I think it’s a given that most of us are never happy with where a route ends, and at this point it feels like we’re a bunch broken records for repeating it. Still, as the title of my post states, would or could other third party devs take on other third parties projects and improve them. Okay, here’s that broken record syndrome again… MAC (not being extended to Crewe). I think some of us have seen the funny post a user made of a bus’s destination terminating at Alderley edge on the new Birmingham to Crewe route as a subtle jab at ATS for not finishing there route at Crewe. If ATS don’t have any interest in extending there amazing route, would other third party devs take up the mantle and do it for them. I’m pretty certain a lot of third party devs play and enjoy this game as much all of us, and would love to add their own personal touch to improve other routes that they were not affiliated with.
Maybe ATS and AABS could work together on the missing link? Shared expenses might make it more feasible. Doesn't seem like it would be long enough to sell as a standalone route. Other option maybe AABS could extend it northwards and fund it by selling a loco DLC of some sort. Not sure if we're missing any appropriate stock of some sort that would be nice to have? Or any repaints? Would just be shame to have that tiny gap in the game forever
Whilst Skyhook have done timetables for Rivet routes, I find it unlikely that a third party will take another parties route and add to it. I also find it unlikely that AAB and ATS would collaborate since I don't think there's a healthy relationship there being a bunch of ex-ATS members left to form AAB due to a labour dispute. Alderley Edge bus aside, they even used the Glossop 323 for AI instead of the MAC one
Guess that won't happen then Shame about these developer beefs though- all it does is make a worse experience for the players in the end.
It should be extended to Crewe as a post release patch or paid dlc. Most would buy it, certainly everybody that bought the original route for obvious reasons. Then ATS have sold it twice in effect haven’t they? A win win.
Otoh it has suspension and train announcements unlike the Glossop version. I just think the players should always be able to drive the best version of any train they own.
Fair... although if updates and features promised were delivered then the Glossop 323 would also have suspension and then they'd both be the "best" versions of the train and it wouldn't really matter what one was used where
Ideally what they should do is separate the loco from the route and split the cost accordingly. That way they can revise the unit without having to touch the route.....a win for them. It also means that we don't have to download a 8gb route for just the layers. They could easily sell a class 323 pack with the liveries we have in the game already (4?). 3rd parties could then add missing liveries to aid upcoming routes. They could even split the packs so that the income matches the work done. 323 Pack 1 = 4 323 Pack 2 = 3 additional. This seems the best off all worlds to me. It approx 30 to 35 for a route. Charge 25 for the core route and then 7 to 10 for the loco pack dependent on the amount it holds. This would then make upgrades to sounds, physics and etc etc etc much easier surely?
It’s an interesting concept but would we really want the likes of Rivet rolling up their sleeves and extending WCMLoS to Glasgow? I doubt JT would be amused. What we don’t know is what sort of rights are retained or conveyed by 3P’s when they hand over their IP to DTG for publication. In any event, as stated AAB and ATS are at daggers drawn so there is unlikely to be any cooperation there. However it does cause me to muse whether the original ATS project was in fact Birmingham to Manchester which then got split into two with a missing section in the middle?
To be fair, Rivet wouldn't really have any rolling stock to make for WCMLN (320 or 397, perhaps, but not really a requirement as they could just use a 314 or reskin a 350 if they wanted, as per Cathcart), and their timetable game is a lot better. Scenery is a hit and miss but as I understand it they worked on Cathcart Circle and, evidently, did a pretty good job and they seem to be doing better with their collaborations with DTG. Maybe I'm putting a bit too much faith but rolling stock + timetables were the two biggest flaws and wouldn't really hit this route, I'd think.
It’s a good question to pose though, because at some point in time both available ‘unused’ routes will dry up, and the game will need the next exciting bit of ‘innovation’ to sell more copies. To me, there’s a likelihood of routes merging (however that may look or happen) or developers collaborating more explicitly to bring a new, or more up to date, DLC to the franchise. I can see it being all handled and mediated by DTG however!
Well it follows that any extension to WCMLoS certainly north to Glasgow would be on the back of the existing era content, i.e. the Class 86 and 87 plus the Mark 2 and Mark 3 rolling stock. Which is where the division of royalties could get interesting of course.
It's kind of an interesting ( and probably undesirable ) situation to have the southern half of the WCML in one very modern era and the northern part in a very different time period. When JT finishes the northern route as far as Glasgow ( and, who knows, even further into Scotland ), the disconnect will be even more pronounced. The southern gap ( MK to Birmingham ) will have to be modern, won't It? I suppose it will all be under the wires, but any route hopping will still need a time machine ( or a vivid imagination ).
If honest I think Carlisle - Glasgow is a lot to bite off for any developer as it's longer than Preston - Carlisle with the issue on top of it being 15 miles of extremely urban scenery from Shieldmuir to Glasgow. Whilst never say never the development time for a route of that scale would be huge.
Yes it's a big meal, but in two or three courses? No one's in a hurry for quality route building. And someone did that whole run in TSC, did they not?
Even though there is only a very small chance, if anyone was ever going to develop it, please let it be JT!
Sorry to add to the long-playing record brigade but I really, really hope MAC is extended to Crewe by some means or other, as the route suffers badly from ending short at Alderley Edge. No end-to-end journeys with the 323 and it's just much too short. Perhaps in the future a paid extension coupled with an additional train, say the 331, is a remote possibility? Even a more recent timetable with the Man Picc - Alderley Edge short workings added would be a start.
I agree. It would seriously be worth the development time. Especially from what JT have currently put out for TSW.
For TSC at the time his route was great and was one of the things that actually got me into trains and train simulation in general.
Presumably, like me, he has retired from “squadron” route building these days unless he is quietly beavering away in the background. I still enjoy the Port Road which was his first full route for TSC. That grew out of a little project that Matt gave some of us for one of the Railworks/TSC reissues, to create a number of small routes to go on the Workshop. Keith’s was the Kirkcudbright branch, another guy (sadly I forget his name) did Maidenhead to High Wycombe and Marlow while I reopened the long closed Raquette Lake Railway in the Adirondacks. The huge challenge being to create a route within the Workshop restrictions (which still apply today) of not using any assets outside of what could be found in the core or DLC sold on Steam.
