Discussion in 'Route Suggestions & Proposals' started by rare_common_sense, Feb 1, 2018.
Either one, I’m excited for any details we can get!
I just hope that if they do it, they do it on TS and not TSW, especially after seeing the absolute mess they released yesterday. I don't really trust them doing routes in TSW anymore.
Well as many have stated this important fact before, TSW is extremely young so DTG will hopefully get better as they’ve done with TS. The same thing happened with TS while it was in its infancy, but everyone has just forgotten because that was quite a long time ago. It takes time and we obviously won’t get the Montauk Branch (115 miles), but we can see the Long Beach Branch (25 miles) or maybe later on the Port Jefferson branch (60 miles). But I’ll take any LIRR I can get, TS or TSW alike.
very nice. how you do that????
I didn’t. Someone else did. But they never finished/released it.
So, having thought a bit about this route.. I had realized that although the overrunning 3rd rail assets used for the LIRR were created in the New York New Haven route, that it would be a shame for it not to be put to good use. Although in the NYNH’s Penn station and the East River Tunnels.. the MNRR’s under running 3rd is incorrectly put in, when it should have been overrunning. Just outside of that it is correctly implemented from the portals and Long Island City to Woodside station.
Just throwing out there in hopes that if this route is to ever be done for TS, this this will be corrected. But, overall, those assets shouldn’t go to waste, and be the primary source of power for the LIRRs electric equipment/territory.
You don’t know how many times I’ve stressed that my friend! That is one of the primary reasons on why I don’t want an LIRR route to be an extension to the NYNH route, more of a stand-alone. Their is also lots of reworks that need to be done for all of the trackage DTG did for realism purposes like the Woodside station and Long Island City as well.
Well, undoubtedly if it were to be done as an extension they could still rework that part of the route and then expand it from there.
I'm a bit late to this part, but i'm more or less also for having this be as a standalone, mainly because of the fact DTG would more than likely have to redo Penn Station to get West Side Yard in, since it's been omitted in like every other variation of Penn currently in TS...
Standalone, Merged. However it comes, it needs to be done, and especially for TS. TSW would be nice, but I don't see it getting done with the desired length that many of us are accustomed to expect in TS.
Agreed rare_common_sense. LIRR needs to be done, i would prefer it in TSW but TS18 needs it as well because of how long we haven’t gotten it in TS18’s lifetime. Plus if we got it for TS18 we could pull something like the Port Jefferson or Ronkonkoma branches whilst in TSW, we’d most likely only get the Hempstead branch or the Long Beach Branch. Either way, we need to see it done!
In TSW we'd probably only get Penn to Jamaica.
Umm... no. That may be a funny joke but the reality is if DTG were to do that, they might as well not do the LIRR at all. I stand by what I’ve said before, and only time will tell.
Well as we've all seen in the past, DTG isn't good at making decisions when it comes to TSW. I can really see them pulling something really messed up like that.
Considering DTG cut both the original GWML and Ruhr-Sieg in half to get them into TSW (Can't be bothered with the details of why). Unfortunately we'll just have to wait and see.
Just thinking, I don't really see the ESA (East Side Access) ever being a thing in TS, or in TSW. Considering the fact that the station is so deep (14 stories) below ground. We couldn't even get a lower level for GCT in TS. I know that part of the network isn't anywhere near finished, but even if it were, I doubt it will ever be a thing in-game.
An interesting point nonetheless. I do believe that if LIRR ever comes to TS1/TSW, it’ll be made and not modified (by DTG) unless it’s a workshop extension in the future. ESA has been pushed off for so many years, and now MTA is trying to secure the opening date of December 2022, but we very well know that won’t happen after all the times it’s been pushed off. I don’t understand the whole thing with the lower level of GCT “missing” in TS14, I do hope if GCT is featured in another MN route, that whole area is revamped (including the the addition of the lower level) and will feature more amenities then what we got in NYNH.
The lower level not being included, is because it would complicate things as far as scenario creation. Placement of trains, with overlapping tracks on the upper level. Then there's the problem over whether the camera would even allow you too freely roam the lower level. Path finding on the 2D map would certainly be a different beast altogether.
Personally, I'm not all that concerned for the lack of a lower level, as there is quite a number of tracks implemented in the first place. I would like to see more scenarios where the emerging lower level tracks are being used to give the idea that there are services utilizing it.
If there's ever another route to be made, hopefully, proper gradients are used. And better, proper lighting in the station. As GCT looking like a whole candle lit cave.
I mean, if one were to make the entire station and then using the shadow tools to remove the excess light / rain, it could be plausible. The only issue I would see however would be platforms on other levels that overlap each other on the map. In terms of LIRR GCT then I don't see a point unless it was actually completed. Another thing that I also had a thought about would be how the dark territories would be simulated regarding Ai (yes I know that the remainder of the Montauk was signaled in 2017). Perhaps invisible signals would be used?
That part. It's already complicated with just the one level, with all of the switches. But if they were somehow able to sort of make a way for Lower level diagrams to be separated into, IDK, sub-inset 2D diagrams, if I'm making any sense here.. But talking about the Depth of a project that is ESA, being a whopping 140 (14 Stories) below ground, That's pretty deep. Not to mention it's also going to be a double level station on its own.
You can have one of those drop down bars and click between GCT level one and GCT level two.
That could be a possibility, although I personally think that would require a few core game updates to add that in.
Can any body explain why US routes are not replicated to what they actually look in reality. You can take for example "Altoona" yard. Any body can check the scenary of Altoona on youtube. And every body knows how it looks in "Horse shoe curve" route. Why US routes are so poorly worked out.When we drive in US routes , like HS curve,North Jersy coastline,NS coal district,soldier summit and many more it looks like we driving on a HO scale train model.When people expend their money they want an equal entertainment in return.
Keep in mind that Altoona has had several real-life layout changes since the target era of the 1950s. The most major one was Penn Central's removal of the #3 Main between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, but there have been other changes such as the Altoona Transportation Center replacing the old shed, and the vast majority of the old PRR position light signals being taken down. Case in point - a book I have on the railroad operations of Altoona details what is now CP-SLOPE in the summer of 1980 and the summer of 2000. The black-and-white one is the current alignment.
In my opinion, the DTG-produced US routes are the same level of quality as the German and UK ones. I think that the North Jersey Coast Line one of the better US-based routes they have done, followed up closely by New York-New Haven. My favorite all-time route has to be the Racetrack - Aurora to Chicago though, it has that touch that only a third party creator can give a route.
What is the point in making a route of 1950s environment (when I think freights were run mostly on steam) in 2016 when same route is evolved to a much different look and with modern signalling systems at present.
The point is almost like having a model railroad - you can pick and choose an era that suits you. I myself have a layout set in the mid 1970s with early Conrail and Amtrak loosely based on the line over Horseshoe Curve. It acts almost as a time machine - the route may not exist like it is now, or it may be gone entirely (I'm looking at you, Dr. Beeching) but you can still replicate what it would have looked like in, say, 1965 or in 2005. I like a variety of eras, but I'd kill if someone did a proper Erie Lackawanna route in the 60s with rolling stock to match. There's a ton of people who prefer to run older trains, like Broomwagon or Cat, and Train Simulator allows people to do just that.
Hmm this conversation is getting much off topic... nothing you’re talking about has anything remotely related to LIRR for Train Simulator.
Fair enough, I suppose. More on topic, the LIRR for TSW is something I'm really looking forward to. Hopefully with the creation tools, we can expect to see some more Long Island content from the community.
That would be nice
Well, it appears that they're here, but I'm still unaware, what lines (or segments) are no included in the game?
Port Jefferson,ronkonkoma,Babylon,Port Washington,Greenport,Montauk,west Hempstead and Long Beach.
Now, that an M7 variant has been announced for the upcoming Hudson Line, and even though we have LIRR in TSW.. I think there is still some hope that we can still see this route made for TS. With the fact that they have obviously used the NYC/sunnyside/hellsgate area as a starting point for two standalone routes, who's to say that LIRR for TS isn't a possibility. They've built assets that could very be put to greater use for a possible route going east. They've already got the M7 in both Variants, so it certainly isn't out of their reach to produce such a route, or network that would hopefully be recreated to a larger extent than it was in TSW.
Separate names with a comma.