I've been wondering about this and have seen a few comments about it and I'm hoping for some sort of answer. Previously, it was said that extensions are not possible in TSW without rebuilding the route, we got SEHS extended and the route looked pretty much the same. We've also had the Leven extension to Fife Circle, we could count the WCMLS as an extension as the Bakerloo line section is again, pretty much the same. With a North London line extension on the way, are they still not possible? There's lots of ambiguity surrounding this as the answer most of the time is "no, not without a complete rebuild from scratch".
I always thought that this is not necessarily due to technical limitations (well, maybe for a really old route it is) but more so due to sales/marketing strategy - only people who already own the route would be potential customers for an extension. Basically, DTG's finance cans these projects as not profitable. And I think that's why we only see extensions in an annual release, because people will buy the core game anyway.
Well I think with the decision to pluck Dresden to Riesa from the back catalogue and extend it to Leipzig, the oft trotted out mantra about extensions not being feasible has well and truly been debunked. So I hope in short order we now see some far more interesting route extensions on the table... NTP through to York and Liverpool. TVL to Bishop Auckland, Boulby and round the coast to Sunderland. ECW to Hastings/Ore or Ashford. Cathcart into a Glasgow suburban network. WCL remastered and extended to Plymouth and portal to South Devon. PFR extended to Derby and Manchester. SoS extended to Chester from Runcorn and Crewe. As for Germany, many of the existing routes could be given a worthwhile extension starting with RSN to Siegen, maybe even a super merge of all the Ruhr area routes.
In a core bundle it works because Dovetail know they'll make enough money regardless. As a standalone DLC it wouldn't work. Some people won't fancy buying the same route twice and, if someone wasn't interested in the original, chances are they won't be interested in the extended version. The only truly free extension was the Leven extension for Fife Circle but that was down to Rivet, so a different story, and at a large scale it just doesn't make economic sense. Also, this is going to be a distinct route (DRA will still exist, unlike the original SEHS) so it's quite likely that they did strip the route back to the basics and rework it.
LIRR was (allegedly) intended to be a core release but didn't work out due to the licensing or whatever so I'd call that an exception, unless proven otherwise. (I personally believe that, given how long it was stalled for)
I though LIRR was slated for a normal DLC route release, but was stalled a few months due to the safety system issues. This in turn had the SBL line revealed extremely early, despite it being the TSW5 US core route.
The biggest issue with extensions is a financial one, in terms of how exactly does it get distributed? With the extended SEHS, the initial remaster to Dresden - Riesa and now the extended Dresden - Leipzig, the updates were a free entitlement for those who owned the version that came before. That works as a core route as the surrounding new content essentially helps to fund it, but I would also speculate that it's why in both the Dresden and SEHS extension cases, the routes came with essentially zero new trains. Dresden - Leipzig's only real new addition (not counting the deluxe as it is a separate loco pack) is that the ICE-T is coming in a new livery variant rather than relying on the ICE3M from SKA to serve as a layer. SEHS's only new addition was that the Class 66 had new sound work and we had a new ballast wagon. So in those cases the upgraded routes were a free entitlement to those who already owned the old version, which worked because of the surrounding game funding it. But what happens when it's not a core route and just a standalone extension, like LIRR for example? They made it a paid release because they had to. Because if they didn't, then without a surrounding core release, the work put into it would basically reap no reward for the devs, the work to make essentially an entirely new route would have been a near 100% financial loss. And it doesn't matter what kind of company you are, that sort of outcome will never be viable. Their solution was to sweeten the deal with the new M9 and make it a paid release, and that honestly works in theory. In practise, a lot of people were and would again be upset about the concept of having to pay again for a route they already own. So where do they go? Do they extend routes as part of core releases, not including any new trains in the process and upset the community? Do they extend routes as paid second releases, making players buy them a second time and again upset the community? Or do they give extensions out for free and make almost no money whatsoever from their work? Remasters released with a companion loco pack such as Cathcart + 380, Boston + Acela and GWE + HST Pack works for visual overhauls and remasters, but a full blown extension is a whole other ball game to consider and it's next to impossible to find a way to make it financially viable and satisfying for the player on the other end of the deal.
I think the DTG “pets” used to spout this in defence of the company when people used to ask why routes could not be made longer, which obviously they can as we now know, so this argument was flawed back then.
The Riesa-Dresden route looks terrible now, even with the new sky. The plants from the TSW 2 era still look terrible, did they redesign the route or just add a part to it?
so on Sherman hill dtg didn't add third line. but would that be extension i guess it would be. and if they did they could add an up es44ac or ac4400cw and charge 10 to 15 bucks. hey gotta pay the bills some how.
Most of the time, when people/DTG talk about extensions, they don't talk about what happened to SEHS or what's happening to Dresden - Riesa. Because that was always possible and the only reason why it isn't done more often is financial - you're expecting playerts to pay twice for a portion of a route. The extension type that's was talked about a lot, and is the complex one, is where if you own 2 separate pieces of DLCs i.e. San Bernardino Line and Cajon Pass, these then combine into a single (extended) version (LA Union Station - Barstow in this case). This is what was possible on some routes in TSC (i.e. here is a combined route from Innsbruck to Munich https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=904111273&searchtext=route+extension). Matt talked few times that what was done in TSC - merging of sceneries - should still be feasable in TSW, if the routes share the origin point. The difficulty arise after that - signalling is more complex in TSW, so is dispatching (TSC scenarios are 100% static), and the biggest hurdle is timetable.
This is why it's not feasible, because some players are under the impression they are paying for the same route twice. Although in reality if dtg add 50 miles of track and scenery, that's what you are paying for. You are not buying the same route again. The route is now different.
It would be nice then if each time they re-release TSW, maybe it comes with a remaster of an existing route + an extension Yep I heard this one a lot but I'm happy it's cleared up now. I just remember seeing suggestions a while back about extensions and the comments were just "Extensions aren't possible in TSW". Although some big extensions wouldn't be financially viable, I feel like some small ones like maybe a Greenford or Windsor branch to GWE would probably work.
I think that would be very good idea because most of us like the chance to drive a long route, especially in the fast services that gobble up the miles so quickly. I’d like to see WCMLS extended from MK to Brum and ECML Kings X to Peterborough. That would make Pendolino and Azuma runs so much better like those on TSC, then I can uninstall that old game once and for all!
Im sure they're doable but I’m not 100% that they can be done with any justice or a full timetable on a console due to memory limitations. On a decent PC I can see no reason why it couldn’t be done however.
first TSW extension was years ago Train Sim World® 5: Southeastern Highspeed: London St Pancras – Ashford Intl & Faversham Route
I had to double check but I see what you mean now. Dresden - Leipzig isn't free, but owning it makes Dresden - Riesa free. Weird way of doing it, considering that in the case of LIRR they delisted the original and rightly so by comparison. I would assume that keeping the Riesa version available is down to how many routes utilise it for layers, plus other addons that link to it such as the Expert 101 and Railpool Vectron. From this perspective I can see how people actually might have a problem with this now - When counting purely what's actually new all we get is an extra freight yard, a long almost straight line stretch of high speed track and a new livery for the ICE-T. Even more minimal than Kinzigtalbahn. Having already pre-ordered deluxe I can only hope that the timetable will be phenomenal, but if it builds upon the original route to the same quality then I actually have good faith in this one.
To clarify, I'm not too upset by this. SEHS extension was free, but bundled with TSW3 I just paid again as my original was only sale price. They've given away the French route and Sherman Hill which I paid for, but wouldn't grumble about that either. So giving away the original Reisa is fine for new players, but for me this time it smarts a bit, can't deny. I suppose it's because I've been excluded from the full experience when I've demonstrated I have an interest in it by buying the original. Unless I pay some more, of course. It's an odd decision.
TSW has a lot of short routes with 30-45 minute runs, but it barely has longer runs that go over 90 minutes, and the onlyl routes that take up to 120 minutes are US freight routes. I have plenty of longer game sessions in which I'd love to do longer runs, 90-120 minutes or perhaps even a bit longer. If longer routes can't be made in one go, extending existing routes might be the way to go to get TSW some longer routes. I'm all in favor. There's several routes in TSW I'd love to see extended to offer long runs.
The problem with extensions are: Is it techically possible? Liam says an extension to GWE is not feasible, not that it can't be done, but before you think there is hope, the route has to be rebuilt because it doesn't work with the way modern routes are constructed. But SEHS got an extension, so maybe from that route going forward? Then there is the need, who would want an extension and to what route. The Bakerloo was a nighmare for baking, so that route or simuliar not so much. Who pays for it? At the end of the day it takes man or woman hours to make an extension, so who foots the bill? Maybe if DTG asked the community what route(s) would they want an extension on or DTG give the community a list of feasible routes that could be extended? But, would members in the community pay for an extension? If we all put money on the table, then a no may become a might and might is the important word here.
In the DTG next survey they should ask the community if there’s any interest in extensions. If so, what would you like to see extended. List 6 popular routes, UK, US and Germany (2 of each). Now all they need is a Liam 2.0 style team of an about 3-4 staff members to make the magic happen
Personally I suspect that LIRR was probably a test to see how well "extensions" would do without the boost from bundled sales. And I'm just gonna put it out there, people say "Well LIRR's a thing, why don't they do more?", but to me there's a obvious conclusion to draw. LIRR didn't do well, and so DTG took that as enough proof to drop the idea of making expansions, outside of doing one occasional for the yearly bundle. Not nessicarily saying that was the right conclusion to draw, but given how they've treated steam, BR Blue, and US freight that seems highly likely. Honestly I expect the same fate to befall the "network route" concept, because I don't get the impression Cardiff City Network did all that well either.
Honestly most of their attempts have been flawed one way or another. The LIRR extension didn’t even occur to me, because the previous version of the route was so broken & all I could see was DTG trying to sell me a £30 fix. Add to that I don’t believe US content is all that popular since they aren’t doing much to interest people in it. CCN was pitiful. They can call it a network all they want, but what it really is, is 1 short route with a couple of tidbits from other routes. If a network in DTG’s eyes is a DLC made up of less route to drive than prototypical releases, people aren’t going to want it. The only thing that’s going to sell that DLC is the layering on others. Ironically SEHS has been the only thing that shows me how good both a network & extension can work. That’s the basis they should be building from & it seems the extended DRA will follow suit, which is good. Overall I wouldn’t mind if one of the core release routes is always an extension/rework of an existing one. It’s these 3 routes that usually provide the best opportunity for DTG to develop, with the mid year routes being shorter & usually just adding new trains to the title.
From my personal perspective, I had two reasons not to buy LIRR2; - I didn't enjoy LIRR1 all that much. Why would I want an extended route when the first version didn't impress me? Perhaps if they'd have updated LIRR1 first, I might be more interested in LIRR2. - I don't want to be forced to use safety systems, which is why I even passed on a 80% discount during the recent Steam sale. Normally I'd pick up any route at such a discount. Obviously I don't know other peoples reasons not to buy LIRR2, but I think it's incorrect to assume any route extension wouldn't sell well. There's several suggestions of extending routes which keep on popping up in the suggestion forum every now and then. However, personally I'd say the original route needs to be popular, as that's the main impression people will get for the extended route. Riesa-Dresden did well, so it makes sense to deliver an extended version of such a popular route.
Adding to this, we actually have proof that it is indeed possible to merge routes with the same origin in TSW to create some kind of extension or network. Some of you may not know that the Fife Circle Enhancement pack actually included the entirety of Edinburgh to Glasgow, provided you owned that route. Whilst it has a couple of bugs such as the wrong ground material and track not being shown on the route map, it is entirely possible to do a timetable run from one end of it to the other without anything breaking. Save games also work and, if for whatever reason you were to uninstall one of the routes, they become inaccessible until all the content is installed again rather than corrupting. There are not any technical reasons that prevent the merging of routes. There are however, numerous reasons that make it unfeasible. The first would likely be how impractical it is due to the way routes are made in the first place. The Fife Circle E2G merger was only possible due to Rivet's laziness when it came to optimising the route. All the track work, signaling and the timetable from E2G were left intact unlike WCMLS for example, which was built off the Bakerloo Line but had the rest of that route cut. What this essentially means is that all the mod had to do was call in the route assets such as buildings and rolling stock, a much easier job than reinstating missing terrain and making a new timetable to accommodate the additional stations (I realise there is a new TT with the mod but the vanilla route also has trains go to Queen Street and stop at their respective calling points). This is likely why we haven't seen anyone attempt to merge WCMLoS and Blackpool Branches. Essentially if you want to merge routes, the new route needs to contain the trackwork, signaling, terrain and working timetable for the route it is going to be merged with otherwise it basically has to be a completely separate route that contains the content of both of the other routes. This leads nicely onto the second reason we don't really see this happen. Optimisation. We know all to well that bigger timetables result in poorer performance, we also know that larger routes in general run worse. Releasing a new route that has trains constantly running on inaccessible areas of the map is going to take a toll on performance. We saw this with the Frankfurt Fulda route which had S-Bahn trains running underneath the map and freight running through yards that were not meant to be player accessible. Finally, would be regarding if it's a justifiable use of resources to begin with. Developing anything takes both time and money, something which all companies would like to minmax as much as possible. From a business perspective, there is likely little reason to spend more money and time making sure that your route runs both standalone and as a merged product (you'd essentially be doubling testing time). We've had a few route extensions but these have basically been limited to new routes that release with new game versions. The exception for this is LIRR 2.0 which was sold at full price and got a mixed reception for that very reason among other things. While there is no confirmation from DTG regarding this, I'd hedge my bets that these are the main factors at play. Anyway sorry, this was long and ramble, hope it made sense. FCEP with E2G installed FCEP without E2G installed Glasgow Queen Street as is included in the vanilla Fife Circle route (note the signals are present)
Like others have mentioned, I bought LIRR2 on sale to enjoy the extension but was put off by the mandatory safety systems. So if DTG used that one to judge the popularity of extensions, they backed the wrong horse. If they want to judge a popular and much requested extension, put TVL out to Bishop Auckland and Boulby, maybe Sunderland too along with a Class 56. Or push NTP to York and Scarborough.
Completely agree, a big reason why I wasn't at all interested from the beginning, even while others were clamoring about "networks". If the way we get network routes is by dividing the already pitiful route lengths we get then it ain't gonna do well. Heck, big part of the reason I want longer routes is so that we can get extra lines without the need to sacrifice "main line" lengths to do it. I want routes to have a good variety of services types all across the length spectrum, not just short 15 to 30 minute hops. And frankly it kind of ticks me off seeing people not realize that potential and diss the cries for longer routes with the old "But I don't want two hour services!" nonsense. 100%, SEHS is a true stand out, and it actually uses its extra track-age amazingly well. When even I play that it just hops out just how varied the route is from the loco selection screen. And that's only possible because it's use that length to effectively make two separate routes that are just stitched together at the middle. I can think similar in my case, I never actually bought LIRR, partially because of the negative chatter I had always seen on it. And while I'm a more prime target for the extension because of that, I can't say it ever set right with me that DTG basically were asking to fix one of the most notorious routes by asking people to pump more into it. Granted, this wasn't the deciding factor for me, if all else was good I might've bought it anyways. This however did change my mind, as someone who pretty much never plays with them off I still hated this. I understand tons of people play this game casually, they want to do things like not worry much about the speed limits or learn a new safety system. I don't like how DTG allowed Long Island to back them into a corner where they were forced them to back down on what had been before a standard feature of the title and decrease its customer base for the sake of getting a license. I'll likely never buy it at this point, even on huge discount, for that reason. A shame too, because I've really wanted the M7 in TSW the entire time I've played it, figuring better routes will come for it eventually. Yet the damned thing seems cursed with all the controversial releases it keeps getting attached to!
I agree. Part of my decision was not to support DTG in forcing safety systems. I don't want DTG to think this is OK to do in the future. As soon as DTG will allow people to play LIRR2 without safety systems, I'll reconsider a purchase.
Sssh. But I think you can actually run the M3 trips on there without safety systems. Well I had one run that let me.
Why drive without safety systems? The whole immersion is lost. Especially since American safety systems are extremely simple.
The mandatory safety systems thing is an aspect of the train, not the route. The M3 is an older DLC and so doesn't have the restriction. I'm bemused by people saying things like " It was NOT DTG, not voluntarily. The licensor, MTA, made it a hard requirement of the license: no always-on ATC/ACSES, no license and no route. And, honestly, 1) playing without safety systems is like using a cheat code; and 2) it's unrealistic, since any driver who tried IRL would be sacked immediately. Oh, and 3) Many of the "signals" on the LIRR are just balises with no visible lights; you can't drive it without cab signaling.
It was DTGs choice to make this sacrifice. They could've gone with an unbranded version or a totally different route. DTG chose to accept MTAs conditions.
It was not a case of branding. It was to do with the actual trains and how they look and operate. If dtg didn't listen, they would have lost mta as a whole and therefore no more mta routes. It wouldn't have mattered if dtg created another route either. Mta is still required to approve it and if they don't and something, dtg can't say no
Which you still get indicated on the display with systems off as on LIRR1 and Harlem, just not the enforcement.
Not true. You get the whole line from Friedrichstadt to Coswig in the extension, witch finally gives the ending point in Großenhain some proper meaning.
A sacrifice, that means you have to drive a train in a train simulator, like you would the real train? God forbid! LIRR2 is actually pretty good, and probably one of the best US passenger routes in game. It feels more like a Network route than CCN does for sure...
What ye all need to do is create a poll, list all of the routes and get members to vote for the route they feel need an extension. And by doing so everyone will see what other players are looking for, it will also highlight the problem doing a extension is that not everybody wants the same route extended. Other problems, not everyone wants an extension built on to an current route, so the option for them to vote no to a route extension needs to be added. Then you have players who don't bother taking part in polls or players who are not on this forum? We need a majority vote for the GWEXYZ route to start with and even then DTG can still say no, but it will put them thinking if nothing else, but good luck on getting players to agree. And some route may require a load of work and it is just not finanically viable. Money is a dirty word, but players would have to agree or be willing to buy or pay for the extension, doesn't mean that DTG would take payment, they might just do it because players asked. Or Just ask DTG what routes would be viable for an extension, then do a polling vote on that list, but again not everyone is on here or wants an extension. And if DTG come back and say none of the routes can be extended, then thats the end of the extension idea.
I suppose the most glaring to me is one that's about to get a facelift anyway: GWE- stretch it at least to Didcot (so the freight runs make sense) if not Oxford, and add the Greenford branch.; Heck, throw in Windsor as well.
