Us Routes!

Yeah, I always fill out the survey.

As Operator pointed out, sales and player count are also valuable information, but as an example, I wasn't even on a TSW-focused Discord when I had someone tell me I shouldn't be enjoying the Santa Fe pack because of what amounted to minor graphical issues and a cab that didn't exactly match what ATSF used in July 1994. Some folks are quite aggressive when it comes to their perceived issues and don't seem to understand that, maybe, a slightly different hex code for the ATSF Warbonnet isn't a deal breaker even to other people who can and do enjoy more hardcore sim experiences.

It's worrying, because, to me at least, that's a prioritization that goes against the entire point of making a game. Details can be important, but if the game itself isn't engaging and fun, then all you end up with is a perfectly rendered train and nothing to do with it save crawling up another route selected for its "challenging grades."

I think there's a bit of a disconnect, too, between some of the really intense hardcore railfan types and how video games work in general. I've found bugs and minor graphical glitches in some of the best-made, Triple-A products and likely so has everyone else whose ever played such. I've wrung hundreds of hours or enjoyment out of bug-laden games that had far more serious issues than anything I've seen from DTG but that still managed to make the overall experience extremely engaging due to good choices on the gameplay front. Further, the more 'niche' the content, the more likely you are to encounter the 'flawed but awesome'. And if you can't put up with the flawed, you will miss out on the awesome. Is that ideal? No, but it's reality.

One of my biggest worries about Century of Steam was that they'd spend so much time getting the trains absolutely perfect that they'd forget about what we'll end up doing with those trains, which, in the end is far more important than every pixel on the Alco being in exactly the right place (One of the more recent devblogs eased my concerns in that department).

I don't even think the term 'simulator people' necessarily applies. I'm from an era where sims came with a 200 page manual to teach you to fly the plane and have a whole lot of hours in such games. I'm probably not as hardcore as some people, but I greatly enjoy a high fidelity sim of almost any sort of vehicle. I just feel that the prioritization on looking perfect is focusing on an aspect of the game that is far less important than others.

Not that much fun to fly a perfectly rendered F-16 if you don't have an engaging environment to dogfight in or drop bombs. I think over in trucker land, ATS and ETS do a really good job of balancing elements of their stuff.

Fully agreed.

 

I remember seeing an article on things that surprise foreign visitors to the U.S., and one of them was the sheer size of the country. One travel agent talked about a customer who wanted to rent a car and drive from New York to Florida and then across the South to California...for which he had allotted a total of five days. The agent had to tell him there was no way that was going to work.

That also brings up one problem with TSW doing a segment of an Amtrak cross-country route; many stations are as far or farther apart than TSW's route size limitations, so there would be effectively no difference between that and an A-to-B freight run.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the problem is also that many commuter trains in regions runs very infrequently. Like Northstar in Minnesota or New Mexico Rail Runner. What's the point of a route(for the average player who is not tied to one favorite region) that only has a little over 10 services in timetable mode?
This is also a problem for long distance Amtrak. Who (other than fans) needs a two train addition to the timetable?
OK, Amtrak is an icon, it can generate sales. But what about commuter routes with just 10-16 trains in the timetable?

 

A couple good examples.
Run 8 has amazing physics and systems. I can forgive the graphics (it's early TSC-ish) but there's no "game" it's ONLY a sandbox sim with nothing to DO. That's why I haven't played in months. You might get someone to come onto an online server once in awhile, but it's rare. It's just an empty world with no real "objectives."

Such a waste of opportunity.

Like the empty sidings and branch lines in TSW.

Similarly, I think you're talking about DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) although I could be wrong. There too it's a very "sandbox" setting. Amazingly modeled aircraft with FULL systems and physics, but unless you hit the right multi-player server and find the right crew, it can be very empty. All that content that just isn't an engaging "game."

TSW for it's part does manage to have timetables and scenarios be pretty engaging with lots of AI traffic.
There's vignettes on the sides, there's NPC passengers, traffic, etc.
It's more engaging and "alive" than many other games.

But, in being a "game" it sometimes misses the mark on pure "authenticity."
Often they seem to be opposing to many people.
("How dare you have a railtour in a game with a locomotive that isn't properly updated for 2025 UK rail regulations!")

It's not just "all or nothing"... it's a matter of degree.

 

Worst thing you can do with a sandbox is not put enough sand in it to enjoy, and it sounds like Run8 has that problem, which is one reason I haven't indulged (also heard some things about the devs attitude toward purchasers when downloads go wrong, etc., but I don't know that firsthand._ I actually tend to like the "wide open sandbox" type of game, but there have to be things to do within the world, even if it's just random missions that you can fill the storyline for with your imagination.

Elite Dangerous is a good example, to me, of giving all sorts of options of what to do, but leaving it to the players to decide exactly what they're interested in and what stories get generated.

Those are depressing. Map full of possibilities and none of the timetable services ever send you to the nooks and crannies, in many cases. There are exceptions; the Carlisle Trip Working services on Preston to Carlisle have you tooling about in a Class 08, making what I imagine to be final deliveries, taking loaded cars back to the main yards, etc.

Hell, one of the reason I have a more positive impression of the ATSF pack is that it makes much better use of some of Cajon Pass' infrastructure for some of the services. You get to use that big loop at Victorville Cement, for one. There are examples on other routes, too, of using the tracks that are there; I'm a sucker for any of the routes were you can load aggregates, but I feel we need a lot more of that. More local end-user deliveries, more coal loading, more branch-line passenger shuttles (I like the short passenger runs to St. Ives on West Cornwall Local, for example).

I haven't got into DCS and you've hit on a main reason why. Another is that I just don't have the patience to learn the 1970s era radar on a Tomcat as I might've in an early era, but it seems like there's a strong multiplayer focus in that community, which is great for some players, but not so much for me.

It does, even with the lines that don't seem to have enough to do. One of my best examples of a route that really hits this hard and well is the Sacramento Northern route on TSC, and I'd love to see that level of 'stuff going on' in more TSW routes.

Had a conversation yesterday with someone who didn't seem to grasp the idea of why I wanted the Santa Fe F7 DLC to be featured on the ATSF timetable, even as an excursion train. The main objection was that Santa Fe didn't run an F7 excursion train in the period the timetable covers, which is just being uselessly slaved to a very pedantic idea of realism, in my opinion. (They also pointed out that we don't currently have any passenger cars for it, which is a much better point, but not one that couldn't be fixed).

It's fun, it adds value to multiple DLCs and it fits the theme of the pack, all of which outweighs the idea of exactly sticking to a timetable being run around the same time New Kids on the Block were a thing.

All that said, the original purpose of this thread was posting suggestions for new U.S. routes, and I'll try and get to that tomorrow. I suggested SMART in the Bay Area a long time ago, and I still think that's a good idea.

 

I also told you, you can just slap it onto the route with free roam and it would be fine. Just find a gap in the timetable and have at it.

Also, HIS wouldn't listen to that suggestion anyway, as they are in the same boat (It doesn't fit the era)

 

For those reasons, I’ve always felt we shouldn’t get a full long-distance Amtrak route that’s built entirely around passenger operations. If we ever get the diesel fleet and the matching stock, it makes far more sense as a loco add-on that layers onto a new freight route. Long distances and sparse stops naturally fit freight first, and then the Amtrak equipment can further enhance the route.

That setup would also reach a much wider group of players, since the long-distance trains already have layer potential on so many existing routes, both playable and as AI. Horseshoe Curve & Cajon Pass would both benefit from having that extra layer.

 

And I pointed out that timetable mode would be a better option. Didn't get into all the reasons why, but quite a few of them are detailed in mine and other's posts in this thread. I also told you that since a fully accurate timetable mode slavishly sticking to exact details of ATSF procedures is probably an idea more suited to mods; that kind of thing is a niche of a niche, and if you're going to make decisions that optimize historical authenticity at the expense of using existing material that people paid money for that already utilizes an existing route, then that's better left to something for your small group of extremely detail-focused fans to generate on their own.

Note, that in the case of TSW vs. TSC, I do think the tools to do so should be a bit easier to use. Though that opinion isn't from experience, it's from looking at the volume of TSC content out there compared to TSW -- over the same timeframe, not the entire life of TSC.

Perhaps, but regardless of their opinion, it was still a wasted opportunity.

 

Captain Vlad, if you ever want to get into DCS, lemme know. It's a lot more fun with people to fly with.
Can't really help ya out with the Tomcat though, I have it but it's not my favorite.
At least in DCS it's very easy to make your own missions up and there's unlimited options, unlike TSW which is rather... limited.
That's something that could be addressed (getting back to the topic)
If I want to set up say a "milk run" where you go to a number of local industries and pick up/drop off cars it's basically impossible in the current TSW creator.
It should be so much easier to even do something as simple as put a single empty car on a siding where I want it.
Good to know the ATSF pack has some better use of industries! I haven't picked it up yet, but that would be enough to make it worthwhile!
It's weird someone would say the ATSF F7 wouldn't be "appropriate" because it's technically not "appropriate" on the current Cajon Pass timetable either, it was just there for a scenario that was a special event (some fireworks) so it wasn't like it was doing revenue freight on the line.....
Oh well yet another missed opportunity.
That's one thing that Run 8 does GREAT is having consists "arrive" at the depots from off-map (spawn) and then you have to sort them and deliver them to local industries. It's a bit of a puzzle game which is exactly how it works in real life.
Railroader does that too... and Derail Valley.
I wonder what it would take to do that in TSW?

Probably quite a bit I guess. You'd need car "tags" (labels) to know what goes where, tags to complete the drop offs to each track, etc.
As I suggested before though, even a "pack" of scenarios to do just that would be a lot of fun and revitalize some older routes. TSC does it with their packs for like $4.99 for a ton of new scenarios on a route.
Surely that's low hanging fruit compared to creating new locomotives and routes from scratch or whole timetables.
Make 5 or 10 scenarios and sell them?
Easy money.

 

It wasn't just that, but it also layered into the original Cajon timetable pulling modern freight cars in its own services, which a lot of us didn't like back then (There was also points where DTG could of used Clinchfield Cars to make it better and that passenger cars were canceled in development cause DTG would need "on hand" research in making them.

The ATSF F7 is just really odd, it just doesn't fit anywhere. (At least their layers on AVL and SBL are minimal)

 

I'll keep this in mind the next time I'm staring longingly at the Phantom.

Yeah, I mentioned this briefly in my response to Killer of Night above. If you ask me, TSW ought to have way more tools to allow user experience customization. The custom liveries are there, but you can't really pick and choose where they show up. The scenario editor is a tad limited and messing with timetables doesn't have an in-game tool. Plus, there's no Steam workshop support and as a guy who likes Transport Fever 2, that's painful.

Killer or other folks who prefer a hyper-realistic timetable rendered down to the exact day really ought to be able to just click 'create timetable' and do so, and assign the appropriate liveries to the trains involved. Then post them so other people can use them if they want.

As is, timetable mode is one of the biggest things TSW does differently than other train games, but it has a lot more potential if they made modding it more accessible.

I haven't had time to run 'em all, but I'll let you know if it turns out to be less consistent than it seems so far.

I don't know, but that 'day of business' aspect of Railroader is one of my favorite things about it, and I definitely think about it whenever I'm comparing it to TSW or TSC.

You can argue that they already do this to some extent with the loco packs that include a different timetable. But I like this option better, and it would be a no-brainer buy for me. Could do it with timetables in addition to just scenarios, too, if, say, you wanted to do retro packs with existing assets.

 

Amtrak does have a decent presence in places like Chicago, but someone like Metra seems like the main problem around the Chicago area, at least for modern times (They were unbranded in TSC)

 

Do you know if they're open, at all, to vintage/backdated routes?

 

In the meantime, here's one of my suggestions: Union Pacific's line from Texarkana, Texas to Little Rock, Arkansas.

Map's not exactly the best, but it's roughly from the center hub in the middle of the state (Little Rock, the state capital) southeast to Texarkana, Arkansas/Texas in Miller County, Ark/Bowie County, Texas. The length might be an issue, as AI estimates a length of around 140-45 miles, though the good news is that large sections of the route, which more or less follows Interstate 30, are not exactly what I'd call dense urban terrain.

Good industry variety along the route, with some pretty interesting points of interest. In Texarkana, we have the Red River Army Depot, which is massive and IIRC has a lot of track, 15,000 or so acres and its own switchers, but I don't forsee a great deal of cooperation when it comes to a game company calling and saying "hey can we survey your site". Which is fine, because nearby, there's the TexAmericas Center.

This is a Union Pacific "Focus Site". Thirty miles of rail, 350 car rail yard, industrial tenants galore. Here's some links to more information.

https://texamericascenter.com/about-texamericas-center/tenant-information/

Plus, the center itself has some locomotives of it's own.

https://texarkanafyi.com/texamerica...ves-to-boost-rail-service-and-tenant-support/
There's a place that repairs and leases rail cars down there, too. Further along the route, forgive any inaccuracies cuz I'm using AI to assist here, you've got Prescott Industrial Park in Prescott, Georgia-Pacific and Siplast in Arkadelphia, Reynolds Packaging, Weyerhaeuser, and the Hot Spring County Quarry in Malvern, and in the Little Rock/North Little Rock area you've got the Port of Little Rock (20 miles of track with UP and BNSF both serving the place), various other manufacturers and UP's Jenks Car shop which is one of their biggest.


Here's a Little Rock Port Authority Railroad locomotive:


Multiple interchanges along the route including with CPKC and Kiamichi Railroad (Class III) in Hope, Arkansas Midland in multiple locations (they're non-contiguous) and Prescott and Northwestern (all six miles of it) in Prescott. The map above shows a connection with the Caddo Valley Railroad, but it's been "they tore up the tracks and sold them for scrap" level defunct for years.

AMTRAK's Texas Eagle does run along this route, though as Train Sim Society pointed out, it's like one, maybe one, maybe two trains a day, but she stops at the old Texarkana Union Station which...well, it's kinda cool.

Some local revitalization efforts going on with it, or were last year, too.

According to AI, the route is primarily single-tracked with sidings, and "terrain is relatively flat, with gentle curves and moderate grades—ideal for efficient rail operations" which would be a nice change from the usual mountain runs on U.S. freight -- there's certainly significant elevation changes in that area of Arkansas, but they're probably relatively gentle.

If older eras as a possibility, the line used to be Missouri Pacific.

Any additional information or corrections are welcome.

 

A major problem is that excursion trains are passenger trains, and DTG have never created any vintage US coaching stock.

 

I’m just hoping this thread is helpful in bringing back a better mix of US content and doesn’t end up as just an extended wish list that results in nothing. Commuter content is great but it isn’t the biggest thing about US railroads. We definitely need more big freight, small freight and vintage content. No specific suggestions from me as I don’t know enough about it but I know I do want more freight content like Cajon Pass and more content like Clinchfield set back in an older period. I want more commuter stuff as well but a balance overall not just commuter rail. I get educated by the content I get in game and other people’s suggestions and I get more excited by the freight routes that are suggested. I lost months to Cajon Pass when it released. Hour after hour, day after day, going over that hill in the well made locos. More of that please.

 

Going to pick your brain here a bit since I'm not familiar with what players look into a freight route. With that said, what are your thoughts on something like Granger Heartland" Kansas City-Topeka route high-speed US freight route which I know should include the famous santa fe junction?

 

Yes, something other than California and commuter trains would be great! I definitely would like to see some Midwestern and Southeastern freight in TSW even if it's not licensed. I also really hope DTG works on making the route editor easier to use for most users which would solve a lot of the bickering over which routes people want.

 

Yeah, I mentioned that that came up further down in that quote; noted it's not an issue that couldn't be solved.

Really would love for have some for the F7, and anything they made might be able to fill in for other stuff.

 

Not an American, but I did suggest in another thread that a good way to get the P42 in-game would be to do the Lowell & Haverhill Lines out of Boston North with the Downeaster.

The MBTA stock would already be a pretty full roster, but you could add the GP40MC as a DLC, or alternately have that as the included traction, with the Downeaster as the DLC. Either way, it's a new bit of Boston and gives a relatively straightforward way to get a Genesis in the game without needing to model any new carriages or a long distance route, and the timetable is pretty frequent for a named train at 5 each way per day.

 

I'd love the South Shore Line, and while I've heard that DTG has had issues with RTA licenses, they're a Chicagoland route not owned by them. DTG might have an easier time getting licensing from the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (a name that seemed like it took forever to type). The freight is still private, an a Class III.

My personal preference would be a vintage version of it, so we could run freight with Little Joes in addition to the passenger service, but they ran from the late 40s to 1983 so that would at least be a huge window to decide when to "set" it, if they went for that. But it's a great suggestion either way.