Route Peak Forest Railway: Ambergate – Chinley & Buxton Feedback Thread

If I’m not mistaken it’s in the HUD & Gameplay Settings under Display Safety System Helper, or similar.

 

You can use the F4 in the planner for passenger services.

 

Can anyone tell me what this is for at Matlock Station? It looks a bit odd...

 

It's a signal for the guard so he knows if the signal around the bend is clear.

 

Was I just really unlucky or is there a reason why all the trains I played take the "right" line towards chinley?
I understand with the freight because it needs acces to Gowhole sidings.
But the passengers are really slowed down for nothing?
Because to go towards Manchester Central you need to take the "left" line.
So either the train would need to change back after Chinley but then why change at all?
Or the Trains goes towards Manchaster Picadilly but then why dont change after Chinley?
Without any explenation this just feels like DTG cutting corners on the pathing of services again.
And these little things just kill it for me, I mean there are four tracks so let us use them please?

 

Thanks for this - it looks like a really light timetable so I've taken 45 min to compare it to the actual 1963 timetable available on timetableworld.com and man, it looks like a rushed mess again.

(Disclaimer: before I go into this in more detail, I'd point out that if DTG are using a working timetable from the first half of the year, then my passenger timetable won't be entirely valid. For reference, the timetable I'm using to compare is valid from June 1963. My timings are not exactly the same either - but I've given the benefit of the doubt and if there's an appropriate service starting within 5-10 minutes then it's counted. Having said that, there are more than enough issues and missing services that I don't think this factor could explain all of them.)

Let's start with the Up direction which is better represented:



8 (50%) of the services are present and correct, with a further 4 (25%) present but with some errors - again this may be down to DTG using a slightly earlier WTT. There are 4 services (25%) totally missing, 3 stopping passenger and one semi-fast.

Strangely there are also an additional four services that I can't seem to match up with the timetable I have - again, this is probably because DTG are using a slightly earlier dated timetable.

The Down direction is a total mess however with only seven services over the whole day.



Only 5 (35%) of the 14 timetable services are present as expected, with two more having issues. 7 (50%) of timetabled services are missing altogether, both semi-fast and stoppers.

It also means that there are no services at all which stop in-game at Rowsley in the Down direction.

I don't understand why any services were missed out when it is clear that the decision has been made that the Jubilee was OK to use for stopping passenger services as well as semi-fast.

I've written on the topic of the missing Miller's Dale - Buxton DMU shuttle before - this would have added another 18 services in each direction.

To sum up, out of the 66 services (that stop at at least two in-game stations) present on the whole real-life June 1963 timetable, only 19 (29%) of them are included in-game. So if you're wondering why it's really quiet for what is supposed to be a main line, this is why.

There are also many services that in the real timetable only stop at Miller's Dale or don't stop at all en route - I have no idea whether these have been included as AI services to add some life and so they aren't included in this analysis.

This is the second steam route and again the timetable is more than half empty - why is this OK for heritage routes but modern routes are more comprehensively represented?

Seriously DTG, you've clearly built a really pretty route here and the locos are by-and-large fun to drive after the updates too - so why not include a full timetable for us to enjoy it with? As it stands, it really looks to me like the timetable builder wasn't given enough time to finish the job, and I think it's fair to say this is not the first time this has happened this year.

Can we expect the missing services to be added please to bring some life back to this major trunk route?

 

I don't have the route but know it relatively well and if you are talking about the area I think you are then it is the right hand lines that you need to take to get to Manchester and the left hand ones will only get you as far as Buxton.
If I am thinking of a different place or my memory has failed me I am sorry but hope fully I am on the right (gulp) track.

 

I fully agree I have the route and enjoying it but more timetable services to make the route better and more alive

 

The quality of the route itself might be good, but when i see your comparison of the timetable, this is just pathetic. I was excpecting it to be cutted like past releases, but this is even worse & beyond.

DTG is pretending like everything is ok.

 

This route is extremely buggy on PC. Constant scenerio failures while shunting cars, Consists that seem to want to explode and cause scenario failures. This just happened while playing Royal Appointment. 750 feet to stop from 45 mph track speed right into a SPAD failure. Happy i was streaming this cause what even is that....

https://clips.twitch.tv/BloodyManlyLEDDancingBaby--ga_B6oAQz0eiGkb

 

I’ve made several passenger scenarios with the 4F. It’s great pulling two carriage trains to Buxton from Ambergate

 

Looking a minute or so earlier in your stream, you passed a Distant signal at Caution. That's the yellow semaphore arms, as opposed to the red ones. They don't show up in the HUD (which is a problem), but you should be watching out for them!

 

I was thinking of buying the route. However, I have two questions.
(1) Are there timetabling/scripting issues? Unachievable medal requirements, unfair timinigs that are impossible to keep to, broken scenarios/services, things like that.
(2) Do the route's Steam achievements work? I'm seeing them as "hidden," and they don't have descriptions.

 

For DTG's attention, I have been thinking about how semaphore signals could be reflected better in the HUD, ie. more consistently with the HUD's behaviour with colour-light signals. This may also improve semaphore signalling realism in-game. Honestly, this has been a problem since the SDJR in Rail Simulator, and it's just been carried over thoughtlessly into TSW.

Presently, only stop and some shunting signals are represented in the HUD. These show only red (stop) or green (clear) indications in the HUD, even if there is also a Distant arm on the same post. Colour-light signals capable of showing a stop aspect appear in the HUD and may show a yellow (caution) indication in the HUD. Colour-light and semaphore signals whose most restrictive aspect is Caution do not appear in the HUD at all. Also, after a signal at Caution and with the block section ahead still occupied, all stop signals except the section signal stand at clear, giving the impression of a clear run through.

None of the above is prototypical or helpful to the player. Players accustomed to modern colour-light signalling will expect to see a yellow caution indicator in the HUD before they encounter a stop signal at Danger. In the real world, the Home signals would be held at Danger until approached slowly by the train, using the so-called "Warning Arrangement", ensuring that the train is moving slowly enough to stop at the section signal.

I propose the following, in order of priority:

1. Signals with both Home and Distant arms on the same post should indicate Caution in the HUD (instead of Clear) when the relevant Distant arms are "on".
2. Distant signals, both semaphore and colour-light, should appear in the HUD using the appropriate Caution and Clear indications.
3. Home signals with no Distant arm at or between themselves and a subsequent Danger signal (or buffer stop) should remain at Danger, and indicate as such, until approached to within 200m by a train at under 15mph. They should then clear, but showing Caution in the HUD, to remind novice players to approach the next signal cautiously as well.
4. Treat shunt signals separately, with their own indication in the HUD distinct from a "main" Clear indication. When running under main signals, shunt signals are not relevant to the player, so their HUD indications should be suppressed entirely. When proceeding on a shunt signal, the HUD should show at most a Caution indication, or ideally a separate (white?) Shunt indication.

 

Steam achievements for DLC are routinely hidden until you have the DLC installed. This is normal. Even on a machine where I don't have TSW installed at all, I can see achievements I've actually received, but "Hidden".

Some of the schedules are difficult, if not impossible, to maintain. However, this doesn't seem to prevent getting gold medals on them. Some of the difficulty may reflect performance differences between what's modelled and what was actually used to run the real timetable. These performance differences are thrown into sharp relief by the steep gradients on the line.

 

That only disables Safety systems, like PZB hints. Driver assist will remain active.

For some reason driver assist is tied to the same settings that enables/disables all control information. So if you disable driver assist, you will also not get the "Large Ejector Fully Open" information on the hud.

 

It’s a steam engine not an Electrostar. By 750 feet or 250 yards you should be doing no more than 15 or 20 MPH. As noted above you obviously missed the distant signal.

Sorry but have to call user error on this one. Enjoy your tea and biscuits with the Driver Manager!

 

Can I just ask about the 'super detailing' mentioned by DTG Matt here



In the actual release (PC at least) you cannot walk down to the bridge at Monsal Dale due to invisible walls, and the bridge has been replaced by something less pleasing.

 

This is a fantastic and beautiful route, really feels like you are back in the era of steam and you can tell a lot of work has been done to replicate this.

I do wonder if I should be creating a thread regarding additional services and AI that is seemingly missing?

I watched a YouTube video by TrainSim TV and there does also appear to be a lack of static stock.

Can anybody confirm that this is also the case and that there does seem to be a lack of passing services, which ultimately does make the route feel dead?

I was under the impression that certain 4F services could be mixed traffic/ light passenger and may be hurdling up/down the route, possibly the same with the 8F?

Can we try to petition to get these numbers increased, similar to how Skyhook are operating?

 

I was going to create a separate thread myself on why we are getting very poor timetables but thought it pointless as would just be ignored by DTG but I'm with you on a petition, feel free to create a thread and you've got my vote and I'd imagine many others, what use it would do though.....? Hopefully they'll listen. Oh I'd also add in Layers into the debate, I mean they've released an 4F with this route, why has is not been layered into SOS? That timetable is a joke and has not been touched since release, at least adding some 4F services would of given it a new lease of life, especially with the newly improved physics.

 

A petition? lmao.

 

That lays it out quite starkly to be honest.

This is also another problem with not starting at Derby it is hard to realistically add in some services which would be passing through. It would be nice if those services were undriveable AI traffic at least.

I can't wait to purchase the route as I think it looks wonderful but for me a realistic as possible timetable is just as important as the visual aspects and unfortunately it falls down on that front.

 

Also hopefully any new DLC for Peak Forest will also layer into SOS, it is ridiculous that a busy mainline set in 1957 has a complete tranche of services missing. Also empty yards devoid of shunting engines, there are no trip freight workings either.

There is so much scope for an immersive timetable for both routes, really recreating days gone by when the railways were more than a place to move commuters and intermodal freight trains. Why would you not want to recreate that, I don't understand it as clearly Matt and the rest of the team are clearly passionate about railways and creating content?

 

Well what else do you wanna call it?

I don't get what is unreasonable about that, nobody else plucks up the courage to ask for it and most routes are under populated..

 

I'd sign that petition. Timetables have been quantitatively lackluster lately and it's apparent that some more dev time needs to be allocated towards their development. (I still side with whoever said we need a clone (or two) of Joe lol)

 

Everyone mentions it, this thread is full of it, it been mentioned for ages.
A petition will do nothing, people have been asking for 'better' timetables for a long time, a petition will do the square root of f'all.

 

Haha, yeah I've created a thread on the forums if you wanna take a look and advise

 

Created a thread, please post in there if you have any ideas haha

 

I believe what's hidden or not is decided manually by the developer. Normal practice is to include the achievements for upcoming DLC, but mark them as hidden. Then to make them visible upon release. In the case of TSW3, the only hidden achievements are the ones for Midland Main Line and this route. I also seem to remember DTG forgetting to "un-hide" a route's achievements with its release before. And them being hidden isn't even the issue; it's whether they work or not.

That's disappointing. Sounds like SoS all over again. I think I'll wait for more detailed feedback on scenarios and services before purchasing then.

 

Well it seemed to work with MML and NYT unless they happened to be planning to improve the timetables all along.

If you try and fail then at least you have tried.

 

Both (of those) products were clearly pushed out the door to meet a deadline, I'd assume the state they released in wasn't the state that the developers intended.
I think PF is a different animal, because it's primary focus appears to be on banking and shunting, with passenger duties taking a back seat.

 

This annoys me greatly. For a player like myself, control information is needed, the driver assists are not needed and are an intrusion. They don’t serve the same purpose as information types and very much need separating in the settings. I don’t know how DTG didn’t realise this when designing it as a system. A settings menu item for Driver Assist On/Off is such a simple concept for such an obviously intrusive HUD element. It’s fine for learning but just annoying for the rest of us and is not the same as the often very necessary control input information subtly appearing on the right of the screen. And they appear too soon in many cases. I saw one such intrusive example in a live preview stream (a route I don’t have yet) that was appearing at every stop to remind the goldfish memory of the driver that there is a door interlock. Completely unnecessary for even a novice to be reminded every time and before there has been any potential error on the driver’s part. Please remember to breath out. Now breath in, now breath out. Perhaps a whole rethink of this feature is required but for the sanity of the players please make an urgent change to the settings and let us turn it off without disabling much needed information at the same time.

 

Well they haven't stated that is the case. I don't see how cutting down the passenger services would stop them adding in the freight services. Surely recreating a reasonably busy and immersive route should be key.

Also, the passenger services seem all over the place, why does Rowsley not even have any services in one direction?

The Peak Forest route was still very much a passenger route as much as a freight route, there are plenty of freight routes which DTG could have chosen if they had wanted.

 

I, or you, don't know their development process, I'm just uncomfortable with the notion that they are purposely withholding "things", and what "people" want is within the scope of their development process.

Bottom-line here is, there are always people who will not be happy that 'x' wasn't in a product, it's certainly not limited to TSW, the internet is really, really good at providing a platform for dissenting voices.

Time will tell what happens next.

 

Just to propose a point for discussion.
It may be that the route is designed with a limited set of services from the outset, if there are plans to release additional content post release, such as a new loco and rolling stock. The train pack would then add in the missing services, and could "encourage" people to buy the pack to complete the timetable....

 

This Is A Good Route, But the 4F Desperately needs more timetable services, I know DTG mentioned adding the 4f to some of the passenger services so really hoping that happens
Also it would be good to see the 4f have some freight services with lighter loads, but this may not be historically accurate so correct me if I'm wrong
Definitely Needs Some Passenger Services Though

 

I've noticed when you do scenarios on the route there's decent ai services and static 4f at sidings and some shunting and doing passenger services same with the jubilee but in timetable mode there's hardly any of that which is strange

 

I’m having a really great time with Peak Forest. The gameplay that’s there is enjoyable and this route easily has the best scenery out of all of TSW’s UK content. Definitely a good step up with the foliage too, keep up these standards going forward

If I have any feedback it has to be the 4F. The locomotive itself is good fun but I really feel there isn’t enough to do with it on the timetable and for a lot of what is there, it’s shunting or banking. Some local pick up & drop off goods services with the 4F would be a nice addition to the timetable.

 

DTG shot themself in the foot entirely, by cutting corners on the only feature which could make tsw to a sucessor.
With no editor, no player creativity freedome, the 24h timetable was a bold improvement and kept the 2 franchaises (tsw & tsc) in balance.

But they really managed to cut off their feeding hand by going lazy on the timetables lately.

A potential feature loco dlc is not an excuse for cutting out services. They could make a second timetable anyway.

For me they crossed the line even with past dlcs. Weird to say, but im glad i have stopped supporting. Im sure there is a lot of enjoyment for many players but for me personally its just not good enough. In this price segment what i spend on money im excpecting at least not to be annoyed all the time by all the corners were cutted over and over again.

 

It would be accurate, the 4F's were used a lot on lighter loadings of both freight and passenger.

 

Just Played A Costume Scenario with the 4F, once you go above 40mph, the engine stops emitting smoke unless you have the cut off at 50% or higher, the exhaust audio still plays but from the chimney visually the loco just coasts, this get worse the higher your speed, also the higher your speed the lower the sound of the exhaust pattern (chuffing) is

 

Ensure you are either in automatic firing or, if manual, hit "F" to trigger the AI fireman to actually do some work.

 

Now off at a bit of a tangent, but something else this route shows up lacking once again in TSW is the lack of...

Decent Ambient Train Sounds
​

Here we have a route with multiple tunnels, many quite long, tight limestone cuttings right up against the side of the train, masonry viaducts and metal bridges. Yet still, not a single element of reverb or rumble. We have beautiful scenery and a challenging drive, but the soundscape is just flat as a squashed Bakewell tart...

 

Effectively the fire will go out and the loco fail, even though there are no visual prompts or onscreen information to indicate this. Try it and see what happens.

 

Yes this is certainly where TSC has a distinct advantage even if TSC doesn't do it perfectly. Quite why this should be I do not know as it would such an aid to immersion, especially in tunnels.

 

So apart from some timetable gripes, half a missing hill and the fact that we are not getting some trains that were never advertised, this has been the best dlc launch since when?

 

Layering has to be built into a route when it is made: in other words, newer locos do not layer into older routes. It has always been this way.

The only exceptions to this are (1) where a future loco DLC was anticipated and included in a route's timetable (such as the Acela on Boston-Providence), and (2) where an older route gets a whole new timetable which can include locos released in the meantime (such as SKA).

 

Nope, we're now seeing cases where timetables are updated without making a whole new timetable, such as with SEHS.

 

It does look great, I don't think anyone has denied that, so lets have a timetable befitting it.

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The expanded TSW3 version is indeed a brand new timetable. If you mean the forthcoming 700, the layer was built into that timetable.