Hi everyone, With DTG dipping their toes into what dlc content could be for TSW2 with the upcoming 1970s pack it had me thinking what other content DTG could make for TSW2 that we would like to see. One of the things that sticks out most to me is the idea of releasing a dlc that add lines that branch off pre-existing routes. DTG have done a good job with the routes they have been releasing when it comes to variety on the route for example the most recently released SEHS, for example where the 495 has to switch over from 3rd rail, we could have that line continue out about 20-30 miles, and instead of each route having two main hub areas to run between, you could have a route that as 3-4 main hub areas that we can run services between. Not only does this open up the chance for them to add locomotives that might only run on those lines but it creates a route that has more diverse options in the services you can run, while also building on routes that we already love. Please share any lines in particular you would feel could add to this idea and please share what you think of this idea! Thank you for your time!
These are few extensions I'd buy if they were ever made: An extension of East Coastway to Ashford with the class 171, would add some more interest to the route with DMU services and longer 377 services. The branch lines for GWE with the 165. The Bury line for NTP with the class 504 EMU. Whilst bringing the first slam door EMU to the game, I think it'd bring a bit more variety and make Man Vic a bit livelier. The issue with route extensions is that the market for them is smaller than a stand alone route as it's only of interest to people who own the base route. This could be avoided by making it possible use the extensions without having the base route, for example Ashford to Eastbourne could be its own stand alone route but that probably wouldn't work for the GWE branch lines. Another problem is variety as if the devs are spending time on making an extension to a route, it's probably going to be very similar to the original route. Instead they could be making an entirely different route which would bring a new aspect of the railways to the game.
Could they do a Network Southeast pack for Eastcoastway? Reskin stations to NSE Red. Create the clacking clock with sounds. The 313 could be reskinned into NSE colours and perhaps we could see a slam door EMU? That would get me interested.
DTG have made it clear that they are not contemplating route extensions, which is pretty much what you're suggesting. Branch lines are an intriguing idea, but it would probably mean redesigning an entire route. Not likely to happen, I'm afraid.
I find it staggering that they’re not considering branch lines, or route extensions. It’s rare to find someone who says they don’t want them, so why on earth would they not consider it?! The timetable thing is a load of blah. Altering and adding to an existing timetable cant be any harder than starting a timetable from scratch.
I'd guess it's better for Dev team to focus on a variety of main routes first than trying to do extensions. People would rather see new variety of routes + locos as opposed to extensions on existing routes which they may or may not even own or like. If it was to happen they'd probably consider it more once there's been a large variety of main routes released. We can see how long it takes them to make a route. Trying to do route extensions as well will take a lot more time.
Here’s one on my wish list of things that won’t likely happen anytime soon: Extend Sand Patch Grade to Connellsville and add the Amtrak Capitol Limited as DLC. I realize there are many impractical things about this: it’s essentially a whole new route to get all the way to Connellsville and the Cap only runs twice a day. However, I would love to drive it!
Of course, one solution is to design a route from scratch which includes some branch lines. This has been done quite often in TS20XX, e.g. New York New Haven, Clinchfield etc. There are some examples in TSW like SPG. So branch lines are certainly possible if the interest is there.
Having looked at the Clinchfield route for Train simulator recently is the reason I brought this up in the first place knowing it will be coming to TSW2 soon. I really like how they built this route on TS. Having ST. Paul and the part past Haysi.
I still think the more likely chance, though still long-odds, because it makes more sense financially for DTG than "DLC for DLC" as Sam put it, is linkable routes. The official objection to that is "timetables;" but if you are using the real timetables as a basis why shouldn't they work? While I know that there isn't much point in linking RRO with RSN,* a new (salable) route centered on Siegen that joined up to existing Ruhr-area routes (there are four of them!) would I think be a "killer app" DLC- not only would owners of some or all of the existing ones buy it, but its existence will spur others to get the older routes if they don't have them. *Both include Hagen, but no RL passenger service actually runs on both routes.
I like the idea of route extensions, but I feel that paying yet more money to expand a DLC might be a step too far for some. That said, they could and should include route extensions with loco DLCs, that way you get a new loco and you get a new destination with some additional scenarios and timetables. What I would really like to see from route DLCs is multiple routes or destinations implemented, e.g Leeds to Sheffield, there are two different routes to take between these two, which are both in service today. Or you could incorporate a three leg route, e.g. Leeds, Sheffield, and Doncaster. The routes don't have to be miles upon miles to make them interesting. In fact given the 24hr timetable mode that is now in place, routes would be more realistic if traffic was actually intersecting and going to different locations rather than following each other backwards and forwards. It would also add greater meaning to the scenario builder when being asked which path to take (path choices should not be a simple choice of start/end platforms).
I’ve seen and heard DTG say that route extensions are not something that will happen with the reason given last week in particularly on the roadmap steam being that only people who already have the DLC being extended would be interested in buying it????? That got me to thinking that this excuse is just not the real reason at all as if that was the case then surely stock packs like the upcoming 465 & 313 packs or the various upcoming German stock packs would ONLY be of interest to those people that had bought the ECW, SEHS or German routes??? What exactly is the difference?
We’re not talking a full route though are we? We’re talking about small extensions. Yes more work for an extension than a stock pack but not in the same way as a full new route.
I can't understand DTG's thoughts on that. If the extension makes the original route more appealing, then the customer will buy that in addition to the new bit. For example I haven't got round to purchasing East Coastway but if, as suggested above, it got an extension to Hastings or even Ashford in the one direction or maybe even Haywards Heath from both Brighton and Lewes to give a triangle network, then my debit card would be out.
I find that weird as well. The forum post in the suggestion forum, which suggested to merge RSN and RRO is still the most liked post on this forum (I'm pretty certain on that, the post has well over 100 likes, I never saw another post which had more than 100 likes). I know the forum is not representative for the whole community, but I think it represents a not small part of the Simulator Community (not the gaming community, but the community who wants to see TSW as a sim). Yep, it's similiar for me. I would have bought RRO if it would have been linked to RSN. Not because it would have been giving more gameplay (like longer RE runs) but it would have given a Hagen Hbf with more activity. And especially I don't want to support a concept where we get the same starting stations, but not linked. So sadly RRO was a pass for me because it was not linked to RSN.
I would be interested in route extensions. A poster above suggested adding Manchester to Bury with the class 504. I would be interested in something like that as it would add more variety to a unrealistically quiet Manchester Victoria. In TS1 such route "add-ons" could also be made as a separate route, therefore you could purchase it as a stand alone if you didn't want to get the "base" route. I don't know how TSW works so maybe that isn't possible.
Isle of Wight's a full route, said route is only five miles, and in TS Classic LGV's extension's 140 miles long, there is no standard length for a "full route." Basically the only difference between a full route and a extension's that one's standalone, one isn't. Fact is no matter how long or short a extension is those same resources could be used on a standalone route instead. The SCS Truck Sims work that way, also Just Trains do that, and I would agree that's probably the best way to do it. But DTG have never done anything like that officially for a route. As far as I'm aware no route does that on DTG's store or Steam page, you could offer a merged version via the Workshop, that's the closest to official as you're going to get, nothing that DTG themselves will do at any rate. There's things like the Peninsula Corridor Gilroy which have the original route included, but having the original route means jack in that case. If anything not having it's better seeing as you get more bang for your buck. If DTG do something like that for TSW I guarantee people who already have said route aren't going to be happy, seeing as they'll be paying in part for a route they already own.
The only way we'll see route mergers (extensions is the wrong term really) is if both parts can be sold separately then combine if you own both. If a route is built from the ground up with this sort of plan in mind its possible in the route building sense. The big issues are how does the game combine them (is it technically a separate route or do they link up?) and the timetable will need to be re-written.
I disagree, if we see either it will be route extensions, DTG in TS Classic never merged standalone routes with each other. Fact is if two routes are already standalone then why put in the effort to merge them? At least the extension has some money to be made, a merge of two standalone routes doesn't even have that going for it. At least assuming it's a free bonus for buyers of both like I'd assume, because I don't see making that as a paid upgrade would work out particularly well. Given that also has the problem of being a "DLC for a DLC" and also don't think people would take it being paid too well.
Maybe Peninsula Corridor can see something like TS21 had, a rerelease of the route with the extensions added on, since the route is lacking a few lines in places along the route such as -UP line to Pier 96 (And connection with the San Francisco Belt RR) -UP line to the Port of Redwood -Caltrain's Tamien Station (Where most of Caltrains trains actually terminate in the south)
South Eastern HighSpeed: Sheerness branch Great Western Express: Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford branch line
I'd much rather see them focus on making more variety for now. Maybe down the line when the library is bigger, start building some extensions. TSW2 has a small number of routes as it is. Lately I have been enjoying Train Simulator far more. There is far more variety... but that sim has been around since the invention of the wheel. I think eventually TSW will see extensions... sometime in the future when there are far more routes and the company has grown to include more developers.
I’m interested to see how this GWE1970’s overhaul turns out, if it’s good then we might see the possibility of seeing it happen across more routes. It’s not the same thing as a route extension obviously, but it does make for an interesting take on content expansion, and DTG are clearly willing to try it, unlike extensions.
Because owners of one are incentivized to buy the other. Sales synergy. Besides, Sam and Matt have both stated, multiple times, that route extensions are not gonna happen.
It's a great idea but I imagine the timetabling would be the main problem. It appears to be somewhat inflexible. Look at the problems caused trying to improve the Bakerloo.
I like the idea although not sure the route they have chosen isn't too far away from the 70's to make it believable. However as far as I am concerned they need to try and make it as realistic as possible, a target they are completely missing from what information I have seen so far. Which makes it seem like a sop for the fans of older trains/periods, as though they are saying, we will cater for them but won't push the boat out!
Yeah we definitely need to see how it turns out, how much work they put in and how much they charge will be key to making something like this successful. It seems like a lot of work to do, even with GWE, and I don’t really see a way that they could put it out for less than £20.
Agreed, I am happy to pay if I will get some value out of it, a 70's pack is right up my street so normally it would be a straight away purchase. However, for reasons I have bored everyone about I won't be purchasing this on the back of the information we have so far.
Yeah I’m not all that interested in having another 101, I haven’t purchased the 52 yet so if the price is right and the route comes out ok then I’ll bite, I can’t resist some BR Blue.
Maybe one way to get route extensions in future as DTG don't want to do them would be if they allowed 3rd party developers to extend them? We have 3rd party developing rolling stock and one has already created their own route, maybe DTG could let them extend and even upgrade current routes? NTP is one route that needs a major overhaul, would love too see that happen with an extension at the same time. Just something for them to consider.
I still would like to know why DTG haven't seriously looked at doing the Euro tunnel. I think they said on a stream once they haven't looked into it which sounded strange especially how the EuroStar is in financial difficulty, I bet they wouldn't mind DTG paying for a licence and some free publicity no? It would be awesome to go from London to Amsterdam.
If they go out of business that would make it easier yes? If Eurostar are loathe to do business which in effect gives them free advertising then they deserve to go bust imo.
I don’t think a handful of gamers buying a licensed train sim route is going to be enough to save Eurostar. I think their issues are a bit bigger than that. Other than it being a bit boring driving through the tunnel, its inclusion in TSW would also have the effect of adding exactly zero passengers to the real Eurostar. I’ve not once thought of just popping over the Atlantic to California to ride the Caltrain Baby Bullet since I got Peninsula Corridor. If they did make a Eurostar route it would need an extension (back on topic) because it is a train that’s used to join major cities in different countries and one TSW length route isn’t going to do it justice, especially if the tunnel is included. That’s another reason why it won’t ever happen.
stujoy a 'handful' of games? That is a bit closed minded no? If they did a proper route I said that London to Amsterdam. That would peak the interest in more than one country and has a lot more going for it than just driving through a tunnel. I never said a handful of gamers would save Eurostar but why turn your nose up at free advertising. People do stream there routes online so more than just a 'handful' is possible. I do not buy American routes so have no idea what you are going on about. If you find it 'boring' then clearly it isn't for you, I'm sure we can all cope you won't be buying it but others would I am sure. According to DTG on streams they are open to doing longer routes which this would be one, I'd buy it not really bothered what you would do.
You think DTG is going to make a route that's 330 miles long? That's ten times the length of what they do.
I think there are two aspects to licensing: the operating company (i.e. the company who is running the train to a timetable, and the company with the livery you're familiar with) the company who actually designed (and possibly built the train) - generally they are not the same company to operate the trains to the timetable (in the UK at least). So, using Eurostar as an example, you could get the licence for the train but not the livery, but a fictional livery could be used. Or you could get the livery licences, but no model to apply it to. Which is more important? a detailed model with fictional livery a fictional model with detailed livery
I believe its been stated that Dovetail will not do that for TSW2 (Unlike Ts21 where some trains are unbranded to work around the licensing)
It seems the roadmap is set in stone and cannot be altered at any point and must never be deviated from.
Personally I wouldn't want either. I don't mind unbranded liveries but not into fictional liveries and certainly not fictional models.
DTG obviously have business reasons for not doing route extensions in the way they've done them in the past, but the number of threads on this topic shows me that there's clearly a lot of interest, so I'm disappointed that DTG are so closed minded and keep coming up with excuses as to why it won't work and therefore they're not doing it. They really need to think outside the box and come up with a different model where it CAN work. Seperate DLCs that could be linked and potentially sold in bundles is one option. Another option is extending and re-releasing the original route with more track, because let's be honest, nobody pays full price for old routes (they depreciate in value) so you could add more track, up the new DLC price a little bit (say £5-10 extra) and then give old users the option to upgrade for a small amount of money. That might actually be logistically easier. Come on DTG, think laterally here!