Discussion in 'Dovetail Live Article Discussion' started by TrainSim-James, Nov 1, 2019.
Well the 31 isn't exactly an 80's design, more like late 50's. Maybe that explains it
The vast majority of 31s were still working throughout the 80s.
The class 31 was a mainline locomotive for 50 years!
Yes sure, but you can tell it hadn't been designed then. That's what I interpreted 80's traction to mean, guess that's the misunderstanding. I mean we have 150s, 318/319/321, all the Networkers and what not, but that doesn't mean these are 2020-ish units.
It's not DD's job to do better it's DTG who make and are charging for the damn thing.
Well yes, I know it wasn't designed then but it was operational in the 80s and was very much part of the 80s scene so to me it was "80s traction" just as it was 60s, 70s, 90s traction.
I guess it's just a matter of how we define these things.
I'd class it as 70s traction. I am even more the niche target audience. Still waiting for a 60s, 70s route.
80s? Perhaps you're waiting for "The Price Is Right"?
Honestly, I think the 14 Euros you pay for a new vehicle seem like a reasonable price. New routes tend to be a bit steeply priced*, but locos... nothing to complain here.
*Most new routes come with at least one new train too of course, so I always imagine half of the price being for that.
They could produce any route, if it came with a Pacer, I’d buy it no questions asked.
HS1 St. Pancras to Ashford? :P
It's not the cost for me, it's the value. It would be a no-brainer if it was NTP compatible. It doesn't stack up well against the NTP freight pack if it's the same price.
lol, you knew what I meant.
It’s a good job I don’t care what you think.
Useability is a point, no doubt. That's what keeps me from buying bicycle-distance RRO at full price, or the Class 52 (as much as I like the loco) and the Amtrak Cabcar/Shunter pack at all.
The class 52 (33 as well) is another example of how not making the NTP/TVL locos substitutable is a significant reduction in the value of the DLC. I'm fully aware it's not historically accurate to have it run on these routes, but not even giving us the option... I don't like that. You could still set the chance for randomly happening substitutions to zero. It COULD theoretically run there after all.
Looks fairly good other than the fact that I don't have TVL or WSR. I'm still waiting for an American heavy freight route for consoles.
Couldn't agree more. I think we should be able to run any locomotive on any route if we wish. Let the user decide. Braking compatibility accepted of course.
If you'd told me last week that a class 31 was coming as November dlc. Id have given you the money there and then, but after what happened with mastery this week and the foreseen bugs that stop us utilising this loco properly, Im not so sure.
Yeah, Mastery is still not working for me, not one single thing has registered. I was hoping for a new UK route in November, I’m going to be disappointed if the class 31 is the last dlc this year.
Cant see it being the last dlc before Christmas.
If having locos available for subbing would potentially screw up service mode eg with 33’s running ai services up and down on tvl or gwe, ntp. Why cant we make every loco available for sub with relevant services in terms of rakes and weight, but have the user tick a box under which locos he/she wants to use or see on that route? All services have to be covered by trains capable of doing the job. So maybe the ai auto selects them. Then the user can manipulate it only to the degree that the game agrees.
Well I'm looking forward to the 31 coming as well as the PCA. Its a shame that the 31 cant be used on the NTP route (great planning there once again DTG :/ )
First off where would these be working to from along the TVL route?
Secondly why arent the Class 47's uitlised as DLC on the route as well?
I note there is a line that goes off to an intermodal terminal, (Cleveland Freightliner Intermodal Terminal) did intermodal trains run there in the timeline of when the route is featured in TSW? If so did they use 47's or 37's?
From what Ive read, the cement site is just outside Middlesborough 15 minutes drive from Darlington? There might be a 101 rescue scenario involving light 31 to Saltburn then drag to Thornaby I would think. Still not sure thats enough for me. The value I see in TVL is in the unloading/loading scenarios with the Coke wagons, the freight drive itself is something I dont find as enjoyable as on other routes. I personally prefer the 101 on TVL for line runs. The 47 I would have expected to see on TVL by now. Unless that particular batch of 47’s arent appropriate :-/ As for intermodal. Surely a service to, the Redcar Central area could be something to add.
47/4s on TVL would be no less appropriate for freight than they are on NTP. Would probably need the high intensity headlight and cab/shore radio aerial fitting but they have this on the WSR 47. Getting rid of the ETH jumpers and switches would also get you a 47/0. Would need SSC to make it a 47/3. Details, details.
Fixing the performance of the 47 on consoles would be nice too. I won't stop mentioning it until it's done!
Things like that will be in service mode. You will be pulling disabled 101’s along their passenger routes, using the 31.
Is that a mod?
"Operable in Service Mode in West Somerset Railway with more than 15 services to take control of"
It says on the Class 52 store page. Just checked whether I've overread something.
33 and 52 at full throttle sound tremendous.
someone told me they were running a class 50 plus mk2 on tsw on ps4. i dont know how they do it, but they downloaded it off the pc.
They are probably lying.
Anyone else get the gut feeling that the 31 was perhaps intended for the Trans Pennine route until the issues Matt mentioned meant it ended up being done for Tees instead? If it was intended for the Tees route you'd imagine it'd be in large logo Railfreight grey or triple grey and have a high intensity headlight fitted.
Personally I'd like to see a 56 or a 60 for the Tees route, in triple grey. These were common place along side the 37s, Indeed the coke hoppers from pics I've found looks to be largely a 56 job
Edit to add, they've modelled the 31 as a pre refurbishment machine, further adding fuel to my "intended for Trans Pennine" theory. Note the horizontal strip below the windows all around and the cowling on the buffer beams still in place
I noticed exactly the same about the unrefurbished state of them. I think your theory has merit.
You can download it here: http://www.trainsim.cz/?mod=article&showid=2283
The ones Thornaby kept in blue (which in 1989 was quite a lot of them) didn't have the high intensity headlights.
Looking at my 1989 P5 all the blue TE 31s were departmental pool locos rather than freight sector though. Most of the unrefurbished 31s on the network worked their last days as departmental locomotives.
Edit: In my 89 and 90 P5, none of the three freight sector TE 31s were blue. They were all Railfreight livery. 31184, 31215 and 31229. Looks like 184 and 229 had headlights and 215 had its headcode box removed at one end. Found some TVL/PCA related pics here:
31184 Thornaby by Tony Walmsley, on Flickr
31215+31184 by Dave Jolly, on Flickr
31229 Thornaby TMD 06.88 by Paul Smith, on Flickr
So what's my point, you may ask? Well, I think my findings add weight to steadfast's theory that the 31 was originally intended for NTP. 10 minutes of research reveals that unrefurbished blue 31s were not representative of the TE freight 31s in the late 80s of which there was only three assigned for the freight traffic around Tees.
Hoped maybe the class 40 with the variant cabs may have been a blueprint for loco dlc going forward. Class 31 has a variety of livery options, Classic BR, Big logo BR livery. Railfreight BR and sub sectors, Engineers Grey yellow. A high intensity headlamp option.
Then why did you even post it. Technically, no it doesn't run on NTP. Not everyone can download mods for TSW you know.
If you are on pc, you can.
These "bent" tank cars, as far as I know, are mainly to keep the center of gravity lower, thus allowing higher loads, at least here on the mainland. Emptying migh be a factor too though, especially for non-liquid substances like cement.
Known as depressed centre or "Vee" wagons, the idea was that cement naturally settled towards the discharge valve in the centre of the wagon. Later wagons were built straight barrelled, presumably as it was discovered the depressed centre either made no difference, or technology improved.
The way these wagons are discharged is that compressed air is pumped in the bottom, making the powder flow like a liquid.
The depressed centre design has also seen use on other granular traffics, such as washing powder and other chemicals, often painted in bright liveries such as Albright and Wilson.
Mentioning Albrights made me laugh, I reckon the Corkickle Incline should be the next route!!
Looks good and it’ll likely be one I buy.
That said, the one question I have (and bearing in mind what Matt has said regarding NTP and why we won’t see it on that route), why couldn’t it have been used in scenarios?
Surely the creation of 5 Class 31 based scenarios for NTP wouldn’t have taken DTG very long to do at all and would likely have made this pack appeal to many more people increasing sales and revenue. They could have been tagged as a ‘bonus’ extra with a brief explanation in the manual as to why it wasn’t also available in service mode.
It wouldn’t be substitution issues stopping it, and I can’t see how the routes memory problems would come into play either.
It’s difficult to see it as anything but a bit of a missed opportunity.
I agree would of been nice to see it on the NTP route as a couple of scenarios. Maybe in the future this will happen.
If I was to speculate I'd say that 31 must be memory hungry and by running it on NTP, which is also memory hungry, the limit for acceptable memory usage (probably on console) is breached. This may be fine for many PCs, but DTG strive for content parity between PC and console, so if those scenarios were to run fine on the PC but not on console, DTG would opt to exclude them from both. It's also possible that it could be used in service mode on the PC whilst still performing acceptably, but if that wasn't possible on console, DTG would again opt to exclude it from both.
Fundamentally DTG want to avoid any situation where console players are saying 'why am I paying the same price as the PC players whilst getting less content.'
I'm sorry to say, but putting PCs and consoles on the same level is a very serious mistake. The two worlds, like it or not, are very far apart. Starting from the way of playing. Due to the choice of multiplatform, the PC gamers are very penalized. DTG should find a solution.
A possible solution, and here I must return to a topic repeated thousands of times, is undoubtedly the editor.
That has nothing to do with it.
It was very specifically stated by Matt that it was due to memory issues with NTP that they won't add another service layer until those issues are fixed.
I don't think its so much that the 31 takes more memory than the 40, 47 or 45. My suspicion is that approaching Miles Platting (where the issue happens) perhaps is encroaching on a tile that contains the line going from Newton Heath to Red Bank. Maybe specific services are loading and crossing at the same time causing an overload? I just worry that with the 31 Its just another case of buy it 1st . It will bear fruit later. How much later is my concern.
Pure speculation, not sure why everyone automatically assumes consoles are always to blame. Gets a bit monotonous after a while. I think Matt has explained the situation quite well.
....and another PC master race spokesman enters the debate
Separate names with a comma.