I remember long ago we were shown what was a sort of test article for a steam train when steam was heavily in development. And i’m sure it was a 4f? If not it was something very similar. If this is true and they have just decided to use that, what with the model being built already, it’s a very lazy effort from DTG (lots of people have been complaining it’s not right for this route and era). Just an idea.
So them building a loco and then using it is lazy??? Not sure how you reach your decision on that one
I don't recall seeing this article personally, but I've no doubt that multitude of steam locos will have been half built when scooping out SoS and steam physics in general. So it's possible that they've taken a part built model, polished it up and released it here. But how is bringing a new steam loco in TSW rather using an existing loco lazy? The lazy thing would have been just to relivery the 45 and throw it on with the jubilee or 8F. I get people are unhappy with Buxton Forest but calling the Devs lazy is well just ridiculous.
4F could be seen as future proofing. Should they do Somerset and Dorset for example, the type was fairly common - just need a 9F, BR Standard Class 4 (75xxx, 76xxx), BR Standard Class 5, 2-6-2T 4MT tank loco and a Bulleid Pacific. Oh and not forgetting the 2-8-0 53xxx class. Well they got to start somewhere!
I wish they'd done the same with the diesels... Get the "generics" and standards out and then you can fill timetables in lots of places. Maybe for this specific route the 4f isn't ideal (wouldn't know) but better to have the 4f than not have it
Well I’ve seen people complaining the 4f isn’t the right locomotive, I’m no expert so I don’t know. It being built already doesn’t excuse them using it on what is seemingly the wrong route for it.
Unfortunately people don’t understand it’s not the devs that are lazy. It’s the upper management that just want things done fast for a quick bit of money. I only made the comment because I’ve seen lots of people saying the 4f is inappropriate for this route. And if the 4f had already been partially built then it’s a very typical DTG move to just use it.
I was also unsure about the 4F being chosen but having looked at the shed allocations they were fairly common on the line it seems. What I'm not sure about is how frequently they worked passenger operations. Hopefully they don't end up on a 2 coach shuttle service though. I do like the locomotives though and any new steam is welcome. Also I remember them saying when they did mastery that the 4F model was not indicative of the quality of SOS.
Hang on... you said they were lazy, not that it was the wrong loco and that was an issue. It sounds like the one who should be sorting out their own mess here isn't DTG Fair enough to bring up what is a valid issue, but to accuse people of something they clearly haven't done is atrocious
Sooo, your reasoning is because they roughly modelled a 4F for a mastery overlay, and now there is a totally different functional model... it's lazy? Lolwut
I believe the article in question is an old roadmap release about updates to the WSR route, including a 'suitable' PIS (chalkboards) and a mastery overlay (a basic skinned 4F on a truckbed being delivered to a station).
Oh look a 4F at Ambergate in 1965 (how awesome would a heavily weathered model of this be in TSW?) https://www.railwayherald.com/imagingcentre/view/583554/ST A 4F at Ambergate with 5 coaches at Ambergate again in 1965 https://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/3730537824/ I dont know why you're thinking a 4F isnt suitable on this route because a simple google search will bring up a ton a photo archives around the date of them on this exact route.
Wow, I mean if this simply took this low rez model and made it turn a wheel and plonked it on Amber Forest, then I guess that could be seen as lazy, but from the images so far I really dont think this is the case at all.
It appears what I was trying to say has been completely misunderstood, sorry. I had heard time and time again that the 4f wasn’t appropriate for this route, and in my opinion, they could have made a bit more of an effort to make something more appropriate. No, there’s nothing wrong with using something they have already made… Obviously that makes sense. It just seemed like it shouldn’t have been used here. I was using the word lazy very lightly, and just making the point that it would have probably been better of them to make something more appropriate for this era, as opposed to using something they already had that wasn’t really correct. This wasn’t meant to be a massive attack on DTG, it was just an idea I had been thinking about.
Possibly what you heard was that it wasn't suitable for the part of the route ( Buxton Shuttle) where a Class 104 dmu might be more prototypical at that time.
Maybe read what you've said from the perspective of someone who isn't you? Reading what's a blatant attack on someone else's character is never "light" and should never be "light". Bullying, sardonic and contemptuous is how it came across And yet a simple google search would have proven whoever had said it "time and again" wrong. This is the internet. Anyone can have a voice, but anyone can also use a search engine, look at what the facts are and make their own decisons based on facts rather than heresay and even if you have only heard something, that doesn't give you the right to use language which (especially on a flat text medium) can easily be mistaken as "definitely not light" But we don't have it. The loco's not been developed as a working drivable asset and published on a route. Maybe we had a wireframe model that has been used as an asset or even a static model previously, but that's a long way away from a moving model with physics, controls, sounds and so on And had you phrased it as "Hey, I've heard the 4f wasn't on this line in this timeframe, have DTG messed up here or did they run on the line?" we would have had people looking at pictures or video of the loco on this line in this timeframe (maybe not doing the duties DTG will timetable, but still) and people would learn, and you could go back to "where you heard this from" and tell them and we all go off and be merry TLDR - don't attack people, it's not nice. Read what you type from the opposing point of view and if in doubt, look it up
Again, it’s not that serious. I know how to behave on the internet. The problem is people taking things way too seriously, like you have done.
Aren't you overreacting just a tad? His use of the word " lazy " may have been misplaced ( though unfortunately not unique on the forum ), but it wasn't directed towards an individual or even a group of individuals. No-one's character was " blatantly attacked " was it? How different is his " lazy " and your " messed up " ? Not much I would venture. Anyway, I don't think you can " bully " a company, can you? I mean it's impersonal, right? The OP may have used the wrong word, but I've read a lot worse, just in the last day or two. One synonym for " lazy " is " remiss ". Would you accept that DTG were remiss in using the 4F where a Class 104 would be more realistic? ( Now, I'm being a bit sardonic. Sorry for that ) Chill.
Wow. Gotta say I do need to call up the use of "lazy" here just a tad. The team have been anything but lazy. The 4F you're getting is 100% appropriate for the route - but - there are dozens of other totally appropriate locos too, in this case, we wanted something broadly usable across a range of routes as well, and the 4F felt like a win. We also wanted something of a lighter class, to add some variety, again, a win. Are there lots of other options we could have done? yes, but, we would be here for days arguing back and forth. Simple fact is - it's completely appropriate and completely valid. The 4F has not been used on Buxton shuttles, those services literally don't work with a loco+coaches due to track and signalling configuration on the route, it needs a push-pull or a DMU. Maybe we'll do a pack later to add that, but for now, it's not there (and for the avoidance of fear, uncertainty and doubt, there are no plans to do something like this either). The 4F here is NOTHING to do with the one that was on the WSR Mastery Tile (except that... well,... it's a 4F). The one there was a brushed up version of the one from TS Classic, whereas the 4F here is a totally built-from-scratch model for TSW. Many of the team read these forums, and while you're considering yourselves to be talking to the "big corporation" I will just stress that you're being read by individuals, and words take their toll. Many of the team have also switched off from reading the forums because of posts like this. Even I have to occasionally take a break because honestly, this place is psychologically wearing and I need to recharge. I fully endorse critical feedback of what we do, I expect to be called out when we get it wrong and I appreciate honest feedback about what you like and don't like, but that's not what this is. Please take a moment to get informed, or just ASK the question before leaping to wrong conclusions and casting damnation upon the team. (sorry for the post... but that word specifically fires me up the wrong way) Matt.
Im glad to hear there is room at least left for the shuttle if you guys revisit it with a gameplay pack. That was mine and others worry. I can't wait to see the preview stream tbf. Reading the articles and the list of fixes have built me up for the route a fair bit. Can I ask though (or if any other user knows the answer), not sure if this is gives away too much befor the preview, obviously the 4Fs are very multi purpose engines but I was wondering how frequently they did passenger operations on the route in real life as we've seen images with them on trains albeit not long ones. As I saw they were very common on shed allocations along the route. I know they did more passenger operations on other lines but wondered specifically about this one
A quick and possibly easy fix if a Class 104 isn't in development (would be nice if it was!) would be a reskin (and older interior) of the 101. Just found this image... https://railphotoprints.uk/p732562555/h6211b62d that does indicate even if rare, there is historical precedent for the Met Camm units to appear, presumably when the depot was short of 104's.
Yes, I think quite a few of us would have taken the 101, surprised it didn't occur to the powers that be. Probably too late to layer or sub it in before release, but it could be done fairly quickly afterwards. Any route that gives me a chance to drive my favorite UK train gets my vote ( and my money).
They were quite sturdy engines. Just checked the loads on my old SIAM Bath Green Park 1961 traffic game and 4F's were allowed 7 coaches without a pilot loco between Bath Green Park and Templecombe. That's with gradients as steep as 1 in 50, not sure what the maximum gradient is on our new route, but not approaching that. Might even manage 10 coaches.
The 4F is very suitable for the route, they were seen on most of the LMS lines. It wouldn't be suitable for the Buxton shuttle of course which is what I was wondering might have been in DTG's thinking, I am glad it isn't. But certainly running freight from Buxton and freight and passenger on the main part of the route. I suspect that might be one of the class 111 power trailer sets which were allocated to Buxton for a time before I going to the NER. They had more powerful 180hp Rolls-Royce engines. There were three sets (out of four) there in 1962 but no class 101's so I would suggest this is a class 111. I wouldn't object to the class 101 being backdated. I hope they do include the shuttle at some point, it seems odd having a branch line without its requisite passenger service! I will watch the stream with interest but as it stands I don't think I would purchase this route when a complete set of services is missing, especially one which would be such a nice contrast to what is existing in the route. It would go someway to making up for the baffling start point for the route, something I still can't get over I'm afraid. As for calling developers lazy, I think that is totally uncalled for.
This. Thanks for the reply Matt. Im truly sorry if it’s had a bad effect on anyone, it wasn’t meant in a harsh way at all. But I understand how it can be very derogatory and there’s no excuse for it, so again I apologise. As I say, it was just an idea and maybe one I was a bit too passionate about. thanks for the info on the 4f as well as I genuinely didn’t know where exactly it had came from or what it’s intended purpose really was (and I didn’t know about it being part of a mastery on WSR, might have to have a look at that as its one of my favs). I think a loco pack would go down very well on this route (I can see it being popular), especially if it was a diesel, that would be a really nice contrast.
By the way, while we’re already talking about the loco: Just noticed that one of the three preserved 4Fs was on loan to the West Somserset Railway until late 2019, so having a 4F layer on there would be 100% accurate. I really hope we get some steam layers for that route soon… it’s so straightforward because it’s a heritage railway.
Being more of a fan of diesels an enhancement pack or game play pack ( can't remember which one it's called!) with a 45/0, 101 (in 60s condition) and an 08 ( in 60s condition) for a fiver would go down a treat and would not only make spend my five notes on the pack but the thirty notes on the route itself.
I'm a fan of both steam and diesel and I agree that a transitional mix of both would loosen the old billfold. I hope it comes sooner rather than later. I have always believed that SOS could have included an early mainline diesel loco too, but I doubt that will ever happen now.
While I like the idea of a steam/diesel crossover on a route. I don’t see an expansion pack with three completely reworked pieces of stock being sold for £5. At most I see a BR Green DMU being added as a “loco” DLC for the shuttle services, which would add a bit more service variety to the route. While not diesel, the Jubilee and 4F have the express, freight and shunting aspects of gameplay covered. Would I like to see all three of those diesels in BR Green? Definitely! But realistically, I don’t see all three of them coming in a single DLC pack due to all the work required to rebuild them to be era appropriate. Out of the three I’d go with a DMU as it fills a bigger gap in the timetable than the other two suggestions, even better if it’s a 104 rather than a 101. As much as I love the 101, it’d be nice to have some more first gen DMUs in TSW. If a 104 isn’t possible for some reason though, I’d happily take a BR Green 101 instead.
Last comment on this as hopefully the post will move on to discussion rather than accusation... No, I don't think I am. Someone making unfounded comments isn't constructive and can be quite destructive Yes it was. Calling people lazy is an attack when you don't have foundation for that Nope. A company is a collection of people from the directors down. Some people made a decision that led to the 4f being used and some other people maybe didn't question it's use. According to the OP that was... We know the rest Just the same as there's no such thing as a victimless crime just because someone targets a company rather than a person, an accusation isn't impersonal because it's aimed at a group of people working towards a common goal.
I would pay £12 or whatever the stock add on price is now, for an all new Class 104 DMU plus the Class 45 reworked into its original design and green livery. I would also happily part with £12 each, for a Class 25 pack, a Jinty with a few more wagons pack, a 2-6-4T tank loco with some suburban or P3 stock and £5 to get a blooming buffet and restaurant car in there. So how about it, DTG Matt , my Steam Wallet is waiting and the bike is on standby for more surreptitious trips to Sainsbury’s to buy additional Steam gift cards to sneak past the wife!!
It's ridiculous that I saw someone in the forum trying to suspend Alex, some members of the forum really need to show some respect for the team.
Funny enough this user still has a valid and working account here in the forums and kind of wonders him/herself about it in another post. Thanks Matt for letting the users know of their impact on humans writing such sh*t as "lazy devs" [...]
I've lurked here for a while with infrequent postings but I speak for most when I say that we appreciate all the team members who put countless hours into making the routes/DLC that we know, love, and sometimes criticize. The regulars here, who constantly provide constructive feedback (some a bit more passionate than others), and people like me, who rarely have anything to say that hasn't been said already so instead we vote with the like button, want the best for TSW and the content made for it, as well as the best for all of the team we have (and haven't) gotten to know over the past few years. I work in wood manufacturing making bulk laminated trailer flooring, at the very final stage where quality matters most. My department starts after the wood gets glued together when it's autoplaned and ends when it gets loaded on a trailer and sent out the door. Myself and my fellow team members always want to deliver the best product possible but there are constraints that make perfection impossible. I understand that game dev is a different process. Different customers, different constraints, different quality issues, heck, there's nothing similar about it other than at the end of the day we both make a product. But what I can infer is that the team can only be just as, if not more, frustrated than we get when something they've put out has issues that they may not have even been able to spot or fix before release. And I can only imagine how much this is exacerbated when completely unnecessary personal attacks get thrown around and/or the thread delves into a DTG/Rivet/Skyhook hate train. I'm truly ashamed of how some members of this forum have been behaving and I really do want to apologize on their behalf. It's not necessary, not polite, and, most importantly here on the forum, not constructive or helpful to the topic at hand under any circumstance. I genuinely look forward to all of the upcoming releases. TSW single-handedly got me back into railroading all that time ago when CSX: Heavy Haul came out and it continues to further my love with every release of a cool new route/loco. I really do have each and every one of the team responsible to thank for that, and I do wish you all the best. farLander
All right, no need to extend this topic. But, in conclusion I would just say that you and I have been on the forum for several years, and we have seen " that word " used many, many times. I read it a couple of times just yesterday in reference to other content. And I read a lot worse almost every day on the forum. That was my point really. If someone were to report every four-letter word and other unpleasantness on the forum, that's all they'd have time for. So the guy was wrong to use that word. I don't think he meant to be mean-spirited but he apologized and it's done. But someone will use the same expression and worse today, tomorrow. And the filters don't work. Can't catch them all. It's endemic on a public forum. Have a nice day.
Same here I would buy all of this along with the route itself so DTG could take a fair bit from me if they play their cards right with extra content for this release.
Me too. I've said the same thing about the NYT route. Give me all the bells and whistles, ALP 45, 46, Arrow III, the yards, freight, LIRR trains and a full timetable and I'll pay the $60 or whatever. Unfortunately, I doubt many others would.
Only lazy thing in these forums are the moaners who moan about everything and the YouTubers with the same lazy moaning in every video
You are spot on and for the developers how are they going to get a class 111 DMU sound? Considering the rest of the class got scrapped. In terms of Achievement the Class 111 will count for 1001 miles for Class 101 Daisy DMU since they are exactly the same train. On this route this would be a great help for a player who's used to Huddersfield line NTP Diesels
Think there might be a Class 111 in TSC, though suspect probably aliased to AEC or Leyland engine sounds. Bear in mind the Class 101 in TSW as it is sounds more like it was recorded from a Leyland engined DMU than the more "whiny" AEC variant.
I don't recall the class 111 having different sounds to the 101 in TSC so I suspect they used the same sounds.
Thank you for telling me and which engine suits Derwent Valley Line Peak Rail Manchester Piccadilly to Derby via Matlock Buxton and Ambergate. Guess it's going to be AEC due to how strong it is
