Did Dtg Give Up On Us Fright Routs Are They Not Profitable No More It Seems Like It's Just Been Pass

Matt said, the statistics say that passenger routes have more players. He also said LGV Mediterrane has a lot of players. Than we should have much more passenger high speed routes than the stop and go passenger commuter routes.

 

Which doesn't really bode well, for the US, as the only high speed Corridor is the NEC and we are limited on options for it without running into licensing issues.

 

Yes, that is true for THOSE lines. But surely they could make use of the F7 they already have on a vintage route where they ran (which was most of them), just come up with appropriate coaching stock to go with it. Add a GP7 or 9 for some shunting/local freight and we have a 1961 winner. They already have both the (admittedly highly modified) GP9RM and the static GP9 on HSC to use as bases. There also exists the freight stock made for Clinchfield, simply require paint jobs.

Second option: use the F40 for a 1980s Amtrak route.

 

DTG can't even use its best assets to make freight train immersive and look realistically which is the only advantage in comparison with real simulators. But NO, car liveries are broken, sound is broken, locos are not substituted. No wonder they are going to give up. Thier route are simply ill.

 

The cars that came with Clinchfield would be mostly out of place on a route with only F7s and GP7/9s. Most boxcars were still 40fts mixed with 50fts, DTG would also need a nice mix of road names to make it look more authentic (The solid string of Clinchfield boxcars look ridiculous) The boxcar and reefer would also need roof walks added to them for a proper 50s and 60s vibe as they weren't fully removed till 1974 (They started to get removed in 1966). They would be appropriate in the late 60s, but then we would get more renditions of the pre Dash 2 GP38 and SD40.

Early Era flatcars would be nice to have. Due to the multitude of options DTG could make with them, but given the fact that DTG still hasn't modeled or bought a proper modern US trailer for routes puts my doubts into a proper TOFC trailer for the 50s and 60s.

There is also the fact that not every railroad used the same style of Caboose that came with Clinchfield, so that's another piece of stock that would have to be modeled.

Then you start looking at tank cars and the early PS covered hoppers.

There is also the chance of passenger trains of the Era and that's even more research that would have to go in to make a proper consist for the Era too.

There's just a lot of work DTG would need to do themselves or outsource to another studio that I still don't think a 50s or early 60s era route would be possible. The 70s I would give a maybe, as at least Clinchfields stock is more proper.

 

Well, there are the two static Chessie cabooses on Sand Patch.
----------------------
Overall, coming up with a lightweight passenger coach, and a baggage and a dining car, would involve some work, but not I think an extraordinary amount; and if DTG want US distance passenger that provides more than one or two tpd, that means pre-Amtrak. Later 1960s would work; lots of F7s still in service then. And the OG SD40 fits.

 

Not according to DTG, they were "supposed" to come with the ATSF F7, but in order to do that they "needed to do a research trip to the US"

So we are back to them needed to do extensive research for passenger stock.

 

It makes no sense though. They could make the F7 A and B units without an "extensive research trip", but not a few passenger coaches? Sure...

 

I really think that DTG are under- utilizing the Amtrak license and the apparent eagerness they have for TSW.

There are plenty of Amtrak routes around the country, not just the NEC, but in the Midwest, South and West. And there's 50 years of loco and rolling stock history, including F7's.

Who cares if there aren't 100 services a day? There's plenty of freight and commuter content to fill out a route.

 

Probably just me but I’d love a Florida route with Amtrak. Something like Miami - West Palm Beach would be cool cause of the freight

 

Same for me, but: does something comparable to the european mixed passenger/freight routes even exist in the US? For me it seems there is either the NEC, some Independent commuter network/line or the hundret mile 30 mph straight through nothing with the occasional biweekly Amtrak service at 2am.

Thats why i Generally dont like us routes, theyre not busy by nature (apart from NEC) and dont have much layering potential for future routes that arent in the same region

 

More than likely we will see a few more LGV/TGV routes and German ICE high speed routes as well.

The commuter and metro routes are also highly successful.

Birmingham Cross City is excellent and very enjoyable!

Also Cathcart circle is great fun too, keeps you on your toes.

 

US routes are 98% (when you measure length) freight. They are good fun and mountain passes are highly challenging. But it takes a lot of factors to get it right. The train's dynamics as in simulation of physics needs to be accurate and they have nailed this now.

But I think generally DTG will focus on more passenger routes as that is where the demand is.

Specialist 3rd party developers will need to come in and make the most demanded route or if they have capital to waste they can choose what they want to build.

I'd love to see a single track route in the midwest somewhere such as Byron to Chicago... somewhere in the rural area where it isn't mountainous and mostly flat and has some crossing places and some grain facilities etc... Mostly oil, intermodal, grain etc... Byron to Chicago has passenger out Pingree Grove...which are Metras. DTG doesn't have a license for that but I would buy it without any logos etc.... I want the freight...


Europe has the benefit where the land mass is 10% of the United States (Britain and Germany are about the size of a US state!). So passenger operations are bound to be more fun and productive.

In the United States passenger services are not profitable.

Amtrak needs huge subsidies to exist.

In Australia the Indian Pacific train only runs twice a week and the seats cost more than a bus. To get a bed you will pay dearly.

In winter the fares are actually pretty cheap even for a cabin. https://www.greattrains.com.au/fares/indian-pacific

But in summer and peak/shoulder they are more pricey. Cabin can be around $1200 USD I think up to the top notch at $3300 USD....

The good news Australian winters are great. No bush fires, no snow along the route there is Lithgow which does get snow but that's it) and the temperatures are warm for compared to Europe and North América where temperatures plummet to -10C in Ice storms or worse....

In winter the mean temp in Australia is 15C (July)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/temperature/?maptype=mxt&period=jul&region=aus

 

I'd love to see GP9 done at some stage, or any high hood for that matter, so distinctive looking and could also go on the Clinchfield RR. That works great in TSW4.

 

We've been asking since CRR released and nothing has been said or done, sadly it's just another idea put to bed.

 

That's a pity. Clinchfield is a very good route, just a few quibbles from being a great route. But business is business, unfortunately.

 

And that's something that I think I fear is gonna effect future freight routes, unique and interesting routes are gonna get passed up for another mountain pass thru bum**** middle of nowhere cause everyone has heard of it or it's ran by a well known railroad.

 

I hope this isn't an excuse for not fixing issues in old content...

 

I am sorry Matt, but I do believe that with this way of thinking you are looking at things from the wrong perspective. You only look at the results (popularity), but not the cause.

Of course I won't deny it, it is possible that Clinchfield is simply unpopular because for many people the setting is just unappealing. But I do think the route's bad popularity might be due to various issues, such as:

• Bad repeating terrain textures
• Missing trackside signage (whistle posts, for example)
• Boxcars causing bad framerate drops
• Weak headlights making it impossible to see during night runs
  
• Timetable services that cannot be finished due to red light issues
  
• That infamous journey mode service in which you start in the snow and can barely get going at 3 MPH
• Lack of alternative liveries for both locomotives
• Custom liveries not showing up on freight cars
  
• Certain tiles on the map are completely missing grass (you can see it transitioning from grass to no grass in a completely straight line)
• Sound issues on the locomotives (no track joint sound inside the SD40, for example)

And who knows what else. These are all the issues that I just remembered. And it is a shame, because it would be an otherwise nice looking route with a great setting, but it has many issues plaguing it, therefore has a bad reputation. While I do like driving on it once in a while, I do play it less than I would like to due to all the issues.

Of course, I am not saying everyone thinks the way I do. But it is possible that Clinchfield is unpopular because it has many issues, not because of the setting? In this case, the correct action would not be to bury the route, but to fix the issues.

And of course this is true to all routes. I am saying this because quite often the argument comes up saying "UK is the most popular" etc, and I mean of course UK is the most popular, when UK routes are the most well done. No wonder the US route player numbers are so low when most of the US routes are barely half as good as their UK or German counterparts. And it's not because of their US setting, but because they usually have much weaker scenery, worse timetables, less accurate details and safety systems, etc.

 

I would also add that Clinchfield could of also sold poorly cause no one has really heard of the railroad, it really isn't a well know fallen flag.

 

I would say that could be also because, sadly, these preservation crew updates often brought many new issues as well.

For example, new station lighting on LIRR causing framerate drops (someone forgot to turn off shadow casting on East New York station), and the new light sources are often misplaced, causing very bright spots on various places and the weird white lines on the windshield when driving past them. Also LIRR got new floating station signage when the route got updated, an issue which previously it not had.
Another example would be the broken livery designer functionality on the Peninsula Corridor rolling stock, like the Baby Bullet cab car not being selectable, the SD40 having an area behind the cab that cannot be painted, or livery designer not working on the hopper car at all (and also broke the graffiti on them). And similar station lighting artifacts can also be seen on Peninsula Corridor.
Or how the livery designer update broke the windshield wiper on the GWE Class 43.

And I bet there are many more examples from the various routes. Don't get me wrong, not trying to sound ungrateful. And I do hope I am not coming through as a prick just looking to criticize everything. But I just want to point out the fact that when a route gets "updated", and players are greeted with such issues, no wonder noone goes back to play them anymore.


TLDR: bad route with issues = less players, good route with fewer issues = more players?

 

I still think Clinchfield is one of the better US routes, essentially its our NTP/TVL of the North American railroads. I think it suffered a little from the fact that many of the scenarios particularly in Journey took place at night or in diabolical weather conditions. Then you have the ongoing issue of no banking comms which made some of the scenarios where you had to do a hill start in blizzard conditions nearly impossible to finish. You also had that ultra long switching scenario which seemed to consist of moving several rakes of hoppers from one part of the yard to another then finding you could have done the whole thing in about one third of the total moves.

The other factor is, like some of the other duplicated routes, Clinchfield TSW was not as long as its TSC counterpart.

As regards vintage coaching stock, well for Canada at least have approaches been made to heritage railways? Algoma Central still runs heritage stock on its tour trains and I'm sure there are others who would be happy to grant access for a small donation to their funds. Also not an ideal solution but if using a TSC or even MSTS model as a reference point I would rather have that in TSW than none at all (with co=operation of the original authors of course).

 

Now that is some very good news, third parties are much better placed to fill in the more niche gaps in the TSW offering, things like the BR Blue era Blackpool wouldn't exist without them, and the more unique American - and anywhere else in the world - routes the better.

 

The two reasons I don't play Clinchfield often, despite loving the F7 and coal operations are:

• It's slow, like the line speed is incredibly slow. Shunting when slow is fine, cause you have to thick about when to swap etc, driving a set train a long distance at low speed? It's boring.
• The trees. Not sure why, but the trees seem to be pink in Clinchfield? Looks bad.

 

A further thought about Clichfield (while waiting for Snowrunner to load... ).

If ever there was a route which became a victim of the (apparent) fire and forget policy, it is this one. Release should have been followed up with additional DLC for locos and stock and ultimately an extension. Build on what you have rather than rushing on to the next 40 or 50 mile route which then suffers the same fate.

Edit: One more quick thought (not bad for me to be thinking!) and one that DTG Matt I'm sure has on his mind... is that Clinchfield is another route that would benefit from having more than one save slot. Most of the runs have to be done in two or three parts but ideally you might want to space them while doing stuff on other routes, which could also require to be saved. But with just one save slot you are pretty much forced to come back and grind through the Clinchfield run before moving on to something else.

 

Not exactly, sometimes quantity =/= quality.

DTM is a US loco dlc maker for TSC, and he's someone I don't want to see in TSW (despite him trying) due to the numerous issues his content has.

Now if we got someone like Reppo on board, I'd be more than happy, his 1st party content is usually decent in TSC, though his contract DTG work isn't as good.

 

I think its a shame that the preservation crew was stopped, perhaps a distinction could be drawn between fixing key issues that hindered playability of a route, and adding in things like wet platforms/climb-up etc?

I am hoping the data will show MML play might go up once the big patch is out, because if even that doesn't shift the dial then basically out of 80+ DLC you might as well just focus on a few of them repeatedly. (Like SEHS?)

I mean LGV is always touted as one of the most played routes but we never had any additional DLC, other French content or any expansions/preservation crew work etc for the route. It was even given away for free at one point!

 

Probably why it's as popular as it is.

 

Is this actual acknowledgement that steam locos two years and two games after their release are still fundamentally broken? Also you have to consider that only a very small (and probably not representative) minority of players will make Steam reviews, especially of DLC.

I would imagine that has something to do with it being included in the base TSW4 game...

 

It's a damnned if you do dammned if you don't kind of situation, do one or the other you'll run into problems.

It's why I kind of want to see a break from just freight routes at this moment, as there is really no happy medium for them within DTGs scope. At most they could be side content for a passenger route (Which I still think Antelope should of came with) as there is a lot of inconsistencies between a lot of US content (Non working locos in free roam, liveries not spawning etc.)

Bonus points with the Metrolink license is hopefully more licenses open up in the future, on top of opening up the Los Angeles basin as a whole.

 

Fair point about the branch lines!

 

Honestly, its one of the few things where the TSW Clinchfield is better in comparison to its TSC counterpart.

Only thing extending the mainline to St Paul does is add the connection that the CRR had with the Norfolk and Western railroad, but with no N&W stock in game, this connection is pointless.

 

I think you read my remark as being more cynical than I intended. Basically I was saying what you did: Businesses have to generate enough revenue to keep the lights on. Products that sell poorly are not an optimal investment of resources- no matter how much a quirky little minority of customers might want them.

Personally I find little appeal in TGV or the other straightline rocket ships, but obviously I'm not representative. I like drag freight, shunting and vintage- but that just means I'm out of step with the core market.

I doubt most customers go into that far. I suspect the basic reason is "Old, slow and dirty. Me like new, fast and shiny." I am as aware as anyone of CRR's issues (I did a loooong multipart post on them when it released), but I still love it. I just know what services/conditions are unworkable and avoid them.

 

The railroads' own advertising from back in the day features loads and loads of coach interiors.

Also, I am pretty sure that the B&O Museum in Baltimore has coaches open to the public... and they are happy for people to shoot all the pics they like.

 

I appreciate the depth and scope of this conversation. My question is focussed on what we mean when we say a particular DLC is, or is not, popular.

There could be several ways to measure this. Sales. Hours spent playing. Services completed. According to the game, Action Points are the measurement used to tell me what routes I prefer.

So let's compare SEHS (so popular) and CRR (not popular). Are the sales different? Yes of course, you are comparing one of many US freight routes to one of the the most-upgraded UK routes. Are the hours spent playing, or the services completed, different? Yes of course, there are hundreds of services in SEHS and what, maybe 47 in CRR? I could complete CRR twice over and not approach SEHS playtime numbers. What about AP? Driving the 395 even just once racks up tons of AP. This is generally not achievable in CRR.

Also, what if we think of SEHS as only the original, without even the 465? And, what if we considered CRR with a loco DLC, route extension, and loco packs? How would our comparison look then?

The point being, there is no obvious way to compare such different DLC, except possibly sales, which is the one thing we do not and cannot know, except in the most general of terms. However, I would argue that there should be a few more opportunities for DLC like CC, CRR, and OSD to be done to a very high level, to really shine. Although a profit to DTG is of course required, does it really have to reach SEHS levels of profitability if it maintains the interest of the American players base and avoids just another notch 8 slugfest?

 

More likely due to style of gameplay rather than bugs, eh? That doesn't sound right. Sure, some routes won't attract those not looking for the style gameplay that route provides, but there is more than just style of gameplay.

If a route is released with many bugs, and someone on this forum buys that route and discovers those bugs, they are most likely going to open a thread on this forum (or even in the route's feedback thread) stating the bugs that they have found. Someone reads that post, and approaches the route with caution. They buy it, and discover the exact same game-breaking bug. Then the cycle repeats itself until everyone has become convinced that the route is wholly unplayable, because many have posted saying so.

What I'm trying to say is that, regardless of style of gameplay, the first thing that puts someone off buying a route is bugs that others have encountered. Your statement is only correct when someone buys a route that suits their style of gameplay (either ignoring the bugs or acknowledging that a fix is on the way).

 

Yes, in the case of Clinchfield, with all due respect to MP, I'm pretty sure it was the two or three glaring issues that doomed it for many players, namely the missing banking coms, the pathetic headlights and the related poor night lighting, each of which made many services unplayable. Not to mention the weird track diagrams in some services.

The route itself and the stock were pretty good. And it came with the best scenario the game has ever seen.

All that was needed was some TLC. It will never get that now, I guess.

 

Also, SEHS 2.0 was a TSW3 core route, so sales were automatically large. I imagine the same is true for Cajon and SPG even though they're slow US freight routes.

 

Fair point, and just like you said, the route being well made does not 100% guarantee more players. But it is definitely a step towards it.

Best example coming to mind is the recent Blackpool route - plenty of people (myself included) expressed their interest in it even if it is out of our usual taste. Same for SEHS to me, I was never interested in it previously, but tried it recently and realized it is very well made, good variety, etc, so even bought the RHTT and the 37/7 packs for it. The whole route is just great, looks good, the add-ons make sense, so I play it even if I am not into british stuff.
On the other hand, all the other routes I would love to like, like LIRR or Peninsula Corridor, are left unplayed because of all the issues they have. And sure, CRR is a niche case anyway, but I bet a lot more people would be playing LIRR or Peninsula Corridor if they were actually good routes, for example. (to be clear, I think Peninsula Corridor would be a perfect route, if it weren't for the horrible scenery detail)

 

I can confirm that I would own, be playing, and be buying DLC for LIRR, if it was better. As it is, when I was originally exposed to TSW through Game Pass, I played LIRR and decided that TSW was not a good game, eventually giving it another chance later and discovering my initial impression was wrong. BPE and HAR are two of my go-to routes, so LIRR should be a definite yes. But, no.

 

I used to play LIRR a LOT in TSW2020, it was my favorite route even despite it's flaws. Loved the original route and especially the M3 when it got released.

And while the route had pretty big issues, the potential and the promise was there. After all, back then it felt pretty obvious that a diesel+bi-level pack would be coming at some point, since Long Island City terminal was included in the route. Matt was also talking about his busy timetable for the route.

Now years later, still no busy timetable, nor bi-levels... The route is also still full of issues, and the preservation crew update did not do the route justice. The new station lighting is problematic, and the PIS screens just highlight the emptiness of the route as you see the next train arriving to Jamaica in an hour...

I assume the only potential chance this route has is if it gets reused as a new core route like SEHS did. It needs a lot to be a good route: new signalling, new timetable, refreshed scenery, and more rolling stock. But the potential would be great, it could be an amazing route. Could have bi-levels, M3 RHTT, LIRR shunter, freight.

But back on the topic of freight routes, those could get similar treatment as well. Sherman Hill could be a very good route also (especially since it already recieved a TOD4 update), but needs scenery improvements, especially at the yards, the undetailed quary, and towards Laramie. And of course a track 3.
SPG I still think would be very much fun with a Chessie System retro pack.
Cajon Pass could also be fun I guess, if the visuals of the tracks got better (to make it blend into the terrain better) and the snowy asset textures got improved (because currently the roads are all over the place in winter, some have snow, others have not, etc). Oh, and if we could go up the grade at more than 10 MPH, that would be great, lol - is that even prototypical? Seems incredibly slow.

 

In my opinion Clinchfield had 1 weak spot:

The 44 car consists are to short and that's why it's unauthentic.

On the other side we got the streamline design of the F7 and the early SD40. And both locos had an impressive horn sound from the beginning. It has coal loading action.

 

One of the weird quirks of the CRR SD40 was the fact there was no way to turn the headlights off with the switch, it had only Dim both, and medium and bright for both sides. So you would always have a trailing loco with its lights on at the start of a service unless you played around with the switches.

 

Thanks for the info, Matt. The Barstow end of the route I do enjoy, it is mostly flat and the train can gain speed, but gosh the San Bernardino climb is painful. If it is realistic, then knowing that makes it a bit more bearable at least.