That fork is right on the station exit. That's apparently close enough to cause this train to fail out of a fuel stop for a fork in the track- then instantly route back to the same station, so the "fork in the track" message is flickering. Makes it somewhat difficult to click on if I don't p…

Encountered this myself. It's got some pretty clear steps.

1. Have a railroad crossing.
2. Have truck traffic on that crossing. It's easier with heavy traffic.
3. While the trucks are approaching the crossing and close enough they won't refresh their path before they get there, deconstruct the far side of the crossing, but leave the near side valid- so they can still enter the crossing, but c…

I've noticed that trucks can make construction deliveries & demolition pickups from sometimes very far away, though they'll always get as close as they can.

Can we get a gamerule- difficulty setting- that changes that, allowing it to be clamped all the way down to logistics range if we wish?

Because this is ugly, and it'd look better if those short retaining walls were replaced by a medium that looked like one of the two segments of each long retaining wall:

... They're doubled right now because I'm remodeling. I wouldn't need to double them if we had precision terrain designa…

Not sure that hydrogen or other fuels would really fit... We don't use hydrogen stoves IRL because:

1. Hydrogen is so light it tends to destroy its containment bottle,
2. Hydrogen will burn a lot closer to solid surfaces than methane. You see those little holes on the burner of your gas range? A methane fire won't travel through them, a hydrogen fire will- and if the fire travels through …

... and I made a box of sand.

... Once it finished collapsing, it looked more like a hill.

Can we get precision terrain designations- ideally in addition to the current one, I think- so we can make neater retaining constructs than this?

These precision designations would essentially be "dig (or fill) in this standard designation, BUT only on this side of the retaining wall". T…

Simply put, which station?

(And "skipped due to fork in the track", etc.)

On Network trains, if I don't catch the issue within seconds of it happening, there's often no clear indicator of exactly what station it had a problem with. In this case, the diesel train probably skipped t…

You're welcome.

I imagine the latest save's lag can probably be perpetuated by pausing the dirt train before it finishes unloading, or one of the station modules (network trains don't seem to notice when those are paused). I did notice that, if there is a moving train on any of the intervening tracks, it doesn't lag at all- it only lags when the train is at the crossing, waiting for a *stationa…

Kayser wrote:

computerneek wrote:

If you put the connectors over the liquid dumps instead of over the only spot a support pillar would fit, pillars should form and you should be able to keep a fully working blueprint. See the output belts on my furnace blueprints, for example.

Yup, I absolutely could! But as I mentioned in that original post, I just can't be bothered to do that.

Fair.

I feel like something like this, with each station tied to one of the storages in the chain (but none actually sharing storages) would work for short trains on a high-volume product, though the trackwork to get enough short trains in to keep such a station busy would be a challenge I wouldn't want to deal with:

![image.png](/content-images/42044f45414cafa0947346241785604ecf616f8cdeb13172…

Got a minor graphical confusion I noticed today. The thing is, this train... is no longer decelerating for the sharp corner at the top of that hill, yet the throttle display sits on "some brake" for an entire day after the speed stops descending at 40, meaning the locomotive is clearly generating power against the hill:

![image.png](/content-images/42415cf7e6a7792220599364328d7659c631b18f68…

... Workaround found:

... For now.

Hmm... I feel like Calen might have been right to not include a "train only ingress" option, since a fully-rail-fed foundry would benefit from being split into smaller but more extensible facilities. Also, a station like this one will tend to be better-suited to high-volume foundry insertion, thanks to the quick unloading of trains:

![image.png](/content-images/d016755dc4b9ff9061a61dcf3c8a63f5864…

All that said... Devs? This issue definitely needs to be fixed:

To reproduce:

1. Construct normal elevated belt normally.
2. Remove the supports by connecting other belts to it at their positions, causing them to be replaced by connectors. I removed the end supports by simply trimming the …

Hmm... 3 tiles between each station, and lifts... Alright. Here's a pasteable workaround that does both lanes.

Note the station module itself has a 600-per limit, so a single T3 belt can nearly keep up with an unloading train (with realignment time).

... I haven't even researched blueprint…

I'm not sure how else to describe it.

Reproduction:

1. Have a factory.
2. Mouseover any of the categories on the left.
3. Unpause the game, if not already.
4. Wait for the pie chart to update.
5. The highlighted segment will be moved next to "Other", as pictured... rather than deleted or res…

I feel you. No-stop area select would be so convenient on my layout- I've got a few no-stop zones in key areas where they're needed to prevent backups or enforce route priority, but something like 95% of the default no-stops get removed because all they do is slow things down.

Yeah, I like this idea too. A truckless, conveyor-based mining machine, optimized for cutting down mountains. I would expect this machine to be unable to make/traverse ramps, and therefore most useful in mountain deposits... or in terrain leveling/mountain removal.

Interesting. I didn't see anything about this issue on the changelog, but it appears to be fixed in v0.8.4a (b588). Been running for several hours and I haven't had it happen once, even though that station has only gotten busier.