular stop in line schedule. It would be more difficult to implement than "unloading only" stops.

I can imagine me writing the path with "unloading stops" and "skippable unloading stops". I think, it is feasible. Detailed money stats had been said infeasible too but working patch exists today! Stop in line schedule (in source code) needs  field with flags. It would need one byte per station in line schedule.

But it is very hard for me to imagine the patch being incorporated in sim standard.

[Carl]

"Loading only" and "unloading only" would have to go hand in hand on the same line. In MagnusA's example, you'd want A3 to be loading only in one direction, and unloading only in the other direction. This is what happens at (e.g.) Watford Junction on the UK West Coast Main Line: it's pickup only on express trains leaving London, and set-down only for express trains going towards London.

[jk271]

Implementation of "loading only" stops would be probably more simple than suggested change of routing algorithm to prefer long distance transport.

[kierongreen]

It would be extremely easy to change routing so that long distance passengers had priority over short distance. Only problem is that you would then get queues of passengers waiting to travel to the next station. What generates this problem is a combination of line structure and lack of capacity.