Something that's being overlooked a little is that Training Center exists though, among which it includes a copy of the 66 I'm pretty certain. Just use that version in all the pre-made consists, which should be a non-issue because literally anyone who can buy this pack will already have it. You get a engine "included" with it to make if functional. but you also don't add as much mess to the spaghetti code because you would actually have a standardized 66 to be pulling from.
Reading said post I frankly find it bizarre that they can't pivot on the 66 being included, yet Skyhook were able to rework a entire timetable to include longer freight trains on Horseshoe. I get that the work to make the separate 66 was probably done a long while ago, but by the same token the costs of maintaining it going forward ain't free either.
Personally i would love more locos being added especially for UK freight, but i understand the huge undertaking that would be, not only do they need the companies permission, the need unfettered access to said loco for god knows how long, to model the small details, then you have the sounds to capture, that means said loco has to be out of revenue service for x amount of time, not to mention the liability insurance needed for dovetails crew, then permission from railtrack to access the depots, i dont think folks realise whats needed to model a loco to the detail that they would be happy with, if it was a simple as creating the 3d model DTG would have had every loco every built, thought about or imagined in game by now, i would to see the 56 or 58 and even some modern freight locos in game, but at teh end of the day all DTG can do ask said companies if there willing and if there not, there hands are tied.
It doesn’t seem to hinder the German TSW developers. Look at some of the great stuff we’ve had - the 101 (in both guises), the G6, the absolutely superb 218, the E94. List is comprehensive and endless. Yes it can be detected where compromises have been made on sounds but gives a far more “can do” approach to developing content.
your comparing one countries companies to another countries company without taking into account laws, attitudes or any number of random unknowable reasons, mays as well say we can travel faster than light just because star trek said we could, reasons exist whether you can see them or not, i am not defending DTG they have made some real clangers over the yrs, but I'm also not naive enough to beleave there actively being lazy, if that was the case they would have gone bankrupt years ago. Anyway this is off topic for this thread and for that i apologies.
To be fair, the 218, G6 and "Crocs" are to be fair older engines and they could get a lot from them while they aren't the mainline engines like say a Class 70 is. I believe they went to museums to get that access? It's also a LOT easier when 90% of the stock can be had from ONE source rather than dozens of smaller companies. Makes access and licenses a lot easier. Imagine how hard it would be if they didn't have access to DB and were trying to create the German rail networks and stock....
TBH i dread to think the hoops DTG have to jump through to get stuff they need, after running my own business for damn near 30yrs, I've learnt one thing, the bigger the company the bigger the a__holes are that run it LOL.
What companies run those, and does DTG have the licenses/access to create them? If you don't own something, you can't sell it even if you would make a potential profit. To be fair, DTG could just be more up front about who they have been rejected by so people might stop asking. I know there'd be NDAs with licenses, but there's no NDA if there's no deal in place. Then again, that might kill enthusiasm. Take the Class 70 for example. it's nice... but there's only two operators using the 37 produced. So if Freightliner and COLA rail both say "no".... then what? No Class 70 ever? Would that make people happier to hear? You can go the TSC route and just fake it, but people hold TSW to a different double standard so won't accept a "guess" like the TSC version.
Fair enough but as a potential, pretty much certain, customer for any or all of the above traction I want to hear solutions, not problems. Why are these developers even in the train sim business if they can't apply a bit of resourcefulness to gather the data and information needed to produce the locomotives people want to see? For sounds, talk to AP, talk to the DVD producers (professional) who do Wired For Sound cab rides. We had/have these locos in MSTS and TSC so why should we not expect them to appear in TSW at some point. Anyhow as someone said above this is abstracting from the main purpose of the topic, so consider that my final word on the matter for now.
What if the "solution" is to work on something they have access to instead? We "have" a lot of stuff in TSC that isn't ported to TSW for many reasons. Why does everything in TSC "have" to be in TSW? As I said... people apply different standards to TSW, there's a higher bar for some reason. Then of course they demand comparable or lower prices for that higher level content. We know what licenses DTG HAS already...why not focus on what they could deliver through those? Seems like a better focus than pining wistfully in disappointment. =-)
Is this list still accurate of UK licenses DTG has for TSW? What about identifying possibilities from there? For example the Class 56 isn't currently now BR, but it WAS. Maybe they have some reference stuff on it still? The current operators aren't on the list. DB/EWS has Class 60's and 90's in storage. Maybe if they asked nicely? Granted they'd have to backdate a route a bit to get them to run and we'd have to have the routes for them to go on. Having a lot of "commuter" companies on the list also partially explains why there's so much "commuter" content. That's what they have easy access to. United Kingdom - Great Western Railway (GWR) - DB Schenker/EWS - British Rail - Southern - London Underground - Network Southeast - Southeastern - Scotrail - Gatwick Express - West Midlands Trains - East Midlands Trains - Northern - Thameslink
Coming soon article: https://live.dovetailgames.com/live...article/cargo-line-vol-4-military-coming-soon and a release date: June 5th!
I really hope we can get the class 86/87, class 31/37/40/45 to sub for class 47 but I doubt that sadly but a gal can hope for some extra capabilities (Update: basically switching the class 47 to a different loco, sorry if that wasn’t clear)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. We have those all in game (or will shortly with the 87) What are you hoping for?
Ah ok. Yeah I love substitutions. The more the better. It mixes things up for variety and not everyone likes every loco. Especially I think we need alternatives to the 66 and 47. As much as they're great, they're also ubiquitous to the point of people being "tired" of them. Makes sense for DTG too since people are more likely to buy DLC they will use more. Big reason I'm not using Shap as much as I'd like is that it's basically 87 or nothing for most of the timetable. And I really don't care for the 87. The 47s on the route don't sub in, they're just shunting around short bits as window dressing. There's just no real option for anything else, even if it isn't entirely "authentic." For game packs it's especially useful since that's all there is. There's no loco or route to display... it's ALL dependent on getting as much use out of the rolling stock as possible, so the widest usage would be the most valuable.
I'm with you. I think you should be able to drive any loco you want in service mode (for loco-hauled services at least). I've never quite understood why that isn't implemented.
The only drawback is that not all locos are created equal and people will complain if they pick a loco too weak to haul the load. You can get roughly in the ball park though if you make subs more or less of equivalent power. Even the argument that some aren't "native" or "accurate" to certain routes isn't really a solid argument because player can just choose not to use them. That or just make it very easy to port services/scenarios into the "Creator" to make your own scenarios. It's currently a LOT of work to create something that isn't remotely as capable as existing timetables and scenarios. And Free Roam is....lacking. You can't just set up repeated stops for example for a passenger route, let alone multiple cargo pick ups/drop offs.
Well in the west coast main line situation I think all the ones I listed are pretty much the same in capabilities, well except class 86 and 87 which would probably be more power, (could be wrong about all this but the class 40/45 did have the same services on NTP I think, and well the class 31 is pretty powerful in itself but could easily just give double head aka two locos at the front instead of one
The 86/87 were monsters, something like 4,000 or 5,000 hp. The 31 was very light power-wise... only 1,250 hp I think? I wanna say the 40/45 were in the 2,000- 2,500 hp range? So all over the board really but yeah you could double up the 31 and get about the same traction and hp. I think in a pinch they are "close enough" to a Class 66 in power to be usable as replacements. Ther 86/87 definitely but even the others at 2,500 hp vs 3,300 hp? They'd be a bit slower but could still pull the load, and as you said the ever-present 47 would be even closer in stats. Same with the Class 52. The 37 you'd probably have to double up too.
I'm not a UK rail person. All of that I picked up from this forum or google. TSW just had that effect =-)
Good evidence of this is in the Cargo Line Vol. 1 services where you can sub in the WSR 47 and 52 in place of the 66. Get a loaded service which I think has about 22 tankers on it. The 66 handles it, the 52 just about, but the 47 crawls and is just unusable. Empty runs are fine though.
They were actually confirmed to by a glitch from skyhook games but since everyone like it that kept it, I’m been trying to get them to add the ability for older trains to be used in services but nothing has happened
It was a glitch yes, my point is that it's evidence of the performance gap between the locos. On a service which makes the 66 have to properly work its muscle, the 47 is too underpowered and can barely move. On a service where the 47 is being made to work and actually is moving, the 66 barely breaks a sweat. A loaded tanker train on Blackpool Branches with a 47 has 11 tankers and weighs in at around 1400 tonnes. For a lone 47 that's a pretty good workload. Try running that with a 66 though, and you'll find that it moves off like it's hardly even pulling anything, like using the 47s on those empty maintenance trains. My point is that allowing trains to substitute for older classes in lower power categories isn't the answer - a lot of the time it just wouldn't work. Substituting for doubled up classes is also not an option as the game simply can't do it, the vehicle count has to be exactly the same. The answer is what many people have been asking for for years - more new classes within the same power category. The Type 4s already have this with the 47s often being able to sub out for 45s and 40s at the very least. The 66 could be made to sub out with a 60, or a 68/88. Electrified routes such as ECML or WCMLS could run with 90s. The 56 would also be a viable alternative, an older locomotive but I believe its power is almost equal to that of the 66.
Couldn’t that just do a Tess valley where you have the option of doing your single services or your double headed
They could, but that would require the timetable to be rebuilt with some services only for double heading and some only for single. If a service is set to have two locos, it must always have two locos, and the same for a single loco service. And if you wanted to do one of those double head services with a 47 for example, two 47s is more powerful than even a 66, that would be a bit overkill. And then two 66s is just insane power levels which otherwise only electric locos can reach - it does happen on some very long trains or ones going up extreme inclines like Lickey or Aisgill, but for most services the power would be excessive and wasted. And if that much power was actually required, then swapping the 66s out for 47s wouldn't be providing enough anyway. So you would basically have to limit the double head services to only go as high as say a 37 at most, and the single head services to only go as low as a 52 at least. Also, the 45 and 47 featured in the game don't have MW connections. The 66 can MW with itself, then it jumps down to the 40, 37, 33, 31 and 20 which can work with each other. The 47 never received the 'Blue Star' Electro-pneumatic multiple working equipment, a small handful were equipped with a different system but I don't know how widespread that was. Maybe we should ask DTG or JT very nicely for a blue star 45? Anyway, about Tees Valley... If you take a look at the timetable you can see that only the double services sub for other doubles. There are a select few coal runs the Class 37 can do where it is single head, and it's only the 37 that can do them. It's also why you'll notice the 37s are turned with their front cabs facing each other, in a '-> <-' arrangement rather than for example '-> ->'. It's because 20s operated in pairs generally will have their rear cabs facing outwards because the long hood end offers very little visibility, but in order to make it so that this is how they will appear when subbed in, the 37s also have to be rotated as such. The loco being used in this case doesn't matter, it's just how the formation itself has to be programmed regardless of what wagons or locos are used, and in the case of TVL trains it would just be for example '14x BBA loaded wagons, 1x Loco facing forwards, 1x Loco facing backwards' and from there it would sub in either a pair of 20s or 37s into that loco space. On a side note, the only reason they listed the double and single 37 separately was so that if you picked a 37, the second loco would also always be a 37. Otherwise you could end up with a 37 and a 20 paired up, which does work and would be cool to do but wouldn't be very realistic. It's all very complicated really, and would probably make for a messy timetable. In the end if they were to include some older locos doing freight workings on a modern route, their best bet would actually be to just not do substitutions between them and instead just implement some separate dedicated freight workings for the 66, the 47, and some double headed 37s for example.
Too bad they consider if a "glitch" considering it's what the fans want and it's obviously possible if it happened. The 56 would probably be more...usable? As much as I would REALLY like a 68 or 88, I just don't think they're as usable on more routes regularly or as "accessible." (Only 34 of the latter and they are only used by 2 companies)...although wasn't there talk of a nuclear flask train coming up? And the 68 was going to be used for that irl wasn't it? Scotrail had 68s but no longer, so outside of documentation I don't think they'd be much help besides livery on a 68. I dunno if DTG has any contact with the companies currently using the 68. The 88s were even smaller, being just a 68 with ability to be OHLE (I think?) I think we'd have more luck with a Class 56 in game though for a 66 alternative. Having said that, I'd STILL vote for the 57 for a 66 alternative. It has roughly the same power. It's currently used. DTG should be able to have the right livery rights for it with existing licenses, we have lots of 47s in game, and even the engine from the upgrade. It's just a Class 47 with the engine swapped for an EMD and some minor changes in the cab to meet modern rail specifications. All it'd take is a cosmetic cab makeover like Athena did with the 47. It just seems like low hanging fruit people would get a lot of use out of. Now granted, people do complain the 47 is "everywhere" too (like the 66) but... well, it's true. The 47 and 66 are iconic UK locos of the diesel era. At least it would be something "different" in some way. You could even make it swappable with BOTH 47 and 66 for use on nearly every UK route. More bank for the buck!
The 68 is used by DRS and Chiltern, the 88 is just DRS. Cargo Line Vol.5 was leaked to be nuclear yes, it seems that is coming with a modern day DRS refit of the Class 20s. In reality DRS would really just stick any class they had available nearby on those trains, there are pictures of 20s, 37s, 57s, 66s and 68s all pulling them. I don't believe DB Cargo or EWS has ever had 57s. The 57s were converted by Freightliner who then didn't like them because while they upgraded the engines, they didn't upgrade the fuel tanks and so they were very thirsty and ran dry quicker than their other classes (source being a personal friend who is a former Freightliner manager on that). From there Freightliner wanted away with them and so gave most of them back to Porterbrook while a few were sold to Advenza and West Coast Railways, and from there the ones with Porterbrook were leased out to different operators like Virgin, Arriva, Colas ect, but never EWS/DB. Today the 57s still in operation are between DRS, two with GBRf and a few with GWR for the sleeper. The rest are with the LSL or WCR railtour companies. So ultimately unless you wanted the 57 added in a branding it never wore, which tbh I wouldn't mind too much but I doubt it would get past licensing, then your closest bet to the 57 that DB has owned would be the 60. So ultimately unless we got a DRS 57 (which I would love, by the way) the 56 still stands as our best bet, since it could be featured in GBRf, Colas or EWS branding. Or of course, just classic Railfreight Grey or BR Blue as those owned by UK Rail Leasing all wear heritage liveries.
Thank you that was quite informative. I'd be good with the 57 or 56 in any branding. (Paint jobs are neat and all, but don't matter much to me)
I hope the next DLC has unicorns and dragons sitting on top of FKA wagons, if TSW5 is going full fantasy world. Moved to the UK from Poland in 1978, and I've never once seen military vehicles on a train in all that time. So yeah, I'm passing on this one.
Huh. See it all the time here in the States. I've helped LOAD those trains too on deployments. It's honestly a cost effective way to do it, and avoids the problems of trying to get huge, heavy trucks down those narrow streets. You can't drive a tank through the streets after all. Well...you can... once.... before you get arrested. The locals really tend to frown on tearing up their roads. It's hard enough for the locals to get the Council to fix the potholes as it is!
I live about 500yds from the Shoeburyness to fenchurch street line in the last 40 years I have not seen one military train go past.
In fairness the only reason anything military would go to Shoeburyness is to get shot at as a target. It is worth noting that as far as I'm aware, military rail movements do not appear on sites like Real Time Trains etc, as those services are not included in the open source feeds that those sites use. So seeing them is really a case of being in the right place at the right time.
They can also be seen parked in the yard next to Didcot Parkway station. I was kind of surprised the actual timetable mode runs were during the day, I had it in my head they would move stuff like that at night.
Shouldn't have to worry about that in the UK though. Just bobbies chasing ya with batons politely asking you to cease and desist.
Without going too far off topic, tanks might have been fearsome when first invented but with the advent of armour piercing anti tank munitions you are basically driving around in a sealed crematorium!
I mean armour piercing ammunition is older than the tank itself. Some militaries have tried to stop using tanks as 'the end of the tank' has been predicted for several decades at this point, but it still hasn't happened yet. I believe there are some examples of nations getting rid of tanks entirely only to suddenly realise it wasn't a great idea and reacquired them. Basically, the tank has *always* been vulnerable when unsupported, but that doesn't mean they aren't potent. They're not going away any time soon. Sure there's lots of dramatic footage in Ukraine of tanks being destroyed, but that's more a lesson to be learned in how to deploy tanks (and even then, a lesson re-learned), rather than the end of the tank.
