Busier Or More Accurate Timetables?

Discussion in 'PC Discussion' started by Joethefish, Sep 8, 2021.

?
  1. Quiet timetable, no train should be doing things it's not supposed to.

    10.5%
  2. Busier timetable, with stock subsituting for what we do not have, as long as the TOC remains correct

    65.4%
  3. Busiest option, if we don't have the correct train, just use whatever the route has.

    24.1%
  1. Joethefish

    Joethefish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    428
    Hello all, I'm one of the gameplay timetable devs. I'm really interested to know your opinion for future timetables regarding traffic levels in situations where not all trains are available in TSW. Feedback welcome for all platforms, I just posted here as it seems the most active area on the forum.

    There's been a lot of talk over people who prefer a loco DLC to include extra services OR for the route DLC to have those services but the included stock.

    We'd like to know what it is you want more. Please feel free to expand on your poll choice and even why in the replies. :)

    Also...

    How important is new services to a new loco DLC, would you rather have a more filled experience in the base timetable, or emptier but definitely new services when a new train dlc arrives for that route?
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 11
  2. tbaac

    tbaac Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    239
    Hi. Thanks for that. What does TOC refer to please? Also, any way to have the unrealistic stuff in a layer that could be turned off? Maybe that would conflict with other layers, dunno.
    Thanks.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Cameron's Gaming

    Cameron's Gaming Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    2,108
    Likes Received:
    2,759
    Train Operating Company. Similarly FOC is Freight Operating Company and ROSCO is Rolling Stock (Leasing) Company.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Joethefish

    Joethefish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    428
    TOC: Train Operating Company aka Southern, Southeastern etc
    That's a good idea. Not something I'm in control of but great feedback to be considered, thanks!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Shaun123

    Shaun123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    904
    The more AI, and services to drive, as well as variety is important to me, whilst maintaining as much realism as possible

    But, I would prefer a realistic timetable, based on what runs in real life, accurate timings, etc, rather than a fictional, busy timetable.

    Southeastern HighSpeed with 375/465’s subbing for the 700’s is the perfect example of how to achieve this.
     
    • Like Like x 14
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  6. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    6,591
    Likes Received:
    6,024
    I would prefer that we have a timetable which reflects MOST of the main runs which are done on a daily basis, but which allows for the correct stock to be put into place when the correct assets are created (and the timetable then expanded to cover all workings). This does create a situation where there will be incorrect stock running incorrect services, but we have this in game already with the 465.

    Obviously the end goal would be to have accurate (or as close as possible) stock running real life timetables throughout but that may well be a pipe dream
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  7. Task

    Task Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2020
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    692
    So I don't mind getting no new services at all for a new loco dlc. I just have another problem with this: When the loco dlc comes later, in most cases it doesn't work without problems with the existing services.

    SEHS is a good example there: The 465 strangely doesn't appear in that many situations. I would like to have that loco dlc I bought to substitute in 100% of the situation (if realistic, when the rolling stock is shared for the services, it's completely fine).

    Also there is the problem of substitution only working when there is the same number of vehicles. This makes it impossible to replace the BR 406 on DRA with the realistic ICE T later until you rework the substitution system.

    When there wouldn't be those two problems, I would be completely fine with placeholder trains for these services. As long as they make sense (similar top speed, acceleration, general type of train, realistic operator etc).
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 5
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  8. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    5,273
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    I voted for busiest; however the best implementation would be to do this in conjunction with "layering priority" which I have mentioned elsewhere: use an incorrect train if there's nothing else (i.e. the ICE3M in Dresden), but code the game so that if the correct train exists in the user's collection, from another route or loco DLC, then the game will automatically give that train priority and spawn it instead (e.g. if the ICE-T were to be released). Similarly the Class 465 in SEHS, or the BR 423 in SKA (much needed there).
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 4
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  9. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    5,273
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    I would add that if Livery Designer 2.0 includes a much-needed selection interface, something like checkboxes where the player can choose which liveries will and will not appear, then bringing trains from the wrong TOC even in the UK or US would not be such a bad thing, since users can come up with proper liveries for the route.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. LeadCatcher

    LeadCatcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,014
    Likes Received:
    2,377
    I want realism ... If the proper locomotive, EMU or DMU isn't available for a service - do not include the service.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  11. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    5,273
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Even in that case, I would recommend making a "shadow layer" so that if that train does come to exist, its timetable is there waiting for it. Apparently this has been done for the Acela in NEC Boston.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 3
  12. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    5,273
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    BTW, since we have your ear- although it's completely unrelated - passenger timetables should be based on both the RL departure and arrival times, rather than what appears to be the current system, departure time + however long it takes an AI train to get there (always unrealistically quickly).
     
    • Like Like x 5
  13. mattwild55

    mattwild55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    422
    I went for the second option. Using BML as an example:

    - I would like to see all the Southern metro services included, even if that means that services that in real life are operated by a 455 or 377/6 etc. are instead operated by a 377/4. Critical to achieving that 'busy' feel to the London area but having the right TOC is important.

    - However I think it would be a bit weird if we were to use Gatwick Express 387s in place of the Thameslink services - the ideal short-term solution to this (assuming that licensing is a hurdle already cleared) that you would include a Thameslink livery for the 387 and operate the services with those. This layer could then operate on a substitution basis with any future Class 700 DLC. Also adds a good opportunity for frequent stopping services with the 387 that we may miss if it's only GatEx fast services.

    - Outside of this, I'd rather keep the slot empty in the timetable for a potential Thameslink DLC but ONLY if one is planned and coming - I'd hate for there to be a permanent gap in the timetable and we end up with stations like Salfords being hardly utilised.

    - Likewise I think it would be odd to have London Overground services represented by a Southern 377, or Southern services as AI going in/out of the Southeastern side of Victoria
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 9
  14. pacificorca#1435

    pacificorca#1435 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2021
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    116
    I think volume of services is a big thing for me as I want to feel like when I arrive at a major station I'm not the only train there. Boston got that absolutely right in my mind, especially by using all the available platforms - there's some weird AI behavior but I get the sense signals may be the culprit rather than timetables. Stock accuracy within reason isn't a huge deal for me, as long as its a plausible situation.

    One big priority for me would be finding ways of switching up routing whether that's through "go via" instructions or otherwise. For example on Koln-Aachen with layers I find that driving the ICE towards Koln I often end up stuck at a red signal at Ehrenfield due to trains ahead of me that make me late into Koln. Having multiple routings would at least help avoid those situations.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  15. DTG Michael

    DTG Michael New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    6
    Just to follow up on this thread...
    As a team, we're thinking about all routes going ahead, in the main regions we cover; US, Germany and the UK.
    Keep this in mind when thinking about what you'd like to see included in the service timetable.
    Looking forward to seeing what we can accomplish in the near future.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  16. mclitke

    mclitke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2020
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    2,727
    I had trouble making a pick here since my personal optimal view is not reflected (or I misunderstood the meaning of each choice).
    Essentially I would like to make the following points:
    1. As long as tech and performance allow it, more services is great. For me, not necessarily for the amount of services I can play, but the amount I encounter on my way.
    2. I know overall feedback on SEHS was that it felt less worth to "just" get a train set and no services with the pack according to Matt, but I don't feel this way. Let's have the services be substituted by a train that is seen on the route and that fulfills similar tasks. Solicitr said it as well, how it was handled with SEHS was good imo. You had the services already but could enhance your gameplay with the correct stock. This way the route felt more alive from the get go, and if you were not willing to get the extra trainset for whatever reason, you would not be missing much of the gameplay and overall busy(ier) feeling. This seems to be pick 2 but I am not knowledgeable enough regarding the TOCs of the train sets here.
    3. Having some ICE train on Dresden rather than no one, since the correct model has not been made yet, feels to me like the perfect middle ground. That fits pick no. 2.
    4.since we don't have any American high speed train, it made sense that on Boston there is space for such a layer, but no train using them so far. I wouldn't be happy with them filled with any available train that does not fulfill their role, even if in this case AMTRAK operates them. So since we have the city sprinter from AMTRAK, using it for acela services would not feel right (and is possibly contradicting the performance ability as well) This is leaning to pick 2 but then again it's not...

    Hopefully you get what I am aiming at here. Generally I would say the way it is done so far seems to be working quite well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    6,591
    Likes Received:
    6,024
    OK then, here's what I would REALLY like.
    I would like it that rather than working on a single line approach that DTG would work on a single terminus approach, and then populate that terminus with several lines out of it, with appropriate stock
    Take the current line of Brighton.

    DTG have made ECW and plan on the 313 as a DLC
    They're now making the BML and could add in the 455 as a DLC
    They could then make the WCW and add in a 158 or some other DLC that runs on that route
    (and of course if / when / please god you get a license for a 700 this would work on all three routes)

    This would make a network, fully populated working out of Brighton

    Then you pick somewhere else, maybe Carlisle or Newcastle or Norwich and populate that
    By the time you have a few "centers" you then have the stock to go for bigger cities like Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool and REALLY have a good go at making an alive playable train world

    Apply that logic to US and DE routes also.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. Lamplight

    Lamplight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    In my humble opinion, the problem is that this should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

    On incorrect rolling stock to fill up timetables
    The examples on everyone's mind are probably Riesa-Dresden and Boston Sprinter. I think both routes handled the matter with the best possible compromise. Since the ICE-T has not been developed, it's a good idea to use the incorrect ICE to still represent the trafiic added by ICEs to my mind. This bit of unrealism is prefectly acceptable to me.
    Using top/tail ACS-64s to substitute Acelas would have been a bad call to my mind. The rolling stock does not remotely represent Acelas and the perfromance is not comparable. This is exactly what I mean by case-to-case basis. It really depends on the context and is not so easy to answer.
    On loco DLC adding/not adding services
    Generally, I like new toys, so to say. Getting new services with a loco DLC is nice. But this should not lead to the base experience being degraded. For example, I think it was a good call to have the baby bullet services on Peninsula Corridor even though the baby bullet DLC came later.​

    Conclusion
    Honestly, my conclusion is that I have no conclusion. I stand by saying that these things sould be decided on a case-by-case basis and not on general principle along the lines of loco DLC has to ship with new services.​
     
    • Like Like x 13
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  19. AhhCaffeine

    AhhCaffeine Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2021
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    32
    I voted for the second option. However, I don't understand the difference between 2 & 3, in both cases, trains that don't run IRL there would run on the line, right? If we're talking about "whatever the route has", does it mean that people that don't have any layering DLC would get the same amount of services since the included rolling stock just substitutes trains running IRL there? And therefore the second option would layer rolling stock from other DLC that operates there IRL? hmmm
     
  20. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    6,591
    Likes Received:
    6,024
    for me 2 means "use incorrect trains, but sort of accurate in that the companies match" and 3 means "I don't care what they are, just run the darn things"

    so like SEHS they subbed the 700s for 375s (which don't run to Gravesend at all) and then with 465s (which used to but don't any more) so that fills number 2
    But they could have just run class 101s to make the time table work (option 3)
     
    • Like Like x 6
  21. FD1003

    FD1003 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    2,990
    I could only give an answer on a case to case basis. I've gone with the correct TOC in the poll but generally I believe the correct train type is more important, for example:

    -On SKA, in my opinion the Munich BR423 should be available as a substitution to the Rhein Ruhr BR422, so you can choose between correct train and correct TOC.
    -On RRO, it could be argued the Leipzig S-Bahn Talent 2 should have been used as a Regional Express Talent 2 instead of the BR422, although it would definitely look out of place.

    So I'd say add everything you can if it stays reasonably realistic, TOC doesn't matter as much as train type IMO (as long as it doesn't look completely out of place like a RT Talent 2 would in RRO), and please, if possible set everything up so that if in the future a more appropriate train is releases (I.e. the SKA Talent 2 for RRO or the 423 for SKA) it's possible to arrange a substitution.

    Also stuff like the SE Class 465 in place of Thameslink Class 700s is fine, but again, if a Class 700 will be released, let us substitute it.

    Also while it might sounds stupid, you can kind if "feel" if a train looks completely out of place... some unrealistic trains could be fine while other would just look ridiculous... again difficult to tell without knowing the exact details.

    Non tilting trainsets in place of tilting ones would be a big no-no if the route has different speed limits for tilting vs conventional. Also I'm not sure if I would like a BR101 traditional IC in place of an IC2 (the one with the DoStos + BR146)...

    Thanks for asking our feedback, I appreciate it :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
    • Like Like x 2
  22. stujoy

    stujoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2019
    Messages:
    4,162
    Likes Received:
    10,373
    A full timetable with every train required would be the dream - lots of layers from existing trains.
    If loco DLC is planned to come later then miss those services out and include them with that DLC.
    If no loco DLC is planned and something else suitable can substitute then a judgement call needs to be made but I have no problem with it being a near enough match for the extra services it provides.
    If there is nothing suitable at all, leave it out.

    I know there’s a balance to what the included trains provide and what layers use other DLC as well but each case is different. There’s so much German content now that substitutions that people want are being left out. People definitely want full routes but some people really don’t like the wrong DMU being used for example. As every train can’t possibly be made, some compromises are needed. Fuller routes are going to please more people I think.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  23. animatiker

    animatiker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2020
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    38
    Well, as a German player, I am quite used to incorrect substitutions.
    Most (in)famous example is the 422 on SKA, but there a lot of others, like the RBs on MSB with 146+Dostos (425 at that time in reality), the 425 on HMA (should be 440), the 143 on the RE7 services on RRO (should be 112) or the way too often used low-entry Dostos (wrong on RSN, HRR, RRO, SKA, HMA, HBK). The often used 146.2 was never used on HRR, RRO and SKA, too, as North-Rhine Westphalia only had 146.0, 146.1 or 146.3 (which are numbered from 146 25x onwards but still a different subclass than the omnipresent 146.2 in TSW).

    But in fact it doesn't bother me that much, because I'd rather have a few wrong trains (if it's not too far apart) than an empty timetable. I would like to see a substitution when having the right trains as solicitr mentioned, though. I have HMA, so the 422s on SKA should be 423s instead and when at one day high-entry Dostos may come to TSW, I would like to see the low-entry ones on the NRW routes substituted.

    More annoying than wrong trains is the fact that especially rush hour services are often completely missing on German routes. Mostly it's the same service pattern each hour during daytime in TSW. In reality, SKA for example has some interesting rush hour RE1 services with different stopping patterns (just stopping at Stolberg, Düren and Ehrenfeld), which would provide some kind of variety if added to the route. On HRR services just running east of Essen are completely missing, although there are quite a few. RE16 and RB40 run both hourly from Essen to Bochum and further towards Hagen and used 425s before they became Abellio, the S1 runs every 15 minutes between Essen and Dortmund in the daytime and not just every 30 minutes. The extra trains use the same 422s, so there should have been no reason to not include them... The part between Essen and Bochum just feels empty on the route.
     
    • Like Like x 10
  24. Wolfovizer

    Wolfovizer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2020
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    383
    This sums up what I think perfectly :)
     
    • Like Like x 4
  25. lcyrrjp

    lcyrrjp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    131
    I'd rather have a full timetable in the base route, with the closest available train used where the correct one isn't available.

    This isn't because I need lots of trains to drive, but because the other trains create a greater chance of signal checks, and therefore greater variety and realism.

    I'd still buy any new train DLC for the route, partly for something different to drive, but also to add visual variety - but having extra schedules with the DLC is of no interest to me - better to have them included in the original route. Those who don't want to drive them with incorrect stock are under no obligation to do so (although admittedly, they do have to look at them!)

    One solution would be to give an option to have invisible trains on the schedules for which the correct train is not available. That way the invisible train would still create the realistic signal checks, but those who didn't want to see the incorrect stock, wouldn't have to.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Monder

    Monder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,553
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Maybe a good way to go could be a combination of the approaches mentioned.

    So my idea would be - have a full timetable, whatever goes there and you can use freight to fill some big gaps (and night) as those don't have a fixed timetable (at least normal people don't see it). But what about new DLCs? Well, you could do it so that services that could be replaced by potential new trains are AI only on release and get unlocked when the DLC releases and replaces them.

    So let's say NEC: BP has those about 20 Acela services using ACS-64s, but it is only AI. Then Acela gets released, you buy it, it replaces all of these and they become playable. Everyone can enjoy a busy looking route AND buyers of Acela get new services to play.

    If you have TOCs that can never be represented, you don't have weird gaps in the timetable. Now GCC might be an interesting case, where you have used all the units available and no others can really be there. At that point, I guess what we have is the best we can have now and when more Scottish content gets made, it can appear as AI back here.

    Might be weird, but let's call it food for thought.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but since 4.26 I've started bumping into 465s a lot more, so I think it's fixed. It's a nice split between 375s and 465s on regional services.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  27. cloudyskies21

    cloudyskies21 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2021
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    657
    I just want to say thank you for taking the time to listen to feedback, this is very much appreciated.

    I vote for option 2, busier timetables have been, for the most part, lacking in a lot of the routes from both a player and especially AI train perspective. I fully agree that for busy routes to be created, that all services where possible should be included, meaning that the locos we have could be subbed in (obviously the subbed in loco has to be the right TOC and has to already run on the real-life route).

    My main point that I have argued is that if you leave gaps in the timetable for 'potential' DLC, what happens if they are never made? Thus I think this is a slightly flawed approach, hence why a busy timetable should be implemented from the start with subbed locos we know we already have. Plus, it gives people an opportunity for those who might not be able to afford to buy all DLCs to experience a route's full potential timetable-wise.

    A prime example is the upcoming BML route. Undoubtedly, the main characteristic of this route is how busy it is in real life. Obviously, if you have Southern services replicated to those operated by just the 377/4 to what they run in real life, a whole chunk of the timetable would be missing for those operated by the five-car 377/6 and /7, as well as the Class 455 for example (namely a majority of Metro services which is critical for the London-end of the route).

    You have to also take into account that there might not be enough time for similar locos to be made or warrant demand in the future. For example, just for BML alone, the DLC you'd have to release would include all the 377 sub-classes (/1, /2, /3, /6 and /7), and the 455. Thus, to reiterate, using the Class 377/4 we already have to sub all the services operated by the aforementioned from day one is the only way to experience busy routes like BML as per reality - and what is achievable from DTG's end regarding how long it takes to make DLC.

    Then, if you were to include Thameslink as well, you have the eight and 12-car Class 700s to think about.

    I strongly agree with these points.

    I just want to make a final point. I've thoroughly enjoyed Boston Sprinter, the traffic at Boston South is exactly what is needed. However, the majority of the remaining route feels emptier (especially Providence) and could have done with an option to have had the ACS-64 used on all the missing Acela services.

    Some people argue that they would rather have gaps in the timetable to be used by only the exact loco as it's realistic, but surely having an emptier route represented is not realistic, especially if the said route is actually very busy in real life?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  28. FeralKitty

    FeralKitty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2020
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    800
    Matt, when asked on the most recent roadmap about Xbox layers, mentioned that if all the services couldn't fit into memory (on the older consoles), that they might have to split up the timetable as a last resort. Players would then choose which particular timetable they wanted to play.

    That doesn't sound ideal.

    I'd like a full timetable too, in the base route. But if they add more services later on for a new DLC loco, it may become inconvenient if a timetable then had to be broken up due to memory constraints.
     
  29. Krazy

    Krazy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2020
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    418
    I was thinking exactly this! I was thinking about something like this for the Brighton Mainline, where the Thameslink services that run all over the route are AI services represented with Class 377s, and then if any Thameslink add-on were to be released in the future, then all the Electrostars are replaced with the Thameslink trains, and those services become playable.

    I think it’s a nice balance, as we still get the busyness of the route, while still having those services be brand new gameplay for a loco add-on
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. redrev1917

    redrev1917 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2021
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    552
    My preference would be for a timetable to have random events thrown in from time to time, so no 2 runs are guaranteed to be the same. If DTG could figure out the way to get that into the game I'd be a very happy man
     
    • Like Like x 5
  31. delucadomenico2009

    delucadomenico2009 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2020
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    140
    I have chosen 2

    However it really depends.
    First one, i think that the most important thing is chose the right route with a good amount of services (on 70/80km of route minimum 250 services). Second the number of rolling stock and operators that runs on it. It is easy to understand more rolling stocks -> more work and more operators -> more license. However let's back to the topic.
    A busier timetable is the best option, everyone wants to see trains that run up and down on the route. For the accuration of it i say that an 80% can be perfect. Just put in every service that is possible. Than fullfil it with depot, shutting, freight, waiting post, changeover loco and locos/power dispatch (exemple 2/3 br185 with 1 or 2 wagons maximum. In italy we call them LIS). Continue to fullfil yards with wagons just like decoration too, and increase the number of depot operations. About rolling stock, i'm agree with someothers here. You can use the "wrong type" of the train only if it is very very similar to the original, like ice3m in exchange of ice-t on dresden dlc. However at the moment we have (expetially for german route) a lot of variery of trains for every kind of service so it is easy to say that the most important thing is to layer and make them playable them where is possible. Also as a driver in real life i want to say to DTG (and third party studios too) the key of variety in every route have a name. And it is freight. Just take a look to MSB route. Freight can make a lot of service and they can worked whit shunter too, also the can create some occasion where you arrive in X station and need to wait for a faster train to overtake you or maybe create a parallel run (i know this is a dream). About IA train, yes they are a good add-on to make the route much interesting, just like south boston. In short, i don't want to see another hamburg-lubeck where the route is good but it feels really dead. However just finished to try riesa-dresden and i just want to say thanks to all of you, and hope that will be expanded with dlc, layers and maybe some other branch (or a new part too).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Stephen Crofts

    Stephen Crofts Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2020
    Messages:
    620
    Likes Received:
    650
    I would like to see the timetable filled out with the available stock to stay busy and interesting from the outset.

    If a loco dlc then comes out that would have naturally been doing some of those runs I am not troubled by that.

    TVL did that with the class 20 quite a bit, (although I think it did also add some new runs) and the difference in behaviour by the loco itself is enough to make those repeated runs unique and different enough. Combined with the new ability to choose the month of the run and there is enough variation to repeat runs and keep the interest.

    With SEHS and the class 465 not providing extra services but subbing in, for me I think the issue was much more the short length of run that was available to it rather than it reusing services from the class 377.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  33. lcyrrjp

    lcyrrjp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    131
    Absolutely. This would transform the game. It doesn’t have to be major events. Just a degree of randomisation of station dwell times would be enough to put trains in slightly different positions and therefore make every run different.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  34. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    651
    I don’t want a timetable that is busier than IRL, but I don’t want it to be more quiet than IRL either.

    To me, it seems as if we are comparing two forms of realism:
    1. Visual realism (all trains visible are those that can be seen on the route IRL)

    2. Traffic intensity realism (are there an equal or close to equal number of trains running on the route compared to IRL with corresponding signal aspects due to congestion or lack there of?)

    For me the latter is much more important as long as the trains used are reasonably accurate.
    So I’d take option two or three in the poll if “busier” means more close to IRL rather than busier than IRL.

    EDIT: I made the distinction above because of the title. If the timetable only has half of the number of trains that the real world timetable does but each featured train is the correct one, can the timetable actually be said to be accurate? Is it more accurate than a timetable that has the same intensity as the real timetable but with slightly incorrect trains?
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  35. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    5,273
    Likes Received:
    7,526
    Not technically possible at present. For now, the dispatcher can barely cope with trains running to schedule.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. lcyrrjp

    lcyrrjp Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    131
    If the train I’m driving runs late, it deals with it fine. People also set up ‘chaos runs’ where they deliberately delay trains, and it deals with that too. Why not a minute or two of lateness due to dwell time variation?
     
  37. bluetiger#2496

    bluetiger#2496 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2021
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    25
    I love the idea of a busier timetable, and as long as it looks reasonably correct to me I'm not that concerned about it. On the other hand, I'm unlikely to buy loco DLCs that don't add any new services, so I do think that space in the timetable should be left free if you intend to make loco DLCs for the route.
     
  38. Perks390

    Perks390 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    120
    Whilst not entirely related to the question, what I'd like to see in timetables is the doors staying open at terminal stations and on handover from player to AI and AI to player. Like they do in East Coastway, for example. Currently, in Dresden they the AI opens them and then closes them and then the player has to do the same when they take over a service whilst on foot.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    • Like Like x 3
  39. Joethefish

    Joethefish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    428
    Hamburg to Lübeck also supports that and I'll continue that going forward.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
    • Like Like x 3
  40. Task

    Task Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2020
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    692
    It‘s pretty sad Dresden - Riesa is such a step back then timetable wise.
     

Share This Page