Hello everyone today i propose a expansion pack for GWR I propose a timetable what's happening in 2017 so I propose a extansion form reading to Bristol (paying) and i propose a extansion to Oxford (free for people who have GWR) so the extansion do 96 miles the total there are 8 stations to Oxford First-Tielhurst,Pangbourne,Goring & Streatley,Cholsey,Didcot Parkway,Cullman,Radley and Oxford.. There are 11 stations between Reading and Bristol second- Tielhurst,Pangbourne,Goring & Streatley,Cholsey,Didcot Parkway,Swindon,Chippenhan,Bath spa,Oldfield Park,Keynsham and Bristol so the rolling stock I propose two schedules for the GWR one which happens in 2017 and another which happens in January 2019 and 2017 I propose the class 800/802 I propose the class 387/1 Between London Paddington,reading and Didcot parkway. I propose the class 345 Between London paddington and Reading this is the Timetable (2019) extra trains I propose the class 165 and i propose the class 43 I think this extansion will be really cool name Ferrovipathe 67
It would of course require the complete rebuild of the map to be compatible with TSW3 of which I approve. Also would be nice to get the Heathrow Express as well operating out of Paddington
Class 332 and Class 387/1 in Heathrow Express livery will not be added , but the Class 387 in GWR Colours will come
For what reason? They are able to use the Gatwick Express which is an Express Service to Gatwick International.
Considering the HSTs operated many intercity services for over 40 years before their displacement by the 80x sets I will be surprised if we don't see another route with a HST in it.
Me too and that's why I propose for the line at the beginning of 2019 because the HSTs are still in the main line route to may 2019
Can you not see the two words reading Not allowed. Gatwick express gave dtg a license AND they are part under Southern/Great Northern . If we were allowed a heathrow express license wouldn't we already have it Ts20xx yet? Yes we would. I don’t know why you like to argue so much when you are wrong
I won't have to argue if you actually gave a reason why they aren't allowed with a source, so far all I hear is hearsay
Too include any type of branding (liveries, logos, etc) they need a license from a company to do so or the company whose branding they have used can sue them in court.
Yes but getting the license can be (depending on the company) easier said then done and if their request is rejected they are not allowed. The added complication with the heathrow express is that the branch to the airport is owned by the airport, who would also need to give a license for the route to be made, making the chances of the route ever being done incredibly slim if I am being honest.
Yes, however that is very different from not being allowed, licences are one thing, they can be attained especially given time, however baring that, there is no national security or contractual agreement that prevents it i.e not allowed.
Sorry to be blunt but this is the quickest and easiest way to explain it: No license = Not allowed Obtained license = Allowed
However you are missing one very small detail, they are allowed, yes they require a license, however there is nothing stopping them from being able to use the route, they are technically allowed to use it. Also has it occurred to you, at any point, that this is a suggestions thread? Or do you normally like picking pointless arguments?
Yes they are allowed once they have the license but if they don't have the license they aren't allowed. Also because the airport is owned by the airport a license will be needed from them to build the route itself. Yes I realised in my first comment what it was. I would have happily typed my first comment and gone away but when people put wrong information on here I prefer to try and help them correct and understand how they made their mistake. Also you were arguing about this long before I engaged in this debate.
And I'm not here to argue about license, it is, so far as I'm concerned, a non issue, the point is however is that there are no national security risks to the line, and nothing in contract preventing it either, you are just here to argue for the sake of arguing and I highly suspect you are nothing more than a troll. And yet no part of my argument did I mention anything about not needing a license.
Correct, however a company can still deny a license if they want to. I am not here to argue just to show why something can't be done. A troll? Seriously the only reason I am here still is because you can't seem to grasp what I am trying to tell you. I think this has gone stupidly far now and as you don't seem to be able to grasp what I am saying this debate should stop here as I am sure we both have much better things to do. Lets agree to disagree on this one. Enjoy your day.
OK, here's the explanation The route between Hayes and Harlington and Heathrow Airport is owned by the airport itself (well a conglomerate of companies from Italy, Canada, China etc) The trains are operated under licence by GWR (Heathrow Express) and TfL (Elizabeth Line) but past Hayes there is an additional caveat for airport operations, which is why there's an additional charge to travel there even though the airport is within the TfL travelcard zones The airport operator has been previously contacted but had denied all rights to the Heathrow estate, including the line, logos etc - which is again why we have no HEx from any developer in any game. You get a CnD if you try. Last I heard there were "security concerns" but that could be hearsay So, we CAN get the 345 in game IF TfL give DTG a license and I doubt Bombardier will moan too much, so the only blocking point may be the Hong Kong operators MTR. If all three say "Yes" then we might get it We already have the 387, but then it comes down to licensing of logos and liveries. GWR run this under license, so may not own or be able to license either. Both of the above would go from Paddington to Hayes, with the airport line then portalling out, and the 345s to Reading being unaffected. Trains would have to portal IN from the Heathrow flyover onto either the fast or slow lines at Hayes Where's your source for this? ALL airports are considered a national security point and you don't know about any contracts (or any other form of communication) that exist or don't between DTG / GWR / TfL / Heathrow on this matter.
And yet at no point have I said it can be done without a license, I can grasp what licences are and pretty much every suggestion in this part of the forum is going to require a license of some form anyway whether it be for a locomotive or the inclusion of a company. It is a non issue because there is nothing we on these forums can do about, has it been worth arguing over? Of course not.
Any international port is a national security risk whether it be an air port or station, your point is moot.
No, my point (all of it not the edited version you quoted) was valid Heathrow own the line Heathrow won't let people make the line in a game Everything else is just you going on (again)
You got explanations which you dismissed out of hand. You asked for proof and yet when asked for proof of your own assertions you call people trolls. And then maybe you wonder why just about every post on the forum you're involved with becomes an argument...
Actually I only got a proper explanation from this. If only you had STARTED WITH THIS IT WOULDN'T HAVE TURNED INTO A BLOODY ARGUMENT! You are nothing more than a troll.
I think maybe you need to invest in a new dictionary, and maybe actually read it. troll /trɒl,trəʊl/ noun noun: troll; plural noun: trolls a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post. "one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized" a deliberately offensive or provocative online post. a line or bait used in trolling for fish.
Posting something looking for a reaction or to purposefully start, provoke, or exasperate an argument is also called trolling
And the only person doing that right now is the person I am responding no. Nobody else here is poking or pushing or looking to exasperate. They've given their explanation, and then got told that wasn't good enough or DTG could do it anyway Unfortunately there's something called "real life" where there are consequences and legal actions and DTG have to account for these the same as any company which might get sued for doing the wrong thing. And then nobody would get to play TSW2/3/4/5/6
No one else gave an explanation as to exactly why. And I don't come on here intending for an argument.
ch#7054 - 30/08 @ 16:40 - "It is not allowed" - brief explanation but it IS an explanation matt#4801 - 31/08 @ 00:01 - "the company whose branding they have used can sue them in court." - explanation including reference to licensing matt#4801 - 31/08 @ 00:13 - "The added complication with the heathrow express is that the branch to the airport is owned by the airport, who would also need to give a license for the route to be made" - complete explanation including ownership and licensing issues matt#4801 - 31/08 @ 00:32 - "Sorry to be blunt but this is the quickest and easiest way to explain it: No license = Not allowed. Obtained license = Allowed" - Very blunt explanation of why it cannot be done matt#4801 - 31/08 @ 10:40 - "Also because the airport is owned by the airport a license will be needed from them to build the route itself." - Again, reasoning explained Aruscoe - 31/08 @ 11:00 - my first long post detailing and breaking it down Your FIRST offhand response was made at 30/08 @ 23:57, with further "back hands" at 31/08 @ 00:04 31/08 @ 04:53 31/08 @ 10:47 31/08 @ 14:07 31/08 @ 14:26 So from that basic rundown you got six or seven "reasons and explanations" of varying levels from three different people, and your first offhand comment was made after the first person responded to you, and then continued throughout the day "Posting something looking for a reaction or to purposefully start, provoke, or exasperate an argument is also called trolling" Maybe you weren't doing this intentionally, but from the fourteen posts you've made on just this page, six of them had "trollish comments" either made to insult or provoke a reaction
Excellent idea and for Class 387 it's going to do London Paddington to Reading/Newbury Trips with Class 166. Class 800/802 HST Trips. In the training center a tutorial will be given on how to cold start the train on both electric and diesel mode.
The branch lines would, in my opinion, be a very nice choice for a GWE extension. GWE has had so little love and would VASTLY benefit from a rebuild being the first British route released. The lines are as follows... Old Oak Common to Greenford West Ealing to Greenford Southall to Brentford Waste Terminal (Waste trains only) Heathrow Junction to Heathrow (licensing permitting) West Drayton to Thorney Mill/Colnbrook (stone and oil trains only) Slough to Windsor Central Maidenhead to Bourne End/Marlow Twyford to Henley on Thames Reading to Basingstoke If the Class 165 and 180 dmus were also included it would be so much better.