Route Peak Forest Railway: Ambergate – Chinley & Buxton Feedback Thread

No, you made the fairly unconvincing defense of "well we don't know for sure what locos actually ran something on a given day".

 

Ha, i managed to have a boiler explosion on the 4F , gauge went up to 260psi and the boiler cracked lol. I made a scenario with 16x ici wagons while the vacum cylinders were at atmospheric pressure (no brakes), had to derail it at dunster, not a slight chance to get it stop.

 

Im "almost" sure i didnt do anything wrong lol.

 

Why Have you got unfitted mineral wagons in front of the hoppers?

 

Why does it matter?

 

Because a train would never have been marshalled that way, If fitted wagons were available they would be attached to the engine end to provide more brake force to the train especially on a line with numerous gradients.

 

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." It might be worth remembering that.

It sounds to me as though the two constraints "We will set this route in the early 1960s" and "We will provide only steam traction" were decided on fairly early in development. This combination of decisions automatically limits how authentic the timetable can be, given the extent to which diesel traction was already used in the early 1960s on this route.

In particular, there is no good way of implementing the Buxton to Millers Dale shuttle service without a DMU set included, unless you go to the trouble of also implementing the LMS push-pull set, which had been retired by this date anyway. Another consequence is that it's difficult to maintain schedule on the full-line stopping services, as it simply takes longer to get a steam-hauled train started.

As I said, we are not asking for the exact engine down to the running number. If you did have access to those records, you'd likely find a lot of diesels anyway, and then you'd be stuck with breaking one of the constraints above. We're just asking for a timetable which is plausibly authentic to the route and traction represented. What we currently have doesn't fit the bill, so we're trying to offer constructive suggestions as to how improvements might be achieved.

My suggestion is simply to consult a 1950s (or even 1930s!) timetable for authentic steam-hauled timings, and see if those will fit the 1960s signalling as modelled. Officially repaint the Class 101 DMU as the easiest way of dealing with the shuttle service - okay, different types were actually used, but this is close enough as a compromise. Separately, an expansion pack could provide a full BR Green Diesel experience on the route, with a separate timetable appropriate to the era - and it even brings in a second set of revenue.

 

A separate timetable would probably be a better option. However I hope if it comes, it isn't a diesel only timetable, as steam was still very much about in 1963 especially on many of the goods trains and more local traffic and still turned up on expresses. For me the DMU is the biggest omission.

 

Tea and biscuits…if you survived!

 

If I recall Chapel-en-le-Frith was the scene of a railway accident involving an 8F. Didn't the driver or both crew die as a result of a blowback?

 

Let me direct you to this rather illuminating post by Matt.

Aside from the "you're just going to have to swallow that one" quote, it provides some insight into how the sausage was made, as it were. For one, this:

doesn't seem to be a thing the developers understood. "Yeah, we'll just placeholder it with a steam loco. What, it hasn't worked? But we've decided to omit DMUs already..."
Push-pull also wasn't considered, it seems.
And "now" (how many years has this operation existed, 15?) they have a focus group doing "their own research" earlier.
Fascinating stuff

I disagree. The passenger timetables for 1963 are readily available online and DTG, as far as I can tell from this thread, has the freight ones (they just arrived too late). Why bother recreating something that vaguely looks correct, inferring timings from decades-old tables (who knows what changes to the route and rolling stock were made between 1930 and 1960), when the real thing is right there? Not to mention the potential for mistakes and running into all the scheduling issues that have already been worked out half a century ago by men who knew what they were doing.

 

Yes, I think it is an unconvincing argument to say "we can't know precisely what ran a service on a particular day, therefore we can run anything and it'll be just as plausible as the timed motive power", especially when we are dealing with a timetable not intended to represent one specific day, but rather a period of several months at the minimum. One can definitely say with some degree of certainty "these were the locomotive classes that usually operated that service during the specific time period".

 

That was just a test, wanted to see if dtg implemented the vacuum system well. Obviously nobody would shunt like this a consist of 16 loaded hoppers.

 

This is the only accident reported at that location: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=112

The initial cause of the accident was the failure of a joint in the pipe leading to the driver's steam brake valve of the Buxton to Arpley train engine. This occurred about one and a half miles from Buxton and not far from the place where the driver would have stopped to pin down wagon brakes before descending the incline to Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge. The fracture not only put the braking system on the engine out of action but also filled the cab with scalding steam. With great bravery and determination the enginemen, after repeated efforts, managed to get the regulator partly closed and to apply the hand brake on the tender, but by this time the front of the train had reached the summit and it could not be stopped. Driver Axon, who was in charge, told his fireman to jump clear and apply the wagon brakes, hut in spite of this prompt action the train gathered speed. Driver Axon, however, remained at his post to give warning to the signalman that the train was running away, and in the hope of regaining control on a more favourable gradient. Before this was reached the collision occurred, and I regret to report that Driver Axon and the guard of the Rowsley freight train were killed; the enginemen of this train and the guard of the Buxton train, although badly shaken, were uninjured.​

Based on other parts of the report, this appears to have been on the ex-LNWR line, at Chapel-en-le-Frith South rather than Central.

 

In my day you were only offered the opportunity to get a coffee from the machine

And if you weren't even offered that, you knew it was serious

 

Huh! In My day we had to bring our own tea bag and had to beg for the loan of a mug.

 

It is basically how I understood it, too - especially with your pushback against more moderate suggestions.

If you do have a more nuanced position, then perhaps you should express it more clearly, so that it is more easily understood.

 

Still think much of the timetable angst could have been avoided if DTG had bitten the bullet and, 1. Gone through to the logical start and termination point at Derby and 2. Given us green diesels to run on the route, with a Class 45 and ideally a new 104 or as a last resort a 101 with reskin and retro interior.

 

I was always told that if the boss starts being nice to you, be worried!

 

People moan that DTG staffers are often silent, you have one participating in this thread, which so far I have found interesting. I don't think being bolshy towards one is constructive.

 

Personally I am kind of hoping for all that to come out In a new DLC as an extension pack which I would gladly pay for.

 

Indeed. Not sure what the guy's name is but from what I've seen of the signalling on PFR, he is to that what Joe is to intensive timetables!

 

I feel I am being polite, I'm just pushing back on a defense for the timetable I find unconvincing.

 

Let's take this point-by-point, shall we?

You were in an argument. Of course that was a defence.

Not "never." The finishing point is an accurate timetable. That's not been reached. So naturally, criticism continues to happen.

Nice work, calling the well-thought-out posts by people who've done nothing but very politely express disappointment, "constant, unrelenting bad faith." Very cool.

This isn't even worth commenting on. Edit: If you think that to be a critic, one must have the same level of skill as the person being critiqued, you deserve the criticism and then some. One does not need to be a carpenter to see if a table is crooked. One does not need to be a fishmonger to notice the bones in a supposedly de-boned filet. One does not need to be a dev to notice the timetable being, as Matt says, lacklustre.

Are you actually the person responsible for this route's timetable or are you here just offering opinions like the rest of us? It's not clear for me, sorry if you said it before.

 

Maybe its time to take a step back, seems to become personal.

 

I presume you were not actually saying that the development team had no idea about what motive power was used.

 

I paid £10,000 to have a boiler installed and all it did was belch out smoke but I couldn't complain to the gas fitters because I don't understand how to install a boiler or do plumbing myself

Criticism of a product is based on an expected end result being unsatisfactory - being able to understand the process to create the product is not a prerequisite to being able to criticise it unless the vendor only permits sales to those who also make the same product.
Bottom line - you take the money for a product and it's not up to an expected standard, anyone who paid that money can criticise it - understanding how the product gets made is not the purchasers problem or requirement, it's the company's - that's why you get paid.
If I pay to get my car fixed and it comes back with the same fault, I don't expect the mechanic to lecture me on how hard it is to fix cars and I can't expect them to do it right because I don't know how to do it myself. And if this is your attitude - I'd like to do all your future car maintenance at Victory Works Garage Ltd!

This argument has gone on a while now but my primary thought on your main statement of "we got the timetables too late" was - Well then you should have delayed the release! That was the correct solution to produce what was expected from the customers. Coming in after the fact and trying to use that as a justification for not doing the job "right" is not a shield from criticism, it's a revelation that the company is going to push the product out whether it's ready or not. Which sadly won't surprise many people here.

 

Amen. Fantastic post.

I fear this is a pervading attitude at DTG, I’ve been wracking my brains and I genuinely can’t think I’ve ever experienced this attitude from a company before, in public at least. It’s beyond clear (not just from this thread) that someone at DTG sets a release date for a product and the product gets released on that date irrespective of the state it’s in. I’ve always believed the developers themselves must hate working in that environment, but this thread would suggest that they’ve bought into this method of operating and see it as normal.

I actually think this product is pretty good. The timetable isn’t great, the lack of diesels isn’t great, there are still issues with the lighting (both environmental and time of day) and the steam physics still need work but as far as recent releases go it’s probably the best. This method of operating though is most definitely not normal. As I’ve already said, it’s not the customers place to give two hoots how tricky it was for a product they’ve purchased to be made. It’s even more bizarre that they are getting chastised for querying the fact that the product they’ve bought does not match the marketing / advertising that accompanied it. It’s another step again that they can’t get a refund for that product if they feel it falls short. I can’t help but feel the lack of a refund option and this methodology of releasing software are somehow coincident.

 

I'm not saying this to excuse anything on DTG's side, only to point out that this is literally how every development in the games industry works: somebody sets a release date (the powers that be at the publisher side) and the product gets released no matter what state it's in. It's the exception rather than the rule for a game to get delayed because these days it can be patched. But that's where developments can vary greatly: whether they get patched at all, and if so how quickly.

I'm not sure whether individual developers hate that environment. Not when it's the norm, to be expected.

Funnily enough my brother has just messaged me to say that the current build of their game is locked in from tonight, even if they already have improvements in the background. Not even the directors (of their dev studio) can override it.

 

That’s the thing, once you’ve bought it you’re stuffed and can’t get your money back. It’s bonkers when you think of it. I think it encourages this behaviour because the studios know they’re all but bulletproof.

There are developers out there (the main ones I can think of are MSFS focussed) who release polished products and follow it up with an avalanche of fixes and free improvements. There are bigger developers out there doing the same thing too.

Anyway, I’ve got to be honest, there being no freight timetable in Peak because ‘we didn’t get them in time’ is a complete failure in planning and preparation. Someone needs to nail the 7 P’s to the wall in the DTG office in nice big letters as a constant reminder.

 

There's a well-known truism in software development, which applies equally to games: 80% of the work takes 80% of the time. The other 20% of the work takes the other 80% of the time.

The practical upshot is that it's usually worth budgeting as much time for testing, fixing, and general polishing as was budgeted for primary development. I would actually go a bit further and suggest that the same developers plan to spend a third such period after release day on post-release patches, now that such things are routinely feasible in terms of distribution - because players routinely find things that bother them which were missed during the normal testing cycle. Only after that additional period should it be assumed that this team becomes available for a subsequent project.

 

SeventeenF sorry for the late comment but I got caught up in something else so have only just finished the deep freeze scenario. It took me an hour and five minutes and that was me doing 25 and a bit mph (I didn't exceed 35) so if I had been stricter on speed an hour and twenty minutes does seem reasonable. I do agree with what you said about there being more guidance in the HUD with speed limits and I would imagine some people would find one with guidance on headcodes useful too. Anyhow I won't babble on anymore and I'd be rather interested in how long it took you.

Also I mangaed to catch the distant, even through the snowy window, so didn't have a disater there luckily!

 

It would be nice to think some change in processes will come from this, particularly as evident from their own employee’s dissatisfaction (reading between the lines), the whole process is flawed - from the initial concept making it a sawn off steam route only, then the rush to release. However I also agree with VictoryWorks that getting niggled with customer feedback, mostly constructive, is not the way to go either and I would imagine the PR department might be having a few words about how to communicate in a payware environment.

 

Unfortunately, people on here just can’t help themselves as usual.

DTG are moaned at due to no staff presence responding to feedback.

Good enough, MRFS offers some really good explanations, which results in attacks by members. Some people might have thought they were blunt, but they’ve been honest and offered genuine explanations.

It’s pointless arguing about the lack of diesels because it was never promised in the first place, now hopefully they do get added. But people are getting wound up over something that was never advertised.

I took a leap of faith and bought the route, Steam isn’t my thing at all, but I’ve really enjoyed this route. Now from watching the preview stream, I knew exactly what I was buying.

The timetable is indeed lacklustre but I saw this on the stream and I knew there were no diesels on the route, so it’s not like I’ve bought the route and all this was missing.

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging DTG and asking why this is the case. But we’ve had our explanation, take it as face value, MRFS has explained, accept it. There’s no point targeting them after being good enough to respond in the first place.

But that’s all just guesswork at the end of the day, these decisions are made at Senior Manager / Director level, so why take it out on the developers.

If that’s the way they have the work that’s not their fault is it, is it that easy to speak out, no of course it isn’t, like any company these decisions are made way above, and you either like it, get on with it or find another job.

As usual, we’ve gone beyond constructive criticism, to getting personal.

I wouldn’t blame DTG, for more radio silence in future, there really are some people that need to take a look at their attitude on here. If people are so so dissatisfied with how DTG works and the resultant DLC that comes with, that results in comments like we’ve seen on here, it’s time to stop funding that process then.

 

This is an absurd argument.

Who says I buy TSW content anymore?

 

How is it an absurd argument? I’ve found MRFS, to be nothing but transparent on this thread, they’ve offered their explanations, to the burning questions.

If people still aren’t happy fair enough, but why take it out the developer. You might not like the answers they’ve given as to why there were no diesels, a lack of timetabled services, but they are the answers and we take it in good faith as to the fact those reasons are accurate.

Otherwise, it’s pointless asking such questions, if there’s a general mistrust of the answer you’re going to get given’

If you don’t buy TSW content, then why get embroiled on a thread like this then? Pointless.

 

Seems to me like to many people want to shoot the messenger when said messenger imparts information that is unwelcome.

 

I respect what MRFS has to say and as I noted earlier the guy is obviously a whizz when it comes to the signalling side of things. However it is not entirely clear whether he is posting in an official, semiofficial or personal capacity and other than a forum username we have no idea who they are. Pete/VictoryWorks, who is an established and respected developer himself, called this right - you don’t do the dirty washing in public and no matter how much the criticism, most of which has been constructive, you don’t start throwing back excuses at the buying public.

PFR is indeed good, warts and all and if it hadn’t been for yesterday’s botched patch completely brea king the game, I would have been back in there playing Friday evening.

And yes we are quite entitled to suggest the route could have been so much better if it had gone to Derby and incorporated the proper mix of steam and diesel traction appropriate to the era. Otherwise how else will DTG learn what customer expectations are for future products.

 

Agreed.

However, like I’ve said MRFS has offered the explanations, some very good detailed ones so therefore what is the point of the community basically saying

“Well that’s not true is it”

So what was the point in asking if you don’t trust the answer, you might not like the answer which is more than fair enough.

I feel like if anything we need to see engagement from those a lot higher (senior manager/director level) within DTG/Focus as to the reasons given, that would be the ideal thing to be honest, but even I doubt that will happen.

 

Just to be clear, I’m not taking things out on anyone and I’m not being personal. I’ve not addressed MSRS directly at all. I’m not concerned with the major thrust of this discussion, the people having it are discussing something I know nothing of. I’m pleased the discussion is being had because it demonstrates that DTG are at least looking at this stuff, and even though the intricacies of 1960’s Semaphore signalling is not in my wheelhouse I’m all for as much realism as possible.

However, I will take issue with being told yet again ‘we ran out of time’, ‘developing is hard’, ‘the timetables didn’t arrive in time’. I don’t care. If you put the product on sale then it should be as advertised. As I’ve already said, if it isn’t then either fix it or offer a refund. One of these isn’t an option (which is ludicrous in itself) and the other seems to occasionally happen, often happen but only to an extent and sometimes not happen at all.

 

Indeed. No one is doubting the individual professionalism of the people working on these routes, it’s the overall project management that is the issue. Dovetail Flywheel at its best! And if you sign up to work on a commercial project, whether as an employee or an outside agent with a company like Dovetail then you ought to be aware of what you’re getting into, as regards deadlines and cutting corners. I was fortunate in that the two groups I was involved with doing MSTS payware were quite laid back and mostly supportive of everyone’s efforts. But then that was being done in spare time, more as a paid hobby to earn a bit of beer money rather than full time employment. However even I decided eventually that doing payware was not really worth the hassle. And apart from responding to one guy on UKTS who whinged about a missing culvert at Barmouth, I pretty much avoided public discussion directly regarding the project - left that to those at the top.

 

There was absolutely nothing absurd about his argument, like he said the dev has been nothing but transparent with us.

 

Some people on this thread need to have a word with themselves.

Absolutely pathetic behaviour on show, the toxicity from a few members is terrible, constant hecklers, they will always find fault and shout about it from the sidelines.

If I were DTG, I'd be considering the future of these forums.

 

No, I'm sorry, I don't think "we can't know what motive power was actually used on a specific day" was the actual thought process used at DTG.

 

To be fair It's actually true that it was subject to great change what loco was actually used on a given day as opposed to what was rostered' As an example We used to have a job that took oil tanks From Grangemouth oil works to Granton in Edinburgh. Now this was rostered to a Class29 but it was well known that the class29 was not really up to the job of pulling the heavy train up the incline between Falkirk Grahamston and Polmont especially if the tracks were wet which they invariably were in the early morning when this job was timed for. So The class29 was often substituted by a pair of class20s or even a class37 if one was available. So although it was rostered to a particular loco its impossible now to say what type of loco pulled that train on any given day.

 

They weren't really known for being very reliable either I believe and prone to catching fire.