PC Route Mergers In 2022 Lets Build A Network….

I'm not sure I agree in paying to connect them. If they are modular construction, for example they know they want to build her work a over a span of a year or two then if the project is scoped correctly from the start with a timetable that snaps together there shouldn't even any additional dev time,

if I buy two Lego sets I can join them without paying extra. The time should be factored in off the bat

 

I think the pieces of the route should be no different price wise. They should juts connect.

if after a while network has been made and they want to sell it as one piece it's their prerogative as to how much.

 

That's horrible logic, you shouldn't paywall something just because a user's system can't handle, least you want your graphics settings become a DLC. The better and easier thing to do would be to just have the user be able to access to the unmerged versions alongside the merged route, thus they can play the standard routes if the merged one has issues on their system

DTG's has said time and time again that having DLC that requires DLC make it incredibly niche, and thus a poor seller. Suggesting a DLC that requires TWO DLCs just to function is where it starts turning from a tad silly to a Monty Python skit, because that's reaching a entirely new level of niche product, and they're never going to do that.

 

This seems to be advocating a "2 routes for the price of 1" permanent arrangement?
Not the best business case...
In the past it would be a case of having a reduction on extensions mainly because the assets are the same (so no dev time, only "placing time) and the trains are often the same (so again no dev time), but the route would still take time to make, signal etc so "get it free" sounds a bit wrong to me

 

I think asking for it for free is very optimistic. It's not just a case of sticking the two maps together.

You got to pretty much build a new timetable, make sure existing journey modes and scenarios aren't impacted, maintain player progress, and of course any bits of connecting track that doesn't already exist such as between the BLM and ECW.

On top of all that, you need enough trains to be able to actually run the complete combined timetable which may require new subclasses of trains to be built depending on the routes being merged.

Personally I think it should be a standalone purchase and fit into the game as a standalone network to play. Owners of the component parts should get a discount but it is a lot of work to give away for free.

Maybe it should be sold as a (for example) Southern Region Expansion Pack including:

• Full combined network
• New journey mode
• New scenarios
• New combined timetable
• Linkages between existing routes (potentially even additional branchlines if it is feasible without causing too much additional workload)
• New subclasses (if necessary) and potentially new liveries for existing units (if possible)

Though I will say, if they do end up making a route Mergers between the Southern routes they should make the West Coastway first to complete the set (though not right now, I'm not ready for another modern Southern Region route.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't see route merges, but there's a need for more variety right now before we start getting potentially similar routes created for the purpose of being merged together. Otherwise we'll end up with a concentration of routes in one particular area because they all overlap, with very few routes elsewhere. Long term yes, short term no.

At least something like the North Downs Line or Marshlink Line could provide something new, whilst allowing the ability to be merged with other routes and allowing longer services, instead of having another 3rd rail route with an electrostar.

 

The preserved crew have made new and reworked timetables, and they're free updates, it's hardly unreasonable to think they could do that again here, Journey mode I doubt it takes any real effort, it's basically the TSW version of a music playlist. And there's no reason you'd need to move over scenarios to the merged version of the route, you could just leave them on the non-merged versions. Why would you want to play scenarios on the merged route that weren't designed to take advantage of it anyways?

 

Northdowns I agree with as it links with other routes and would allow some progression. Marshlink only goes from one electrostar line to another, so no real benefit bar "filling in the gap". I'd prefer a 170 route like Cardiff, Birmingham, Nottingham etc rather than the Marshlink
Though of course at some point having it in game to do that gap filling would be great (maybe for a tenner as the line isn't exactly long)

 

It would be best to do Eastbourne to Ashford (the Marshlink Line is really Hastings to Ashford) which is just over 40 miles. Include a Class 171, then have layers for the ECW Class 377 and Southeastern AI from SEHS. That would cover almost all services. It would make sense from a merge point of view so we get to do full Hastings/Ore to Brighton services, or alternatively add a timetable back when Ashford services were extended to Brighton. Scenery would be different too, with the line being more rural, across marshland, mostly single track and unelectrified. Of course I hold some bias here as this route is fairly local to me, others might prefer a busier route like the North Downs Line, which would be equally as welcome.

Do any other people have good route ideas that would have the added benefit of being able to merge with existing routes?

 

We were talking about variety and difference of services. The 171 trawling through the Sussex countryside at a fairly leisurely pace is all well and good, but doesn't add much variety at all. I don't think anything bar the 171 ever goes down that line.
The 377 and 375 from ECW and SEHS would only be AI at each end, and serve no other purpose.
At least with Northdowns you can then look to further "networked DLC" in the form of SWR via Guildford, GWE at Reading etc etc

I've driven the road which crisscrosses the line many times, and love a good drive on what's a challenging road, especially when the two level crossings go in sequence. Still prefer somewhere else if you're talking about "adding variety"

 

Variety in terms of it being a different style of line, not because it has lots of different services. IOW for instance has essentially one service pattern, Ryde to Shanklin and back, but is appealing because of it being a unique line with a different type of unit to drive. Marshlink or North Downs would cover the 'rural diesel' category which we don't really have yet for a UK route in TSW, if that makes sense. Edit: Tees Valley would be most similar, but isn't modern.

 

West Cornwall?

 

Yes I suppose, completely forgot it exists

 

Haha
Lets put a few suggestions for Diesel routes on the board then

• Cardiff to Cheltenham Spa via Lydney and Gloucester (crosscountry class 170 (modern) or alphaline class 158(1990s))
• Anything through the Riviera Line
• Just about anything Northern NOT on an xCM

 

The already in ts existing weardale & teesdale network in the 60s.

200miles! Of network & branch gameplay in the deeph br era before the beeching axe. Tons of collieries, industries etc.

 

I've got every UK asset in TSC and that's one of the better ones, but obviously in TSW we don't have that breadth of experience available, hence the topic of networks comes up in the first place. If DTG can get the trick of stringing timetables across routes then it means we're not limited to single runs on single DLC and it opens it up a lot more when it comes to future development

 

Again, you can't link ECW and BML without building a whole new branch route. That doesn't come free for DTG and I'm not sure why we should expect it as a present.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in principle (that we shouldn't generally expect things for free and that ultimately DTG is not a charity).

In this instance however, we'd need just two small countryside stations (Plumpton and Cooksbridge, neither of which look like they'd require much in the way of custom assets) and 8-9 miles of track (around the same sort of length as the Seaford branch line on ECW) with no additional junctions. Some of the scenery might already be in place or autogenerated as well.

I would argue that the sooner that DTG solves the route merging 'problem', the sooner issues like this 'missing link' will stop arising (because if you already had the capability to merge routes at the time of creating BML, surely the most logical decision would be to add this link in at the same time so BML and ECW could work seamlessly).

The key argument for me that would put route merging at the top of the priority list is that Train Sim World is fundamentally different to Train Simulator 20xx thanks to both the timetable mode and critically, the ability to walk around the world on foot. It's much more immersive and the ability to (for instance) drive a train from Lewes to Brighton, then jumping out and straight into a Victoria-bound service would emphasise the core USP for TSW (emphasis on the W).

As the levels of content increase, it will only get harder to merge routes in the future without having to completely revise timetables - therefore I think this substantial piece of work would be far better solved sooner rather than later.

I could be wrong (I'm not a developer) but my laymans understanding is that if the dynamic loading of tiles / trains can be resolved (which is likely the hardest single barrier to route merging - I can think of reasonably easy gameplay solutions to everything else) then it would help solve a lot of the memory and layering issues as well.

 

If I understand what Matt has said correctly, that apparently isn't much of a challenge, it's just a routine that starts calling tiles from the new route instead of the old one. What is a challenge is merging timetables; even if both routes have the "same" timetable they aren't really, in terms of AI trains spawning (for example, if currently in BML we have a train at Brighton "arriving from Eastbourne" which actually spawns at the portal on the viaduct, and then we merge BML with ECW, now we have that train spawning on top of its clone which actually is arriving from Eastbourne)

 

I can also see this happening for the German routes like Ruhr Valley expansion that opens HRR to be combined into another pack called Amsterdam and the Ruhr Expansion pack. Reason for this if you have Hauptstrecke Rhein-Ruhr and you go past the the Triangle Junction East of Duisburg Hbf which is the start point of Hollandstrecke Duisburg-Oberhausen-Arnhem Amsterdam via Utrecht. That way it can make Duisburg Hbf busy. For the Southern Region you can run East Coast way up to Ashford International where it can join up to sehs. Making a new bundle called British Railways southern region network pack. Made up of ECW BML SEHS WCW West Coastway.

 

You say that like that was a issue I was specifically raising, but all I talked about was the timetables and scenario side of things. I didn't talk about building new sections of route, nor was I talking about the feasibility of merging ECW & BML, or any other route for that matter.

 

Do we need to build a network? Isn't each route a "slice of life"?

As earlier posters have said, some of the routes are different eras and that is quite nice as you can experience the same station in different periods, when you head north you are in one era, when you head south you are in a different one, it provides more variety. If things were joined together you couldn't do that without having multiple eras for everything, and that is more than just stitching two things together.

I am guessing that when Steam arrives we may see some familiar routes in different eras again and there will be little point in stitching them together.

The idea that I would like to see is of building out big stations so they don't have large numbers of empty platforms. Victoria is great, as is Dresden but St Pancras, Glasgow Central are pretty quiet, others like Paddington and Marseille have zero diversity. This isn't about stitching things together, it is about taking into account what we already have when deciding what to do next so that by design synergies are built in and things layer and substitute sensibly providing more gameplay and fleshing out these large stations so they come to life. This I guess is building out the network, but not in the way envisaged in this thread.

 

I would just not try and merge the existing DLC timetables - I'd instead have a different 'World Timetable' that you could load into which would contain all services from all routes (perhaps in a given country, at least until TSW goes cross-border).

Hence for the example of BML and ECW:

- Copy and paste BML timetable (as it's much more substantial than ECW as a starting point)
- Make all AI-only services dependent on DLC ownership status (see below)
- Extend the necessary BML services to their destinations on ECW and likewise for the starting points of ECW-originating services, which I think would be:
----Eastbourne/Ore trains that split at Haywards Heath
----The odd Seaford service from Victoria that operates at peak hours (and vice versa)
----Freight services from Newhaven
----Railtour service should be originated somewhere up the BML route - probably spawn into Clapham then follow the same route as the current southbound freight service

A bit of portal code would be helpful that would determine if someone had the relevant bit of DLC / tiles or not, then spawn trains as necessary to replace the missing AI. I'm sure this is far easier perhaps said than done, but all it would need to do is (in the instance of perhaps a service incoming to Brighton from Lewes for a player that owns BML):

- Does player have ECW installed?
- If yes, don't spawn AI service, let the world timetable (which would include ECW services) run as normal)
- If no, spawn replacement AI service at the existing portal

The layering system could still be used to omit services if a player didn't own the relevant loco DLC - don't think anything would change on that count.

To solve era clashes for historic routes, I'd have a different World Timetable in operation for each era (eg. BR blue routes and modern routes would be on different World Timetables).

I'm sure there are other methods too to resolve timetable clashes. I think generally TSW is in a good place to do this bit of work now though as there aren't actually that many service clashes to resolve. The longer it's left, however, the more grunt work will be required to make things work smoothly as there will be more content and more timetables, more common points (just Brighton, Hagen and Dresden at the moment?) and therefore more issues that will likely require manual resolution.

 

I am convinced that for DTG, besides the platform equivalency issue, the killer is the enormous amount of work required to put timetables in place. To take ECW/BML, assuming the track is exactly compatible (not a given), it would probably need the capability to remove the timetables from both DLCs and replace with 1 global timetable - how long would Joe be in purdah to get that done and how much could DTG charge? It would have to be at the 2 DLC package price to be worthwhile. In the sister Sim, without the complications of timetable/services, it has only rarely been done by third parties when trackage is totally compatible. I for one would love TS to release a DLC for connection (in this case a dual connection) with WCML South to add the Northampton loop, thereby giving it the chance for a realistic timetable for stopping trains. And note that networking in TS is only possible because the editor is open to all users - never going to happen in TSW2.

 

I think you're onto something, but I think there's an easier way, something like

1. If ECW is present, then load UKGlobalTimetable
2. Else load OriginalBMLTimetable

 

I think the commercial headache is the reason why DTG thus far have steered clear of the concept.
My personal thoughts are that you buy the individual standalone DLC as now, pretty much as Run 8 does it. The routes merge but each section operates to the original timetable unless... you pay an additional charge (£6.99 or whatever) for an integrated timetable. Even then there are some fairly horrible logistical problems likely to present themselves, as I already touched on earlier in the thread.

Even Run 8 suffers from issues, if you load one of the player created industry setups from The Depot like Busy SoCal, if you don't have all the routes (I never got round to buying the section north of Bakersfield or the branches apart from Trona) then you have a load of ???? above the cars where the destination industry should be.

 

This is where I think DTG are failing. These merged routes are an excellent idea and give the game a lot more immersion. But also route extensions. DTG like to give the excuse 'we didn't have time to finish the route' If true this should be made a priority. If DTG did longer routes in the first place it would open up loads of opportunities for DLC in the future with say branch lines, Loco's etc.

Take the GWE, Reading-Paddington, if they would extend that to Cardiff or even just to Bristol it would open up loads of routes, freight as well, going to Birmingham, Wales, South West, South, North ETC and then all these timetables could then be merged making the game really come alive. If this did happen not only would I start to play the game again but I doubt I would look at another game. DTG would be quids in as well no?

 

DTG (Matt) has stated, backed by Sam, that TSW will NOT have route extensions, full stop. End of. They tried them in TSC, and they simply did not sell. DLC for DLC is a money-loser.

 

Personally I would be looking at how the timetables are created and if there's a better way of doing it. Certainly as someone who dabbles in databases I can think of several ways of doing exactly what we want these things to do with a fraction of the input from DTG once they have a map of stations and junctions built, and you can get that from network rail for a few quid (look at how RTT works, transpose that onto a simple build concept and within two days you have every station (with reference) and junction (with reference) mapped.

Then you build your timetables one those references and you have the ability to dynamically map routes rather than needing to make them one by one in a professional version of scenario planner.

Yes there's a large dev cost at the front end, but then you wouldn't need to ever create a route timetable for "now" ever again, you could just plug in today's journeys and you have your 24 hours timetable

 

I think the difference is that in TSC you get six scenarios maximum, and there IS no way of daisy chaining scenarios together, you have to recreate them from scratch each time. DLC in TSW already have offmap references included, that's how PIS works.

Of course all of this is spitballing anyway

 

The problem is the timings: whether you do it as here by dead-reckoning calculation, or the old TSW way by auto-running AI trains, they become completely unrealistic. The only satisfactory way is to use the real-world timetable (as in BML)- which has to be input one service at a time; there are no shortcuts.

 

To be fair Matt also said that each of the platforms including the old gen will be treated equally, end of. We know now that isn't true. I hear what you are saying but never say never eh?

 

Depends on how the timetable files are built, and I would imagine they're built in some form of "separated value" system, which means you CAN import data one way or another

 

Rather different contexts. Last-gen support is a matter of what is technologically possible in a changing environment. DLC-for-DLC however is a hardnosed financial decision: DTG is not in business to lose money.

 

I'm just hinting at that no matter what Matt says at a given time things can change.

 

And merged routes are a different thing entirely to extended routes of course.

 

Just as an example here (and I'm not saying this is commercially viable). The distances below may not be equal distant either so treat as illustrative but this is perhaps how it could work.

1. Kings Cross to Peterborough £24.99
2. Peterborough to York? £24.99
3. York to Newcastle £24.99
4. Newcastle to Edinburgh £24.99

If the project was scoped to be this length with XYZ on it (locos etc) then we know how far we're going.
Timelines etc all defined as per normal with DTG.

Each part of this route can work as an independent normal DLC with X number of services.
Each part of the route can be linked to the adjacent part to increase either timetable volume or journey duration.
You cannot expect part 1 and part 3 to portal link - They are independent in this instance.

When all four routes are released you could, subject to the retail teams, buy for £90, for arguments sake.

Now, if this could be scheduled into development cycles (depending on route in development) in a way that;

Didn't impact variety in US routes
Didn't impact variety in German routes
Didn't impact variety in Uk routes

In this instance we're laughing.

That will then draw in though the "Why's this Networx being made? I wanted ECML, WCML, Midlands (Country specific routes) whining I'm sure in the short term, but that's the dream I have on how the routes work upon the merge tech being deemed viable and developable around current and 8th Gen


It's wholly unrealistic, foolish and bizarre we'd expect extensions and/or mergers for free or reduced. It's a commercial investment in us, not a charity giving to us.

 

There's the rub.

 

Even better sell it as a bundle called East Coast main line London King's cross Edinborough Waverly that way it's £24.99 $35. I did have a suggestion involving Hagen Hbf network by merging RRO RSN HRR via a new line Bochum-Hagen/Dortmund via Witten Wetter including a marshalling yard Hagen Vorhalle.

 

I genuinely almost laughed at ECML Bundle for £25. That's never going to happen, not in a million years!

Also it's Edinburgh, not Edinborough, it's not in England.

 

It used to be no? And Burgh is also an English word Berwick is a Burgh apparently and there are plenty of Towns in England with the Burgh spelling but yeah he misspelt Edinburgh.

 

no chance, it’s nearly 450miles

 

Would think even the suggestion Edinburgh might at one time been in England will have hordes of angry Scotsmen looking for dhekelian!!

The border between England and Scotland has moved over the years but not that far north!

 

Actually, it has. The Kingdom of Northumbria extended up to the Forth, and Edinburgh (as one might guess from the name, "Edwin's Burg"), was an Anglo-Saxon foundation. The "kingdom of the Scots," at the time more usually known as Dal Riada, was off to the northwest, and the Glasgow area (Strathclyde/Al Cluid) was British-Welsh.

The Scots language is a direct descendant of Northumbrian Old-English, which is what most of the Lowlands spoke once.

 

I never said Burgh wasn't English, just that Borough is the English word, Burgh is (primarily) the Scottish word.

And Berwick is a poor example, considering it was part of Scotland for a long, long time.

 

The original (Old English) word was burh (pronounced "burch," with the German ch-sound as in loch). Scots followed Middle English orthography in adding a G to indicate the back-spirant (compare "knight," at one time pronounced phonetically), whereas the much later "borough" was a result of somewhat snobbish Frenchification of English spelling. ("Boro" is somewhat older, late ME/early Mod. E, and reflects the softening of the CH to a schwa, "burra")

 

I need to watch Vikings and The Last Kingdom again... Or refresh a few history books.

Anyhow so far as a portion of the ECML is concerned, would still value Newcastle to Berwick over any of the other possible abstractions.

 

I don’t think extensions or mergers will be coming for a good long while yet if they ever do. The next big things for core tech are steam (well under way), multiplayer (it’s coming, hold on to your hats) and new player roles. I’m fairly certain we will see all of those before any merging system is in development.

Both mergers and extensions are desirable additions for players but for the main part we can certainly get along without them for the current content and for the majority of players because of the way they only play for short periods at a time. Any plans for DTG to develop the tech required needs them to see it as being appropriate for all the three main regions and be commercially viable too. I think a lot more actual content needs to be developed before networks make sense, especially for UK routes, where a network in any modern setting would need a lot of diverse rolling stock to be made. I think simple route extensions will happen for longer routes before any complicated networks arise but none of it any time soon.

 

The border has been around 400 million years and political borders have changed a lot since then, but I will have to go with the fact that where the mega continents crashed into each other is the true geographic/non-political Scottish/English border so Edinburgh has never been in England although politically it has for a bit. Good video explaining it here, 1:43 is great

 

I recommend everyone watches all the Map Men videos. Learning can be fun.