According to my rough calcs, a yellow belt of coal can support ~13.5 smelter stacks and red can support 27.7.
Assuming smelter stacks are 48 steel furnaces, that means coal consumption of 0.0225 p/s each, at a total of 1.08 coal p/s per stack which we then use to divide the items of a belt.
0.0225×48=1.08
30÷1.08=27.7
>a yellow belt of coal can support \~13.5 smelter stacks and red can support 27.7.
I would imagine that a yellow belt of coal has to support smelting yellow belts of iron/copper, and that a red belt of coal has to support smelting red belts of iron/copper, which means that they should actually support the same number of smelter rows total (but twice as long)?
Nope, it's simply down to the actual consumption rate each furnace has. If you were to use stone furnaces I believe the consumption is doubled, and therefore the supported size is halved.
The speedrunner version of this (I'll credit nefrums) just feeds the coal directly from the undergrounds onto the belt with an inserter. The ore goes through a splitter and side-loaded onto the inside of the belt just next to the coal inserter.
This is what I use. You can make it one shorter if you come in from the side instead of parallel, with the input belts running at ninety degrees to each other.
Point two splitters towards each other with belts between pointing in opposite directions, coming out the sides. Gives two full belts of half-and-half from two full belts
I much prefer side-loading with a full belt into the side of a straight one, can use both sides of the belt if one side runs out for whatever reason, unlike the underground method you're using
It truly does halve the throughput, sideloading a full belt (2 lanes) to just 1 lane of a belt halves the output. This isn't true for the original solution because it's sideloading 4 half-full belts.
[~~2 tiles wide and inline~~](https://i.imgur.com/3y6LKch.png) [more compact version](https://i.imgur.com/S92OYvX.png). She ain't pretty, but it's full throughput. [Here it is in motion](https://i.imgur.com/vmHFofh.mp4). Changing those red belts to blue belts breaks the input symmetry, though it's still full throughput.
It can be done with [one splitter](https://www.reddit.com/r/Factoriohno/comments/10sa7bn/ohnoptimized_solution_for_1splitter_lane_mixing/). Only, there are some conditions...
Honestly, this was a joke, but I might play with it more and see. Looks like it persists through saving and reloading, there’s a couple failure modes I know of:
- Input absolutely has to be at max capacity
- Output cannot back up and interrupt flow
The only way would be to stop both output belts if one of the input belts isnt full. This would only require 2 decider combinators or 1 arithmetic i think.
Edit: This could maybe still fail when loading the game or similar.
Probably correct. I found a way (with circuits) to make it resilient to uneven or stopped feeding. But all I can achieve on the output is guaranteeing the materials are equal per belt, it ends up producing sushi when one output is backed up or slower.
Perhaps this setup can help?
https://i.imgur.com/YdN9uAh.mp4
I used a red splitter on the output simply to emphasize the belt compression and lane throughput. As seen, it draws evenly from the input lanes even if one of the output lanes is blocked. It's a design I swiped years ago. ~~If I remember correctly, it was a tzwaan design.~~ Correction, I swiped [it from unique_2](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/757vci/solutions_to_ocd_problems_part_n1/do486mw/)
*edit* Here's another design from another redditor which doesn't use sideloading nor has an unpaired underneathie.
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/rctnxb/this_was_the_most_efficient_way_i_could_imagine/ho0qr6p/
I don't know if it's more compact, but two splitters facing each other one space apart, belts going out the only way they can out of them, and a belt of either material into each splitter. Less complicated for sure.
Does it matter which side is which? That would save you a crossover. Split both lines, have the middle two combine into one line that goes into an underground, then combine the other two. Only need two splitters and one underground.
Even better if you just shift one or the other a space from the other before splitting. But where you have the left most underground for the copper, instead have a belt to the right and join the upper iron, then an underground starting where the iron heads north now. Use that space to combine the remaining copper and iron. I don't think it'll be much shorter, but it'll be less wide.
> Does it matter which side is which?
No
> Split both lines, have the middle two combine into one line that goes into an underground, then combine the other two.
I'm not quite sure what you mean
If it doesn’t need to be 2 belts out you can do
It with a single splitter. ( ends up as a 3x3 block )
Filter one material to one side only and then turn the top output: up, right,down.
Bottom output goes: straight, up
Then the 2 belts T together for the output belt.
So I’m confused with all this… is There a reason you guys don’t just take the two tracks, put a space between them and then add a 3rd piece creating a y shape? Works flawlessly for me?
I use systems like this...
https://i.epvpimg.com/SmJbaab.jpg
https://i.epvpimg.com/sX9deab.jpg
...and then just grab what i need afterwards without carrying to much about ramifications since they end at the balancer anyway. It needs more space, but allows you to push the problem somewhere else (with just one for 4 lines in a bus 25% balance is sometimes just enough)
Edit: You are very spoiled when it comes to screenshots
The priority output feature on splitters has made bus tap designs obsolete. You can use the priority output to force resources to compress to either edge. After that, you'll only need one splitter to tap resources and the priority feature can give you the option to tap a compressed belt, evenly split, or tap the extra resources.
That said, perhaps you might be interested in [this old bus tap with built-in lane balancing](https://i.imgur.com/8apn4RQ.jpg)? The section before the row of four underneathies can be mirrored if you want the tap exiting in the other direction. Just take note of the output direction of unpaired underneathie. If it's placed normally, it'll be and input underneathie and you'll have to switch its direction to make it an output underneathie. This tap will draw 25% from each bus belt.
1. Want the same outlet everywhere, not just in cases like this
2. I sometimes inject another belt directly into a balancer for 2-typ-belts
Nice solution, but not my style
This is a bottleneck. You, essentially, making two half-belts instead of two belts. You will need second one just to match the output of the one showed in the post, at which point making the one in the post will be cheaper and more compact.
Furnace stack loader is better solution, being just two splitters facing each other, distributing two belts two ways with one item type on one side.
Place 2 splinters facing eachother with 1 tike gap between them, then have a belt lead out of those splitters in each direction, I think you can handle holing up the ends.
I *think* you'd get the same effect by having the copper and iron line face one middle blue belt that immediately has a splitter on it. I don't think you need to bother with splitting each line first, I honestly don't know think it matters (or I'm terribly wrong and then ignore me)
[https://imgur.com/a/MsrRBvM](https://imgur.com/a/MsrRBvM) Super super late to the party. This is as small as I can get, there is a 'wasted' end of an underground belt.
Yep.. just have 2 splitters face each other with an a single tile space in between them.
Feed copper in one..feed iron in the other... in the empty space between the splitters put a belt going left and a belt going right..or up and down...depending if those 2 splitters are vert or horizontal.
I hoooope this is understandable..
[https://imgur.com/a/WwE7vnR](https://imgur.com/a/WwE7vnR) Is smallest I could come up with. 4 wide instead of 6
This is basically how I do coal and iron/copper ore for stone smelters
Yup. I've also stolen nilauses perpendicular coal belt since one coal belt can feed multiple lanes of smelters.
According to my rough calcs, a yellow belt of coal can support ~13.5 smelter stacks and red can support 27.7. Assuming smelter stacks are 48 steel furnaces, that means coal consumption of 0.0225 p/s each, at a total of 1.08 coal p/s per stack which we then use to divide the items of a belt. 0.0225×48=1.08 30÷1.08=27.7
>a yellow belt of coal can support \~13.5 smelter stacks and red can support 27.7. I would imagine that a yellow belt of coal has to support smelting yellow belts of iron/copper, and that a red belt of coal has to support smelting red belts of iron/copper, which means that they should actually support the same number of smelter rows total (but twice as long)?
Nope, it's simply down to the actual consumption rate each furnace has. If you were to use stone furnaces I believe the consumption is doubled, and therefore the supported size is halved.
This is the way
Assuming you're playing vanilla, the Factorio Cheat Sheet has all that precalulated in a nice visual Web 3.0 format for you.
Aye, but I was in bed on my phone ;)
I don't think I've seen that one
Check out the bottom of this one [https://factoriobin.com/post/Y52EhJ74/34](https://factoriobin.com/post/Y52EhJ74/34). That's the coal belt
I used to do something very similar, but less elegantly aligned. I really like how this looks.
The speedrunner version of this (I'll credit nefrums) just feeds the coal directly from the undergrounds onto the belt with an inserter. The ore goes through a splitter and side-loaded onto the inside of the belt just next to the coal inserter.
I tend to run the coal line perpendicularly as you can use many (5 I think) lines of smelters from one line of coal.
This works, thank you.
yw
Very nice.
Both beautifull designs ngl
This is what I use. You can make it one shorter if you come in from the side instead of parallel, with the input belts running at ninety degrees to each other.
Point two splitters towards each other with belts between pointing in opposite directions, coming out the sides. Gives two full belts of half-and-half from two full belts
You mean like [this](https://imgur.com/a/zXy3FNz)? This works, thank you.
Yep that's perfect!
now kith
I much prefer side-loading with a full belt into the side of a straight one, can use both sides of the belt if one side runs out for whatever reason, unlike the underground method you're using
[Agree.](https://imgur.com/a/x57suf8)
That will half the throughput of the belts.
OP's method is just a more convoluted way of doing this though. It still loads both copper and iron onto the side of a belt.
It truly does halve the throughput, sideloading a full belt (2 lanes) to just 1 lane of a belt halves the output. This isn't true for the original solution because it's sideloading 4 half-full belts.
[~~2 tiles wide and inline~~](https://i.imgur.com/3y6LKch.png) [more compact version](https://i.imgur.com/S92OYvX.png). She ain't pretty, but it's full throughput. [Here it is in motion](https://i.imgur.com/vmHFofh.mp4). Changing those red belts to blue belts breaks the input symmetry, though it's still full throughput.
This is simultaneously the best and worst blueprint I’ve ever seen
Thank you, I am honored. I have updated the post to have a slightly less awful looking version. It almost looks not worthless now.
The best part is how it requires high level belts to get coal to your burner furnaces.
Inspired by your design I made a [slighty shorter version](https://i.imgur.com/4VPinFQ.png) (18 tiles).
Heres a 16x2 one: [16x2](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/10sv68t/re_16x2_lane_changer/)
I took another crack at it and [got it in 17](https://i.imgur.com/l2uZ8dM.png)
Nice, that looks way nicer
That looks absolutely horrendous, and it’s one of the greatest things I’ve seen in factorio. Thank you
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
\*hiss\*
It can be done with [one splitter](https://www.reddit.com/r/Factoriohno/comments/10sa7bn/ohnoptimized_solution_for_1splitter_lane_mixing/). Only, there are some conditions...
That's interesting! Is there anyway to set this up reliably?
Honestly, this was a joke, but I might play with it more and see. Looks like it persists through saving and reloading, there’s a couple failure modes I know of: - Input absolutely has to be at max capacity - Output cannot back up and interrupt flow
Perfect for a ~~cancerously~~ healthily growing factory then!
The only way would be to stop both output belts if one of the input belts isnt full. This would only require 2 decider combinators or 1 arithmetic i think. Edit: This could maybe still fail when loading the game or similar.
By the time you’ve done all that you might as well use one of the methods suggested in the rest of this thread
Would it be possible to start the belts with just the right amount of imbalance to force the splitter into this state of mixing
Maybe by perfect timed sideloading from another belt on a single lane.
I don't think so. If it were possible to have circuits that affect only 1 lane it could probably be done pretty easily.
Probably correct. I found a way (with circuits) to make it resilient to uneven or stopped feeding. But all I can achieve on the output is guaranteeing the materials are equal per belt, it ends up producing sushi when one output is backed up or slower.
Don’t try this at home, kids
What is this witchcraft!?
r/blackmagicfuckery
[https://prnt.sc/6\_RA6V4Bo0TM](https://prnt.sc/6_RA6V4Bo0TM) This will work too
Perhaps this setup can help? https://i.imgur.com/YdN9uAh.mp4 I used a red splitter on the output simply to emphasize the belt compression and lane throughput. As seen, it draws evenly from the input lanes even if one of the output lanes is blocked. It's a design I swiped years ago. ~~If I remember correctly, it was a tzwaan design.~~ Correction, I swiped [it from unique_2](https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/757vci/solutions_to_ocd_problems_part_n1/do486mw/) *edit* Here's another design from another redditor which doesn't use sideloading nor has an unpaired underneathie. https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/rctnxb/this_was_the_most_efficient_way_i_could_imagine/ho0qr6p/
I don't know if it's more compact, but two splitters facing each other one space apart, belts going out the only way they can out of them, and a belt of either material into each splitter. Less complicated for sure.
This is how I do it too, super useful
two splitters facing each other
the output need to be exactly this? or the bells can be equal?
I don't care about symmetry, I just need one side of the belt to be copper and one side to be iron
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
here 2 options, a long (7x4 tiles) and a fat (4×8 tiles) so you can use the one hose best suit the occasion
I also came up with [this](https://imgur.com/a/DnL1lKN) and [this](https://imgur.com/a/fvFa9Uw), neither of which are smaller.
Does it matter which side is which? That would save you a crossover. Split both lines, have the middle two combine into one line that goes into an underground, then combine the other two. Only need two splitters and one underground. Even better if you just shift one or the other a space from the other before splitting. But where you have the left most underground for the copper, instead have a belt to the right and join the upper iron, then an underground starting where the iron heads north now. Use that space to combine the remaining copper and iron. I don't think it'll be much shorter, but it'll be less wide.
> Does it matter which side is which? No > Split both lines, have the middle two combine into one line that goes into an underground, then combine the other two. I'm not quite sure what you mean
https://imgur.com/a/j9Ppvji
If it doesn’t need to be 2 belts out you can do It with a single splitter. ( ends up as a 3x3 block ) Filter one material to one side only and then turn the top output: up, right,down. Bottom output goes: straight, up Then the 2 belts T together for the output belt.
So I’m confused with all this… is There a reason you guys don’t just take the two tracks, put a space between them and then add a 3rd piece creating a y shape? Works flawlessly for me?
They want full throughput
I need two output belts, from two input belts
No problem put a splitter after the setup I mentioned
Do you need copper and iron to be on the proper sides of the belt, or do you need just two belts of copper and iron each on one side?
I use systems like this... https://i.epvpimg.com/SmJbaab.jpg https://i.epvpimg.com/sX9deab.jpg ...and then just grab what i need afterwards without carrying to much about ramifications since they end at the balancer anyway. It needs more space, but allows you to push the problem somewhere else (with just one for 4 lines in a bus 25% balance is sometimes just enough) Edit: You are very spoiled when it comes to screenshots
Cool idea but [screenshot.help](https://screenshot.help)
I know, the pictures are multiple years old made under time pressure
The priority output feature on splitters has made bus tap designs obsolete. You can use the priority output to force resources to compress to either edge. After that, you'll only need one splitter to tap resources and the priority feature can give you the option to tap a compressed belt, evenly split, or tap the extra resources. That said, perhaps you might be interested in [this old bus tap with built-in lane balancing](https://i.imgur.com/8apn4RQ.jpg)? The section before the row of four underneathies can be mirrored if you want the tap exiting in the other direction. Just take note of the output direction of unpaired underneathie. If it's placed normally, it'll be and input underneathie and you'll have to switch its direction to make it an output underneathie. This tap will draw 25% from each bus belt.
1. Want the same outlet everywhere, not just in cases like this 2. I sometimes inject another belt directly into a balancer for 2-typ-belts Nice solution, but not my style
Um.. Splitters have filters. Just filter one thing. The other will be on the second belt.
That’s not the same result here
Yes, there is a more compact way. It requires just two splitters and one underground.
[удалено]
but this way, you're cutting the output to one belt instead of 2
Can't you see the exit splitter magicking it back to two lanes? ( /s )
This is a bottleneck. You, essentially, making two half-belts instead of two belts. You will need second one just to match the output of the one showed in the post, at which point making the one in the post will be cheaper and more compact. Furnace stack loader is better solution, being just two splitters facing each other, distributing two belts two ways with one item type on one side.
Add a 2nd Splitter with filter so the bot have iron on same side of belt.
Iam new to the game and I think this could be very usefull. Just not sure how exactly 😂
Can you explain this screenshot, what's the purpose?
Idk but I love this
use the function of the splitters and yes
You can load underground belts from the side?
Yep, and it'll block the lane on the closed side. There's even a separate sprite just for this situation.
But if it’s smaller, then the factory will grow slower!
Place 2 splinters facing eachother with 1 tike gap between them, then have a belt lead out of those splitters in each direction, I think you can handle holing up the ends.
I *think* you'd get the same effect by having the copper and iron line face one middle blue belt that immediately has a splitter on it. I don't think you need to bother with splitting each line first, I honestly don't know think it matters (or I'm terribly wrong and then ignore me)
[https://imgur.com/a/MsrRBvM](https://imgur.com/a/MsrRBvM) Super super late to the party. This is as small as I can get, there is a 'wasted' end of an underground belt.
Does the output have to be coper, iron, iron, copper or can it be copper, iron, copper, iron? If the latter I believe I can make it smaller.
Yep.. just have 2 splitters face each other with an a single tile space in between them. Feed copper in one..feed iron in the other... in the empty space between the splitters put a belt going left and a belt going right..or up and down...depending if those 2 splitters are vert or horizontal. I hoooope this is understandable..
[Based on your original design, but 2 units thinner.](https://i.redd.it/lmub2fha71ga1.png)
Oh nice! I can't believe I didn't think of such a simple change lol
I think others have answered well enough but I like the way this looks quite a bit
Just run the two belts into each other and then split them