Agreed, especially when that led to them saying there weren’t any issues (they were aware of) on console builds. People were particularly concerned about console quality on that route due to existing issues in other content, so that was a real blunder. At the end of the day though DTG shouldn’t have taken on that responsibility if they weren’t going to take it seriously & they are the publisher so they should have prevented that release.
I think there are definatley a bunch of services missing for the 170. The original timetable had 175 in total and although some of those were stand ins for the 158, it still does not explain the discrepancy. (Im on PS5 Pro)
Definitely it shouldn't have been released in a subpart state, but I don't know what the actual contract said. Practically, if a vendor doesn't deliver a product ready to go then it should be on them to get it ready or pay for the extra cost to get it there. If they (for example) have to pay a couple people on DTG's team to fix it, then that's unexpected costs that AA should cover. The purpose of DTG quality control is not to FIX the problems, it's just to make sure any problems found are sent back to AA to fix. If AA says they can't handle fixing their own route, then that's costs that DTG should be able to recoup from AA. If you think of it like a retailer...retailers don't try to fix something that was sold broken to a customer. Wal Mart doesn't fix your broken television. They send it back to the manufacturer for a refund or replacement from the factory. While yes morally they both have responsibilities, as a distributor it's DTG's responsibility to distribute (and make sure the core works since they built that) It's AA's responsibility to make sure the route works, including how it works WITH the core. DTG's responsibility as the distributor is to make sure AA fixes or refunds their product.
Yeah I don't have much sympathy for Skyhook for this. To me their discord post reads like them trying to pawn off the very obvious issues with their timetable to Dovetail. I mean c'mon, do any of you seriously believe that Dovetail deleted all the Cowdenheath services? It's not just that, there are obvious gaps in the schedule (there's like a 2 hour gap between nb trains on the Kirkaldy side in the late afternoon, from 6 pm to 8 pm). I guess I could plausibly believe that Dovetail delayed their timetable to fit into their release schedule, but for almost a year? Why would they do that? It just makes everyone look worse for no reason. The total service count is way below the two other timetables Occam's razor suggests that they had severe development & product management issues which lead to the delay and the pathetic state of the release. People get way too caught up into the romantic idea of big bad Dovetail, the faceless corporation, and the scrappy little 3rd party developers just trying to make everything work. The reality is everyone involved is a business and game development is difficult. Screwing up is common, and can happen to 3rd party developers as easily as Dovetail
DTG Harry all 31 Services to and from Cowdenbeath are missing in the Fife Circle Sprinter timetable for the 170
its definitely not the timetable i was expecting, there is no services that only go to cowdenbeath either, no hst services. hopefully they can fix that asap.
The Scotrail HST pack does beg a few questions though. Who's making it? Ie it another one of those Rivet timetable packs? Because it would be wierd to make yet another improved timetable for the route, yet it can't be dependent on the 158 to appear in timetable mode because people without the 158 would only get it in scenarios and free roam. If it doesn't, would it just slot into the original as well then? Would the gwr hst on e2g then be swapped out?
Doesn’t it show as an E2G loco in the layers on Fife? It’s already set to layer there on the 158 TT, I imagine whoever is doing the pack will either make a layer in another TT for Fife or just leave it out on account of the 158 TT already being adapted for it. E2G will certainly be interesting for it though, I can’t see many people shying away from the far superior 158 TT on that. To be honest the whole Scotrail collection is a mess with so many devs having content for it, I don’t think there’s any clean solution to it. Personally I’d rather see it layered into the 158 TT’s but then you get a situation where you need to buy a loco pack for a loco pack for a route - not very attractive.
Not my image, but it seems it's primary route will be Fife Circle, as you can see "FCE_SCR_MK3" and "FifeCircle_Class43Pack_Gameplay"
Ah yeah misread layers. Well in any case then we will have a 158/170/HST TT. We’ll see who makes it the thing, but I reckon we’re going to get a standard 170 TT with likely no 158 (unless they can find a way to layer in). Upside to that would be potential voyagers though. Ultimately I think I’d rather have the 158’s, but then from the looks of it there are services missing from this TT too.
Let's all remember Tyler is on the Rivet timetable team now and his last few releases have been 1:1 replicas. (In regards to the Inter7City HST sets).
Hi Everyone, Thanks for the feedback regarding the Fife Sprinter Timetable released yesterday. We are monitoring and recording and will come back with some responses asap. In the meantime with regard to missing Cowdenbeath services. The Fife Sprinter timetable was generated using May 2024 timetables. It might be releasing now, but it was developed in 2024. If all the missing Cowdenbeath services have come into operation since May 2024, I can only say that such services didn't exist during production. ~ADDED~ Looking at service 2G73 May 2024 data has this service depart Edinburgh at 13:46 and run to Glenrothes with Thornton via Rosyth, arriving at 14:47. The train then formed 2G04 at 14:58 back to Edinburgh via Rosyth. On RealTimeTrains today, 2G73 departs Edinburgh at 13:48 and runs to Cowdenbeath via Rosyth. It then returns to Edinburgh as 2G36 at 14:54. 2G04 on the other hand is now a service from Leven to Edinburgh departing at 14:46.
The Original Rivet Timetable has All Cowdenbeath Services, it’s not acceptable that they missing now Because it’s an Downgrade now
Well I'm not known for negativity but this is depressing. This is one of my favourite routes, bought the ScotRail 158 on the basis of a timetable and it sounds half baked. TBF I thought the delay was waiting for the new half hourly timetable to Leven , which was a big positive for the route
What? I'm sorry but this is nonsense Here's the WTT from May 2024: https://history.networkrail.co.uk/uncategorized/IO_e541f0e5-ec2f-42c2-890b-bf739ea8c677/ The May 2024 timetable doesn't have any services to Leven because it didn't open until June 2024 at the next WTT release. But here's that timetable: https://history.networkrail.co.uk/uncategorized/IO_a38fbcd4-de65-4cd9-943f-aaf6ed13d007/ Outbound there's: * 2G55, departs Waverley at 8:15, arrives at Cowdenbeath at 9:01 * 2G57, departs Waverley at 9:18, arrives at Cowdenbeath at 10:01 * 2G59, departs Waverley at 10:18, arrives at Cowdenbeath at 11:01 etc. Inbound there's: * 2G24, departs Cowdenbeath at 9:04, arrives at Waverley at 9:46 * 2G26, departs Cowdenbeath at 9:56, arrives at Waverley at 10:37 * 2G28, departs Cowdenbeath at 10:58, arrives at Waverley at 11:39 etc. Do you seriously expect us to believe that Scotrail decided to cut commuter services from the Fife Circle line because of an extension? It's ok to admit you messed up, but this is ridiculous It's not just the Cowdenbeath services, those are just the most obvious omissions. A ridiculous amount of services are missing in the new Sprinter Express timetable. There are other 150 fewer services than the "Fife Circle 2024" timetable, which doesn't include the Leven service I would say that it needs a full redo, but at the rate that this took to get out we might be waiting until they fully electrify the Fife Circle Line. I hope modders step in and make a complete timetable
Admittedly a mod, so only available to PC users, but Fawx' Fife 2024 TT (based on "early 2024 WTT") includes • 166 playable Class 170 services. Including all of the Dundee, Aberdeen, Cowdenbeath, Glenrothes services. Several ECS moves. • 98 playable Class 385/1 services, comprising of the Edinburgh to Glasgow express services and ECS moves. (ScotRail Express: Edinburgh - Glasgow Route Add-On required). • 68 playable Class 385/0 services, comprising the Edinburgh to Dunblane services drivable as far as Polmont. (ScotRail Express: Edinburgh - Glasgow Route Add-On required). • 20 playable Scotrail HST (with custom livery, base made by Tom Hill) services from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. Drivable as far as Markinch. • 8 playable LNER class 800/1 services from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, playable between Edinburgh and Markinch. These services require the swapping between electric and diesel mode at Haymarket. (East Coast Main Line: Peterborough - Doncaster Route Add-On required). • 2 Playable Flying Scotsman Rail tours. These Fife Circular services run the entire loop, and take around two hours to complete. (LNER Class A3 60103 Flying Scotsman Steam Loco Add-On required). • This gives a total playable service count of 362. [That includes 26 Cowdenbeath services, counting turnaround shunts] AI only services: • All the Lumo services, including a custom livery (base made by Tom Hill). • LNER AI services to 10am. • All of the 170 Tweedbank services And, as said above, this is without the Leven runs. So if a couple of modders could do it, how could a development studio not?
I might know why there are missing Cowdenbeath services. When I was in Scotland last year, Scotrail were running an "emergency timetable" which was essentially a reduced timetable with quite a few services from the WTT removed, including most Cowdenbeath services (and as such the Glenrothes services were overcrowded). I can't exactly the reason why there was a reduced timetable, but it's quite an unprofessional move from Skyhook if they used the reduced timetable and not the full one.
From Google searches this started from July and lasted until October. It was due to pay disputes leading to less rest day working by drivers. https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-sc...elease/scotrail-introduce-temporary-timetable
I think the reduced timetable was the actual timetable just with services removed. I personally would rather play the full timetable.
The thing is it's quite difficult to find a pdf of the summer 2024 emergency timetable as opposed to the WTT archives that are publicly available. So it would be odd if this was the case.
Taking out the 380 and 385 from the playable services we've gone from 175 with the 170 alone in the original timetable to 52 158 services and only 35 170 services, a total of 87 services?? That's hugely disappointing given that the new timetables for Cathcart, GLA-EDI and even BCC with the 170 pack were all massive upgrades on their original timetables. This feels half baked in comparison especially given how long the release has taken. And if the excuse is that they have just used the emergency timetable during the strike action at the time, then thats laughable.
My goodness, is that right, the timetable was a temporary one during strike action? What next, a Christmas Day timetable where you can't even get into the stations?
So am i right in thinking that this new timetable, that we've been waiting for for around an entire year now, actually had LESS services than the already sparse timetable from before? How is this even a little bit okay? I don't think a route has been messed up anywhere nearly as bad as Fife Circle has. The sheer potential with the scenery and timetable when announced has become nothing but let down after let down. How can we get really immersive, well thought out timetables such as ECML, Riviera Line and Birmingham-Crewe.. yet after over a year of work and waiting we get such a disproportionately reduced timetable for one of the most requested routes in game? To be honest this is the final straw for me. I can tolerate all the issues and problems that have come with TSW6, and all it's subsequent incarnations, but this is something i was really looking forward to. Finally a timetable that fits such an incredible real world route, but it's just a massive disappointment after so many recent disappointments. and if it took a whole year to get to this point, there's absolutely zero hope it will ever, ever get 'improved' again.
Exactly it's a shambles, this route is now dead in the water must be a pain in the proverbial to have to work alongside such incompetent people who claim to have passion for railways and simulation
Hit the nail on the head there. Very dissapointing indeed. This along with signals that have been broken over a year (as a hudless player I really love flying into a 25 mph junction for the Leven Branch at 80 mph on clear signals all the way. Not so much as a word was ever lost by Rivet on these bugs) I think this route will be forgotten about. It could have been such a good one too.
Frankly if a 3p was to provably have done that, DTG should consider it grounds for permanently stripping them of the rights to make any official material for the game going forward.
Yeah, this is extremely disappointing - and it's not like we'll even get a new timetable when the Scotrail HST is released. It's a really nice route, but so dead.
This is disappointing as I was very much looking forward to this new timetable. I had one run from Leven which I enjoyed but it did seem quieter than I was expecting.
I am all for realistic timetables, and if that means they are quiet then so be it, but it would be good to default to the busiest realistic timetable possible.
exactly this.. it could have been the best route in the game, frankly it absolutely should be it's one of the most iconic and most requested routes out there, yet after waiting patiently for this new timetable it now has even less services than before, and if it took a year to get to this stage it will clearly never be improved on again. at least it's not just me who feels this way, but disappointed is a huge understatement here it really is
Quite disappointed with this timetable, along with the same faults with the 158 (pressing the TPWS button still illuminates the GSMR, headlights indicators still go off/turn red, no engine noise after about 60mph), it just feels quite lifeless. Doesn’t help that the route still isn’t in a good condition, but that’s not skyhooks problem.
I think they know they messed up with their choice of reference timetable, probably picked up too late to go back and start again. That’s why this was slipped out quietly with one line at the end of some long patch notes, and not with a big fanfare that one would expect for such a long anticipated update.
Yeah, normally you get a timetable deep dive article - this one had no details at all, even when asked. I guess a shallow dive would be dangerous.
Thought I'd give the 158 a whirl out last night with the new timetable. Around 6.30am leaving Edinburgh, with custom weather - a little fog, few clouds and the smallest amount of rain. Was surprised to see snow everywhere. Got as far as Inverkeithing (which is on a slight downhill slope) and couldn't go any further. Train was even going backwards with brakes off. Could not get it to move forward at all. Eventually gave up! No idea what was going on.
Thinking about it. They probably chose that specific timetable so that it would be easier given the route wasn't exactly (and still isn't really) say, good to begin with. Speculation obviously, but likely.
I blame rivet for the rubbish route they made, then we get this timetable on top, so many bugs still and no further forward. Please DTG Matt make fife circle better, it could be great, but right now its a mess
I do find it genuinely odd that a Emergency Timetable would be chosen? A very peculiar decision. Considering AAS done the opposite and backdated their Crewe to Birmingham route specifically to use a pre Covid timetable. But as Jack has already mentioned, is this because of the way the route was built by Rivet that they have struggled implement a proper non emergency timetable? Some clarity would be appreciated on this!
The original timetable is busier and there is an even busier one by FAWX so I can't see that anything to do with the route would affect the way the timetable is compiled. There is missing signallng protecting the Leven branch but that's it from what I can see. Most of the complaints about the route are the scenery but I think it is much improved if not perfect. A busy varied timetable would make this one of my favourite routes.
