Wcml Preston To Crewe Discussion

Can always do a full Edinburgh to Kings Cross with Class 55 on TSC!

 

A signal always at danger at Peterborough, a bridge "floating in the air" not far from Nortallerton, the track without cant between York and Newcastle, etc, etc.
It's obsolete by now, I would like to keep up with the times

 

Icons and Lampoil dont produce a marketable viable product (Maybe)

 

Then wait until TSW25 bring it to you . TSC allows you to fix broken stuff - lol

 

Just stirring up an Eastern Region v London Midland Region dispute and reminding all of which one has a history of record-breaking traction (that actually works).

 

That'll be the GWR then!!

 

I am curious about timetable intensity. How many tph etc.

 

Ha, I didn't even think factor GWR in. They of course got through a record number of traction types on their fast services; Warships, Westerns, Blue Pullmans, 50s and HSTs in 15 years. Though the 50's barely had time to get settled into their post WCML jobs.

 

There's only 1 region that managed to get a double decker train into service.

 

I don't suffer from claustrophobia but having seen how the 4-DDs were configured, jeez

 

Is that the Southern’s number 1 claim? Ultimately, it was a failed experiment.

I believe in the ‘Big 4’ years 1923-1948 the Southern Railway was the world’s largest electrified railway system.

Even as a London Midland man, I have to admit that the intensity of the network and frequency of service south of the Thames was - and is - remarkable. One of the wonders of the railway world.

 

Anyone who worked on writing timetables or who worked at a signalbox on the Southern gets my respect. It's like a huge jigsaw puzzle.

However, as someone who has spent the last five years tracking and recording rolling stock allocations, I have no kind words for whoever it was on Southern who decided on a new EMU renumbering scheme every flipping year. If I had enough hair, I'd have spent the last few years pulling it out.

 

Right now we know the route will include the Deepdale branch, Bickershaw colliery, Parkside colliery and fiddlers ferry power station, all of which deviate off the mainline.

Are there any further branches that we know of or can suspect will also be included? Realistic branches I mean (not the full line to Liverpool)

Personally I’m hoping for the Preston docks to be included.

 

I'm just going off of OpenStreetMap, I don't know about the service patterns back in the day - would having Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows accessible add any interest to some of the local services? Were there trains from Liverpool or Manchester that stopped at either of these stations and then joined the WCML? Or potentially even local services along the WCML that left the main line just to stop at Newton-le-Willows?

 

I know in modern times there are a couple of services that come from Manchester (entering on the right if the picture) through Newton and Earlestown, then join the main line through Warrington, branching off towards Frodsham - I couldn't say for certain if that was also the case back in the later 80s.

 

I've just been playing WCMLoS and it made me wonder. This route's 86/4 will presumably be able to sub into Shap, I'm wondering if it will just sub in with the /2 or if it will also be able to sub in place of the 87 on the freight and mail services. I know the 87 was designed to be mixed traffic but I believe the 86/4 was more commonly used with the 87 more often held back for its higher speed capabilities, at least until the Class 90s came about.

 

Probably sub freight and maybe new services

 

87s were built mainly for Express Passenger use, however they also saw use on freight but this was mainly Heavy stuff that needed multiple working locos (36 way jumpers with the 86s that had them). The elephant in the room here is the 81s and 85s they dominated freight and parcels that didnt need a pair of locos such as Limestone traffic from Hardendale quarry, also Speedlink such as heavy grain traffic and cartics. 86/4s carried on after 90s came in to traffic. The real heavy freight was certain Freightliner Container trains and the loaded Metals Traffic (Mainly ran in the up direction towards the South). I feel its disappointing we probably wont see an 85 or 81 due to the fact none run on the mainline and the devs will struggle to get sounds for them. The DCC Sound suppliers do have files for models of them and in TSC a freeware 85 is available. The 86/4 although welcome doesnt complete the AC WCML picture by any means.....

 

It certainly doesn't complete it no, my intention is merely that it would be more prototypical to have that running the majority of WCMLoS's freight than the 87. Like I said, especially before the 90s were introduced it was almost unheard of for an 87 to run any freight working at all unless like you said it was a case where extra power was required and one happened to be on hand. And actually even then, from what I recall and if today's Freightliner units are anything to go by, even after the 90s were rolled out and right up to their final days with Virgin it was still more common to see 90s on freight than the 87s themselves. Meanwhile 86/4s were quite commonly used on freight workings, roles inherited from their /0 and /3 days prior to their refit, so even if they aren't the freight dominating 81s and 85s I still find them more believable in those workings compared to 87s.

 

I wonder whether players would be more open to reused class 86 sounds on the pre AL6 locos, with some select sounds that can be sourced without a fully running example? I imagine most would like to see some of these locos, and would be happy even if the sounds weren't spot on given the circumstances.

 

Also, what do others think about maybe an AI variety pack? The class 304 doesn't really have any runs long enough to drive, but dominated local services around Crewe, so I'm not sure what else would fill this in the timetable? I also wonder if it would be worth having alongside the class class 304 some more 1st gen DMUs that aren't playable to add even more realism to the timetable? Hopefully we'll still have the 104 proper, but if not they were fairly common in the 80s in the North West.

 

I wonder if they could use sounds from those Polish derivative locos.

 

Apparently there were occasional Crewe to Preston locals. I wonder if they went via Earlestown, that'd be an interesting run.

 

Matt once talked about the idea of something like this. 'Lite' locos I think he called them, that is more simplified trains that don't run simugraph and therefor don't have such detailed physics purely to function as basic timetable fillers. While nothing really came of that, the idea of a lite control system which isn't tied to simugraph would of course eventually be used in the form of the Thomas & Friends DLCs.

I can't really see it happening unfortunately. What I see being realistically more likely to happen is cases similar to one which happened with Kassel - Wurzburg, where although they weren't accessible in the original timetable trains like the 146.2 were thrown in just to fill out the AI traffic. In other words, the reuse of already existing traffic for the sake of AI rather than anything actually playable. Asides from that I think most people want their trains to be driveable, and not merely driveable as in one button to go forward and another to go back. The best we can hope for in regards to a 304 is a more localised Crewe or Liverpool route.

 

It's not impossible if they have the same parts. Many sounds for the recent 220 actually came from the German BR 612 as it has the same engine, with that thing basically being an adapted regional version of the 221 including having the tilt function. Also 101 sounds were remixed for the 142 since they were similar geared Leyland engines.

 

That's a bold claim, considering that

• the 612 is the older train of the two
• the 612 is diesel-hydraulic, the 221 is diesel-electric
• the 612 has an electric tilt system, the 221 has a hydraulic one
• the 612 was developed by Adtranz (which was then acquired by Bombardier while the trains were built), while the 221 was purely a Bombardier development.

The diesel engine is the only thing that these two trains have in common.

 

And never was it spoken of again...

 

They previously had no hesitation in using TSC Class 450 was it (?) sounds for the MN and LIRR M3’s so there is certainly precedent for a bit of licencing. The main thing you would need to capture on the 304 is the rather loud fan when they first pulled away, cooling the electrical equipment.

Re the 612 vs 220, when the former first came out I thought it sounded very similar to a Voyager so wouldn’t surprise me if some aliasing has gone on.

And the new 150 sounds on Riviera Line have definite overtones of the JT Class 142 (minus the gear changes) which to me are still not accurate for the type.

 

Yeah, I'd be OK with that if it meant we got the 81-85 classes, especially the 85 as this would cover both freight and some passenger workings

 

There’s only one class 85 still left and it’s not functional so can’t get the sounds from the locomotive itself so they probably won’t add it

 

I should clarify and admit - I am speaking as someone who knows UK trains like the back of my hand, but my knowledge of German trains is surface level at best. What I know about the 612 is that it has the same engine, it is a regional unit rather than a high speed one, and that it tilts. Not how it tilts, just the principle concept that it does it. I also didn't know that the 612 came first. So yes, to someone who doesn't know (nor really cares to) German stock to such a deep level, the 612 is just a regional German counterpart to the Super Voyager.

Regardless of any of that nitpicking however, the intended point still stands - they share an engine and Matt said that 612 sounds as a result were used for the 220.

 

Apparently there wasn't much enthusiasm about it. People apparently prefer the trains they have access to being fully simulated and drivable. Plus you do have to consider that since TSW has the function to walk around on foot and even ride AI trains, we can get right up close to stock meaning the models have to be all done to the same level of detail, so the train being a lite version wouldn't spare any modelling effort. This wouldn't be the case if it was TSC and you were bound to your cab, but in TSW every detail counts. At that point simply missing a simugraph setup is pretty much meaningless because a massive amount of the work (modelling, texturing, sounds) has already been done, you're just a few steps away from making it a fully implemented thing anyway. So in the end while lite trains are a nice idea in theory, in execution it doesn't actually solve enough to be worth the effort, hence why layering in 'close enough' stock until the true stock becomes available seems to be the more preferred approach these days.