Is it just me who feels like the section between Stafford and Crewe is rather empty? I’ve got all of the main layers enabled, the only things I’ve got switched off are the railtours and 323. Compared to the rest of the route it feels much quieter, does it feel like this in reality? Especially compared to WCMLS which is much busier
Off the top of my head the only other service types missing would be those ran the by the Class 221 which were with Avanti up to last year. You also have to bare in mind on WCMLS you got services which terminate at MK & Tring which probably add to the number of trains you see; trains don’t terminate at Stafford and stopping services are often split between this route and the Trent Valley from Crewe
I’ll be honest I had wondered that myself before. The route has 2500+ services when you add all the AI but as you mentioned that area does feel much less with traffic than towards Birmingham. I’m not familiar with the area so not sure if that’s the way it is irl.
I think a lot of the freight services are missing. The slow lines between Crewe and Stafford should have a lot more freight services as irl.
That is probably true to life. Most Euston to Manchester and vv services diverge or join the route at Norton Bridge as they run via Stoke and Macclesfield, not Crewe. So while there are more trains than (say) in the early 80’s as you didn’t have any of the local services running on from Wolves or Stafford to Crewe, it’s far less intensive than further south. And as noted above, freight seems largely absent from the timetable.
Typical of TSW routes to omit freight. New York- Trenton would have been much better with the freight component left in. I wonder if this will be the case with NY- Stamford. On the other hand MVL will apparently include freight services which is one reason I'll probably buy it.
Freights amiss but as Vern said, LNR & AWC split a fair bit of traffic off to Stoke. I think the current traffic IRL averages at about 1 train every 10-15 minutes on that section (in each direction), not sure how that compares to 2019 but given you only spend around 20 minutes on that section in game, you’re only really going to see a couple of AI.
‼️ Couldn't agree more. IRL I love looking at the freight cars parked along the NEC when I take those trains from Philadelphia to NY and beyond.
I think DTG does not consider freight layers important because a majority of players prefer to drive passenger trains. Thats a mistake, because even the players that only drive passenger trains want to see varied freight traffic as AI in their services.
The players who want to drive only passenger trains are making a mistake as well, tbh. Get to do a lot more yellow following in freights.
As I said in a different thread, I hope all third parties can get along and not fall out with each other, because at the end of the day, it's just us who end up suffering
This is semi related to this thread but also works in a few others. Why do they not offer a Sunday timetable? So many more possibilities, you could run all trains on the slow lines, run over a few crossovers that you perhaps wouldn’t otherwise. Also, it would make the lack or AI traffic a bit more understandable. I know I’ve said this about WCML South, where it would also make sense. A lot of other routes would benefit from some Sunday engineering work timetables as well.
As we've continually maintained, we are happy to work with anyone. Indeed the 90 is collaboration project with two other developers already. I don't see why we would object to the 90 being layered in should that request come our way.
You could also have engineering trains going in and out of T3 possessions, albeit DTG would need to scrutinise the Rule Book more closely than they did for TSR's and ESR's. You could also have single line working, stopping to pick up and set down the pilotman (or being sent) and even setting back through crossovers before running "bang road".
Many possibilities. But start at the basic level, plenty of P’way to blow up, Stop boards, and various unusual or less common crossovers.
