Era Correctness: Is It More Important Than Gameplay?

There is one topic about content for Train Sim World, which seems to be very important for many in the community. The era in which content/a route is set to be in and the associated strictness to using locos, liveries, buildings and other assets like AI cars and even the clothing of NPCs which need to accord to that particular era or year.

While I can agree to people who want to have the best authentic feel and replication of a route in a certain time period, I would like to know how big your very own tolerance to that is and to which degree you would prefer era strictness over gameplay.

Would you say that trains, liveries and stations should stick to the certain era a route is set to be in? Would you even go as far as to be willing to have a limited gameplay experience like getting rid of locos completely or less mileage just to have all things stick to a certain year/era attached to the route?

What if you could have more trains (layers, substitutions or even new services in the timetable) or more - yet abandoned or future planned - branch lines to play with/on? - What if you could have the one or other more sightseeing spot on the route? But the problem is the era correctness, the developer has to aim at, so that they need to cut off these gameplay elements off the route project to make it fit the era.

Are you fine with this? Or would you willing to sacrifice era accuracy for more gameplay elements?

 

I need authenticity, not era.

 

Voted No.3. For the UK it would be great to get a Class 25 for the BR Classic routes even if by the time these are set the Sulzer Type 2's were mostly withdrawn or relegated to local freight. Who would not want to drag a 13 coach excursion from Manchester to Leeds over Standedge with a pair of 25's rasping away.

Likewise Germany, I would really love to see some UIC 232/234/235 long distance coaching stock in the game to work with traction like the 103 or forthcoming 218 even if not strictly period accurate on any of the routes.

Or put such content out as a Railtour pack.

 

I don’t mind bending the rules a little maybe a couple of years flexibility on the era. But it has to be believable. I think JT made such a call with Blackpool and I’m fine with that. Seeing something completely out of era an anything but a rail tour would ruin the gameplay instead of improving it.

 

This is not a question for which there is a simple yes or no answer that is always correct. What matters is, scientifically speaking, the vibes.

 

Theres a decent balance here. I don't really get too worked up when its something like a German loco that didn't enter service until 2019 showing up on a route that technically takes place in 2014, and things along those lines. The routes are never concrete as far as year and the loco would fit generally into the aesthetic.

But other stuff that is blatantly out of place isn't my cup of tea. For example I never installed the Sante Fe F7 because apparently it shows up in timetable with a very unrealistic train set for the era.

 

I went for 4, it’s one of those things that needs to happen at a devs discretion with some common sense.

I think overall though, something that TSW really needs is a way for the player to very simply sub something on a timetable run. For example let me take a 193 in place of an 1116, or the 218 in place of a 111.

Free roam got us close but we need a way to just assimilate a service fully, rather than delete a train and pretend you’re running it.

In general though I think DTG is all over the place with choosing what is going where.

 

Depends on route/element. Especially for older stuff it isn't always possible to replicate everything the way it was. For incorrectnes with loco's, liveries we have scenario planner.

 

I think that as long as they don't push the boat out too far, creative liberty is fine. For example the white Class 375 included with the Class 37 would have been impossible to see when SEHS is set, but it isn't that far out, and if they did a complete 375 livery pack with the other five white liveries it would have been quite popular. Of course, we ended up getting a pretty mediocre white Class 375 with a mediocre Class 37, but that's besides the point.

 

This GAME is FAR from a proper simulator so might as well embrace some arcadey aspects. Please let me pick a 423 instead of an awful 422, or a beautiful 103 instead of a noisy 185, it's unrealistically rigid in that aspect, luckily, mods make it better, as seen below

 

Yes, era should be respected within reason for a route given, or a general collection of locos in game.

The UP SD70ACe was 1 example, with the side sills changed from the short lived red side sill (Only a short time in the 2000's) to the yellow side sill used from about 2005 onward, this makes the loco not stand out when layering into, say Cajon Pass.

The ATSF F7 is another example, the loco is way out of era for Cajon Pass, and should of never of been made.

The lack of proper TOFC cars is another problem I have, as we only have 89ft flats with 45ft trailers. with no Spine cars and/or 53ft trailers anywhere.

On the other side of the coin, the upcoming ATSF pack from HIS is supposed to use the SD40-2 from Sherman Hill which is decently close enough to an early 1990's UP SD40-2, with the ditchlights being the only thing really somewhat out of place.

 

Some leeway is fine, but the threshold bar for acceptance isn’t low. That’s my take.

 

It's actually the main reason I've not bothered getting the 1938 tube stock...I'd have purchased it if it meant the underground was also changed back to the pre-war era, that passengers wore 1930's style clothing, and so forth, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) that wasn't the focus of the DLC pack. Despite saying that, I've caved a few times and picked up foamer versions of older traction and stock running on heritage lines just to have the models. Anyway, I've picked option 3 as I prefer era correctness but don't mind a bit of leeway in the game play....if that even makes any sense.

 

I do think it's really subjective, though more loco / stock variety is great if you can suspend disbelief.

Example, on BML I'd be really happy for a Diesels Legends type parallel timetable that was exactly as is for the route modelling, but utilised class 420/421 stock for the express services and class 457 for commuter, all in Network SouthEast livery.

I'd happily accept the same stock running in parallel with the 385 and 387, but skinned in period Southern livery, as a "crossover timetable"

 

I think this has been said above, so sorry for repeating, but it is something that really needs assessing per the situation and for common sense (even with the sparse amounts about today) to be applied. For example I do not mind the 40s popping up on BPO even though that is in 86, but, as I have seen some suggest being done, a Regional Railways 158 on NTP would be criminal as the whole aesthetic of the route would be ruined. If a Deltic ever came I wouldn't mind that being given layers onto NTP even though there is a years difference. Like I say though it is all contextual and requires common sense, but the important thing is the route's focus and aesthetic is not lost or ruined.

 

Era-related but with plausible exceptions. Example: The db br 101 is no longer used (at least that's what I understand) but in the past it was also used for freight trains. Now, for gameplay purposes I would include in the game the possibility of selecting it to drive a freight train even in recent routes (where the 101 is no longer used for freight). This is what I mean by plausible. Or even use the db br 218 for intercity (always only selectable by the player) the AI will always drive the default loco(s) otherwise it would turn out to be an unbelievable playground. The plausible exception can be well accepted, however.
Putting a db br 101 in 1980 obviously not.

 

I completely agree, about 70 years difference and a lot of changes was beyond way too much difference.

 

TSW supports separate substitution for player and AI trains and I think that is a good way how to solve it. Make the AI timetable closer to reality, but give player options for varying gameplay of their own train. Heck, even real world railways occasionally send a 1970s trainset on anniversary ride on timetabled service that is otherwise served by 2020s Viaggios. With freight it is even way more flexible, while national operators may be pushing for newer locomotives, the old machines just change owner for a private one, but happily pull freights left and right.

Additionally, if creating a route in previously unexplored eras, make the timetable still as full as possible, even if everything should be the same consist. Keep the trains in separate groups to allow future layering of substitutions. That is still much better than doing lame, empty timetable and then three years wait for maybe, hopefully, timetable refresh.

 

So long as it's not totally unrealistic for example having a GWE HST appear in Peak Forest I don't mind a slight bending of the rules when it comes to era correctnes. So a 45 or 40 on WCL doesn't bother me.

 

Yes. If it ran on it, then allow it. Doesn't matter if it's 10 years "wrong date".... I'd imagine most lines wouldn't even be obviously different in just a few years, and given it's not perfectly accurate. For example "well that building used to be there" is kinda pointless if we probably don't even have "that building" in the game accurately.
Many of these routes have been run for decades and it would be impractical to have 6 or 7 "eras" on the same line just to allow previous rolling stock to be used. Just allow the previous and replacing stock on the same line and be done with it.
The player is not bound to USE that "non-era" stock on that route if they don't want, but it penalizes others who want to see that specific train on that route (and will probably NEVER get it if you have to have multiple historical variants of the same route, which they'll never do)

If the person wants to run the 142 Pacer on a route and the route uses 158s in the "current year"... let other people run the 142 if they want!
It doesn't hurt the person running 158s "as designed"... it's a single player game either way so you only see your screen....

 

It depends all on how it looks. In modern day settings I don't mind vintage vehicles but they should not look shiny and new in a modern day setting.

 

It depends on many factors really, there isn't any right or wrong answer. But there is a line that shouldn't be crossed.

For example, you can't have GNER on the ECML in 2019, nor can there be a GNER liveried 801 as in 2019, GNER didn’t exist (801s weren't really in regular service that year either as they had just been introduced if memory serves). That would then make the route fictional, crossing the boundaries of realism.

The 158 is an example of where creative liberties can be used (TSW's ECML uses the EMT 158 as a layer). EMT became EMR in 2020, but having EMT liveried trains in 2022 would be acceptable as not all of them had received the new livery (iirc even now there are still some in EMT livery). But, it wouldn't work the other way round.

 

To be fair, it shows up in a Raltour (like the Santa Fe F7) which is supposedly accurate to the museum it's modeled from?
Be kind of like spawning the Scotsman.... it's accurate if it's a museum pieces on a modern railway.
That also explains why it's "shiny"...because it's well maintained in a museum/heritage railway.

 

Yeah 158s in EMT colours are still knocking around for EMR.

 

Having a US museum have a "railtour" on a modern Class 1 railroad is damn near impossible these days, not to mention the Santa Fe F7 isnt legal to run at track speed either (No ditch lights)

 

So it breaks your authenticity simply because there's too much paperwork involved?
I don't really see that as a reason to deny people the fun of driving the Santa Fe..... honestly where WOULD you drive it otherwise?
Would the solution be to NOT have more locos in game? That seems pretty harsh.
We're gonna have to disagree there.
Besides, while they're not "regular" services, there have been lots of railtours on "mainlines."
They get exemptions to the normal rules, much like classic cars don't have to have airbags and things when they drive on the road.
It's the same idea... putting airbags in an Aston Martin or putting ditch lights on an F7.

They do "heritage" tours all the time on the CSX and Nofrolk lines up here for history tours, museum runs, Christmas and Fall foliage tours.

"Working trains?" Not really, but part of the "game" part is that it's a "game" and where ELSE would people get to run many of these things?
If someone made a US steam engine, would it just be unplayable in game until they made the "appropriate" route for it?
If you don't like it, then don't drive it *shrugs* It's a separate DLC, so it's definitely not being forced on anyone.

 

The solution would of been to never make the DLC in the 1st place.

OR

DTG should of included some era appropriate cars (Which already exist from Clinchfield) and stuck it in its own timetable AWAY from the existing one......

I mean, Sherman Hill still exists, and UP still has their steam program so.....but DTG killed steam in TSW so good luck ever seeing that happen.

There is only so much historical inaccuracy I can take, and the ATSF F7 is one DLC I can't agree on being made, the other being the Stealth CSX SD40 (Among other issues with it)

 

BUT, would you in the current version of ECML be happy with a parallel timetable that had the 125 / 225 in GNER livery with whatever other suitable layers (or even Intercity Swallow)... I would, for sure; but otherwise I don't think we'll ever see period liveries on some routes we want them

 

How is one timetable "away" from another? It's a timetable.... and most of the F7 content is scenarios.
Sherman Hill isn't a steam-era route though by your standards so it still can't go there by your definition.
DTG didn't "kill steam", it said they won't overhaul the whole game engine to "recreate" it.
People can still make things in the current engine.
A few people just can't abide others being happy however and it has to be their version of perfection or nothing.

Given your ideas on the F7..... I can guess which side you're on of that one ;-)

I'd take a "flawed" US steam loco on Cajon Pass or Sherman Hill.
Be a bit weird seeing a lot of them alongside SD 2070s, but as I said it's usually scenario contents or self contained.

 

Making a separate timetable like some other routes have....

UP 844 and 4014 say hi.

 

This seems like there won't be a definitive answer as it is all based on personal opinions, so no answer is wrong.

Era and gameplay both go hand and hand for me.

Example: Diesel Legends on the GWE. I never bought it, not interested in 70/80's stock running in a 2000's era route.

I don't even like the railtours honestly.

My limit would be stock from up to 15 years earlier than the route is set.

But again that is just my personnal opinion and I don't knock those that differ.

 

Not if that livery didn't exist at all at that point.

A 225 in InterCity Swallow livery isn't too far out though as LNER have one of the power cars in the livery.

 

I couldn’t define it by year myself, too much can vary per route on that front, I could imagine a lot has changed say 1970 British route compared to 1955

 

Yeah now that I'm rethinking it 15 years is long and it would vary as well depending on eras too.

 

How is that different from the F7 doing the same thing? Or are you just saying it needs to pull the right livery?
That's an entirely different animal than "doesn't belong on the railroad at all"
Looks like you just argued against heritage trains...then posted pictures of a heritage train....

I did look around and I see what you mean about different timetables (like the WSR "steam gala"... and I don't see why that's not doable for any route. It does sort of ruin your argument though, but thank you for making my argument for me.

 

It all depends on the era. Going from steam to early diesel yeah a lot changed quickly. However, 1990s to 2020s had a lot less change in 30 years. You'd be hard pressed to see a lot of change from say 2009 to now on most lines and that's 15 years. .

 

No, UP's owns their own steam equipment and they pull their own equipment, aside from a few rare moments, they've never pull modern freight, not to mention they travel most of the UP system, and BNSF allowed it on their line from Barstow to Cajon Pass.

The ATSF F7 makes no sense as.....

1. The BNSF doesn't own one
2. They wouldn't be pulling modern freight cars.
3. The separate timetable the F7 SHOULD OF GOTTEN was to make it a standalone timetable for Cajon, where the F7 would run by itself with period accurate cars, which DTG all had existing from Clinchfield, plus the TOFC flatcar(The Reefer, Boxcar, Caboose, and the 89ft flat all would of worked).

 

I agree it could have it's own timetable if that solves the issue. That's a valid compromise. Glad we could agree in the end.

 

I'm very much in favour of a route evoking a particular vibe than sticking rigidly to a year. To me the additional variety adss more than the slight inaccuracy would detract. The 40's & 45's are a bit out of place on BPO but to me it still clearly adds more than it subtracts. Same with timetables, I'd much rather see an interesting combination of service patterns across a few years making a route interesting & varied than desolate. Maybe a simpler way to say it... I'd rather a route be 'BR blue to sectorisation transition' than specifically 1988 or 1992 as I think it just gives so much more scope with the limited selection of stock that can be pulled from.

However if it requires stretching too far then I'd rather a route not be made unless the maker of the route commits to making enough rolling stock to do it justice. It feels like once a route is done, we then loose the opportunity for it to be done better later. The fact that we have now had WSR updated does however give me hope for other routes to get a refresh.

 

If we were able to have selectable substitutions then it would please everyone, well some would complain, but nearly everyone.

Personally if we had selectable substitutions, I would stop the class 40 appearing on the Blackpool route, as simply, apart from D200 they were gone in 1986 and as this is my favourite era then I would like it to be as realistic as possible. I can drive/see the class 40 on NTP if I want.

I would stop the DB BR110 appearing on many of the more modern routes, I forget where it was but I am sure I passed one pulling some Dostos, which I believe is not possible.

And the ridiculous layers on WCL for me are a bigger turn off than the state of the class 150. I would rather not see them at all even if it meant the route was quieter, it isn't exactly the approaches to Clapham Junction in reality, therefore I don't think you would lose much.

I have noticed that the modern UK routes suffer very little from unrealistic layers, the railtours allow a level of fantasy which is believable of course.

So for me, era correctness is more important than gameplay, as I find immersion is deminished when I see something which wouldn't happen on the route in the time it is set. However we are all different and you will never get resounding agreement.

 

My apologies if someone has mentioned this already, but the ahistorical layers adding bygone/or less old traction and stock, for me anyway, is really someone's attempt at a gala rail tour op. I usually enjoy those too, btw. Where I see the conundrum regarding ideals such as authenticity, is in the trackage, signal devices etc. If one wants proper era operations then you need the trackage to be representative of your era, not modern trackage, electrified/not electrified, double v. single track, stations, signalling etc. Is that even feasible in the layers?

I'm thinking that if DTG want to do some more historical DLC then it's probably got to be a dedicated historic route with historic and appropriate assets, and or continuing to layer in fantasy rail tour stuff. I prefer the dedicated historical but I also realize how much work that is. Anyway, just a pennies worth.

 

The problem is that practically, DTG and other developers aren't going to redo a map several times for each decade. Therefore, once it's done that's it. Then they move on to a new area. So, that 2016 route is going to be stuck there, or at the very least post-2000 content. What do you then do with the older content? It's either a) allow it in a slightly ahistorical "rail tour" or "heritage" timetable.... or never include it. While I get the "authenticity" argument... .it rings hollow when you realize that the "ahistorical" timetable will ONLY be used by people who WANT to use it.
For example, the "Steam Gala" timetable in WSR has modern fixtures but you CAN use steam in it and PRETEND it's the 1950s. The people that use it though are willing to compromise to access that content. The people who are purists who don't want to see it.... won't see it.

I really don't see the harm in it existing if half the people are happy compromising and the other half never see it anyway....

Or to take the previous F7 example... it only appears if you have gone out and purchased the F7 DLC. So,,, you had to CHOOSE to go get it. If you don;t choose to buy it, then it doesn't even exist on your system.

 

It’s a modern day steam gala. What does it have to do with the 50s and compromises?

 

red tail lights on with a white marker light naughty naughty

 

All of LNERs operational 91 sets (PC, coaches and DVT) are now in a recreation/homage of the original IC livery except they used oxblood red for it in place of black. Instead of the swallow and InterCity branding, they have the LNER name. There's usually 2 per day at York (1 being around lunchtime and 1 overnight stay).

 

Me I just like to drive trains, the thing about this being a game is you can very much do what you want or at least what the game allows you to do, if you are happy running a class 66 along the peak valley route then do it, and that's the point you pays your money and makes your choice.

 

Thank you for not reading the rest of sentence.

 

I’m genuinely confused. The steam timetable is not some what-if thing like Diesel Legends. It’s a real thing (apart from a more diverse selection of steam locos in real life). I was hoping you could explain what you mean when you refer to pretending it’s the 50s since the gala has nothing to do with that.

 

I must admit I'm confused as well, Steam galas on Preserved lines are incredibly common and many are held throughout the year. So I don't get his point either.

 

I am sure he'll shoot me like I'm a rabbit if I'm wrong but I think he is saying that people can pretend that the modern steam gala is in fact how the route was and ran like in the 50s. If not I am just as confused as both of you!