Yeah, no, I flat out disagree, there's still plenty of games that come out without game breaking issues. Just speaking in the sim space, SCS consistently release quality products that from day one are polished, to the point that even the few times I've used the beta branch the game I never encountered anything game breaking. Or heck, I bought into Railroader within weeks of its release into early access, and despite being label frankly the game never proved to have any notable issues. There absolutely still are well made games coming out, you just aren't playing them.
Why on earth would you even think of reacting like this? It's extremely childish. They have hardly failed, the Manchester route is very well made, if not as long as it could have been. The class 90 will be better when they release the fixes for it. It still looks like a very good model. You might try fixing your full stop key.
[Deleted; insulting - DTG Harry] The 90 is horrific, but they are working hard to fix it. MAC was actually a really decent route!
Well, I am sorry for been mean but see how bad the 90 make me mad hope to have a great GEML route with a great 90 with a dvt 315 321 and 360 pre crossrail era
By the time a patch drops for the class 90, it might be on discount in the Summer sale, so probably best to wait if you haven't already bought it XBOX and Playstation patches cost money to push out, and they have to go through evaluation. Could be a long wait.
Was there a mention of a mod coming for the 90 on PC? Any ideas when we can expect it or if I’ve just misread an earlier post?
I believe ATS said they are releasing a texture mod for PC to improve the looks. I can't remember when it will release though, I'd assume around the time when the improvement update releases.
For those with the class 90 on PC, OTS just updated their 2019 WCML sth TT to include 18 services of the 90 taking their grand total playable services for this DLC to 1556!
As said this loco is highly awaited, and not to be wasted for just a subpar fire and forget release. Totally questionable approach for choosing the traction type. I would have prefered a route or wagon pack, nothing can go wrong with that. Here i have hope somehow that JT building his own version for an appropriate route, hopefully with engine room and dvt dlc And in that very case, you will be aporeciate if the worthy class 90 is implemented and subed into tsws uk timetables. Bottom of the line, im skipping this dlc no matter what.
That is great, though as I have said elsewhere in the forum (after gently mocking console players) that it is a sad state of affairs when we rely on modders to fix things in their own free time rather than the people actually paid to make the DLC in the first place, naturally I understand there being some limitations brought on by licensing etc... That OTS have done this however is a big plus, it's another incentive to actually buy the 90 eventually but I'm still holding off until it is both fixed and improved. Still, it's now over three weeks since the initial release and bugger all has happened aside from people getting angry, others getting sensitive and others becoming too rude and a thread deteriorating into name-calling, not a good look from quite a few parties there :/
WE are paying customers, YOU are not. we will blame who we see fit because at the end of the day a standard hasn’t been met once again, and someone has to take responsibility
Yeah, have to say if a wrong build is pushed (V1.4 was sent incorrectly, when it should have been V1.5), that's a 24 to 48 hour fix surely, as V1.5 was the one that was QA approved?? I held off buying it following the fall out (don't do day 1 anymore), but that was on the hope I would get it a week in. No hot fix as of yet smacks of deep seated issues or what unfortunately looks more likely to be an incompleted DLC release from over here. Not going to put it all on ATS, as let's be honest, this is not the first time. This then leads to other conspiracy theories and I have to say the one I'm fast coming to is that this game is now so large in DLC offerings and so broken at its core that only a serious investment will solve it. An investment that may not be financially viable. I find it sad really, we are just at a point where the 3P pool is significant enough to provide a good bulk of new DLC every year which only benefits the whole game, but not the one that is currently on offer. Not sure what the answer is, I feel it's already past the point of no return. Certainly no need for angry and expletive laden DMs though.
Im surprised the 90 wasn't layered onto their own DLC in MAC as well, does it not run at times through that area?
There is an update awaiting publishing from DTG for MAC, ATS don’t want to further update the route until that’s out (a position I find laughably sad for a couple of reasons). But yes the 90 is a frequent flier out of Trafford Park (at least relative to 90 operations).
I think Alan alluded to the fact that the small team working on TSW at ATS don't have the bandwidth to do further updates while they wait to see what the core updates break in the last few patches of TSW 6. Like I've said before, DTG really need to stop pumping out a yearly version that breaks all the DLC's and work on a base TSW that doesn't need everyone to redownload everything all over again. I get it's how they make their money, but we are clearly seeing that this shift to the "new version" has a detrimental effect on the product as a whole every year, as bugs they claimed they were going to fix, stay in the next version because they couldn't squash them in time. I really hope that TSW 7 leads to a major shake up in the way DTG operates this IP and that they finally see sense and just work towards a polished product that last for a few years at a time. TSW 7 won't really include anything majorly different to TSW 6 in all fairness. Nothing that could be added via patching the core engine anyway. You can sell the route bundle on its own, while patching the core without a new version number.
Why does it not recognise when safety systems are keeps telling me to switch dvd on i know its on but not registering as being on. Is there any extra fuses you have to switch on. Thanks
Yeah it’s pretty bad from start to finish, there’s a lot of conversation around TSW & existing content, from fixing it, adding to it & even extending it. I think a big reason behind why we see a lack of that is because the content is often too fragile to go back to & with DTG having a constant need to move onto the next DLC to sell, it’s obviously quite hard for even third party devs to stay with one release for any longer than a few weeks. I just think it’s really quite sad that a developer can’t even work on their own content because it essentially already released & DTG cannot comprehend the idea of maintaining & expending one product. A factor that I think ties into the annual release issue, along with the abysmal marketing skillset that leaves DTG having to manipulate storefronts.
We’ve just seen Firely release arguably the most detailed and immersive route to date with little to no problems so I don’t believe it’s a core or financial issue. I think it’s more likely ATS was put under pressure to get this out within a specific timeframe. ATS are not incompetent, the MAC route is excellent, albeit a little short of course. My question really is to DTG and why they believed it was a good idea to approve a dlc with poor sounds and textures both internally and externally, wheel blur and the without the ability to cancel the AWS driving outside the cab.
Hey everyone, After the 147 , on April 16, 2026, the [GWR HST Farewell Pack] DLC is coming out. Still nothing about version 90! They made the monumental mistake of April 1, 2026 [a real April Fool's joke!]. So, for May 1, 2026, place your bets. It's like appetizers costing £12.99/€15.99/$16.99 while waiting for the main course, which is already paid for !!! Yeah, Have a great weekend everyone. Sincerely, Tof.
It's pretty clear at this point DTG don't have the QA capacity to deal with the number of 3Ps they now have releasing content and the fact a load of those third parties do want to patch their releases instead of just "fire and forget". We know that ATS, Skyhook and JT all have sent patches to DTG, in some cases "many months ago", where are they?
The question I don’t see raised, is what happens when DTG gets bored of TSW? We’ve seen with TSC third parties are still publishing great content, but with DTG keeping all content distribution in a chokehold, that’s not really a future I see for TSW. Even now they can’t be arsed to put out 3P updates, presumably because they get no money out of anything but paid 3P content.
What have noticed that updates/patches are further and fewer apart. I mean the new dlc over the last month have had no updates and patches. Might have been one or two if that. I really would to what the hold up is I dont all this crapppp about it cost them money so what the amount money they make stuff should cover it.
That’s assuming they want to invest in TSW beyond selling more content - they aren’t going to put any money back into the core game & existing content when people are as happy as DTG are to buy whatever releases next & let 3 month old content seem ancient. Just look at Xbox, all the content seems to do on that platform is crash, yet every single feedback thread for content has more Xbox players saying the content is crashing. It will continue to release in that state for aslong as people buy it. I personally can’t wait to see All Aboard release their next route, because after one majorly flawed release, people went and bought their second majorly flawed release. It’ll happen again with the third one & all the same issues will still be there, just like it is with every single piece of content that’s come out lately. Even firefly who damn near perfected their grasp of TSW route building couldn’t get a clean release. DTG isn’t Activision competing with EA over who dominates the FPS market, they have no competitor thus they don’t care about their reputation within the train simulation space. Whilst developers & community spokespeople will go on socials and talk about how disappointed they are the content released that way, the people that have actual control over decision making will simply not give a damn until the content doesn’t sell.
Which is why in the last few days, over £50 of the money I had set aside in my Steam Wallet for upcoming TSW releases like Preston to Crewe, Trent Valley or the German steam add on, has been spent on OMSI 2 instead. That’s now money that DTG and their third parties may not be seeing for Day One releases, with the core and increasing tech and content debt in such a state.
Yup, a few years ago I remember discussing how much I wanted a DB 147 in TSW, yet it released and I couldn’t care less. Not because I don’t want a 147, but because the class 90 utterly deflated me. I mean just look at the feedback threads for both locos, it’s completely ridiculous that they were released at all. I was just having a discussion with someone I once argued with over the ballast colour on SEHS in TSW2. It made me chuckle to think of that being such an issue it would cause heated whirlwind threads on the forum, but now the issues are cataclysmic in comparison, the technical debt TSW has taken on is simply out of control.
Did DTG even release a patch to the core to prevent it crashing the game? No they didn't. Speaks volumes...
Same, I've hardly bought any DLC since the half-a-job Cardiff City Network that had the line down to Barry cut out just to cash it in. Roadmap streams bring up the indentical issues that were talked about in 2022 and still exist, the marketing crew just change their spiel to twist the narrative back to dangling many carrots "we think we know the issue"....
For last beeping time they can’t until the Mac fixes from eons ago are put in by DTG (class 86 case again) if they added anything new to that build it would have to go through another round of qa which ends up taking much longer, when they were talking about it on stream they had a dig at DTG so high chance it’s accurate info, since most would be annoyed by having their new build stuck in qa hell
Some of your suggestions in this and other posts are very very off the mark and I’ve felt the need to create an account just to reply to them! Class 90 locomotives saw regular use between October 2024 and March 2025 over a large section of the GOBLIN, working the 4M88 Felixstowe to Ditton service, which doesn't now run. However, a pair worked over this section on Monday night (2 days ago!) working the diverted 4S88 Felixstowe to Coatbridge service because of a bridge strike on the Camden - Stratford section. In terms of your comments about the LTS, these are also incorrect. Until 2019, DB used them on the Dagenham - Mossend car train which also went via the full length of the GOBLIN for part of that time - there are pictures of 90s at Upper Holloway and Walthamstow working this train. I don’t see why class 90s wouldn’t be cleared for the whole route considering they have operated over it on a daily basis. Saying “they don’t run there every day anymore, so they’re not cleared anymore” I don’t believe is how it works, or how would steam locos get cleared for lines?
Wonderful post and thank you for bringing some items to my attention. Just curious to where you got your information? I have a few questions for you! How did the 4M88 services that according to you ran along vast parts of the GOBLiN get onto that section of the line from the GEML/NLL under electric power? Please see my earlier post in this thread regarding the Tottenham incline and Heavy electric freight locomotives. 4S88 was pathed as a Class 66 from Freightliner's Felixstowe terminal to Basford Hall on Monday evening due to overhead line issues in Colchester, which allowed for it to go via South Tottenham due to a bridge strike. You can see this in the Real Time Trains data as no loco swap was planned until Basford Hall. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H03954/2026-04-27/detailed . I also know this to have been a Class 66 as I watched it go past me at Colchester while waiting for a train to London Liverpool Street to go to work as a train driver. Last night 4S88 was Class 90's from Ipswich as I was sat on Kelvedon station as it comes through 4 minutes before the train I normally get to work when on the Sleeper job out of Euston. Are you sure that the services on the car train that used Class 90's is as late as 2019? The contract for the most part of 2010 onwards has been either GBRf or DRS neither of which have had Class 90's. A Class 92 was used by GBRf during the early parts of their contract, however this had to be amended due to the issues below about power supply. I cannot find any publicly available photos of a Class 90 on the car train in London as you mention apart from some early 2000's at Lockerbie on its way to Mossend, so please share if you can, would love to see them. The issue is that currently and for some time, electric locomotives have been restricted along certain parts of the LTS (through Barking) due to electrical draw in the area at certain times of the day, normally when freight is cleared to run, so it's easier for a Class 66/68 to haul services. This is currently why the Class 99 hasn't been along the LTS yet for route clearing runs. There are lots of reasons why a locomotive can lose access to particular parts of the network, it's down to changes to the Sectional Appendix and also Network Rail having operational reasons. A steam locomotive can power it's way along any line, an electric locomotive is governed by the availability of OHLE, which are affected by power supply issues/demand on the grid.
This is something I guess I didn't learn about and maintain knowledge of from my BR days mainly because I was with a passenger operating department but does the old BR "Route availability" number still apply to locos?
Yes it does, however there are amendments to this that can be localised and mentioned in the Sectional Appendix. For example, Class 92 and MK5 coaches have just been cleared to run from Crewe to Preston via Bolton and go over it for the first time this Sunday night, but this isn't in the SA yet and will come as a NR Amendment and certification of acceptance.
4M88 ran via South Tottenham with 2x 90 everyday and I know this for a fact as I saw it most days during the holidays for the novelty of 90s on that route! I don’t know about Tottenham Incline, all I can say is that I’ve seen them with my own eyes going up it. 4S88 may have been pathed as a 66 (note - pathed is not the same as booked, it’s almost always 2x 90 from Ipswich) but all reports suggest 90004/041 worked that train from Ipswich - are you sure we’ve got the same train? It also took under 9 minutes getting from Ipswich to Manningtree which seems a tad too quick for a 66. Even if it was a 66, I saw a pair of 90s go that way on 4M53 a couple of months back so it still happens. About 6X77 here are two pictures on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/13818...xF-25kxbDA-H4G4tL-H2Bhqj-CqoYgt-aGHPZM-afHcQT https://www.flickr.com/photos/21611...xF-25kxbDA-H4G4tL-H2Bhqj-CqoYgt-aGHPZM-afHcQT
As a driver that signs the routes I know the limitations as written in the Sectional Appendix, and that's what I'm basing my answers regarding 90s on the GOBLIN, the Tottenham incline is not cleared for daily heavy electric freight locomotives, emergency working possibly but they can no longer be booked that way every day for the reasons I've mentioned. Times change so it may well have happened in the past, but as it stands with current guidelines it cannot be a daily event. In regards to doing Ipswich to Manningtree in 9 minutes with a Class 66, it's very possible. 4S88 is a short, light train and a 66 could easily pull 1200 tonnes along that section (I know I've done it) between the locations in 9 minutes. Thanks for the photo links, most interesting.
There’s not really much I can say in response to this about 4M88 but all I can say is that I have so many sightings of 90s working this train at Gospel Oak, Upper Holloway… I’ve even seen them come off the aforementioned curve at South Tottenham, I’m not going to argue as you clearly have your view set in stone but this was a daily working for 6 months, about 4S88 as I say all reports I’ve seen suggest 90s, the TOPS reports show them being at Ipswich on Monday afternoon and at Coatbridge Tuesday morning and of the current paths 4S88 is the only one that does that.
I'm not looking to argue with you either, I'm just advising that Class 88, 90, 92, 93 and 99's, according to the NR documents I get sent as part of my job, state that no electric heavy freight locomotives are cleared to use the Tottenham incline on a daily basis at the present time. You could well be right, regarding Monday night and I could very well be wrong, I only caught sight of the wagons going past between passenger trains with the ying ying of a Class 66. Opentrainmaps and trakey both showed it as the Coatbridge, but there was no power in the OHLE at the time. Thanks for the information regarding 90s on the GOBLIN most informative. Have a cracking weekend.
Can we get back to discussing the awfully bugged Class 90 for TSW? Maybe even the lack of support or updates since the botched release? ta.
Haha i mean it sure has taken a long time to "upload the correct build" Would think it's just pressing a button? Anyway, my wallet is slightly happier since i ain't buying til AWS is fixed on controller.
