PC Route Mergers In 2022 Lets Build A Network….

Every single statement from Sam and Matt has been a NO, mainly because of the diminishing returns of creating an extension for routes people may not have bought in the first place, as well as several tech difficulties, abandoned timetables etc

 

agreed but then most are no until they pop up on roadmap.

My necrobump in some guise was to highlight we are frequently told that they look and try to bring the most popular features to the game or most requested.

ECML - absent
WCML - Missing in action
Multiplayer - not on any roadmap
Mergers - not possible
Dresden night lighting - popped in and said hi

These are the same requests popping up time and time and time again. Huge amount of yes we’d like votes on this post too.

I’m purely curious if these commonly asked,discussed,highlighted requisitions are heard by DTG, are they making it out of the suggestion bin, across the cutting room floor, climbing up the table leg and into tangible “how can we deliver this as its highly requested” chats or does highly requested carry equal value to non highly requested which is what I’m wondering now.

 

I would presume that the reason the ECML & WCML aren't in game is because they have too much going on. Too many different types of trains going too far to be adequately replicated in game.
Fine when you're doing a very short mainline like London to Brighton where the traction is all basically the same thing. Different when you have a 400 mile base route with 5 or six main forms of traction on it at some point (not including freight). That and people will insist they want London termini and then complain when they look empty because we don't have the stock

We know they've at least thought about multiplayer, though to be honest this would likely be something I touch about as much as scenario planner in it's current form, ie never

Mergers ARE possible, but were ruled out commercially initially. The old "if half the player base have the base route and a quarter of them buy this extension then we're making a whole route's worth of work that only an eighth of player look at..."

Don't know about Dresden as don't buy anything not British...

 

Mergers and extensions are different things

Mergers refers to joining up existing routes (e.g. BML and ECW) into one combined playable area with a conjoined timetable.

Extensions would be adding extra length to an existing route by building whole new track.

As I understand it, mergers are on the 'we'd like to do that at some point' list while extensions are currently ruled out for the reasons you outlined.

 

The real question is... Will the merger between ECW and BML come with a 3rd version of the 377? Probably yes.

 

From the little I know of route mergers, it would seem that a far easier option would be to introduce a new route which merges with an existing route. That would retain the full commercial value (not the discounted sale value of older routes) of the new route as a stand-alone and allow conjoined operations, with the major merger work being timetabling. That way, DTG could maybe have an extra cost extension pack for adapted timetables for the merged route, i.e. convince the bean-counters of viability. We need to convince DTG of the merits of a trial merger, but the lead time may be long, since they must first come up with a viable new route. The question then becomes how much are we willing to pay for the extension pack? (Please, for the love of XXX, no more surveys)

 

The issue with the BML/ECW merger- hypothetically of course - is that it would require making the Wivelsfield connector

 

I'm not sure I agree. I think the easiest trial balloon/test mule would be to make a link between RSN and RRO, and sell it for a very low sum, say 3 pounds/5 dollars. (I bring this up not only because the routes exist, but precisely because there is no through passenger traffic; the difficult work of joint timetabling could be confined to a few freights)

 

We don't need another version of the same train. If only that would go through DTG's thick skull

 

How long is the wivelsfield connector anyways? All i know is one new station would have to be built and it runs in a rural area for the most part from Wivelsfield to Lewes

 

Merging is possible since TSW 2020. Its just problem with timetable as merging will remove portals which are required. I did already NEC + LIRR in 2020, RRO with RSN with 2020 and TSW 2, BML and ECW, and DRA + DCZ (for some routes i got already merged timetables but they are not done yet).
Problem is of course distribution as files are copyrighted so i cant share merged route. With unofficial editor its possible to create scenario from one end to another end. Of course its even possible to merge scenario planner paths and with unofficial editor create more paths for the whole route.
All that of course require a lot of work, its not one day job

 

Excellent idea and for New Rochelle it's been made for TSW 2020 as NEC Newark, NJ to New Rochelle, NY. If you want to get away with a big merger do this NEC Newark, NJ to New Haven, CT with the New Rochelle Wakefield 239th st Metro North connector linking NEC Newark New Haven with Harlem Line. The final pieces is an NJ Transit route and LIRR Penn Station to Hicksville/Hempstead due to it sharing NY Penn Station with NEC Newark, NJ to New Haven, CT if made. You got NYC Commuter network bundle for the same price as a regular route. For the German speaking parts of Europe that can be marketed as Nahverkehr New York.

 

Frankly a gct to new rochelle route would be too short. You would only be stopping at 5 stations max on New Haven local services whilst express trains go straight to Stamford after Harlem. It would be better to make the full New Haven line and then just merge it to harlem if possible

 

Why not? Rivet did it with their Luzern - Sursee and ppl still bought it.

 

I think this is the best chance. They know bringing NEC:NY back in some form would be popular, and having the trackwork already done on the GCT-New Rochelle portion (in the Harlem DLC); plus already having the NYP-New Rochelle work done from NEC:NY; plus having previously done this exact route in TS.....

They'd really only need to do 1 new train (M8). If they do an Acela Express DLC for Boston, it could layer in.

 

Again it would be too short that's why. Considering you would be stopping at 5 stations on local services and Harlem 125th on the express, it would be pointless to make.

 

Remember the backlash to the route length of Harlem? We shouldn't be making routes shorter just to add a train on an existing route that only stops at a few stations. It'll get boring quickly and definitely won't feel complete. It would only be an additional 4.8 miles with 3 new stations. That's not alot of value frankly and would frankly be pointless to make. New Haven line Stamford locals would only stop at Harlem, Fordham, before splitting off and stopping at Mount Vernon East, Pelham and New Rochelle which aren't far from each other. Express trains stop at Harlem 125th only before running express to Stamford. That wouldn't be alot of value

 

Frankly this would be better in my opinion if they were unable to make the full New Haven Line although if they didn't add the P32s, some would complain that it's another route with recycled rolling stock again. Also there is no such thing as a New Rochelle line. No trains even terminate at New Rochelle anyways hence why I am against making the New Haven line go to New Rochelle only as that wouldn't make sense as an end point for the New Haven line at all.

 

I Really do hope this will be very soon this year,

 

I think i was unclear- i agree with you that it should be the full new haven line. I was just pointing out that quite a bit of it has already been modeled in one form or another, which might help the chances of it getting made.

 

Good point but this comment by Pennywise mentions Hagen Vorhalle to where RRO & RSN freights must end. Here is their post on RRO RSN Merger

. The correct way of RRO RSN Merger is to link both to Hagen Vorhalle then phase 3 is the HRR merger using the Witten/Wetter end of Hagen Vorhalle and 1988 built Bochum Langendreer Junction. You can check my proposal on how HRR RRO RSN can form a network. On my signature, it is Bochum-Dortmund/Hagen

 

"Most of the trains should first go to Hagen Vorhalle RBf and then be reassembled to continue towards Wuppertal, Bochum or Dortmund. So there is no direct connection either."

Which actually creates the possibility of some interesting gameplay activity, using the 363 or G6 to handle the train assembly there.
But, again, my point was that it's a plus that there are only a very few through trains; for a proof of concept we want the timetabling to be easy.

 

I voted No because of the deadline mentioned in the poll. Would I like to see route mergers? Sure but I'm not seeing it happen in 2022 and not even 2023.

 

Bristol - Reading, (ideally Cardiff - Reading but that won't happen) That would give us a decent GWE route with the stations added inbetween and would be excellent to offer future mergers. Didcot - Oxford - Birmingham, Bristol - Cornwall etc etc. Come on DTG you know it makes sense...................

 

If that were to be the case you would have seen Uacns Cement wagons at Wuppertal Steinbeck towards Hagen Vorhalle where a part of the cement train while the other portion goes to Finnentrop on Ruhr-Sieg Nord. Perhaps one of the G6/363 services should run the Hump at Hagen Vorhalle.

 

Lewes to Wivelsfield is 9 miles with two rural stations - Cooksbridge and Plumpton - in between. Wouldn't say it's that much of a task to create.

 

Oh ok. 9 miles and two stations with a rural environment is something dtg can easily make in my opinion if they wanted too

 

And a brand new timetable for the connected route, since it would not be possible to just import the existing ones for ECW and LC

 

The most powerful tool is called "turn your brain on".

The time london commuter was out, dtg obviously knew they had to do a new timetable for the 313 eastcoastway.
This was the oportunity for a merger just with a link at brighton.
But no, the managed to do the 313 timetable not only new, but still not compatible to l2b.

Thats either pure ignorance of making better their processes or pure ignorance of made too much profit.

Anyway its common and known as "monopol syndrom". No real competetor, no real reason to try something new.

 

There isn't much value in linking at Brighton. It's a lot of effort to - more or less - remove the loading screens and menu at Brighton.

They have every right to not make mergers, it's their game. It's not a matter of them being "ignorant" - it's a matter of doing what they plan to, and if they don't plan to connect the routes at Brighton (which doesn't have much purpose) then that's their decision.

 

There are people arent into mergers, this is ok and dtg should not go ways to force them with payware.

Im talking about dtg is ignoring a true opportunity based on their reasons why mergers arent possible.

1. Timetable from route a to route b isnt matching
2. Since eastcoast way and l2b is separate, who is gonna pay for the merging effort.

This was a unic opportunity to make a trial with the 313 as single dlc available or as merging pack. Basicly they had to do an entire new timetable for the 313, so they could have added the gatwick express to eastcoastway too.

Basicly 2 selling options on steam / epic:

- 313 loco single dlc: 20 euro as it is now
- 313 loco & network dlc: 30 euro for the 313, connecting l2b + eastcoast way & including the gatwick express for eastcoastway.

Dtg missed the opportunity by ignoring the facts, ignoring the tons of suggestions not see as market potential & beeing blind having a perfect constellation for a trial.

Thats ignorant! Just my opinion..

 

Firstly the Gatwick 387 only went onto the East Coastway during COVID, when the Express was suspended. TSW avoids COVID as much as possible.

Again, the merger at Brighton isn't really worth the effort - it's not much different going to the menus and loading in the other route, and means dovetail don't have to re-timetable.

Thirdly, the 313 was an East Coastway DLC from the start - before BML was even announced.

Mergers I'm all for, however is it really worth it at Brighton?

 

Never going to happen with DTG, no vision.
Might happen if someone else takes over the development of the game.
They can't be arsed to even provide an editor. So that us plebs can do it ourselves.

 

It would be better for services from lewes to wivelsfield and not brighton considering that you would have to get on a new train going in a different direction. The 313 doesn't even run passenger services on London-Brighton

 

Ok, so what? DTG can do that as well if they wanted. Sure it would be a bit of work, but it's not impossible. That's why we pay them at the end of the day

 

I'd make a point on this that I don't want mergers which form standalone DLC (as in one merged route) but in the oft mentioned case of L2B and ECW IF The curve had been made north from Lewes and IF This had been incorporate into the L2B route then the trains coming down from London to Eastbourne (and onto Ore) could have either terminated in game at Lewes (same as the northbound 66s do on ECW) or if people have both DLC then that timetable would just run straight on

ie IF you have the merged route you get a separate timetable (ported from the two main DLC) which allows either single DLC operation or the merged.

I mean hopefully the scheduler can be written in such a way in future that building timetables gets as easy as importing a CSV or XLSX so it gets much easier to build and import timetables

 

86.8% of people are voting yes to some descript of mergers.
100% of DTG are not commenting as to whether this is in discussion based on the “listening to the community” mantra when planning new things

 

I think there are a lot of unanswerable questions that get swept into that “ if it’s not on the roadmap spiel “ and I’m beginning to feel unless it defends the sales of a dlc you’re correct

 

Yep. Maybe they're waiting until the pres crew releases are done.

 

Yep.

Just alluded to that in the better sounds thread. There is definitely a feeling of moving back from such close contact with the player base than it used to be - other than the managed streams.

 

There is no hidden extra layer in timetable for New Rochelle.

 

Still no official response or acknowledgment….

 

Haven't seen any "official" activity on the board in a while

 

We shall see. I mean it was only posted in January.

 

We should all keep in mind how long it took to implement steam. I was reading some of the older forum threads, and then there had been discussions that went like: "Do you think we will see steam being added to TSW soon?" "Oh yes, probably in a year, maybe even by the end of 2018, 2019 at max"

Everything that is as resource hungry to make, like route merging, multiplayer, VR, scenario planner 2.0 and editor shouldn't even be considered happening unless stated otherwise, and every discussion about if it's being worked on and when it will be released is pretty pointless, and so is asking DTG. Heck, I'm sure they don't know if it's even possible in the next five years, with the current state of the game.

 

Four-day holiday weekend

 

Route merging has very little reason to be "intensive" unless the routes have been badly designed (such as in TSC)
If the routes have "shared tiles" which are on the same geo location in game, with approach and departure tiles also maybe shared, then "merging" could be as simple as taking a different route at a certain switch location and the tiles load same as they normally would.

Unfortunately I think DTG didn't design the routes with this in mind

 

I was talking a couple of weeks... Since Nat took a step back

 

Yes, but; you would essentiall have two versions of each of the DLC, as the tiles can't be at the same location. If both origin tiles for example spawn at 0.0.0, it would be a mess. So one of the routes needs to be changed to load in properly. In addition to that, the transition needs to be done, since you don't want to load in Dresden twice. One route would always need to made fitting to the the one it is going to merge with. So you would end up with two different DLC for the same route that needs to be done each time; one in which it's updated to fit another route, one where it's a standalone.

Additionally, I am not sure how loading and unloading works in this game, and how much of the route is loaded in intially. On consoles for example, the reduced timetable mode has to have a reason, and loading in two timetables would just turn up that issue to new levels. Bigger route, but even less traffic would be the result.

And then there is the realism part that I'm sure people would complain about: Not all routes are placed in the same year. It's only a few years apart and I'm not sure on the exact dates, but take Augsburg for example. In TSW2, the route has a massive construction site in the train station since 2010. Maybe the route it would merge in takes place in 2009? What then? Redo the entire train station? And when another route joins in that portraits 2020?

Even if it's as simple as "drag and drop" from one to another folder, the additional work to make it fit and feel right is massive. And this is just the surface level stuff I'm talking about, the actual programming behind it to make it work sure is another huge step.

And then, at the end of the day, it would make routes take even more time to create. And we see through Spirit of Steam how much people like that...!

 

Don't see why you would need to do this, and the "origin tile" would be determined by which DLC you were playing at the time. Load in from a BML drive? You have the BML version of that tile. Loading in from ECW? Same tile, same location, different file on your hard disk

If each tile is numbered by geolocation then all that would be needed to be done is to decide which is the primary route loaded at present and then use the map tile assigned to that location. Moving between maps becomes as simple as moving between tiles is now. In fact it makes route design easier (if they get it right) because rather than having to rebuild the join stations you can use the existing tiles from existing routes.

Take the BML and ECW as an example. Both have Brighton in them as well as London Road and Preston Park. Using what I've said above those tile(s) would only need to be done once and geolocated properly then could be used in both routes. If DTG want to build the WCW they don't have to redo anything to Brighton or Preston Park because they're already there.
If you wanted to merge the routes you add in the Wivelsfield loop to one of the routes, then add the end tile into BOTH routes

It does mean that those shared tiles have to be very well built so that there don't need to be major changes, but then this should be the case anyway

You wouldn't need two DLC, you would only need the "origin tile" in both DLC, the switch from one DLC to another can happen in the background somewhere and with the dynamic loading DTG are already working on to solve the PS5 problem, this should become easier