Train-IDs for the circuit network

[rapus]

In order to allow tracking of special trains it'd be cool if trains could send a configurable (constant) signal on a configurable channel.
How i'd use it: coal trains:
Are you train 22? -> default inserters, don't do anything, coal inserters, extract coal from the other side
otherwise -> default inserters, do your work, coal inserters, REST!

Edit: if that constant could be extracted from rail signals as well, then one could even build a cool rail plan that shows where the coal train is right now

[rnorris]

This is also on my wishlist. I'd like to use something like this to route trains to a specific station from a stacker using the circuit network. Since 0.15 will implement reading train contents via circuit network, something like having the constant combinator signal interface as a tab in the train engine UI could accomplish this, such that whatever is added as a signal in this UI gets sent to the train stop as part of the train inventory signal.

You could, in a roundabout way, do this already by using a highly-stackable item that you never ship by train (like red/green wires) and simply unloading, counting, and re-loading. This takes a long time (relative to just reading a circuit signal) and sacrifices storage space, though.

[Tekky]

This has already been on my wishlist for 10 years, when I was playing OpenTTD (Transport Tycoon Deluxe), hoping for programmable rail signals/pathfinding based on a variable defined by the train. Therefore, I certainly also hope for such a feature in Factorio.

[ssilk]

I point to viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26359 Trans numbers for circuit network in v0.13
and viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27782 Allow trains to send a circuit signal

And I still don't like the idea cause of the still valid reason: If you change anything on a train (new wagon...) it becomes a new train. And you cannot map that. For example: Split a two way-train into two one-way-trains: What part of the train is the current ID, what the new?
And the second reason is the micro-management it adds to the game without a good added game-value.

[Engimage]

If you change anything on a train (new wagon...) it becomes a new train. And you cannot map that. For example: Split a two way-train into two one-way-trains:

This relates to the suggestion for giving trains names. If you add a wagon to a train it retains its route configuration so the game actually does not count it as a new one. And if you split train in two both of them retain the route and its no problem is they retain other properties like name, signal etc.

[ssilk]

This relates to the suggestion for giving trains names.

Well, I thought you meant an "ID", which is a unique number for each entity of the same type. (Factorio has already such an ID)

If you add a wagon to a train it retains its route configuration so the game actually does not count it as a new one. And if you split train in two both of them retain the route and its no problem is they retain other properties like name, signal etc.

Well. Then this suggestion is contrary to suggestions, which want to give trains more logic in the wait-conditions.

See for example viewtopic.php?f=6&t=25944 Train station skipping conditions

[Tekky]

Very good news. According to this post by a Factorio developer, this suggestion is going to be implemented, at least for stations (but not for signals).

[OdinYggd]

this is a pretty old thread, took me a minute to catch on why it was talking about 0.15

All along the trains have an instance ID that is accessible through the modding API. Would be simple enough to expose that ID to the circuit network.

[Hannu]

And I still don't like the idea cause of the still valid reason: If you change anything on a train (new wagon...) it becomes a new train. And you cannot map that. For example: Split a two way-train into two one-way-trains: What part of the train is the current ID, what the new?
And the second reason is the micro-management it adds to the game without a good added game-value.

There is some management, but it is true for all circuit stuff. If you change something, you have to change whole circuit. But you could just forget it and trains would work exactly like before. It would not change game if you do not want but it would give many interesting logistic possibilities for those who do not hate small management tasks.

Splitting would be trivial. Train which is first in list would keep original ID and other would get a new one. It would be somewhat random form player's point of view and it would not probably be the best idea to change trains often if you choose to use ID based logic.

[ssilk]

It would be super useful like so:
Any train has in it's interface a knob. If you press the knop the interface for a constant cominator opens and you can put in ANY signal-configuration you want.
When a train comes now to a train stop he emits that configured constant combinator as signal.

Now we can enhance that: Every train-schedule-entry has also that knob and depending on the train-stop it add the signal of the train's constant combinator to that of the current stop.

Now add also copy paste of "normal" constant combinator into that of the train and vice versa.

[Tekky]

It would be super useful like so:
Any train has in it's interface a knob. If you press the knop the interface for a constant cominator opens and you can put in ANY signal-configuration you want.
When a train comes now to a train stop he emits that configured constant combinator as signal.

Yes, I really like that idea. This idea already has its own thread in the suggestion forum:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46969 Constant Combinator for Locomotive

Now we can enhance that: Every train-schedule-entry has also that knob and depending on the train-stop it add the signal of the train's constant combinator to that of the current stop.

I like that idea too. You may want to post your idea also into the thread that I mentioned above.