Peak Forest Railway: Ambergate – Chinley & Buxton Feedback Thread

So I found the return from that Derby to Buxton working is picked up by another loco which comes from the shed, but the timetable list shows incorrectly that it originates from Manchester and starts in game from Chinley. Neither of these light locos can be driven (AI only?) and don't show in the timetable.

 

No, didn't miss it and I'm sure we all hope that your efforts to complete the freight timetable are successful.

But Vern is correct in that it's the lack of some passenger services, particularly the shuttle and its appropriate dmu, which are the more salient issues with PFR.

I don't have the route, but, by all accounts, it's a gem scenically, which makes an update to the timetable even more urgent, so that I and others can buy and enjoy it.

 

As I said minor faults with the game hardly game changing Although I would prefer passengers stayed on the platform rather than walking out in front of a moving train

 

Spirit of Steam has hand cranked turntables, If I remember correctly there’s one at Crewe North Shed

 

I think certainly from an immersion point of view, the poor passenger timetable is the disappointment.

However I would like to see some more freight workings added, especially maybe some lighter freight trains with the 4F, of which I would like some longer runs in. If the information wasn't available at the time then it is understandable, steam era freight working timetables are like gold dust, unless you are looking for WR timetables. As it stands the freight services are okay and overshadow the passenger services.

Apart from that I love the route but would love to be able to stand on Millers Dale platform watching a variety of trains in action as many enthusiasts could have done in 1963, which is the beauty of this simulator, it has the potential to really transport us back to another time.

 

Aye haha

 

Thank you dtg_jan DTG JD DTG Matt (and anyone else) for featuring my screenshots on your social media pages, that really made my night

 

Or indeed as I suggested earlier buy a virtual Day Rover (woof, woof) and travel up and down the line visiting the various POI’s.

 

The loaded ICI limestone hoppers appear to only be about half full compared to a prototypical load - looking at some photos from slightly later (when the 25s were hauling), the hoppers look to be piled up so the limestone is visible from platform height.

 

Another note on routing for the ICI freight - it appears that all limestone traffic was normally routed on the fast lines between Gowhole and Chinley North, perhaps this could be looked at with the timetable revision?

This might be to allow the 8F to get a better run at the incline towards Dove Holes and beyond whereas currently we have to slow for 15mph to cross over. Entirely hypothetical on my part though.

 

Hey all, my Enhancement / Colour Correction Pack is now available over on TSC. Enjoy!

Peak Forest Enhancement / Colour pack - Train Sim Community

 

Thanks have downloaded it. I do not know if it matters but I don't think there are two F's in Peak Forest.

 

Bit of an embarrassing typo/brain fade but it doesn’t matter as far as functionality goes. It’s not worth re-uploading it to change it.

 

Don't you mean Rs?

 

This is another area where the restricted nature of the route length comes into play. I imagine that generally these trains wouldn't start halfway up a 1 in 90 gradient. I played one of the services yesterday and it was a struggle to get the train of empties moving. Some are saying that they think the 8F is overpowered, I would have to disagree. Whilst they weren't fast engines, although weren't unknown on passenger services they were powerful.

 

Yes. At my age I get very confused between my P's and Q's !

 

Hmmm........Fish chiips and Mushy queues!

 

It never fails to amaze me how any DTG staff can happily comment on a forum about screenshots used, yet any constructive criticism seemingly is ignored and none of our views/requests considered.

I've had this conversation before and same with the 3rd parties (Rivet), it really is p*ss poor and our voices are genuinely felt like they are unheard.

 

Yep any compliments and they are quick to jump all over them, any criticisms or questions about quality and they are nowhere to be found. It's beyond tiresome.

 

Another piece of feedback for the timetable revision - it's not a hugely high priority but it would be really great to see AI traffic at the Buxton LNWR station and out over the viaduct towards Ashbourne (all as per the real-life timetable of course )

 

It’s called marketing and selective communication!
However I think we have to be fair and recognise for a developer/publisher run forum there is a fair bit of leeway and acceptance of constructive critical feedback. Compare that with the situation when Run 8 first launched and 3DTS briefly tried running their own forum. Criticism of pretty much anything was taboo and mentioning or comparing R8 to any other sim got you banned. Or for that matter, try posting something moderately critical at RWA and see how long you last…

 

I want to complain. As has been reported already, the file name for the mod definitely has too many R`s. This is clearly a rushed release.
Please fix ASAP.

 

It's part human nature, part job description.

 

Thank you guys. DTG Jamie thanks for featuring my screenshots

 

Oh look, the Steam achievements aren't hidden anymore. Both for MML and PFR. Guess they did simply forget to un-hide them after all.
For me, achievements both existing and working is an absolute must, so that's good to see.

As for the timetable. I think using historically accurate timetables should, at this point, be the standard thing to do. Sure, most players might not consciously put too much thought into whether a timetable is precisely accurate, especially when it comes to routes set a long time ago. However, they certainly care about it being broadly authentic and authentically dense, as evidenced by the two main complaints here which, to me, seem to boil down to "there are no diesels" and "the 4F is underutilised." Using real timetables not only elevates immersion and the general product quality, it also renders any such criticism moot.

 

In real life, at the time the route is set, Diesel's were very common as were first generation DMUs

 

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. If the decision was made from the outset to recreate a real timetable, the main complaints people have about this route wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have things like this:

 

So, how were local passenger services on this route organised before the advent of DMMUs? That seems like it would be a reasonable model for loco-hauled services as a substitute for DMMUs.

I could easily imagine a regular all-stops Derby-Buxton service, supplemented by a semi-fast (Ambergate, Matlock, Millers Dale, then all stops to at least Chinley) Derby-Manchester and a regular all-stops Manchester-Buxton. The most appropriate traction would likely be a 2MT (tank or tender) or a 4MT tank, but I could see the 4F being used as the nearest reasonable substitute.

The key is to make the service reasonably symmetric, so the player has a good choice as to what to do, both as driver and as passenger. This also applies to freight services. For traffic types that don't run loaded in both directions, loaded wagons going one way should normally be balanced by an equal number of empty wagons returning, unless there's a very good and historical reason why they would, for example, take different routes in each direction.

 

The Buxton to Millers Dale shuttle was an ex LMS Push Pull set, presumably using a LMS or BR Standard 2MT or 4MT tank engine. From what's been said previously, other local services were probably formed of older LMS stock and worked by smaller tender locos. You would most certainly not have seen a Jubilee hauling a 4 coach Buxton to Manchester via Chinley service.

 

So as OldVern says above, the Buxton shuttle would have been push-pull steam stock prior to about 1958, but it looks like the steam traction for this was something like a 2P 0-4-4T (seen below at Miller's Dale in 1957) rather than a BR Standard. Once the DMUs were introduced around '58, they were overwhelmingly Class 104s with some Class 111s rostered occasionally.



The other local stopping services (Chinley - Ambergate and Chinley - Buxton) appear to have been hauled by a vast mix of traction, but below is a rough list of what I've found evidence for so far:

Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 (the Flying Pig, seen at Ambergate)


Fowler 2-6-4T (heading into Buxton Midland from Manchester Central)


Black 5 (not a great photo admittedly but this is apparently at the head of a Derby - Manchester stopper at the Chee Tor tunnels)


While we're on the topic of appropriate traction, should be noted that the Jubilee is a very prototypical choice of traction for London - Manchester express services, alongside the Class 45 Peak. Other photos exist of expresses hauled by Royal Scots and Black 5s but it's clear the Jubilees and 45s had the lion's share of the work.

 

They're going to carve that on DTG's tombstone

 

Don't think anyone denies or doesn't appreciate the work which went into the actual route.

The slight disappointment has come from the incomplete timetable, largely because a Class 104 DMU* wasn't white boarded as part of the package (or for a bit of licence the aforementioned LMS Push Pull set) and the fact it didn't go to Derby, the logical start point.

*Not to mention a green Class 45 and or Class 40. This route is rich ground for some superb mixed traction but the worry is it will rapidly become another fire and forget project with the opportunity to round things out into a truly memorable package, squandered.

 

Clearly the signalling on this route is very complex but even so this is a very odd attitude to display to customers.

With the caveat that this is probably the best DTG route released in a while (for me at least), I would hope that no one would suggest that developing these routes isn’t time consuming, of course it is. Ultimately however, I don’t care.

When I buy a product I expect it to work as advertised. If it doesn’t then I expect that to be rectified or be offered a refund. Software is an odd old thing as the refund isn’t available save for Steam’s offer (but is 2hrs sufficient to really get a handle on something)? It seems increasingly that software publishers view the normal cycle as dev work - paid release - finish dev work. That’s not right.

There aren’t many products (I genuinely can’t think of another one) where the seller says ‘sorry everyone, ran out of time there. You’ll just have to live with it as-is. By the way, you can't get a refund’ or ‘you paid for our product but should consider yourself lucky that you’ve had the privilege to do so’.

The fact that software is being released half-finished is a failure of the people who are setting the timescales for development. It is not our fault if the marketing and the final product don’t reflect each other.

 

If we have criticisms about route development, rolling stock, timetables etc.., it's generally not directed towards the people who actually work on the creative side, but rather towards those who do the scheduling, budgeting and other management functions that lead to what we might see as premature and/ or incomplete releases.

Make no mistake, we are fully aware of how hard the actual development work is when you're on a strict schedule and a tight budget.

I would add that the talent and ability to create a locomotive or railroad out of a billion 1's and 0's is the 8th wonder of the world to me. But even the Gardens of Babylon had some weeds here and there. We're just pointing them out.

 

Exactly. I fully believe the people at the coal face were burning the candle at both ends. The problem is that the Powers That Be don't seem to budget them enough time to get the job done properly

 

Perhaps that was the wrong choice of word but please see from the end users' POV. We have had so many route DLC's trumpeted all of which are the hard work of people like yourself or other associates, only to see them drop off the radar with often very little or even no further enhancement. Not just UK, look no further than Clinchfield or some of the other American routes which were ripe for additional content and DLC packs to build on what's there. Closer to home, Spirit Of Steam - ludicrous that we have had to wait nearly a year for fixes to the problems which plagued it and yet again there hasn't been a single additional DLC forthcoming to add a greater variety of locomotives and rolling stock and a more expanded timetable. It should be awash with different types of trains and locomotives going here, there and everywhere all along the route. Let's face it (and again I know you have no influence on this) your company still can't give us a Mark One catering vehicle (RMB or similar) which would have run in most of the express formations.

So I will say again, I have no axe to grind with the people who built what we got - a superb and unique route - as Crosstie and Bill above note, it's the project management and ongoing development that needs to be addressed. Otherwise it's like pouring your heart and soul into building a model railway, but only ever buying one or two trains to run on it.

 

Whoops! I haven't bought the Spirit of Steam route. Thanks for the information.

 

Again, at least me im not asking for a green dmu & real timetable etc for free. Wish this kind of content could be bought as dlc.

Despite sos manual firing isnt ready, not having a single dlc for crewe liverpool reflects your fire and forget strategy in a perfect way.
Funny fact, dtg seems to run out of time again and again, but they proof to have a 1000% budget to waste opportunities & potential allover their release history.

 

Because, frankly, it isn't enough from the perspective of the paying customer. Major aspects of the steam simulation are still unfinished nearly a year after SoS's release.
I appreciate that the actual devs try to get the most done within limited time frames, but I'm not going to reward management for failing to give DLC enough development time.

 

Back to the scenery, both routes peak forest and crewe liverpool have really nice modeled disused stations. Really delivers this fact very convincing, the planks or trash on the platforms.

 

My bad, I misread your comment. My apologies but yeah you are spot on.

 

I remember when SoS launched in a blaze of glory and we were promised future DLCs for the route, New Steam Engines etc etc. A year down the line and we get a new 4F and wagons and they aren't even layered into SoS. I don't know what the reasoning was but it's again another missed opportunity, especially seeing as for German routes it's common practice for layers to be added.

 

How long would a BR green revamp of an existing diesel take?

 

Finally bought the route. First impressions: the route looks washed out and the driver assist needs to shut the hell up. "Set the Large Ejector to Closed to preserve steam" — yeah, as if there's a significant danger of losing steam in this game lmao, never mind the fact that I was going downhill and the boiler was at full pressure already. I'll take the more responsive brakes when I want to, stop telling me this every time I release the brakes.
It's like they thought "Hmmm, how do we put this message reminding players to close the large ejector in the most annoying place possible? Oh, I know! Let's put it up every time they release the brakes, which is exactly the time they might want to open the large ejector." Honestly, this is so annoying and frequent it significantly spoils much of the enjoyment I might have otherwise had driving through this gray-green foggy countryside. And when I dared to open up the cutoff at speed, the message reminding me to not do so started to continuously flash every 3 seconds. Yes, really. It appears, then vanishes, then appears again, then vanishes, then appears again, then vanishes, and so on until the cutoff is set to 30% or something. That's one way to make the players do what you want, I guess. Annoy them until compliance is established.

And timetable schedules are impossible to keep to. Again. This is honestly maddening. What a disappointment. See, this is what happens when you don't use real timetables and just simulate services with bots. Ones that don't seem to take into account things such as gradients. Oh, and in case that particular service was from a real timetable: then it should've been adjusted for gameplay purposes. Point is, there shouldn't be a situation where I lose 2 minutes between one passenger stop and the next (as soon as the uphill turned into a downhill, I was able to catch up, supporting the 'bots don't simulate gradients' idea). And the fact that it happened on the FIRST actual passenger service from the Journey only serves to underline that typical lack of polish we've come to expect.

 

No, it shouldn’t be. A real timetable should be adhered to strictly. Funnily enough, the last passenger service I played (stopping service from Ambergate to Buxton, I think), I managed to be punctual. Don’t know if they used a real timetable, but the timing certainly seem way more realistic than SoS.