Route Hopping Has Added A Lot Of Potential To Extend Routes

During the Direct, DTG announced a route hopping feature to the game, where you can seamlessly join up with the same stations at different routes. This feature is going to come in very handy for when routes can be extended


Ill give a couple of Examples



DTG could create a Milton Keynes Central To Birmingham Route, where it can join up the current WCML we have. And also Birmingham Cross City

DTG making a Peterborough to Kings Cross Route, joining up with Peterborough Doncaster at Peterborough.

or…now that Frankfurt is in the game, maybe a Frankfurt Koblenz route linking up with Frankfurt Fulda.


these are leaning more on suggestions, I should stop getting sidetracked


Point is, this is really great feature, and it’s going to be helpful in so many ways.

well done DTG for adding this.

 

This would be great, we could see multiple sections of routes creating a longer route. Merging is the next step, but DTG Matt mentioned that Route Hopping does not mean merging is on the way anytime soon. What would be good though is if future timetables were set in the same era such that if you did KGX to PBO for example on a train that arrives PBO at 1200 and leaves PBO towards DON at 12:02, you could do the route hop and it pops up with the same train you just drove as the next suggestion. This would only work if the timetables were the same, and would function as a non-automatic merge I think??

 

ooor Frankfurt-Cologne :P

 

Still of the view route hopping is largely a gimmick to save a few seconds going in and out of the main menu. Unless and until it “links” two routes in the same era and you can carry on with the same train, with the same delays etc in a properly joined and seamless transfer, that’s all it is.

 

I know this wouldn’t make sense because they are in 2 separate era’s, but if a Frankfurt-Koblenz route did happen, you could route hop to either Linke Rheinstrecke or Frankfurt-Fulda

 

Considering how clunky the interfaces actually are I'd have to disagree.

Seamless timetables would be nice but we would really need a uniform date set for all tracks going forward for that to happen.. (all br routes set in 86, all modern set in 2022 for example) which is going to exclude a wealth of highly requested trains.

The use cases of having a kings cross Peterborough then jumping on a train to Doncaster are a little off if timetables are mismatched.. however going from Blackpool to Preston and then onto Carlisle without having to sift through a timetable will feel fantastic.

It'll even bring some life to routes like Edinburgh glasgow, playing a service in cathcart and then jumping on an express to Edinburgh to try out a bit of Fife circle. It's far more immersive as before you'd just sift through the timetable, pick a fife service and then be back in an awkward menu after an hour.

The community will, as ever, amass a selection of well connecting route hopping services much like the current best service thread and this mode will prove popular I'm quite sure.

 

a nice feature of route hopping for the future would be if you could route hop right from your train... and once it would "hop", it would hop already set up... and if it is like a continuation of the same service, maybe continue that one if you know what I mean

 

Reason why I don't really care for it with Antelope Valley, San Bernardino, and Cajon Pass, since there isn't 1 train that runs all three routes...

 

Oh Yes Kings X to Peterborough baby! In fact any possibility should be DTG's strategy if possible as it's such a great new feature. This game goes from strength to strength.

 

What platform do you play on, and how many routes do you have installed?
Because for me, it takes a lot of seconds to go to the main menu, and then more seconds to get into a new route. And I'm not even counting the time it takes me to find the route I'm looking for, select the correct station, time of day, etc.

 

PC and just over 50 routes. TSW is generally quicker than loading than TSC, maybe 20 seconds on average never really thought to check. And my PC is an old potato. I can’t see this new process being much quicker and other than possibly saving a few seconds off for the terminally impatient is not bringing a whole lot to the table, purely IMHO of course.

 

You assume that it will be quick and save a few seconds. That remains to be seen.
Also, you could say the same thing for the teleport feature, or whatever it's called. It will come in handy when I collect route tasks, which is once in a blue moon. But other than that, I don't see myself using it much.

 

I'm sure this is where you notice the difference between PS4 en PS5

1. A lot of difference in loading time, maybe even a crash when you'r on PS4
2. Your PS4 could fly through the room when you hop a route

 

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I actually agree 100% with you and think it was a complete waste of programmer time vs. the more compelling issues with the core.

 

I agree with you too.
Both features are gimmicks, something that probably didn't take long to implement, but something to add to the release notes.
Neither feature seems to be very useful, they are shortcuts for "exit to main screen and spawn at the new location".
And until we see how quick they really are, we won't know if they are an improvement or not.

The only reason I asked my original question was that for me loading in and out of a route is quite slow, yet you, and I think someone else on a different thread, said it's quick for you.

 

DTG-Chris Probably better to merge this into user: Mortal1234 thread. Don’t need multiple route hopping threads.

 

Currently? No. However, there are similar freight consists on ANT and CJP so if they layer in a couple across San bernadino, that would create the possibility.
There's a possibility CJP could be updated for TSW 5 with SOMETHING to use with ANT and San Bernadino... an AMTRAK or something since those do run down those routes.
Otherwise it'd have to be a semi-fictional route or a "rail tour" or something which the forum would cry bloody murder about.
That or a "special" such as "this one time service to deliver this special load" like a bridge or some huge steel frames. Or a "hired train" or something. (That's a thing around here, but not sure about other places, where people buy old Pullman train cars and hire AMTRAK or other companies to pull them around for them like rolling campers)

 

This is why I am so excited, it gives the potential for really long routes such as the WCML & ECML to work and not feel like they are broken up sections, if it smoothly is able to transition from 1 to another then you could theoretically create the entire route. Its got serious potential. I know that is route merging, but come on, it would be good if they actually pulled it off.

 

This is the first major step to proper route merging, and it’s very good.

 

It's a way to test the waters without putting in huge amounts of programming work making the routes themselves "compatible." This method is really more of a UI change that doesn't involve changing the route itself, just how you get to the parts of the timetables/free roam.

 

If you could pick any route to have the ability to fully merge, what would it be?

 

US
ANT-SBD-CJP

UK
The Scottish routes just make sense. They are together irl. Wouldn't even need to change the rolling stock or liveries.

GER
Maintalbahn-MSB-Kassel would be good (possibly with the new Frankfurt too)
That'd be a pretty big, expanding network with lots of variety.

or
the two Dresden routes which just make sense

Or RRO and RSN since they're basically the same line irl like Dresden

 

I would really like to hear about some actual experiences with this " feature ", because I share OldVern's opinion that this is largely a gimmick and has few useful applications. Might save someone a couple of clicks I suppose.

As I said elsewhere, this kind of thing is a " bread and circuses " approach to improving the sim, a distraction from the real, long-standing issues like steam, freight and NPC behavior among other deficits in the game.

 

No, it is not... It's a UI shortcut for spawning on foot on different route.
It doesn't make route mergin in any way more feasable from technical standpoint.

 

As I said it's "testing the waters" to see if people really would use it or if it sells more routes.
If people go ga-ga over it, then maybe they expand it some more, then MAYBE look into route merging down the road.
It's not really related from a programming standpoint since actual route merging would be a huge change and require a LOT of work.
Gotta make sure there'd be a market for it first.

 

THERE IS NO FREIGHT TRAIN IRL THAT RUNS THIS ROUTE PERIOD. It doesn't not make any sense why a BNSF train would get sent down AVL or San Bernardino, when other routes already exist nearby IRL. Not to mention Metrolink dispatch wouldn't be very happy with an unscheduled freight train running on their lines (They already get mad if UP is running late on the AVL line.)

Yes I will complain about it, cause I would like the route in game to be SOMEWHAT realistic for the area.

If DTG really wanted to link LA with San Bernardino in a more realistic manner to run trains to Cajon, they should of done BNSF's line from LA, down to Fullerton, thru Riverside, that cuts back to San Bernardino. Since now you can actually run a freight train where it's supposed to be. (This is also the same route the Southwest Chief runs into and out of LA, as well as a few other Metrolink lines)

 

There's nothing saying they can't do the other lines. DTG is heavily investing in the West Coast so it's not far beyond the pale. The Riverside line would make a lot of sense yes... but it's not there yet so they'd just say it's something like "Oh no, the Riverside line is out! We have to reroute trains through San Bernadino temporarily!"
There's been push for the Surfliner route already, and the Oceanside line would be sweet too all up through Orange County.
They are working with what they have already in the can.

What else do they really have to run between the routes they're linking?
Metrolink isn't running up to Barstow.
There are freight yards along the San Bernadino.
Freight doesn't have to stick to a tight schedule like commuter routes. You can have "specials" like the ballast and "construction" trains on the Peninsula map (although those are scenarios)

What would logically go on the routes that would run between all 3 routes irl?
If nothing does it regularly then you gotta get creative.

 

Do you really think that DTG is going to produce this kind of pie- in- the- sky nonsense for TSW?
I know you love to type, but I think you might want to think about what you're actually writing before you hit the post button.
This " stream of consciousness " posting is a bit wearying at times. And I mean that in the nicest way.

 

BNSF would more than likely use UP's line from West Colton to Hobart 1st over Metrolinks own lines.

 

DTG isn't doing route merging not because they do not know if there is market for it. It is obvious there is, becasue there are few things people want more than a big network routes.

The reason why DTG isn't doing route merge is purely technical, as even if you have two routes with the same origin point, as even if you have two routes that have 100% alignment on tiles assets, on the common tile (which we don't have), they will not have alignment on stuff like signaling scripts and timetable (as stuff like portals the timetable trains use would not exist on the merged route).

And, as this new feature is in no way helping to solve that problem, it is in no way a 'major step into route merging'. It's a UI schortcut for stuff the game is already able to do.

And the feauture itself is extremely limited in use...Yes, you get spawned at the paired location on another route, with the same time, and weather. But then what? Most often then not you will realize the there is no service departing the station in the next 5+minutes... So unless you are in a mood for freeroaming by spawning your own train, you need to go back to menu.

 

You mean another route that's not in game?

 

The route hopping would honestly make more sense if DTG finished up the rest of the NEC between NYC and Providence, over filling out the Metrolink system.

Also, isn't the creative part one of the reasons Free Roam exists?

 

I'm betting that's on the list for TSW 6, but it takes time.
There's also likely a huge market for the whole "Acela Corridor" down to DC when they get to it piece by piece.
They have the licenses and the trains.
It's one of the most famous lines in the USA (and most travelled by passengers)
With the "route hopping" it's really a no brainer.
There are even trains that do the whole length from Boston to Washington to DC all the time so you don't even have to make up any excuse to go the whole distance.
Sure it's an 8 hour run and we'd need a solid "save" function, but SOMEONE would want to run it I'm sure.
Definitely gives you a chance to stretch the Acela's legs.

Now what would that require?
I'm guessing 5 more routes to complete it given how long the routes are in DTG and logical big station crossover points.
1 You'd need a route from Providence to New Haven.
2 Another from New Haven to NYC.
3 Trenton to Wilmington probably (with Philly in the middle)
4 Wilmington to Baltimore
5 Baltimore to Washington DC

If THAT gets completed, with roughly similar stock and much existing assets they could then extend the "Northeast" network to include the route from Boston to Springfield to Albany. Given how much excitement and sales they get from the LIRR, NEC, etc.... I think it's really almost a given that they'll keep putting time into the Northeast Corridor/Network for AMTRAK.
Most "buck for the bang"

 

Was just thinking how many routes would be needed to cover Providence - New Haven - New York and Trenton - Philadelphia - Baltimore - Washington D.C., so we could drive the Acela for 7 hours.

 

Which is why I only stated the northern half of the NEC.

-NYC - New Haven was a stretch that already exists in TSC, and is only 75 miles. Pretty doable especially with MTA mostly ok with TSW (Aside from the LIRR 2 stuff)

-New Haven to Providence would require CTrail, who we don't know their licensing stance. Though Amtrak runs their Shore Line East trains under contract.

Everything south of Trenton is a no go without licensing from Septa and MARC, unless DTG changes their stance on unbranded trains.

 

Empire Corridor along the Hudson and Albany to Boston bit are also in TSC, so quite doable.

 

I think skipping is a good auxiliary function for those players who complain that the route is too long. For example, if DTG opens a European route from London to Paris in the future, some people will say that the half-hour tunnel is too boring, so he can choose to skip the tunnel. For me, I hope to enjoy every railway moment, and I also hope that more players can create long-distance routes.

 

Could be very cool.

I have one question based on a scenario. This is a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say in the distant future DTG or another developer create Milton Keynes to Birmingham New Street (same year, stock everything). Milton Keynes has a decent amount of trains stopping at Milton Keynes but has more train that simply pass it. Let's say now I wanted to do one of those scenarios that does not stop at MK, would it be possible for the game to recognise this and load in the next route with a couple second delay with the relevant stock still in place (i.e. some 350s that were stationary or moving around MK are in a similar state in the next loaded route) so I can continue almost as if there was no break, or would it be outright impossible to implement something of the sort?

I know it won't happen for a long while at least but just came across my mind.

 

That would require DTG to build a dual mode loco and Amfleet cars which they have shown no indication of doing.

You can almost understand the reluctance to build new freight locos because of apparent access issues, but the same old excuse doesn't work for Amtrak with whom they have, by all accounts, a very good relationship.

 

That journey time blows my mind. The longest journey I’ve ever done in one sitting is on Cajon Pass and that was over the 2 hour mark.
I’m guessing players who do these kind of long distance journeys would have to break them up into 3 segments (save game). I play a lot of MS Flight sim too and I start feeling burned out during a 3 hour flight.

 

I would hope in the future something like this would be possible, because honestly I'm never going to use this feature in its current state, just seems very much like a gimmick to me as others have said. Would much rather just use the main menu, this isn't TSC and routes don't take 10 hours to load!

 

Cajon Pass is about my limit at I think 2.5 hours end to end. That's a pretty big time investment. I don't usually do MSFS, I'm more into DCS, and those are shorter flights because fighters have a lot shorter legs than airliners (or I'm dumb and get shot down)
Still though... that 2 hour mark is a pretty good rough estimate of how much time most people would put into a game. Now you have the outliers... retired people who have nothing else to do for an 8 hour "shift" of gaming I guess, but most people with active lives, work, family, etc will find it hard to put much more than a couple hours into one gaming session.

Often less.

Even within the routes, MOST timetable trips seem to be an hour or less.

I think and hard drive size explains DTG's reluctance for "longer routes." Most people COULD do one route in a session, then the next "leg" in another session, etc. For example above driving from Barstow to San Bernadino is a full 2 hour session easily.
You're tired.
Tomorrow after work you do the San Bernadino leg.
Then maybe later the Antelope leg.
Most people just won't practically USE the whole route in one sitting anyway, so by DTG's reasoning...if you're GOING to stop after an hour or two anyway... why build beyond that point if 90+% of people won't use it?

Personally I think the solution to this whenever they figure it out will be "cloud gaming" like is expanding on XBox. The "map" will be entirely in the "cloud" and you just use bandwidth to keep loading more in small bits to your console/computer as you go. You don't have to have much of it downloaded on your system, and you can stop anywhere you like since it's all saved in the "cloud."

That's not near term, probably not even TSW the way it's programmed now, and it'll take starting a new "rail network" from scratch probably, but it'll be the future of simming. You'll just need a decent internet connection.

But, we have what we have so might as well use it.

 

I am really looking forward to this as an immersion feature.

I get that it will have some limitations and not be the same as a seamless long route but the concept of driving the "same" train without going out to menu or go on longer point to point journeys sounds great.

I used to do similar stuff already in TSW but with the menu getting in the way... i.e. drive from London to Brighton on BML, exit to menu, hop onto East Coast Way and set it to the same month/time/weather and continue down that route from Brighton.

With NEC Trenton and Boston I also liked to take an Amtrak train from Boston to Providence then switch over and select the same train number to continue the journey from NYC to Trenton (or vice versa) as if I was driving the "same" train (with a gap from Providence to NYC but still).

This new feature won't satisfy people who want actual route merging and it isn't for everyone but I totally get it from a immersion point of view.

It will get even better if DTG in the future when releasing routes that can use the feature, try and get the era/timetable to match. Currently there are a few shared stations set in different years so it won't exactly match when you switch from one to the other but I still think it is an interesting feature.

 

I was thinking the same thing... doing something where the game would know to hold your service without a driver on the next route... you wouldn't want to arrive a few minutes late and "miss" your own train.

 

But wouldn't this now make the route hopping feature kind of useless? You use it to save loading a different route with a similar point. But now what's the point if you aren't even gonna play 2 routes in one day.

Of course it works if one has the time, but how many people can invest in a +2hr run on Cajon ALONG with a run on San Bernardino? Not many unless they use the save feature on Cajon.

 

Never said it was VERY useful. It's a bone thrown to the "longer routes" community who are so vocal about it.
Most people won't use it much if at all.
But most people wouldn't use a "merge routes" feature much either.
They might do it to SAY "I have a cool route that's 500km long now" but actually DRIVING the whole thing at once?
Nope.
Well maybe the High Speed fans. Going 200 kph, that 2 hours could cover 400 km so they MIGHT use it.

 

I think route hopping will appeal to the same people that are the type who currently would load up a route and do multiple services back and forth without ever leaving the "world". This feature now lets you stay in the "world" while also switching to a different route. Not in a perfectly seamless way but more seamless than quitting and loading again.

Some people just fire up a service, do it, and quit afterwards and/or load a totally different service somewhere else. Or some people don't have time to play for longer than 30m to an hour anyway. This won't really appeal to those kind of players.

This is also a brand new feature that is being back ported to some older routes. So in some cases you will be hopping to a different year with different rolling stock and timetable situations because those routes were never really planned to interact in any way... but I think now that it exists there will be opportunity for DTG to have it in mind with new routes going forward and maybe line up eras/timetables, creating a world where you can be working within a specific network going in different directions on different routes but feeling like you are still in the same world, if that makes sense.

 

It depends what routes you’re using for route hopping. That would be overkill, jumping straight to San Bernardino from Cajon. For me personally, smaller and more condensed routes with shorter journey times it will work better for.
Time is always on our side in our busy life’s.

 

I can see how especially if you don't do a whole route it could be useful in shorter time periods. For example Bakerloo is only 14 miles so going from Bakerloo to the new Euston line wouldn't take too long. However, most of the "longer route" people tend to talk about 5-6 hour runs. If I could only hope for that much free time ;-)

 

Yes. Sam once said something along the lines of the average playtime in TSW was around 20-30 minutes.