Im late to the party but there is no way this line will be fully saturated and all stations used, unless the station output is the limiter, and in that case you have an abundance of trains for what you need. 4 platforms even there is a stretch. 3 is optimal.
Why don't just put the tunnels in front of each even-numbered platform? That will save about half of the space. As a bonus, the descent before the tunnels could be placed near the platforms, so they accelerate leaving trains
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Similar to what I’d been thought processing, great design!
It's always nice to get new ideas to improve, or inspire one, to build your network
Very interesting design.
Thank you!
😎👌
Im late to the party but there is no way this line will be fully saturated and all stations used, unless the station output is the limiter, and in that case you have an abundance of trains for what you need.
4 platforms even there is a stretch. 3 is optimal.
Yeah, probably overkill! But overengineering is the spice of life 😍😍
Combine a few!
Why don't just put the tunnels in front of each even-numbered platform? That will save about half of the space.
As a bonus, the descent before the tunnels could be placed near the platforms, so they accelerate leaving trains
Maybe to keep the signal distance at exactly 2?
you forgot to mention the signalsm and how are they set up
thanks, was useful :D
Why not use bridges instead of tunnels? saves you the time of having to lower the land.
Maybe there was the limitation that diagonal tracks cannot be built below a bridge, but they can be built over a tunnel.
@@valdisveidelis3086 diagonal tracks can be built below bridges if long enough.
Bridges have speed limits though, tunnels don't.
This design is super inneficient :(