Thames Valley Branches Discussion

People make scenarios up in their heads to suit their narrative I suspect, especially if it means being able to have a go at DTG. Maybe Johannes simply doesn't want to merge them with GWE, but it is easier to think that nasty DTG won't let him.

I've been called a fanboy in the past often by people that then buy the next add-on and moan about it whilst I held off from it, but apparently I'm the enabler! Just because I don't get bitter over everything. It's a past time at the end of the day not something crucial to ones existence.

Anyway I am looking forward to how this turns out and having a drive of the routes as it sounds like he's put a lot of effort in.

 

This made me giggle, considering the tutorial I wrote on reskinning stock in RailSimulator a month or two after its release in 2007 was the go-to thread for beginners in RS / RW / TS / TSC and spent something like 14-15 years pinned at the top of the help forum on UKTS...

The "amount of time and effort" I put into building a route in TSC well over decade ago or so ago led to one of the longest ever route-building threads on the UKTS forums, up there with the Trans-Pennine Route. The route I was building happened to be a full remaster of the ancient Paddington-Oxford GWML, which Keith Ross had initially worked on to upgrade and include the Heathrow Airport branch. I then gave this a full scenic remaster, deleted and rebuilt everything between Old Oak and Paddington to put it onto the right alignment, and then bolted on parts of the Hammersmith & City, Acton-Northolt, West London and North London lines, then added the branches to Greenford, Colnbrook, Windsor, Marlow, Henley, Reading West, the Didcot Railway Centre and then started extending it northwards to Banbury.

I was simultaneously building new 3D models of Paddington Station, Trellick Tower, various scenery items and also rolling stock such as the 95 stock, a static Eurostar and a Class 332, whilst also sourcing various existing buildings from the community, all of this over literally thousands of hours of my spare time which eventually I could no longer contribute alongside my work commitments.

But do go on to explain I'm not qualified to discuss the topic...

Little blast from the past for those who remember it.

 

One point that needs to be made is if the route is set in 2017, then both Slough and Maidenhead will need to be electrified.

The GWR route is nothing like it was in 2017, by then the wires were pretty much up everywhere, and in May 2017, the first Maidenhead-Paddington 387 services started and in late 2017 they started to Reading.
And they were testing for a quite a while before as I can remember standing on Slough station a few times seeing an 8-car 387 race through, only to then have to get on a 2 or 3-car DMU, which invariably would be rammed!

If anything, the GWR route is 2015 at best.

As I posted here or on the other thread, I really feel it was an opportunity wasted, but of course, that's just my opinion. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, it's healthy we all look at things from different perspectives.

It would have been great to set it late 2017 or even 2018 and have the line between Slough and Reading Traincare included and fully wired. That way you can still run some IET/HST services between Slough and Reading (They still had the Worcester/Hereford services back then) and the Oxfords used to stop at Slough all the time as well. And you can use a GWR-branded 387 on services as well. Plus ECS runs for the DMU and some extra services, making for extra playability.

And I say that for 2 reasons...
1) Because I think Johannes would do an excellent job of a more-modern electrified-mainline.
& 2) My favourite topic - cross-sales. Give me a chance to run an IET fully electric even if only 20 minutes, I'll take it. Drive a 387 on GWR route, yes please!

That's all I got to say. As the route is, I'll reluctantly give it a miss even though it includes two local stations.
But... as I also said on one of the threads, I'm excited for the Richmond extension on Mildmay, which I have now picked up in a sale.

 

This!

That’s exactly how I feel, if anything it’s limiting the overall fun and journey of what could’ve been.
I’m really starting to hate now that the GWML isn’t fully electrified.

 

Lack of joined up thinking all round really. The remaster should have moved the period forward, if the TVB was known about built into the remaster (from the long ago demo by Matt of the full editor it was my understanding different people can work on different sections which can later be bolted together) along with the GW liveried 387, the 165 conversion and the Class 802 (though really needs the 800) sold at an appropriate price, some nice plunder for all involved.

 

Do you have any plans to release this or has it been binned? The screenshots look absolutely fantastic!!!

 

Thanks, I was very happy with the way the route was turning out but this was 15 years ago so it will never be finished or released. I seem to recall the final straw was an editor crash which I thought had left the track definition file intact, but which I eventually realised weeks later had in fact destroyed (literally) hundreds of hours of trackwork at the Paddington end, leaving me with the choice of redoing it all, or restoring the last good backup and redoing all the track between Reading and Oxford.

Anyway, it's ancient history and we should probably get back on topic. Whenever I use the GWE Remaster I see bits of the route that I know in intricate detail though, from hours spent staring at track diagrams, cab ride videos, satellite imagery and up to date photos just as the Crossrail works were getting underway in real life.

I must say I agree that having Slough unelectrified but setting it in 2017 was an odd choice, however I'll give DTG the benefit of the doubt and assume they documented the line in 2015/2016 and built it essentially as it was then, choosing to market it as a 2017 route simply because that's the year it was released.

JB

 

Setting it in 2017 means that the timetable should sync up perfectly with Liam's 2017 timetable for the GWE remaster, it makes sense. Technically however it's more accurate to say the timetable is 2017 and not the route.

 

Do you mean "only sold with DTG approval" or only through DTG stores?
Because you can buy the DLC direct from Skyhook, Alan Thompson, etc in TSW.
So do you mean they just have "final approval?"

 

It’s not where you can buy the keys from, it’s that DTG publish all TSW DLC. Everyone has to go through DTG via their 3rd party partner programme to have their content in TSW. Nobody can publish their own TSW DLC and sell it direct like they could for TSC.

 

Very goid you know how to build TSC routes but hiw are you with the TSW editor.

They are 2 different games just because you know TSC procedures for building a route does not make you an expert in TSW.

Ii's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

If we saying that DTG should have the final say in what is released and it should match what they believe is popular and works for the community then you are also saying saying we should never have had Blackpool Branches, WCMoS (BR blue doesn’t sell), Niddertalbahn, Mittenwald (players only want modern image), BR101 & BR145 expert locos (players want simply one handed controlled trains). TSG wouldn’t have been permitted to resurrect steam.

Is that what we all want a TSW where 3rd Parties have to follow the status quo that DTG set? Because quite frankly that’s not the TSW I want. Yes this whole concept may prove unpopular but if the dev thinks this might work and it will sell enough units to justify the time he spent on it then DTG are correct in not standing in his way, just like how they didn’t stand in the way of TSG or Just Trains.

For all those saying it should have included XYZ, have you ever considered that the time involved in adding those things may have made the whole route uneconomical to make and had it been insisted on by DTG could quite possibly have meant that we’d never have got the opportunity to drive the branches at all?

 

It's content creation for games, the methods are different but the overall logic is the same. The fact that you think it's apples and oranges shows us you don't really know much about it. I've been in software and IT for 25 years, and you conveniently only mention the TSC editor, not the fact that building routes requires extensive knowledge of 3D modelling packages, 2D graphical packages, file structures, in-depth technical knowledge of how operating systems work, and of course some level of artistic talent. Ask any route builder here, or any DLC builder for any game, for that matter.

I don't create content for TSW so I don't see why I'd be an expert with the TSW Editor. Are you an expert with the TSW Editor? You seem to think you know more than everyone here, despite your posts clearly showing otherwise such as this excellent example where you appear unaware that absolutely every DLC for TSW has to be approved by DTG in terms of what can be done, how it should be done, when it can be done and how much it's going to be sold for.

You may want to stop with your patronising suggestions that content creation for games is within anyone's reach, before you incur the wrath of the long-established content creators on this forum. Feel free to show us what you've built.

JB

 

I'm not sure what personal attacks, insults and insinuations have to do with the topic at hand.
The original claim was that DTG should have encouraged/forced the lines to be "linked" by GWE, even if it's unrealistic and a third creator "because you can do it in TSC."

Whether anyone knows how to code is irrelevant.
It was a request from someone unhappy with 3 disconnected routes who was demanding something they want that wasn't done. I'm sure there were many reasons for it, but the bottom line is that yes it would require more work, time and difficulty than not doing it.
The creator chose not to do it.
Presumably because they MADE the DLC, they chose not to "link" them and they are well aware of why they did it. There are many reasons why it would be unadvisable to bother with it.
-Coordination between parties
-Legal issues
-Maintenance/updating issues
-Conflicts
-Unrealistic (since there'd be nothing to run in a timetable across those branches in real life)

In the absence of DTG "demanding" them to link them, sure... if you want to mod it yourself, go ahead and do so. That is what happens in TSC, people mod the hell out of it. No one is stopping you from doing so. However, realize that it's not incumbent on the creator of any route to have to do whatever any one individual wants with their creation.

But yes, the people who want to make a mod to "merge" routes are free to do so if they have the capability to do so on their own time.
It might even become quite popular with the community.

 

OK there where did I ever say I was an expert? Please point that out.

You are the one who replied with a novel on what makes you an expert not me. I don't even know what brought that on since I wasn't even quoting you.

I like just how you are making up things that were never said to just argue with me. I don't remember ever saying you were someone complaing the the Editor was too hard and obviously you don't find that. Guess what then you weren't who I was talking about.

Dude I don't even own a computer and never said I was an expert in anythig software related. Please point out where I said I was.

However I will say just because I can play guitar and bass doesn't mean I know anything about playing drums or piano. Even though they are all musical instruments and the theory is similar.

But I guess you know it all. Continue with your made up arguments in your head there.

 

If I’m not mistaken the dev for this route is a one man team, why is anyone expecting him to do something no other dev (including DTG) have done before? The fact that route linking hasn’t been done by any one probably implies that it’s technically extremely difficult if not impossible in TSW and or the work involved makes cost prohibitive.

Modders are fantastic at what they do but ultimately they don’t have to concern themselves with console hardware/ limitations, extensive testing and QA or turning a profit. And that last one is often the limiting factor for any commercial enterprise.

I hope one day an established developer finds a way to route link but with absolutely zero disrespect to a fantastic dev on just his 2nd route I have zero expectation that he should or even could be the one to lead the way in this regard.

 

This seems like a nice route; most people who want these branches assumed that we’ll never get them at all & we’re getting them all in a bundle. It’s a concept that I hope continues in the future!

 

What are you talking about? We've had a number of route extensions in the past. Nobody's asking for "route linking".

 

That's exactly what was asked for.

 

Maybe you should quote the post you're referring to? The only ones I've seen are from people saying this should have been built as an extension to GWE. I've searched this thread for the word "connect" and it doesn't feature, other than within the word "disconnected". I've also searched for "link" and that appears a few times in posts from people asking just for the stretch of GWML to be added between the branches, and also in the post above that makes the claim that people want "route linking" (incorrect) and that what's being asked for - an extension - has "never been done" in TSW (very incorrect).

It's getting a bit tiresome repeatedly explaining what a route extension is so I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread.

JB

 

Hopefully he can do the Exeter to Okehampton Crediton and Barnstaple lines (hopefully with Okehampton Interchange in there for a modern touch ) -- id pay for that. Complimenting the Plymouth route.

Not so familiar with the Thames lines but interesting to hear about the stuff not seen in an existing TSW route...

 

An Exeter Branches type of route with Exmouth is definitely something I'd like, but it would 100% be problematic with the community since that idea isn't an extension.

 

The word to search for in this thread is “merge”.

As for extensions, what has never been done before is an extension being able to be sold as a separate DLC. It’s always either a free upgrade or the whole route is sold again in extended form. Neither of those can happen for this branch line for various reasons.

Leaving the thread might be a good idea.