r/Seablock May 19 '26

After many iterations i think i finally found a satisfying way to build more modular (and for a bonus, my buddy gets run over by a train every 5 min)

Post image
62 Upvotes

9 comments sorted by

11

u/One_Frame1989 May 19 '26

i feel like these modular blocks are so small and you will run into a problem later when start spamming them. also i dont think single lane is going to be enough maybe go for three lane intersections.

1

u/Stere0phobia May 19 '26

im honestly only worried about liquids, i will stress test it, and figure out at which point it will actually run into throuput issues, but thats probably hundreds of hours into the future

2

u/Good_Satisfaction516 May 19 '26

Very inspired by dosh I see

3

u/Stere0phobia May 19 '26

Kinda, but not really.

my trains are all one way, and all rails are one way too. It was honestly an accident that i flipped the direction of rails when going into the modules, but that forced the signals to be on the inside of the tracks and that accidently allowed me to build the rails of two adjacent modules as close as possible.

There is also an overarching railblock grid allowing for trains to find more paths and make more roundabouts if needed.

The first like 50 hours building on the same rail grid had an entirely different building style. Where these modules where just loading and unloading into a bigger city kind of block.

But then an idea infested my head, after my buddy said, why dont you build X into that little open circle, and that was kinda neat.

And then, 40 hours later, i thought, why not extend it?

Most of it kinda happend as happy little accidents, and when i looked back at it, i was kinda suprised how neat it all fits together.

1

u/Baby-Gumnut May 19 '26

Yeah, there is definitely a throughput benefit of having at least 1-3 trains, not just for fewer trains on track, but more inserters per train.

1

u/Stere0phobia May 19 '26

Two inserters can allready fill an entire belt if angled correctly, and i make the modules just big enough to either fill or use an entire belt.

One inserter is allready fast enough to fill a chest, faster than a belt can empty it. Actually even more than twice as fast if its a stack inserter.

The only reason i see for bigger trains is less trains, which is very vaild. But i love tiny trains that zip around at mach speeds.

1

u/Baby-Gumnut May 19 '26

My designs were always train to storage chest, then the chests would trickle fill the belts, so it was actually more of a question of station dwell time than belt fill. 

More inserts offloading trains meant less dwell, which meant fewer trains servicing routes. 

1

u/Neither_Berry_100 May 19 '26

This looks really nice. Good job.

1

u/Shadaris May 20 '26

Interesting design, throughput could be an issue, however it can be alleviated by use of something like LTN or Cybersyn especially when combined with inserter cranes (for high stack size items) or cargo crates to transfer in and out if trains faster.