Why Is The Heavy Freight Being Forgotten?

Dunno don't own it.

 

-Its website is stuck in the past, its payment system is out of date
-Its very expensive, you have to buy most of the rolling stock on top of the routes themselves, if you want to see correctly branded equipment
-Its very complex to set up, the only time I've ran it, I couldn't figure out how to spawn a train.
-Multiplayer is a close off club, so solo players not part of the groups get left out (Based on OldVern's experience)

I dont even know if I can find my purchases if I look for them....

 

Schnauz running a big train down the main ....



Schnauz doing some switching .....

Operations unique to Run8.

Regarding cost, I've been with Run8 almost from the beginning and acquired the whole collection over the years. TSC and TSW with a reasonable amount of DLC cost the same.

But I agree, the web store and purchase process could use an update. I keep all my purchases backed up on external media. The program itself gets backed up every week to my NAS.

 

I can vouch for all of that. And if you have the temerity to complain in front of Run 8 acolytes, well it’s got nothing compared to some of the pitchforks given on here to complaints about TSW. I hasten to add, once it’s up and running and you understand how the game works, it can be very absorbing and in depth particularly doing the industry sub game. But even that has been trumped to some extent by the likes of Railroader with much nicer graphics to boot.

Spawning trains is not actually that hard, just use either the Train Maker Upper menu to build your consist, or you can add a train from the saved trains menu and drop that into the TMU, then place on the track.

But it’s certainly not a plug and play, instantly accessible experience. As regards the multiplayer, well maybe I just caught it on a bad day, but seemed to me like a “good old boys” clique who ignored my subtle attempts to join the chat, then when I parked up my train out the way with a note I was returning later found it had been deleted, or hijacked. So I stuck up two fingers to any future involvement with MP.

I’m sure there must be scope for DTG to make US freight more like Run 8, without invoking copyright or plagiarism claims. A persistent world would be a good start, along with interactive industries where you can drop cars and pick them up later, then form and despatch manifests back in the yard. It needn’t even be a mega route like R8 now has from Modesto to Seligman, maybe a short line similar to how Railroader operates (minus the economic element). DTG just need to start thinking outside the box as to how TSW could be adapted to offer more than A to B driving for American freight..

 

I’d like to see a TSW attempt at this. If a cooperative short line might be found that could offer gameplay similar to CRR, I’d be all for that. I doubt it’d be dynamic in TSW so there is always the danger of things being too repetitive, but than again, that’s also part of railroading. Some freight turns are repetitive and always (almost) the same in real life, though that is of course not the case for all freight.

Then again, if CRR sold as poorly as we are led to believe, then maybe DTG have already ruled out short lines and similar gameplay - justified or not.

 

Again, I think the answer may be found in a Class II or Class III railroad.

• Access and licensing- may be more willing to play ball than the big boys
• PTC- Many of the Class IIs and IIIs haven't installed it, since they aren't required to. Eliminates one roadblock
• Rolling stock- tends to be older, and either in TSW or available to recreate
• Activity: industrial services are what these short lines are all about

 

I agree that one of the solutions to US freight routes would be much greater intensity of activity in manifesting - I live in Florida and the idea of running freight through central florida without frequent load/unload pickup/dropoff operations is soul destroying - try driving the Florida Turnpike from Miami though Orlando to Gainsville at under 50mph and you will get the idea. With freight, without loading/unloading and shunting etc you will have 8+ hours of watching flat terrain drag by. Short industrial routes with variable terrain is fine, but thank G.. for mountain routes. What we need is an updated version (of equivalent lengh) in TSW of the Canadian Mountain Passes DLC, plus an AC4400CW of the quality of the Searchlight Simulations model (try the cab in that one for motion sickness!). And more accurate multiple loco controls - e.g. fencing.

 

You can already experience that to some extent with the South East area in Run 8. Not helped by the route builder simply placing most of the trackage between an avenue of trees with literally nothing beyond. Though to be fair up on the Fitz sun there is a bit of a sawtooth gradient profile and even running at 50 MPH you do feel like you're getting somewhere rather than crawling up a 1 in 50 hill at 18 MPH!

 

But, that's just another mountain pass with slow grades and climbs, and probably wont sell to the masses.

 

All routes, production of all routes... same point in the discussion.
It's not relevant to the main focus of the discussion.

 

But you could argue that if you're just speeding across flat, similar terrain or obscured by trees you're not really getting the feeling of "progress" either. Take the SEHS run for example. It's just a huge corridor of trees that even while going 125mph.... you don't get a sense of much movement because there's not much to measure it against. Might as well be in a tunnel.

Compare that to the other side of the SEHS map where you drive up the coast and there's a lot to see and you have a more rewarding drive as you watch landmarks and villages go by.

Relating back to US freight runs, Sand Patch gives you more sense of progress since the terrain and assets keep changing as you go. There's lots of trackside stuff to see too like houses, cars, villages, there's level crossings with traffic.... compared to say Sherman Hill where it's really flat and there are few if any assets to gauge progress by. Just open fields on end. Now that may be accurate (never been to Wyoming so dunno) but your faster progress doesn't seem faster. Sherman feels just as long even though it's a shorter route at faster speeds.

Bottom line is it's down to personal taste. What each person likes, and you can't make everyone happy. I for example really like a good detailed route and don't mind it being "slow" if it's rewarding to drive. WSR is actually quite nice, with it's 12 miles seeming much longer due to the depth of experience and slower speeds...but that allows you to appreciate the modeling more. All it's lacking is something non-passenger. (I realize it's a heritage line with passenger focus... was thinking maybe a throwback mail run or delivery of coal from the mainline, etc something to spice it up.) Similarly, there's a ton of detail on the Oakville line and a lot to do from a freight perspective, even though it's not super fast. The whole industrial area is just very well modeled.

 

I looked at runny 8 but I just got double migraines from reading first through the complex instructions and secondly the prices. I think they were trying to sell me shares in the company. When I saw the graphics I couldn’t stop laughing.

 

Well the masses bought that sort of thing in TSC so I suppose the masses here are different.

 

I think with the new just trains route you will have plenty ol freight stuff to do.

 

Yes and yes.
Not entirely different crowds since quite a few people play both, but as I've stated before I think the huge number of younger, console players that can only access TSW tends to skew the two in different directions. TSC always does better with freight in general.

Note... in general.
Not everyone.
There is some crossover between the two, but they are definitely different platforms and games with a different focus.
I think in no small part it also comes down to quality of the route and developer too.
Someone might not like one route, but like another similar to it made by a different developer or with different details.
For example, you could lump Sand Patch, Clinchfield and Horseshoe Curve into the "mountainous style" maps but they are very different.

 

Don't think PTC has ever BEEN a roadblock since they're not going to try to attempt it for any route unfortunately.

 

Yes I think that is the case, the console players seem to prefer passenger services, less controls to manage compared to a US freight maybe.

 

I suppose so, one handle EMU's are easier to handle with a handheld controller.

How many console players actually play train driver using the 3D cab handles, levers, switches, buttons, pedals?

 

That's not entirely true; they have implemented it on the NEC routes.;

PTC is not a system but a regulatory spec; there are several systems implemented to meet the legal requirement. ACS/ACSES is one, and DTG was able to model that. The system Metrolink uses, I-ETMS, is apparently impossible to model in Simugraph -though they tried, they put a lot of dev hours into it before giving up. (Note also that they attempted cab signaling on Sherman Hill, although they failed to get it to work.) But there are others: E-ATC, CBTM, CBOSS.

I said "roadblock" because many players have objected, and apparently Matt has heard, that modern US routes without PTC are unacceptably unrealistic; it's like a German route without PZB.

 

I haven't played TSW on console, but from other games I've played on both platforms it's often a lot harder to manage detailed games with lots of options with a controller. It makes sense people would prefer simpler options.

 

Simugraph is a model for train physics and the way the safety systems are modeled has nothing to do with it. As far as I understand it, the problem isn't programming, it's data availability. For PZB, there are just three different types of data point, they are physical objects that you can see in a cab ride video, and the rules on where they are placed are fairly simple. AWS/TPWS are similar. Plus, since European railway networks are open access, the infrastructure operators need to make information on the safety systems public to some degree, simply so train operators can all have access to it.

With a fully GPS-based PTC system with wireless data transmission, there isn't any infrastructure to look at, so DTG would need much more data on how the system works to allow them to model it. At the same time, there's much less data available since there's no open access between US railroads. And I can't see any US railroad just giving DTG a complete suite of documentation on their PTC system...

 

I really don't need to know the answer since I don't care for it anyway and think it destroys "fun" for casual players, but is there much practical difference between AWS and PTC for game terms? I get that they're different "systems" and there are minor differences, but in theory they both just engage brakes to avoid crashes. Anything behind the scenes (for example who decides to shut down what signals and why) wouldn't be seen by the player anyway.
Bottom line is I don't think that's the "PTC implementation" has an impact on freight availability in TSW.
Unless that "implementation" involves getting access to literally the actual boxes in the cab for "authenticity in modeling" so the screens look like the real thing. That would require access to the cabs themselves and yes would vary by railroad.
Although I've also heard that some areas don't install anything and the drivers have no access to them. The train just starts to brake and they call the dispatch who tells them "yeah there's an obstruction on the tracks up ahead, we were about to call and tell ya." In that case there wouldn't be any notification in the cab at all.
Then there's the exceptions where track under 5 million tons of traffic per year you don't need to install the systems.
That's not a high number though for a Class 1 since it's 1 to 3 big trains a day.

 

Well, the LIRR did; and the NEC routes make extensive use of unmarked nodes.

 

PTC (including ETCS) is WAY more complicated than AWS, which does nothing but sound a bell or a horn 200 yards ahead of a signal (and which was first implemented all the way back in 1905, in a magneto-mechanical version)

 

The only difference (again, practically) between the two systems seems to be that the freight system operates off of GPS and Wi Fi in rural areas. They didn't want to pay to maintain a huge number of fixed nodes along thousands of miles of uninhabited terrain. The network required would have been HUGE and prohibitive overhead. It's relatively cheap to just install a sensor point in an urban area that is easily accessible and services hundreds of trains a day.

You've all driven the track in game so know how many signal points there are on any given route. Now multiply that by maybe 5 for the "in between" signals for exact positioning and that's how many individual towers/sensors you'd need. That's a lot for the routes we have in game, but those are only maybe 50 miles long. CSX along has over 20,000 miles of track.
With GPS, you just install one sensor on each train.

But functionally, they do the same thing under the law requirements.

 

Did they? It's true that ATC/ACSES is the one notable exception for US safety systems in TSW, but given the licensing issues around LIRR 2.0, I find it hard to imagine it's all based on first hand source data from LIRR.

 

I honestly don't think this is a console thing, or in fact a US freight thing, as, although it isn't as clear, freight as a whole seems to be an afterthought in the game, generally. Like I say, I always have and always will love a good intercity run, it is in my blood, but at the same time freight does make up a very important proportion of services on the network so it has to be better represented in every TSW country and for every platform TSW is available on.

 

Freight is a different animal. Different lifestyle. Even though they're both on rails. It's like expecting a school bus driver's day and an interstate truck driver's day to be similar just because they both make a living on wheels.

 

I very well know the differences, doesn't make either less important, or of a lesser need to be represented though. I know enough people who have gone from various TOCs into the world of freight, at different companies, and it makes me even more sure staying at the TOC were the right thing, especially hearing stories from people at a certain company.

 

Fair enough.
Just stating what may be obvious to you but not to everyone.
There's a different "work flow" to freight operations that may be daunting or boring to some.
It could be argued that freight is technically in game, if it's understood in a very limited sense.
Class 66's for example run on the WCML. They are technically in the game.
There are a handful of trains on the San Bernadino.
Doesn't mean it's really "freight" in the way that a freight fan would understand.
As I've said, what's portrayed is the equivalent of a passenger service without passenger stops.

 

What exactly are you getting at here?

 

In addition freight is done very differently in TSW to TSC, in the latter the scenarios are much more interesting, often you have to put together a freight train from numerous sidings first before getting underway, then you might have to stop midway to industries along the route and cut your train to deliver specific cars to a siding. Then you might do the same at your destination.
Also the routes are much longer making sense of the above scenarios.
In TSW too many of the freight scenarios are very basic A to B runs with nothing much to do. Basically they are like passenger runs without the stations to stop at. Pretty boring.

 

Better terminology....

-The US freight runs in TSC involve both mainline runs, plus local freight work from industries.

-The US freight runs in TSW are mainly mainline runs, with the few actual local services are so basic, they are pretty boring. Yard switching is also terrible as well.

 

Perhaps the reason they can't get more freight with industrial moves is that each route is timetable based.

And in order for it to work all the frieght would neeqd to be in specific locations at specific times. However if you notice that there are no scheduled times when doing a freight run. So it might be harder to set up than you would think.

 

All the freight trains do have expected times, just not times that the player's scored to. Every freight service has a ETA when you select, and DTG do make the services in which you're expect to complete X, Y, & Z in that time frame, Clinchfield comes to mind off right away. Not to mention routes like Nidderalbahn already have scheduled times on its freight ops to make sure you stay out of the way of passenger traffic. So there isn't anything stopping them from adding times to freight if that was determined as necessary.

I also doubt people would care as long as they tweaked the scoring to not penalize you for being late. If we're being honestly they probably should already be doing that even on the passenger timetables. Most of the places DTG cover really don't care about being timely, at least not to the extent you'd think based on the scoring penalizing you for being two minutes late. When in reality trains being 5 to 15 minutes late is rather regular.

 

I have found on most of the US freight runs in TSW the penalty for being late isnt much or at all. It usually takes me longer to complete some of them i tend to take more caution especially with braking and speeds .plus the game very unforgiving with deduction of point s for speeding there are some routes that deduct points for going .05 mph over the speed limit .TSC really deducts points it shows the points deducted , a few times in TSC saw it taking 2 points a second off for going 1 mph over limit then if you keep speeding the amount of points deducted per second go higher and higher.

 

In TSC that can be individually set up per scenario by the author. You can change the amount of time after which the penalty comes into effect, a multiplier and an interval additionally. As well as adjusting allowed g-forces that when exceeded gives you get Ride Comfort deductions, nothing is hardcoded into the game.

In TSW, it's actually hard to fail. I got Platinum on services where I overshot and skipped a station stop.

 

Indeed as we’ve discussed before, in TSC career mode just being slightly late at several locations can plunge your “score” into the minus figures. In Standard mode, being late at an objective can cause the whole scenario to fail. TSW is almost too forgiving, as if they didn’t want to upset anyone for driving poorly…

 

Tooty pretty much gets it in the entry below your post. There's a lot of actions involved in freight driving that just aren't in the game. Only one part of the freight experience is represented in most cases. There are a few that are partially represented (like a few loading scenarios or a little shunting) but it's not a complete package. That's not even to mention that there aren't really "locals" or short lines, just Class 1 stuff. If you aren't loading and unloading freight and hitching cars for example... then it's like passenger services if you don't involve loading or unloading passengers.... only driving HST's and not stopping between A-B in particular.

 

That's what makes Run 8 strong - the gameplay aspect. The industry configs make it a living world. Drop empty cars on that siding, return later and they'll be loaded and auto-tagged for you to make setouts again, picking up the loads as you place empty cars again there. The gameplay is created on the fly, and you can tweak all aspects of it (loading times, accepted cars, tags to use, define your custom sidings etc). You're not working with preset paths as in TSW, but you can just give a train a valid tag and let the AI drive it to its destination while you're shunting and assembling new trains, or takeover any AI train at any time you want. Adjust the AI spawn intervals or do everything manually, just as you want.

And you can always make a private server and invite friends to work as a team if you don't like the Depot Server elite.

 

Yeah, I can see why. Spending about an hour in the cab doing nothing but tapping the vigilance pedal is a mind-numbing experience.
Crazy thing is, if DTG just attempted to make a system from little information that is publicly available, I don't think people would be able to tell. Unless they work for the railroad, for which I'm pretty sure they'll understand how difficult it is to gather info on those systems.

 

You and Spikee just made the case for doing older US freight routes (pre-2007) and making them hilly. Like Sand Patch.
No PTC systems were installed yet, and there are challenges inherent in the route that make it impossible to get bored. If you get behind the power curve and let your train get out of control, you crash. You have to constantly monitor your systems to stay safe.

Spikee is correct, and other games like Run 8 or Railroader, Derail Valley or even Railroads Online have that industrial side of things that's just not in TSW. I don't know if it can be to be fair given how differently TSW is set up. It'd be like installing a "passenger managing system" that determined how many of what kind of passenger are at each station to make the population of the passenger stations accurate.

Yes, it would be cool but is TSW able to do that in the confines of the "scenario" setup we have? Each scenario is in essence it's own "game" with beginning and end in TSW. What is described in those other games is an ongoing open world over long periods of time. (Railroader you can also do freight runs and track fares too, so it's not limited to freight.)

I think TSW would be limted to just more realistic scenarios, such as multi-part "jobs" that require loading cargo, putting together a train, dropping a car off at 4 different spots along the line at the correct siding, and then ending at the destination.

I know they can do it. There are bits and pieces of it shown in game already. For example, the multi-part missions where you assemble coal trains, then move them (separately) on SPG. Or the WSR missions where you put things away for the night, putting each carriage in it's own place.

However, those are rather limited and few and far between. That should be the normal scenario, not an exception. From playing other games, that's really what makes it feel like a freight run and not just a training skip or passengers without the passengers. You have to use your brain and pay attention the whole trip.

You can like it or not like it, but there's no "boring" to it. You're just too busy. It's not stressful busy, it's relaxing... but it's more like a puzzle game in addition to the trains figuring out what goes where and watching how everything fits together, then monitoring your progress especially on hills and curves, etc.

It's in reality a lot more complicated than a simple passenger run by comparison, but the "only commuters" don't understand it if they only have an A-B drive with no interaction to judge from. That extra complexity is actually fun to some people since it makes it more rewarding.

Not saying one is "better" than the other, but just that the TSW model caters to the passenger runs better due to how it's set up. It's shorter durations, little to do at each destination (open/close doors), you don't affect the environment, and there's no connection between one run and the next.

Again, It is what it is. If I want more depth of play, I go to those other games where your actions "matter" more (you can build money, buy new stuff, create and add props, etc) However, TSW/TSC does do a huge catalog and a lot of maps better than anyone else. There are dozens of trains and dozens of maps.

And they're modern.

And there's passengers.

And they're on console.

That's what TSW offers the others dont.... a variety of modern, passenger, console platform.

So it's not surprising that's what they cater to.

It's their "niche."

That's why while I agree there isn't as much freight and it's not as realistic in TSW I understand why that's the case, and I'm not going to argue too hard it "must" be included because as a freight person with a PC I know I have other options. I don't demand that those other games "must" include modern EMUs in their lineup either.

Having said that... there should be SOME freight in TSW simply because those are PC games and the people who want to do freight with consoles really don't have anywhere else to go. TSW is it for consoles if you want modern freight. As far as I know Railroads Online just went console, but that's steam only. So if you want anything diesel or electric freight... it's gonna be TSW.

(This does defuse a bit of the steam argument for TSW giving console players a chance for more realistic steam engines, but I digress that's not the topic at hand.)

 

Issue is, after awhile it literally just becomes the same thing over and over again. Going uphill or downhill has just become easy. There isn't any variable whatsoever in the services.

Frankly, DTG can do better. They should do better. I'm sure eventually they will. But for now, the state of US freight in the game remains kind of gray.

 

That describes passenger services too... go forward... stop... go forward... stop.... go forward... stop.
Sometimes you get to sit at a red light for awhile.
Yet people still enjoy playing it.
To each their own.

However, you're right. There's a lot more to freight than just the driving.
That's kind of the point I was making.

TSW is limited in how much they can add given how the game is built, but they can do more to vary it.

I don't know how many variables they can practically add in the existing system, but it'd be interesting to find out.

For example, if you had a "dynamic freight system" it would randomly generate a consist, start and ending destination maybe with the destinations being specific. That's probably too much, which is why I suggested at least some better scenarios in large enough number that you don't have to do the same 3 scenarios over and over.

If we didn't have such linear routes, they could have "detours" like the truck simulator games.

I think a lot of it is just not developing the assets they have. There are a ton of sidings on existing maps that just aren't used at all. You drive by them and never use them.

 

I usually just play TSC withe the score set like you mentioned ..in TSW i try to do the bast i can to try and get gold or silver medal ,after that if i go a little over the limit here and there ,,,back in the day they had the making up time some engineers would build up a little extra speed for a upcoming grade or if the passenger train was running a bit late they could get back to schedule,

 

I would just like more variety of operations in US freight ..sometimes i like point A to B runs other time i would like switching runs or a freight run that has pick up or set off along the way..as for passenger i like variety put trains into and out of service ,tthe standard all stops or limited stops run and express point a to b even fan trip runs special excursion runs

 

Wow this got a lot more attention than expected. I appreciate all your guys' feedback and I can see we are mostly all on the same page. I'd love to see CP included into the game through a Canadian DLC, and maybe other railroads like CSX, BNSF, or Norfolk Southern. Features like foreign power where you have manifest trains with locomotives from different railroads. I don't see why DTG wouldn't be able to accomplish as they have already accomplished much more in the past. I've honestly gotten tired of playing the Cajon Pass DLC which is the main reason why I brought this up. I don't mind paying $30-40 for a DLC as long as it includes great content. I agree though, branching off and maybe making a DLC from the southern states like Kentucky or Louisiana would be sweet as well, and I could definitely see myself playing that.

 

Do you have any other freight DLC beyond Cajon Pass?

 

Canada will, never again be part of any DLC for TSW, as we have no crumbling buildings, sorry I meant monuments, or anything like this.
Read the message Group Please Write A Suggestion, it is well indicated that for any suggestion to be considered, it must have a monument within the scenery
Also the guy named Matt that is a big wig at TSW, said the way he want the a suggestion to be submitted it must be like a university level document, so only university graduated can submit any suggestion

 

Didn't he also say that only suggestions which had the potential for an extension to Mars could be made, or have I got the same illness as you?