Coaster Loading and Unloading Needs more options

[dapullia]

I have noticed that the loading and unloading of coasters is unrealistic. I would like to see a couple of additional options here.

1. Unload Only Stations. In RCT3, almost every coaster I built was double stationed. To speed things up, trains would come in and unload at the unload station, advance to a block brakes section ahead of the loading station, then enter the loading station so that you had a continuous flow of trains. This helps capacity and wait times.

2. Dual Track Stations.....Basically a station where you can unload and load two trains at once then send them back out onto the same track via a track switch.

3. Simultaneous loading and unloading. It is unrealistic (at least at most of the parks I have been to) that patrons loading must wait until the previous passengers have exited the platform when using a enter one side exit the other type of platform. In most cases, the exit side is wide open and the gates open as soon as most of the people are off the actual train.

4. Queue overhaul. I would like to see the option to have priority queues not connect back to the main queue. Basically, you could bring the priority queue back to any path and then there would be a sign at the regular queue directing priority queue guest to step around the corner. What about the idea to use the exit as the priority queue? Basically in this case, it would work on a timed system. You get a ticket, come back at a certain time and walk onto the ride.

5. Priority Pass upgrade. What about the idea of different methods of implementation? The Disney System where you get a timed ticket and return to the special entrance or the Six Flags system where guests wait on a virtual queue and can go through any regular queue and ride while waiting on their special rides, or a tiered system where you get to use the basic priority queues for one price then if you buy the premium version you get to get timed ride tickets to attract quests to part with more cash.

 

[Ddef12]

I love these ideas. The priority queue is a great feature but needs tweaking. I'd love to see it go from main path to station. Plus right now I can't even get mine to work rather well. Also, unsure if anyone knows but if you lay a priority queue, can the type of queue design be changed instead of using the black the default one? If so I have noticed my priority queue where I do change the queue design type seem to not work.

 

[breezerHOG1]

1. separate loading/unloading stations is a popular request [up]

2. I'm not sure about this one

3. i think i read somewhere that the loading/unloading problem is because guests can't walk through each other anymore, though I do think some sort of fix would be nice

4. this one seems like it would be a bit more complicated to program and I'm not a fan of the fast pass as it is.

5. I would much rather have a form of an "over flow queue" where guests can bypass part of a queue if the line is short

 

[3pmusic]

This was Frontiers response to a similar question on Reddit earlier this week...

 

[dapullia]

1. separate loading/unloading stations is a popular request [up]

2. I'm not sure about this one

3. i think i read somewhere that the loading/unloading problem is because guests can't walk through each other anymore, though I do think some sort of fix would be nice

4. this one seems like it would be a bit more complicated to program and I'm not a fan of the fast pass as it is.

5. I would much rather have a form of an "over flow queue" where guests can bypass part of a queue if the line is short

on the #2, think WDW and Big Thunder Mountain or Superman at Six Flags over Georgia. What they do is have two identical lanes through the station...basically two stations side by side and you either board the ride from the outsides and there is a split in the queue between the two stations or everyone in the case of the WDW system get routed to the island platform and load left or right depending on which track has just received the incoming train on. You effectively get an extra track block and faster loading times. on #3 there, guests don't need to walk through each other you just make it a requirement that such stations be load one side, exit other side type of stations. I agree on the idea of overflow queues but overflow queues don't make more money. I think both have their places.

 

[chaoban888]

Despite praise Frontier tried to refresh the old formula, but the management of the park is still somewhat disappointing. Several factors can create strategic depth as the weather and job security are also not included.

 

[Bullethead]

#1.
I hate to rain on your parade but it's a fallacy to think that having separate loading and unloading stations by itself would increase throughput. In fact, all other things being equal (track length, number of trains, number of cars per train, etc.), the 2-station method is actually slower at processing customers. Each train load is the same number of peeps either way and It takes the same amount of time for customers to get on or off the train. Thus, the only effect of having a separate station is to increase the reload cycle by the amount of time it takes to move the train from the exit to the entrance station. IOW, you're just adding a delay between unloading and loading that you don't have with a single station.

The only ways to increase throughput, regardless of how your stations are arranged, is to have more full seats leaving the station in a given amount of time. There are 3 ways to do this: adding cars to existing trains, adding entire new trains, and decreasing the interval between trains leaving the station. Just having separate stations does none of these things and in fact increases the interval between departures. Thus, having separate stations will only improve your throughput if it allows you to run an extra train that the track length alone would not allow with a single station.

Thus, the whole thing comes down to adding an extra train. Which you can do with a single station combined with proper track design. And you need a similar amount of proper track design to make the extra train work with 2 stations. So either way, the effort required is comparable to get the same result, but the single station is a bit easier because you only have to worry about synchronizing arrivals and departures at 1 station. Therefore, the reason separate stations are popular in real life has more to do with aesthetics, overall park layout, and rider safety than they do with ride efficiency.

#2.
Again, nifty for aesthetics but generally worthless in terms of increased throughput, at least for most types of coasters. No matter how many boarding areas the station has, trains can't leave the station until the block section ahead of them is clear. Therefore, the rate at which trains leave the station will not be any faster than with the single-track station. This sort of thing only increases throughput for rides that don't have or need block sections, like log flumes.

#3.
It is very realistic to have sequential unloading followed by loading. First, there's the safety issue of increasing the number of peeps on the platform at once, and boarding customers perhaps not thinking the unloading customers are moving fast enough and getting violent. Second, at least for rides that charge admission per ride, getting all the old customers off the platform before letting new customers on ensures that none of the old customers stay on and ride again for free.

#4
I, too, would prefer that the priority queue have the option of being built as a totally separate thing, with its own connections to both the main path and the platform. It would make it easier to build queue buildings and would avoid the double delay in the main queue caused by the priority queue intersections.

#5.
I really don't see a need to make priority passes more complicated than they are now. After all, the effect is the same no matter how you slice it. Some guests spend more money and get to cut ahead in line. Why not just leave it at that? Besides, such a low proportion of peeps buy priority passes anyway that it's hardly worth having even what we now have.

 

[PC_OCD]

First, there's the safety issue of increasing the number of peeps on the platform at once, and boarding customers perhaps not thinking the unloading customers are moving fast enough and getting violent.

Oh yeah, that guy![haha]

 

[Kickflip]

Having a section of track where you can disengage the harnesses and launch guests back to the main path... where are we on this suggestion since it would drastically improve unloading times and is very realistic.

 

[PC_OCD]

Having a section of track where you can disengage the harnesses and launch guests back to the main path... where are we on this suggestion since it would drastically improve unloading times and is very realistic.

I think Bullethead does an excellent job of explaining why this would not improve the current station set up. Refer to his reply, #1, 2nd paragraph, above. What exactly do you mean by disengaging harnesses and launching? When I hear the word "launch" personally, I would like my harness engaged. Whatever way this is accomplished, it sounds like the coaster would have to slow down and then disengage harnesses, and then re-launch the train. I don't see how this is realistic or help with throughput. From an engineering standpoint, its not cost effective having a secondary motor for "launching" would incur more breakdowns.

 

[Kickflip]

I think Bullethead does an excellent job of explaining why this would not improve the current station set up. Refer to his reply, #1, 2nd paragraph, above. What exactly do you mean by disengaging harnesses and launching? When I hear the word "launch" personally, I would like my harness engaged. Whatever way this is accomplished, it sounds like the coaster would have to slow down and then disengage harnesses, and then re-launch the train. I don't see how this is realistic or help with throughput. From an engineering standpoint, its not cost effective having a secondary motor for "launching" would incur more breakdowns.

You send the train through a heartline with no safety harnesses over safety mats or grass, obviously! It's the fastest way to unload a train and as realistic as most other suggestions.

And it's sarcasm because most trains in the game take less than 30-40 seconds to unload and load unless the exits and entrances are horribly positioned and that's not far off (and sometimes faster) than what's expected from real world rides.

Players shouldn't be complaining so much about the loading and unloading because there are really only marginal gains that could be made anyway compared to just learning to efficiently design for multiple trains.

 

[breezerHOG1]

#1.
I hate to rain on your parade but it's a fallacy to think that having separate loading and unloading stations by itself would increase throughput. In fact, all other things being equal (track length, number of trains, number of cars per train, etc.), the 2-station method is actually slower at processing customers. Each train load is the same number of peeps either way and It takes the same amount of time for customers to get on or off the train. Thus, the only effect of having a separate station is to increase the reload cycle by the amount of time it takes to move the train from the exit to the entrance station. IOW, you're just adding a delay between unloading and loading that you don't have with a single station.

The only ways to increase throughput, regardless of how your stations are arranged, is to have more full seats leaving the station in a given amount of time. There are 3 ways to do this: adding cars to existing trains, adding entire new trains, and decreasing the interval between trains leaving the station. Just having separate stations does none of these things and in fact increases the interval between departures. Thus, having separate stations will only improve your throughput if it allows you to run an extra train that the track length alone would not allow with a single station.

Thus, the whole thing comes down to adding an extra train. Which you can do with a single station combined with proper track design. And you need a similar amount of proper track design to make the extra train work with 2 stations. So either way, the effort required is comparable to get the same result, but the single station is a bit easier because you only have to worry about synchronizing arrivals and departures at 1 station. Therefore, the reason separate stations are popular in real life has more to do with aesthetics, overall park layout, and rider safety than they do with ride efficiency.

I'm not sure I agree, but even if you are correct, I still think it should be a possible feature. In RCT I always tried to have 3 trains per coaster so that as one train is entering the station, one is leaving, and the 3rd is running in between. But the nice thing then was that guests could exit at the back of the station without stopping people from loading. I think it would just be easier to time things if guests could exit at the back while the front train is departing (like in RCT).

 

[PC_OCD]

You send the train through a heartline with no safety harnesses over safety mats or grass, obviously! It's the fastest way to unload a train and as realistic as most other suggestions.

I like this! Excitement level +7? Maybe more? I'd finally be able to make that elusive 10+ excitement level rollercoaster that's haunting me in challenge mode.

Should have realized that was sarcasm earlier... [haha]

 

[Bullethead]

I'm not sure I agree, but even if you are correct, I still think it should be a possible feature. In RCT I always tried to have 3 trains per coaster so that as one train is entering the station, one is leaving, and the 3rd is running in between. But the nice thing then was that guests could exit at the back of the station without stopping people from loading. I think it would just be easier to time things if guests could exit at the back while the front train is departing (like in RCT).

Yup, 3 trains timed as you describe is about the practical limit of what you can do in terms of maximizing throughput. To have a 4th train, you need about 30-40 seconds more run time, some of which will be longer track and some of which will be a taller lift hill to make the extra run possible. And that starts making the coaster too big for the rest of the park.

Anyway, if you're talking about simultaneous unloading and reloading, that will reduce the time in the station. However, it wouldn't have a significant effect. If you have placed the entrance and exit gates correctly (exit in the center on the opposite side from the entrance, which is at the rear), the time needed for a complete unload / reload cycle is no more than about 30 seconds even for a relatively long train. And of that 30 seconds, about 90% is the time required for the old customers to walk off the platform. So even with simultaneous loading and unloading, you'd still have a 27-second cycle time, which is nowhere near enough change to squeeze another train onto the ride.

Take a look at the Brass Baboon video here: https://youtu.be/8-aWfAPNsFo
or fiddle with it in the park here: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=839068854

This is a 3-train (each of 9 cars) coaster where the next train enters the station just as the previous is pulling out (you can see that at the very end of the video). I have the max station wait time at either 25 or 30 seconds, I forget which (you can check it in the park). It sometimes leaves with 1 or 2 empty seats at the very back but this is because the next group in the queue has more peeps than there are available seats, not because there isn't enough time to fill them all. So basically, throughput is absolutely as high as it can be for this particular ride. Because of this, the queue time is less than 10 minutes even though the queue is quite long. It contains many hundreds of peeps but chews through them at a rate of about 70 per minute.

All this is to say that even with the current way stations work, you can still get very high throughputs, right up to what is the practical limit of coaster size. It just takes proper placement of the entrance and exit gates (and also the priority gates) plus building the track so the ride duration is slightly more than 3x the loading cycle.

 

[breezerHOG1]

so you agree it does help a little bit, just not a significant amount. so at least it doesnt hurt. but even if it was exactly the same it would still be a nice feature to have

 

[dantheginga]

#2.
Again, nifty for aesthetics but generally worthless in terms of increased throughput, at least for most types of coasters. No matter how many boarding areas the station has, trains can't leave the station until the block section ahead of them is clear. Therefore, the rate at which trains leave the station will not be any faster than with the single-track station. This sort of thing only increases throughput for rides that don't have or need block sections, like log flumes.

I'd have to counteract this and say that as long as there are enough blocks in roller coasters dual stations are absolutely a viable way to increase throughput. There's a reason Disney uses the mutliple block/dual station method on a lot of their rides. It might be tough for Frontier to achieve it but it would absolutely have more merit beyond aesthetics for those achieving Disney-level throughput.

 

[dapullia]

I'd have to counteract this and say that as long as there are enough blocks in roller coasters dual stations are absolutely a viable way to increase throughput. There's a reason Disney uses the mutliple block/dual station method on a lot of their rides. It might be tough for Frontier to achieve it but it would absolutely have more merit beyond aesthetics for those achieving Disney-level throughput.

Where it helps and gets you extra throughput is that you don't have a train sitting on the last block brakes. The way the timing works is that the trains do not dispatch at the same time. One enters the station while the other is just beginning its load cycle (ie. after all the guests are de-trained and the boarding gates are open) . While they are checking and dispatching the first train, the second is unloading so that by the time the first one is dispatched or shortly after, the loading gates for the 2nd one open so you get an almost continuous boarding cycle and flow. I am not arguing that you have to have enough block sections on the ride and you have to have the right ones but the point here is that you can keep the queue moving for those rides that you cannot have a very long queue on or are very popular. What was stated about the 3 train system works as well but in reality you can probably get an extra train or two on the ride if it used a dual platform system. The delay of the overlap in the station is what gives you time for the extra train on the tracks.

 

[Bullethead]

so you agree it does help a little bit, just not a significant amount. so at least it doesnt hurt. but even if it was exactly the same it would still be a nice feature to have

Simultaneous loading and unloading at the same station would decrease the cycle time of getting the train going again but would not IMHO be realistic. Also, it would have so insignificant an effect that it wouldn't be worth the devs' time to bother with nor our time to use.

I'd have to counteract this and say that as long as there are enough blocks in roller coasters dual stations are absolutely a viable way to increase throughput. There's a reason Disney uses the mutliple block/dual station method on a lot of their rides. It might be tough for Frontier to achieve it but it would absolutely have more merit beyond aesthetics for those achieving Disney-level throughput.

No, having separate stations in no way increases throughput. Throughput is measured solely by the number of full seats leaving the station per minute. Therefore, the ONLY ways to increase throughput are as follows:

1. Keep departure intervals the same but increase the number of seats per train.
2. Decrease the interval between departures.
3. Both of the above at once.

Having a separate unloading station doesn't help with any of this. All it does is the counterproductive thing of increasing the time required for a single train to unload and then reload. The reason separate stations are used in real life is so customers getting on the train can have the illusion that they're the 1st folks ever to ride it, or because the overall track layout is not amenable to having both entrance queue and exist path close together, or because having both in the same place would be unsafe.

Where it helps and gets you extra throughput is that you don't have a train sitting on the last block brakes. The way the timing works is that the trains do not dispatch at the same time. One enters the station while the other is just beginning its load cycle (ie. after all the guests are de-trained and the boarding gates are open) . While they are checking and dispatching the first train, the second is unloading so that by the time the first one is dispatched or shortly after, the loading gates for the 2nd one open so you get an almost continuous boarding cycle and flow. I am not arguing that you have to have enough block sections on the ride and you have to have the right ones but the point here is that you can keep the queue moving for those rides that you cannot have a very long queue on or are very popular. What was stated about the 3 train system works as well but in reality you can probably get an extra train or two on the ride if it used a dual platform system. The delay of the overlap in the station is what gives you time for the extra train on the tracks.

No, this absolutely will not increase throughput. It still takes the same amount of time for the old passengers to get off and the new passengers to get on. It makes no difference where along the track this happens, the same amount of time must still pass before the train leaves with the new customers. Only if you have separate stations, even more time must pass because now you have the delay of moving the train from one station to the other between unloading and loading..

If you routinely (as opposed to when the ride breaks down) have trains stopping on the last set of brakes prior to entering a station, it's because you did something wrong. Either you didn't place the entrance and exit gates correctly so the loading cycle is longer than it should be, or the trains have too many cars for the peeps to fill in the time available even with optimal gate placement, or the track is too short so trains return to the station before the train ahead can refill even with optimal gate placement and train length. Swapping out the last set of brakes for an unloading station will not improve your throughput. The train still stops in the same 2 places and the same operations occur, which all take the same amount of time.

 

[dantheginga]

No, having separate stations in no way increases throughput. Throughput is measured solely by the number of full seats leaving the station per minute. Therefore, the ONLY ways to increase throughput are as follows:

1. Keep departure intervals the same but increase the number of seats per train.
2. Decrease the interval between departures.
3. Both of the above at once.

Having a separate unloading station doesn't help with any of this. All it does is the counterproductive thing of increasing the time required for a single train to unload and then reload. The reason separate stations are used in real life is so customers getting on the train can have the illusion that they're the 1st folks ever to ride it, or because the overall track layout is not amenable to having both entrance queue and exist path close together, or because having both in the same place would be unsafe.

I'm not talking about stations like X2 at Magic Mountain that separate the guests loading a train and unloading. Having two separate combination loading/unloading stations can allow some roller coasters to more practically achieve a specific throughput that the designers aim for.

Let's take Tatsu at the same park for an example. Tatsu being a B&M flying coaster model has a very intricate and complicated loading and unloading system to allow guests to comfortably board the trains and create the flying sensation during the ride. This boarding process creates more downtime between each departure a train can make. Not employing the dual station feature Tatsu has what I can tell to be 4 block sections (station, lift, intitial brakes, and brakes before the station). From my experience Six Flags will at most operate Tatsu with a maximum 2 less trains than blocks of the circuit. In summertime when the crowds are their largest, Tatsu would not be able to maintain a reasonable guest line and output with just a single station and 2 trains and would cause stress among the workers trying to load and unload riders. The best way to move more guests through the ride with the lowest amount of downtime is to employ the dual station. This allows 3 trains to run the circuit with the added block and giving employees an easier time loading and unloading guests, and allows more guests to move through the line with each circuit completed.

Earlier in the thread you also mentioned that trains can't leave the station until the next block is cleared. What if the time it takes to clear the next block is inherently shorter than the amount of time it takes to load and unload a train? Having a single station in that case would limit the amount of trains able to safely operate simultaneously with each other, whereas a dual station allows trains to alternate departures and increase the throughput of the ride.

There are plenty of reasons why parks and manufacturers design rides to have dual stations beyond aesthetics and there is no reason why some players of this game can't make the suggestion to consider the possibility of adding it to this wonderful game.

 

[Bullethead]

I'm not talking about stations like X2 at Magic Mountain that separate the guests loading a train and unloading. Having two separate combination loading/unloading stations can allow some roller coasters to more practically achieve a specific throughput that the designers aim for.

No, this is an illusion. At the loading station, peeps are presented with an empty train they can immediately jump on and go. But that train only became available to them after it had already gone through the unloading process at a separate station, which takes the same amount of time regardless of which station it happens at. All the 2 stations do is add a delay between the old customers unloading and the new customers loading, due to the time required to move the train from one station to another.

There is no getting around this.
* Time required for old customers to unload: constant and a wash.
* Time required for new customers to load: constant and a wash.
* Time required to move the train from unloading to loading station: only applicable to separate stations, so this makes this method take longer.

Period. End of story. If you want to increase your throughput, add more cars to your trains and/or decrease the interval between train departures. NOTHING else increases throughput, no matter how you arrange the stations.

Earlier in the thread you also mentioned that trains can't leave the station until the next block is cleared. What if the time it takes to clear the next block is inherently shorter than the amount of time it takes to load and unload a train? Having a single station in that case would limit the amount of trains able to safely operate simultaneously with each other, whereas a dual station allows trains to alternate departures and increase the throughput of the ride.

No, no, no, no, no. Now you're taking things out of context.

I mentioned block breaks in the context of things that don't need them, like log flumes. With log flumes, you can increase throughput by having multiple, simultaneous, but slightly staggered loading stations feeding into a single track, because it makes no difference if the logs bump each other or not. But coasters can't enter a block section until the train ahead clears it, so having a log flume battery of reloading stations doesn't help at all. You just end up with that many more unhappy peeps sitting there waiting instead of enjoying the ride, so the excitement level would decrease drastically.

So sure, having separate unloading and loading stations, which NECESSARILY increases the time required to reload a train, would make it easier for the train ahead to clear the next block section. But this is at the EXPENSE OF THROUGHPUT because it INCREASES the interval between train departures.

Look. It's really simple.... A train with 30-40 seats can be reloaded at a single station in about 25-30 seconds. Therefore, block sections should be about 30 seconds apart along the track, and the whole track should be a few seconds more than an even multiple of 30 seconds. Do that, and place your entrance at the rear of the train and the exit on the opposite side of the platform at the center of the train, and you'll maximize throughput. Nothing you can do with multiple stations can equal this. Ever.







There are plenty of reasons why parks and manufacturers design rides to have dual stations beyond aesthetics and there is no reason why some players of this game can't make the suggestion to consider the possibility of adding it to this wonderful game.[/QUOTE]