Cargo Line Vol 3 And 4

It really isn't though, just please look at it carefully and you will see it is just a few parts added with a few new liveries..

 

I have looked carefully and there are many differences, more then enough to tell that it is a whole new model.

 

I don't see how u can see that.. there is no ladder a extra block by the buffers and some slightly altered bogies, it's not a new wagon it's just new parts added on to a existing wagon

 

The Tanker itself is different if you look closely enough.

 

Here's a question then, using your own logic here too. If you own a car, any make or model, and you buy another car of the same make or model but it has extra bits and bobs on it, is it the same car with extras, or is it a brand new car because you didn't own it beforehand??
Same question goes for these rolling stock add-ons......

 

So what your basically saying in TSW terms is if I brought that freight pack that comes with NTP then bought the Cargo line with the tankers I'm paying for something different? Or am I buying the same thing with some light modifications? Is that classed as "New" with your logic because if it was a car I'd treat it the same.. i ain't buying a new car if it costs but has nothing new on it that is worth the cost...

 

Sorry but I really don't see any differences apart from the aforementioned livery change and some added assets

 

Here's an idea: just don't buy it.

 

What I'm saying is simple fact that you and nobody else can't argue with, if you buy anything that you don't own, it's new because you didn't own that said thing before you bought it. Even if you bought the same thing twice straight after one another the second one still would be a new thing because you didn't own that exact thing before, regardless of buying the same thing before it......

 

Your ignoring the countless points I've made over the wagon itself, your going on about its a new product but anything that comes to tsw is a new product but the wagon itself is not new i don't get why you can't understand that, a new wagon would be The Cargo line 3 and 4 as its something we haven't seen before..

 

Here's and idea: I won't be buying the first 2 but will buy the 3rd one coming out as its actually NEW

 

Just like the first 2, you can argue all you like but they were both NEW too.

 

No they weren't but I ain't gonna keep arguing as you can't understand

 

Seems like your the only one hear who doesn't understand.

Good day sir.

 

A solution so simple and easy most people seem to forget it's possible and often seem to take offence or simply get annoyed at the suggestion!

 

Give it up now fella…everyone but you can see these ARE new wagons. Even Adam from Skyhook showed you comparison pics!

 

Some people just like to argue for the sake of it I guess.

 

No they don't.

 

Is this a five minute argument or the full half-hour?

 

Just for the record, wagon designations aren't unique to a particular build as locomotive classes are. The designation 'TEA' refers to a few things, but the next built tanker of the same shape and capacity wouldn't then be called 'TEB'.

They are both TEA tankers, which means they are both the same size, shape and capacity. Outside of that however, the walkways, chassis, bogies and literally everything else about them is completely different. And afaik, not a single aspect of the NTP TEA tankers was reused in Skyhook's modern TEAs, it is a new model and build from the ground up, it simply has the same size and capacity and that is by real world design.

The modern TEAs are not a refit. They are a 100%, through and through new build, that just happen to share the same TOPS classification due to what they carry, how much of it they carry and how big they are. That is the start, middle, and end of what they share.

As for the HOA hoppers compared to the HKA hoppers, they are even more different. Not just the build but the capacity also. The literal only similarity between these two is that they have the same drawgear and they carry the same substance. If that is 'just a rework of the same thing', you must think the HKA is twinned with Peak Forest's ICI hopper

You're not paying for the 66, it's just included because it has to be and not as a selling point, because that's how the game has been coded. You can't add in a layer for just a wagon, it needs a connected loco to call upon in order to run the service, substitution then happens after. In both the first two packs Skyhook also never made a point to promote the Class 66 being featured, I don't think they ever even mentioned it whatsoever in pack 2. Though even though they didn't even have to, what I see hardly anyone pointing out is that they actually tweaked the paintwork of it in pack 1 and even overhauled its lighting, which makes it still my go-to when I have to use one.

 

Adam, could you please have a look, if it is possible to make some changes on the Class 66, so we can have some variation or different sub-class for example? or some livery variety on EWS/DB Cargo (I think there are a few with special liveries?)?

 

No offense was taking just stating my facts!

 

Nah they ain't, lol. Your paying for altered wagons at a steep price, should have been 5 quid from the start

 

Seriously man when are you gonna wake up and accept reality?

They ARE new wagons!

 

At this point, he's arguing for the sake of it.

 

Do you know what a TOPS code is? If you do go and do some research.

 

what on earth are you on about, they are clearly new models.

 

Nothing new apart from some small bits like I said

 

You're clearly in denial at this point, your wrong and everyone hear knows it.

 

Allow me to summarise what you define as 'small bits'

• Chassis beneath the tank body
• Bogies
• Welding lines on the tank body
• Coupling gear
• Loading hatches on the top
• Walkway and access ladder
• Braking equipment on the underside

Translation: Literally everything.

Every single thing about these tankers is completely different from the 1970s TEAs. Not a tweak, not a refit, not some small bits. A total, 100%, ground up and unique new build. It is not called a TEA because it is the same wagon, it is called a TEA because it carries the same amount of the same substance and is the same size. If you think that makes it the same wagon with just a few tweaks, you must think the exact same thing about a Ford Mondeo, a Vauxhall Insignia and a Skoda Octavia.

I will refer you to my earlier post where I went into this in significantly more detail, yet which those in denial seem to have conveniently ignored:

 

This is literally a nothing argument, they are probably just purposely ragebaiting if I'm honest. Pointless typing out a whole essay like that it's not going to change anything at this point. I might as well just add them to ignore, since they don't seem to be adding anything of value to the discussion.

 

That’s a good shout!

 

I agree with OP here, I mean all steam trains are basically the same, with an 8F the same as an A1. DMUs are the same, barely any difference between the 101 and a Pacer. And just look at the 800, its just a class 43 HST but with fancy wires on the top and the diesel engine dumped. Honestly they should stop giving trains a new class number when they only change a couple of buttons

 

You're very right, writing out big comments if I'm honest is simply a bad habit of mine, I go into detail pretty easily. My post history probably carries enough evidence of that. Regardless I posted what I did outlining in clear detail why the person is incorrect in their statements, and they were outright ignored and they continued to double down on their point. So at this point it is either flat out denial and has been ignored because some people have a real problem with refusing to be told that they are incorrect, or as you say, it's simply baiting for further engagement and not worth any of our time.

 

Ignore him. He's arguing on another thread as well.

 

*debating. Don't see how it's arguing bit soft if you think that but hey ho the word will still spin no matter what you class my discussions as.

 

That's not debating. The two wagons in question don't even share a single common vertex. They are completely different by all means, which is a non-debatable fact.