North Wales Coast - BR Blue Route now available for download

[brysonman46]

If you look at the dates of the relevant files (the ones in the .ap archive and the ones in our asset bundle) they are the same except for NorthWalesCoastal_Markers.dcsv. The original ones number 12, with their coordinates. In the new one, there are 28 (at the moment). These include the original 12, complete with their coordinates. These route markers are not used in any scenarios, though are useful when setting up a scenario by allowing one to state a starting point. You can also use them to fly around the route very quickly. You can also use them in the original DTG\NWC, so they are a bonus, not a handicap.
Any other marker (siding, platform, portal, destination) is unique to the route, so there is no conflict

I trust that this answers your concerns

Nick

[chrisonline]

If you look at the dates of the relevant files (the ones in the .ap archive and the ones in our asset bundle) they are the same except for NorthWalesCoastal_Markers.dcsv. The original ones number 12, with their coordinates. In the new one, there are 28 (at the moment). These include the original 12, complete with their coordinates. These route markers are not used in any scenarios, though are useful when setting up a scenario by allowing one to state a starting point. You can also use them to fly around the route very quickly. You can also use them in the original DTG\NWC, so they are a bonus, not a handicap.
Any other marker (siding, platform, portal, destination) is unique to the route, so there is no conflict

I trust that this answers your concerns

Nick

OK Nick, I don't doubt it. Like I said, I felt I must be missing something, and couldn't get my head around it. Thanks for responding, And thanks again for the route

[sbowness]

Well, I may as well be the one to start peoples eyebrows raising! installed the route and ran the batch file but it couldn't find the specified paths? Ran a scenario and there are a ton of assets missing? Is that because of the batch file? No platforms or buildings at Chester, No4 signal box is missing (just the name boards floating in the air), and some bridge decking and sides across the bridge going past the racecourse, didn't get too far past that before an access violation. Checked it with RWTools and it tells me there are over 1009 assets missing from the route, I have the original north Wales coastal as well as all the freeware packs installed plus your other route as specified in the readme?

Edit: That was interesting, just re-ran the batch file (without running it as admin) and the files copied over? Well almost, missing one, apparently, that does not appear to be in the freeware packs, JN's PJT shed?

Just checked the files and the bat file
UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\PJT\Scenery\Buildings2\FP_PJT_Shed_01Cr
is in both!
And FP_PJT_Shed_01 that it is based upon is in UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\PJT\Scenery\Buildings

Hi Nick
I've also had a problem with the FP_PJT_Shed_01.GeoPcDx file. I've got the Railway Buildings freeware pack installed. The batch file says:
K:\Steam\steamapps\common\RailWorks\Assets>copy "UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\JN\Scenery\Buildings\FP_PJT_Shed_01.GeoPcDx" "UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\JN\Scenery\Buildings2\"

That file is actually located in UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\PJT\Scenery\Buildings. Should another process have built the JN folder?

The asset is also in the UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\PJT\Scenery\Buildings2 folder included in the Assets rwp but I couldn't see a step in the batch file that copies the the GeoPcDx file into that, leaving the .bin file on it's own. Is that as intended?

[sbowness]

Hi again, Nick.

One question, please. The manual has a section about the AP Track Enhancement Pack and says "One of our beta testers has got around this by using RW_Tools to raise the track by +0.09, and then lowering associated lineside objects (AWS, signals) by -0.05."

Does that mean that if you already have the pack installed, making those adjustments will be required?

[RolandBP]

To Andy and Nick,
I have watched with great interest and amazement at what you were doing with this route and am now most pleased to see I can take a run on it.
I downloaded the 3 components and installed them and ran the 'batch file'. Started up Steam and TS2019 in 64bit mode and was delighted that the first scenario I ran {Colwyn Bay Shuffle} loaded up with no issues at all.
The route looks amazing, I have just run as far as Colwyn Bay and saved the run at that point as its time for Tea and some TV.
Many thanks for another great route to run some Steam and early Diesels on.
Roland.

[brysonman46]

Hi Nick
I've also had a problem with the FP_PJT_Shed_01.GeoPcDx file. I've got the Railway Buildings freeware pack installed. The batch file says:
K:\Steam\steamapps\common\RailWorks\Assets>copy "UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\JN\Scenery\Buildings\FP_PJT_Shed_01.GeoPcDx" "UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\JN\Scenery\Buildings2\"

That file is actually located in UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\PJT\Scenery\Buildings. Should another process have built the JN folder?

The asset is also in the UKTS_FP\Railway_Buildings\PJT\Scenery\Buildings2 folder included in the Assets rwp but I couldn't see a step in the batch file that copies the the GeoPcDx file into that, leaving the .bin file on it's own. Is that as intended?

I must have been tired when I made the entry in the batch file. It is the last of 300 lines! And cannot blame predictive text. The building in question was used a couple of times, but in non-essential areas. For those who can manage, there is an amended version of the batch file to drop into your assets folder obtainable from my GoogleDrive at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UBRnsd ... sp=sharing - I tried to post here but bat and zip files are not allowed.
When we publish the extended route with the Conwy Valley extension, then all will be well

Nick

[brysonman46]

Hi again, Nick.

One question, please. The manual has a section about the AP Track Enhancement Pack and says "One of our beta testers has got around this by using RW_Tools to raise the track by +0.09, and then lowering associated lineside objects (AWS, signals) by -0.05."

Does that mean that if you already have the pack installed, making those adjustments will be required?

Have you tried any of the scenarios yet? With the enhancement pack installed? Do you find any problems with structures/ballast showing through the track, or AWS floating? If not, then you do not need to make any adjustments. Our beta tester was being very assiduous, and tried various combinations to get his view of the line to his satisfaction. I did try the pack, and was quite happy with the track and infrastructure remaining at the default position, but maybe I am not as fussy as him. At the end of the day, it is up to individual players to make their own minds up.

[sbowness]

Hi again, Nick.

One question, please. The manual has a section about the AP Track Enhancement Pack and says "One of our beta testers has got around this by using RW_Tools to raise the track by +0.09, and then lowering associated lineside objects (AWS, signals) by -0.05."

Does that mean that if you already have the pack installed, making those adjustments will be required?

Have you tried any of the scenarios yet? With the enhancement pack installed? Do you find any problems with structures/ballast showing through the track, or AWS floating? If not, then you do not need to make any adjustments. Our beta tester was being very assiduous, and tried various combinations to get his view of the line to his satisfaction. I did try the pack, and was quite happy with the track and infrastructure remaining at the default position, but maybe I am not as fussy as him. At the end of the day, it is up to individual players to make their own minds up.

Thanks for that and the answer about the batch file. Sod’s Law will always get you on the last item in a long list. I haven’t had a chance to try the route yet but I’m very much looking forward to it.

[acfreeman99]

Hi All,

I omitted a paragraph in the original announcement , as I don't seem to be able to edit the original announcement I will add the missing paragraph below -

NB. This release is Phase 1, it covers Llandudno to Chester, you can still drive through to Crewe but the scenery, track and infrastructure will be the original DTG without regression. Phase 1 1/2 will include a regressed version of Xavier Guerra's Conwy Valley and the Phase 2 release will include the regression of Chester to Crewe.

Andy

[brysonman46]

Hi all

And to make it even clearer! The extension with the Conwy Valley will be have a separate route GUID, as there are a number of extra DLCs required. Both the Phase 1 of the NWC-BRB and the NWC+Conwy Valley will have Phase 2s
Hence, you can have both sitting in your routes. The scenarios will have (slightly) different names, so there will not be a conflict in the scenario database

[chrisreb]

Thanks for this wonderful route. Did a very atmospheric scenario and anjoyed it. Only issue I had was that only the outer half of Llandudno Plat 5 allows opening of doors

[GaryT]

I had missing Telegraph Poles. Checked the Assets rwp and the developer folder is incomplete. Original is available from here (File Id 30726). Sorted!

[brysonman46]

Thanks for this wonderful route. Did a very atmospheric scenario and anjoyed it. Only issue I had was that only the outer half of Llandudno Plat 5 allows opening of doors

Yes, had just spotted that. Will have fixed it for the next phase

Nick

[brysonman46]

I had missing Telegraph Poles. Checked the Assets rwp and the developer folder is incomplete. Original is available from here (File Id 30726). Sorted!

Oops Thanks for that. Neglected to copy over the Misc folder. Will put these in a fix package shortly

Nick

[jpvdveer]

Many thanks for what is a great looking route!

Just one slight remark concerning the scenarios - it is slightly disappointing to consistently see old Class 101 packs used in here that have been withdrawn from sale multiple years ago (2012 for the original 101 pack!) and which many/most users thus will not have. Of course one can swap with RW Tools but that is far from ideal. I think that it is generally good practice to preferably use packs that are currently available, together with reskins where necessary. For example, a BR Green repaint of the currently available Regional Railways BR 101 pack is available at https://backdatedtrainsim.weebly.com/mu ... units.html.