Coal powerstation is a coal hub?

[Postlimit]

I have a map with 2 coal power stations, and 3 coal mines (actually more mines, but that's irrelevant now). The mines all have contracts with both powerstations.
One powerstation is on the far east, and one on the far west. Two coal mines are in the west and one in the east (see "picture" below).

M = mine
P = powerstation

M1 M2 P1 --------------------------(long distance)-------------------------------- P2 M3

M1 + M2 produce less than P2 can consume. M3 produces less than P1 can consume. In other words, I cannot saturate the powerstations with these three mines.

My plan was to run two lines:
M1 - P2 - M3 - P1
M2 - P2

Then half my trains would have a load in both directions, which seems a good idea. Double cash!

However, when I build such a line, it turns out that because M2 has a contract with both P1 and P2, the M2 - P2 line starts to transport to both P1 and P2. So, part of the coal gets delivered to P2, but part is also dumped at the platform at P2, to be picked up by the other line for P1! But I do not want that. P2 can have it all, because my other line is going to fill up at M3.

Because my settings are so that I get paid the total distance  (in the New Game Settings, I've set pay_for_total_distance = 0), this is actually MORE profitable than my initial plan, because I now even run about half a load between P2 - M3 (I carry coal to the mine)... but if I would turn that off, I would go bankrupt, because while I carry full loads, I don't actually deliver much. 

Is there any way to tell the trains/factories what my plan is? Or can I influence the ratio of goods transported for one factory vs. the other factory? Or should you just not try to transport the same goods with 1 train in both directions?

When I build the exact same network, but use 3 lines instead of 2:
M1 - P2
M2 - P2
M3 - P1
... everything works. But then I need 50% more trains, to do exactly the same.

The only options I came up with myself is to reduce the crossconnections between factories so the factories have less contracts with each other, but that also reduces the freedom for me to build. Or, I could build a 2nd station on the other side of P2, but that costs money (maintenance)...
Is there anything else, or should I just live with the fact that factories start to have second thoughts about their contracts as soon as you actually start transporting stuff? Maybe it's normal that in a capitalistic world, M1 wants to kill M3, and that my transport company is merely collateral damage in the coal wars?

I'm playing111.0, pak128 2.0.0, if that's relevant.
Sorry for the length of the post.

[ӔO]

I don't think there is any way to tell how much coal goes to which power station.
they sort themselves out and the intake will only stop when they are full.

[Postlimit]

More experimenting answered my own question (and I might as well add a disclaimer that I have not extensively tested this, so it might be wrong).

The coal mine seems to always put 2 piles of coal on the platform: for both powerstations. I think that cannot be helped. And I think the coal mine attempts to keep the two piles equal. So, if you have a 3-tile freight station, your maximum is 192 ton (gets rounded up to 200 ton coal). That means 100 ton for powerstation P1, and 100 ton for powerstation P2.

The train seems to always fill up as much as possible for the next stop (let that be P1). If the train has 80 ton capacity, and there is more than 80 ton for P1 on the platform for the next stop, it will fill up completely with all coal going to P1... which is good.
However, if for some reason there is less than 80 ton of coal for P1, it will fill empty cargo space for P2. If that is undesirable (and in my case it certainly is!), then you should figure out why there was so little coal on the platform.

The bottom line is: any train that empties the platform at the mine for more than 50% will be carrying coal for both powerstations, so that's simply a situation to avoid.

For passengers, the choice which people get to board a bus/tram/train seems a similar thing: people going the shortest distance get priority... I have many crowded stations with hundreds of people all wanting to go the the end stop of a busline - which is a single little cottage on an otherwise empty street. Not many passengers go there, but after a few years, they pile up. It's just that those people always miss the bus. Literally.

I hope I'm right, and not spamming the forum with some incorrect info. Normally I ask questions, rather than give answers

[Ters]

From my experience, convoys in Simutrans always load as much cargo (passengers included) as is available and can fit for their next stop, then the one after that and so on. This is an important part of the reason I avoid having trains call at more than two stations (metro lines is an exception).

If I were to connect all mines to both powerstations, I probably would have set up the following lines: M1->M2, M2->P1, M2<->P2 and M3->P2, or alternatively M1->P1, M2->P1, M3->P2 and P1<->P2. But, as can be seen from the arrows, all but one line always run empty in one direction.

[wlindley]

One simple solution is to build two separate stations (call them A and B) at each of the two power plants.  They can touch, but you must build their platforms from opposite ends.  Like this (build A1 first, then B1, then the remainder of the A's and B's):

Code Select Expand

--------\/---A1aaaaa---\/---
--------/\---bbbbbB1---/\---

I have shown this on dual-track with crossovers at both ends.  From the original example, your stations would be:

Code Select Expand


M1-M2---P1a-----------------(long distance)--------------------------P2a-\
      \-P1b-----------------(long distance)--------------------------P2b---M3

And your trains would be:

Route 1: M1 - P2b - M3 - P1b
Route 2: M2 - P2a (-M3 -P1a, optionally)

[wlindley]

Correction: My suggestion above will result in Route 1 carrying a half (of a full load) from M1 to P2b to M3 and back again to P1b... not the desired result at all.

Somewhere here there was a suggestion for "force all passengers/cargo to disembark" and that is what would be required to make this work as desired.

[wlindley]

this thread today is the same problem.  i'm sure there were some previous threads on the same subject as well -- perhaps they might be merged

[Roland Deepson]

Sorry for the late reply, but I think I see at least part of the problem.

M1 M2 P1 --------------------------(long distance)-------------------------------- P2 M3

My plan was to run two lines:
M1 - P2 - M3 - P1
M2 - P2

Then half my trains would have a load in both directions, which seems a good idea. Double cash!

However, when I build such a line, it turns out that because M2 has a contract with both P1 and P2, the M2 - P2 line starts to transport to both P1 and P2. So, part of the coal gets delivered to P2, but part is also dumped at the platform at P2, to be picked up by the other line for P1! But I do not want that. P2 can have it all, because my other line is going to fill up at M3.

For simplicity, I'll reference your routes as "Alfa" (M1-P2-M3-P1) and "Bravo" (M2-P2).

I don't think necessarily that the "evenly divided pile" theory on the platform holds, though I do not know for a fact that it is in error.  However, you did note that all mines have contracts with both receivers.  By your plan, what you're trying to do is not service the M2-P1 contract.  I speculate that contracts in the game are immutable; once set, one can neither manually create news ones nor intentionally rescind existing ones.

Since there exists a connection for the M2-P1 contract (however circuitous) for coal to originate at M2, via Bravo, laidover at P2, delivering to P1 via Alfa's return leg.  I'd be surprised if this didn't create sotrage capacity issues at the layover.

Recall that freight will follow "any" available route from origin to receiver, favoring the briefest.  This layover is the "only" one offered by your network for M2-P1.  Offer a briefer, direct spur.  Might have to temporarily install a direct release-valve run to drain P2 of excess stored freight, but once the shortest route becomes available within your network, the contracted parties will favor that one, ignoring other viable but less-direct alternatives.  Leave your intended setup the way it is, install a third spur line ("Charlie"?) from M2-P1 with deadhead (empty) return legs, and run a temporary (possibly a single manual run if it's high enough capacity) from P2-P1 until the P2 dock is cleared of the via-freight.

Incidentally, the real-world term for this is called cross-docking.  It happens all the time that a carrier (in this case, the game's player company) has an interim stopoff point between shipper and receiver.  Usually it allows multiple runs to be consolidated, such as with multiple smaller loads all be consolidated into one larger vehicle for the main leg of the haul.  It reduces vehicle mileage costs, but increases administrative and network clogging issues (one micro-supplier dries up, do you haul with extra space, or await additional freight and hold up that which is already en route?).  The opposite can also happen, with micro-recipients from a single origin, or a combination of both, as well.

A spur "Charlie" line from M2-P1 would divert all future P1-bound freight to its own run from M2, and Bravo will never see another kilogram of that run's coal.  Previously-departed P1-bound Bravo-freight would remain at the P2 facility until drained.  I would therefore highly suggest you run a brief relief line from P2-P1 to drain the excess freight from the P2 facility, and manually kill it once the P2 dock is cleared of the excess.  This would not be time sensitive, and if I were you I'd leave it alone and see if it drains naturally via your Alfa line -- doubtful, given the parameters you described on usages at the receivers.  So I'd suggest spending a few moments looking at the amounts in question, sketching some rough calculations, and tailoring a vehicle (preferably used) to specifically haul the exact amount in question in as few trips as your network will allow before manually observing and depot-ing the vehicle for disassembly or reassignment.  This is necessary because the freight in question is already in the pipline from a previous haul (remember that if a yard reaches capacity, all en route freight is still accepted at receiver, sending you "over" capacity.)  Similarly, since the alternative roundabout route will remain in existence on your roster, that freight will remain on the P2 loading dock preventing loading of freight actually bound for that Alfa run according to your intent.  If it doesn't drain organically with your Alfa run settings the way you put them, consider manipulating the Alfa stop order (or manually selecting "unload only" prior to arriving at M3, ensuring it arrives at P2 empty and willing to load to capacity).

I'm nooberiffic on simutrans, having rediscovered the game recently (I was last active in 2005, when the latest stable build was in the 80s I believe) but my new experience here, my memory from before, and my real life experience in logistics and freight scheduling all lead me to these observations.  I hope they help.

[Ters]

It is possible to create and delete contracts in Simutrans, but whether that is considered cheating is up to the individual player. To do this, one has to switch to the public player and use the map editing tools.

[Roland Deepson]

I was aware of the cheating option, but I hedged at saying that cheating was the only way.  For example, I see the option to found a new city.  I suspected that there was no within-player (not switching players) option to change these, and it seems that I was correct.  Thank you.