I suspect that splitting each lane into more than three, as in the three possible directions, is pointless as you'll get bottlenecks where they merge anyway. I guess you haven't seen the merger I made:P It can compress trains up to 33,5 out of a max of 34.(2-4 trains) https://www.reddit.com/r/facto...

Ballzak
Have you seen the latest intersections I posted on this forum? (Page 22)

Ballzak, When you compressed the intersection, the intersection in the yellow area doesn't get filled every other turn. The intersection in the blue area sends one train and two trains to the yellow intersection every other turn, meaning that it won't regularly get three trains ready. They are of sy...

Ballzak
I doubt it

Ballzak
What throughput are you getting with it?

Hey! Welcome to this forum! Test Rocket fuel set 1 44 set 2 50 set 4 35 (left only) Your intersection allows U-turns and lane switching, which means that throughput would be even worse if any trains would make a U-turn or switch lanes. How it can improve There are missing 4 signals, marked with a re...

You want to join the lanes like this: ----------0------\ >-----------\ ----------2------/ \ >----------------- ----------1------\ / >-----------/ ----------3------/ The <N> are where you put signals. You create a cyclic clock that goes through 0, 1, 2, 3, switching every T ticks and activate the si...

The last design seems to be limited by the output buffers. Consider merging the lanes there pairwise in a balanced tree structure and adding circuit logic. You can time it so trains leave with just the braking distance between trains and no extra gaps. I would consider 132/136 as close to perfect a...

So since I claimed 130, here is a version that actually does 130 with nuclear fuel.
https://pastebin.com/LygYBWJa

Set 10(same as 1 with nuclear) 130 (132 if you let it run for 60 min)
Set9(same as 4 with nuclear) 126

Rocket fuel
Set 1 (random) 124
set 2 123
Set 4 (left only) 109

Hey Here is the intersection. I had one with 130 random but only 90 with left only. and on with 120 random and 110 left only. I combined those and here is an intersection that does : Nuclear fuel: Set 1 127 Set 4 (left only) 125 To get over 130 the waiting area for the merger needs to be longer and ...

Mrvn
Basically the same intersection I already put up with a longer waiting area for the combinator based merger. But sure I can do that:)

@aaargha I have made an intetsection that outperform the combinator based intersections with a smaller footprint. 136 is max for a 4 way 2 lane 6 car intersection with nuclear fuel. I have a version that does 130 trains/min in set 1,2 and 110 with left only. Basically there is not more to gain and t...

Divaya

Nice=)

Here is a slightly altered version with 79 in set 1 and 85 in set 2.


https://pastebin.com/fddjXDg7

Divaya I really like some features of this intersection. The throughput WesT->east, east->west is really good! North->south, south->north is almost as good. I would imagine that west<->east direction would be the mainline with this intersection. If you have to have U-turns in the intersection this i...

Divaya
It looks nice though=)
I have made an intersection where bridges wouldn't increase throughput. As merging is the bottleneck.

Vanatteveldt Sure 2 different looking incoming areas. South and north are the same. East and west are the same. The intersection is divided up in 4 smaller intersections. I marked all the 4 intersections, which should be divided into many more. South/north Doesn’t split of right, left and straight. ...

Divaya There is just so many problems with the "buffered diverging diamond intersection" that I don't know where to start. I threw it on the test bench to confirm what I thought. And the test confirmed my concerns. Both with the throughput and how the trains move. set 1 = 68 per min. For r...

Divaya
How long are your trains?

I made a larger version that finally beats 100 trains per min without combinators in set 1 and 2.
https://pastebin.com/KpSRsecC