Just been confirmed on the stream that there will be no layers being "backported" (Their words not mine lmao) onto current routes. No Azumas at Waverley or Glasgow Central, no Metrolink at San Bernadino, No Flying Scotsman Railtours anywhere. Extremely dissapointing
Well it obviously can't happen automatically, because how will the older route know what is being released afterwards? The point is that they could in time revisit the timetables and add layers, or indeed new timetables. Plus substitutions could be enabled where applicable (like for like number of cars in the consist)
It's not simple to just add in a layer. It has to fit into the schedule and tested to make sure it works with the other services on the route
I wouldn't be surprised if that changes, tbqh. Rivet may take a chance to use the 801 for EDN. Flying Scotsman will probably just be a newer (and better) version of WCL Steam Railtour. Layers going backwards are a huge bonus when they happen, although it's not really disappointing, for me.
To be fair, they were quite clear about this on the last roadmap stream in relation to my question regarding layering the 4F on SOS. Layers only go forwards, not backwards (unless there is a new timetable for a route for some reason). I would hope that the development process changes to be more strategic regarding what is coming so this can happen for a recent route even if it is released before new rolling stock but this may or may not come to pass.
I hate that they keep using the subpar scenario planner as an excuse to not bother with layers. Running an already working service with other trains on the route is not the same is having to waste 2 hours testing, tinkering and trying to not make the route look like a ghost town, all just to run a single service.
First thing I will be doing when the PC editor comes out, is adding more to the SOS timetable. I want to see Liverpool station busy, and have the 4F on the route.
I mean, they added the 37 railtour and did their steam pack for EDN, so I mean, don't be so outrightly negative. But the LNER would only cover a marginal part of the route, between EDN and wherever the junctions towards Inverness/ aberdeen (which unlikely because not 800) or the Glasgow central via the other Falkirk line
Yeah, because you have to pay them more money to get it, instead of using the BR Blue Mk2s from NTP like literally every other Railtour does. Don't even get me started on the cashgrab 'Steam Railtour Pack'
Unless the route is built with layers in mind. For example, bpe was built with space for the acela so it could easily be fit in. Still requires testing but it's easier to put something in if it's set up for it rather than having to remake the timetable to fit it in
Can we add services to timetables created by DTG or do we have to create our own timetables? Would be good if we could copy their timetable as a template and mess about with that so not screwing up the original
This has been standard throughout TSW and isn’t anything new. Layers don’t get added to old routes when new routes and trains come out. The issue is that the new stuff needs a lot of testing and they can’t use any test time to test old timetables to make sure nothing gets broken by new layers. Sometimes they will add layers to old routes when they have that time or if an old route gets a revamp and that may be the case with the new trains from TSW4 at some stage.
I think the overall point stands here. It may not of been something DTG have done in the past, but it’s something they need to do now. TSW isn’t going to progress very far if we keep saying “they didn’t do it before, so they shouldn’t do it now”.
I totally get your point on missed promisses from DTG and underachiving. But, when possible they put new stock into older routes. Just look at London Commuter, Köln Aachen and so on. It takes some time and often some pushing, but often enough they do it. So I think a good strategy could be, to demand it when it is suitable.
I can understand the reluctance too add new services to very busy timetables but there's no excuse not to add them to quiet timetables especially where termini are empty and especially adding services onto paths where there are no current services running on. Should be no excuse not to add the 801 onto the Edinburgh route as AI going on it's merry way to KX
What a shame. Considering the lack of rolling stock I expected them to be used to their absolute fullest.
What I wish they added was a layer toggle. There are time I don't want to see certain rolling stock on routes. Like being able to turn off 112s on RSN or 111s on other German routes.
Well if you watched and listened yesterday stream then you will know that your plan will fail because timetable editor is working like a blueprint... it include nodes and when you cook it nodes and all that information is removed ... so you cant open and edit cooked timetable like you cant open cooked blueprints. So if you want to add more to SOS timetable then you will have to create the whole timetable from 0. There is no adding services in their cooked timetables and there is no even way to copy them. You are on your own... create timetable from 0.
Oh well, if I am to learn, I think the West Somerset route will be a starting point as a learning curve
I did watch yesterday. Scenarios and Timetable Changes are able to be created for existing routes. As is adding scenery. You're just unable to edit existing scenery/trains and extend routes.
That has ALWAYS been the case; why on earth would you expect it to change? Layers have to be designed into a route when it is made. Sometimes an old route gets a new timetable, and then new layers can be written in, but otherwise no older route has layers for newer locos, because DTG don't own a time machine. (This however does not apply to substitutions, which are not the same thing. A layer is a set of unique services. A substitution is just putting a different loco on an existing service, and this happens all the time).
They did so in the case of the Acela on Boston, and the 700 on SEHS extended- but of course those were near-future DLC releases when the timetables were made.
These are both the home route for the respective DLC and will always get a new timetable (or added to the current one) on the home route. In the example of the Acela, this was added to TNJ but this was essentially a new route at time of release. If Trenton had been chosen as the home route then it's very unlikely it would have been added as a layer on Boston.
Fair point. It just happens to be that case that Brandon and Joe have said that they allotted Acela and 700 layers to Boston's and SEHX's original timetables when they made them. (In fact, it has been possible with a mod to unlock the 700 services and run them with a 465 or 375 ever since SEHX was released).
If you were watching the stream last night they mentioned the cooking process which means you cannot modify an existing route due to that reason
Nope, this is total nonsense. The SEHS timetable was updated to add things like the EMR HSTs and 700s at King's Cross. Those services did not exist in the timetable before the updates.
King's Cross isn't even in SEHS.... The 700 layer was absolutely in SEHSX from the beginning, because the mod to unlock it came out shortly after and I was running 465s on those services.
Didn't they add at least one new train to SPG when it was already 2/3 years old? I think we need to be careful with these broad generalizations
I was referring to the 700s running in and out of King's Cross on the section of the ECML that is included in SEHS. The playable 700 services were already included. A lot of the AI 700 services, like the ones on the ECML, were not.
How would you know? Obviously the unlock mod wouldn't have included AI. There is every indication that the advent of the 700 was known at the time the SEHX timetable was done, and the TT included it both playable and AI.
Because they said they added those services in the patch notes, and in adding them removed services on the ECML using Class 66s that would otherwise have blocked them. In addition people using unofficial editors saw that a patch added the EMR HST services before MML was released - and these services did not exist before that patch.
DTG can always go back to an old timetable and add stuff to it. They are just not promising you that they will do it.
I think you missunderstand. You will not be able to edit existing cooked timetable. What you can do is create new timetable from 0 for existing routes. The same goes for scenarios.
The new portals for ai for routes from TSW 4 forwards might have an interesting impact with adding new services for termini, especially diverging ones like Brighton. Suddenly that could become very busy indeed if my understanding is correct. Worth mentioning again the technical limitation for previous TSW iterations though so maybe Brighton was a bad example...
It's clear that while this is obviously possible from a technical point of view but doesn't happen all the time due to one reason or another. I would assume there is some sort of process similar to the LAMP process when deciding to backport new Locos onto old routes, although it probably focuses more on opertunity, time and resources required, how realistic is it (correct subclass etc.) and technical feasibility rathet than license clearly this is already dealt with. It would assume that it's not always as simply as just altering the timetable though. On older routes it might be that paths and platform endpoints need creating / altering. This might be enough to make it unfeasibly in some cases. I would hope that with the editer in our hands the community can plug some of these gaps since financial viability is no longer part of the equation. It's also possible that it will allow is to understand from a technical perspective why it's so difficult and not practical in some cases. Incidentally, I did ask on the roadmap in July about forward porting DLC and why this didn't always happen (specifically the Class 150 as Rose Hill services on Glossop). Aside from the need for a new livery and it is technically the wrong subclass (although this hasn't stopped them from adding the 700 to ECML), Matt said that it wasn't his train and so he couldn't use it (since Rivit developed it). They are clearly fine with using Skyhook content in their DLC though (admittedly in the same livery though to be fair). It seems DTG have some general guidelines relating to how to deal with adding this sort of content, but are happy to make exceptions when it suits them. I know it all comes down to time and money however I don't understand how the effort won't pay off in the long run. Taking Glossop as an example, if you add the 150 then more people would buy the route as Piccadilly is even busier for those that own it. People who don't yet own the 150 might choose to buy it just for additional AI (even if they hate the sounds!). But the money for the 150 goes to Rivit for the 150 DLC, why would DGT bother you ask? As I understand it, DTG gets a percentage as the publisher. Alternatively, you may find that Rivit might be happy to make the livery to increase sales, leaving DTG to do the timetable. Seems like a win-win to me, might just need a test to ensure it does actually increase sales though. Either way, I know what I'm going to take a bash at as soon as the editor is out (and I've saved up for WCL and Glossop Line on PC and I mostly play on PS5)! Wish me luck.
