route rant

martinvk

since 10 Aug 2002
One of the BIG pluses of Trainz is the almost unlimited real-estate that is available to build a route. And yet, time and again I see routes squeezed into a few baseboards. If that is the challenge, go for it or if an actual model railroad is being created, fine, but when the route name implies a vast area why be so stingy with the baseboards? They're cheap! It's not like a model RR that is confined to a small room with the tracks squeezed and folded to fit. Trainz as all the space you need.

Why, even when things are spread over many baseboards, are most of the tracks parallel to the grid lines? Very few railroads run due north-south or east-west. And why do so many mainlines have radii that would shame an urban trolley? I know that creating a DEM based route can be a challenge so simplified elevation doesn't bother me too much unless it is supposed to be a mountain route. Yes the grid size can be a challenge to creating realistic topology that is more than a gentle hill and dale.

Can't remember how often I've downloaded a route based on a name that implies some relationship to a real place and all I get is a few baseboards with almost nothing that even remotely resembles the real thing besides the name of a station or two. Are they all works-in-progress? Or should they be labelled - "inspired by but not too much?"

Yes there are some classic routes that are faithful to their name, too bad that not more are.

Perhaps it's only me but when I made a few routes that were based on some real place, I tried to be faithful to the original except in some of the details. Often fewer secondary tracks, limited detail the further away from the tracks, substituting generic objects for landmarks unless I or someone made a specific object, and generally a simplified rendition of stations and other train related things. but overall, it still looked like the name on the label.
 
Martin,

Beware the routes meant for mobile devices. Build 3.8 and Build 4.5 come to mind as being the build numbers for this version. These are generally very limited and guaranteed to have these spectacular names eluding to grandeur beyond all we could ever hope for. In many cases, these are just that -- WIP. The mobile versions run on hardware with no local storage and the DLS has become their storage. We have been hoping that at some point N3V looks into setting up a separate storage space for mobile users so their WIP and limited routes don't clutter up the DLS.

With that said, there are also many, many new users creating routes of grandeur and splendor without the route-building skills just yet. Let's hope that at some point their route building skills catch up with their dreams.
 
Some are building compact routes to recapture their model RR aspirations. Also, long routes require a lot more scenery effort. I have said before that WIP with only a few tracks do not belong on the Freeware forum. When I look at American Mountains and Scratchy's routes, it makes me not even attempt serious route building for myself.
 
Recommended and in use here ofc:
-London-Lille, anatoth71 wonderful true to life canal tunnel racing :)
-UMR2021, from Neil, big route cool scenery and Industries, turfx and banking
-Netherland Westv6 by barrie40 and me, 5k+ baseboards 80% of our country
uses many of your nice creations, available at trainzonline superfast 1000x DLS speed


Will continue working on v7 if we get this SP123 fixed, estimate release late fall
then with kijfhoek and all junctions and signals with true to life numbering.
just have to select the real ones and skip the others.


And if you want 1 super model railroad, get Miniworld from Olaf99 (and a tiny bit from me)
I never blame anyone for making something, if you dont want it skip it.
just enjoy Trainz, greetings GM
 
Good point, I had not considered the mobile angle. So there really has to be an easy way to identify them. Too bad the DLS only uses the Trainz version, TANE, TRS19, etc.
Compact routes that recapture a model RR are fine and can be little jewels. Wish there was also a quick way to identify them.

When they get around to updating the DLS, I sure hope these areas are not overlooked.
 
It's easy to set a filter in CM to see only version "xx" routes and above.

But what I do is: Each day I view assets NOT installed. I then sort by upload date. I highlight everything from previous day. I then right click and vew these IN NEW WINDOW. Since I'm in new window I can now sort yesterdays uploads by any of the columns. I generally sort by "Type" but I glance at version number and if not over my "target" version I just ignore. Easy and quick as long as you don't get behind. If you have to start going thru 4 or 5 days worth of uploads it starts getting tedious. This works for me anyway. Found some nice pre-made consists this way and things not usually talked about.
 
Last edited:
I can add my two sense on this topic. Real routes are hard to build. Historically accurate routes are even harder. I've tried and failed countless times. I have a 19 mile route I have to keep giving up on because I simply can't find the historical data...it's very frustrating. I think most people bite off more then they can chew when when the enter the route building fray. They only get so far, get board and give up. It's easier to make up a small compact or model railroad then plan out a complete route. I think for the historical routes that are out there, the creators of those routes took great creative liberties with the facts to finish their projects. Most of them seem cheaply done and rushed to me. However, for the simple fact of finishing a route get some kind of praise from me.

Add to the fact that it takes much longer to create content now and there are fewer content creators out there creating good content. It's simply not worth the time it takes to make content at TRS2019 standard any more. I see very few doing that. So I feel you will see less and less as time goes on. That seems to be the path N3V has taken for their product. Maybe in the future N3V will make it easier again for the user to create content again, but for right now it's too hard for basic users to understand and it's not worth the time to invest.
 
Martin,

Beware the routes meant for mobile devices. Build 3.8 and Build 4.5 come to mind as being the build numbers for this version. These are generally very limited and guaranteed to have these spectacular names eluding to grandeur beyond all we could ever hope for. In many cases, these are just that -- WIP. The mobile versions run on hardware with no local storage and the DLS has become their storage. We have been hoping that at some point N3V looks into setting up a separate storage space for mobile users so their WIP and limited routes don't clutter up the DLS.

With that said, there are also many, many new users creating routes of grandeur and splendor without the route-building skills just yet. Let's hope that at some point their route building skills catch up with their dreams.

3.8 was used for the TANE preview release, some of Mcguirels TANE speedtrees are 3.8, 4.5 is TANE not mobile.

Trouble with the mobile stuff is people are using the DLS as a file store, may not in some cases even be aware that others can see what they have uploaded.

What annoys me is TANE and TRS19 routes with gaps under the Track and roads made worse by the shadow system we now have and old crossed plane billboard trees which just look dreadful and worse than dreadful in TRS19!

True to get original I try to do as with my Ffestiniog Welsh Highland and now my WIP Lynton and Barnstaple Plus, Plus because I included the standard Gauge GWR and Souther Railway stations and a few miles of track and created more work for myself!

Trying for accuracy means things take longer as it involves creating loads of specific buildings and a heck of a lot of research, I'm lucky as there are a lot of old photos available plus informative books for the L&B, accurate isn't always 100% possible when laying track, as in Barnstaple Victoria Road I've had to move junctions slightly so the AI works properly, generic stuff is OK if its far enough away not to be obvious, working to a 1930s map using Transdem coincidently the L&B is 19 miles and I seem to have been working on it since August 2016...... So I know where BlackDiamond1964 is coming from, some time you have to go and do something else for a while until the mojo returns! My Ffestiniog route took me over 8 Years that was 40 miles.
 
As for route fatigue, that is also one of the advantages of working virtually instead of sawing and gluing wood products. I have several routes in various stages of completion and when I get tired of one, I go to another. Perhaps they will never be truly finished but that is where I have my fun. For me it's almost all in the making. It's the journey not the destination, as someone once said.

Well there is accuracy and there is ACCURACY! Even in real life, two identical objects are not truly exact copies, there will always be small differences. Same for locations - to the meter, the cm, the mm, how close is close enough? Only the route creator should decide. All others must accept it as-is.
 
Well there is accuracy and there is ACCURACY! Even in real life, two identical objects are not truly exact copies, there will always be small differences. Same for locations - to the meter, the cm, the mm, how close is close enough? Only the route creator should decide. All others must accept it as-is.

It also doesn't help to be a perfectionist... like me :eek: in this hobby! Then again, if a perfectionist ever does manage to finish a route, it could be one for the record books. Or maybe a route to set a new standard to.
 
I swear that some dls routes look like they were built by 10 year olds. Very sloppy and incomplete. On the other hand, creators like jrfolco (Joe) have made some excellent routes centered around B&O and C&O that are quite long. He’s probably an older adult. Jointed Rail has excellent routes including Reading and Northern. And check out Roy’s excellent Western Canada routes, they are long and very detailed. But payware.
 
......when the route name implies a vast area why be so stingy with the baseboards? They're cheap!

Why...are most of the tracks parallel to the grid lines?

Baseboards are cheap to add, yes, but expensive in the time and creative effort required to fill them with realistic-looking ground textures, topology and 3D objects. I think this is the main disincentive to making large, high-quality routes.

And the tendency to make tracks parallel to the grid lines is driven by the desire to not have a jagged “saw-tooth” pattern of ground textures beneath tracks laid at an angle to the grid. This won’t change until N3V introduce a better topology system.


.
 
Last edited:
One thing to consider, UMR2021 is the latest version of a route that has existed since before trainz. Year after year Neil was added and edited the original three routes. which I think were started in Microsoft Train. I remember when it ended in Gilby now almost a half way point. The idea that such a route could be thrown together in short order is foolish. Neil gives a toolbox for session or just driving that is very special. I would hate to account the hours of enjoyment it has brought me.

Rob
 
I decent route takes years to create, 2 for my last one and at least that for my current one, and as correctly said above, baseboards may be cheap (5 or 600 hundred on mine!) but filling the landscape takes, well years! Typical rubbish I've unfortunately downloaded from the DLS was a local route, Mudgee to Wallerawang to Sydney (I think). It was an 'L' shaped route, dead straight down, dead straight across!!

Much of the payware routes are rubbish in all honesty. Look at the beautiful Lake Sebino route, a large number of un-needed baseboards and no industry except for 2 with general goods only 100 metres apart and NO WORKING STATIONS! Really bugs me and I feel like shouting (won't do it here), what is the sole purpose of all trains from the being of time to eternity? It is to move goods and people from point A to point B, period! I route that can't do that is not a realistic train simulation at all. I could go on but don't want to bore you, so I better get back to working on my latest route :)
 
I spent an absolute age creating the Southern Region Brighton Line. All track is third rail and getting it right was a monstrous headache. Getting the Brighton Station layout somewhere near authenticity challenging, building Victoria station almost made me insane! When I came upon Clapham Jct I cried in horror...how the hell can I reproduce this entanglement of lines. So I didn't; just made a Brighton Up/Down Fast/Slow route thro' Clapham. Left it at that.

Attempting a prototypical route was, as I found out, a mighty feat and quite frankly I take my hat off to those who can master it. My first attempt was the Blue Mountains line in Australia, where I now live. Again more than a year before I could reasonably say there was some accuracy.

I am now working on a fictitious route called Carisbrook. Even using creative licence for a mythical route requires attention to detail.
Speaking of detail, that is where the time is taken up as many know, and advised me. But how mundane is a route whether prototypical or not without attention to detailing.

Conclusion....its a labour of love. I hate gardening :)

Cheers,
Val
 
To add to what Val said.

Building an area we know well, is impossible for me. I have tried more than once to build my own hometown with its big rail bridge across the Merrimack River on the south side to Bradford and on towards Lawrence then on to Boston. The north heads up to Portland Maine and at one time there was a huge yard on the Haverhill side as well as a small yard in Bradford along with a branch to Georgetown and on to Newburyport and down to Salem and Danvers. All sounds wonderful, but getting this built has proven to be impossible for me even when using a DEM. I find that even compromising doesn't quite cut it because I know the details aren't right no matter what.

I have, however, taken real terrain and made my own route out of it. As an extension to George Fisher's Gloucester Terminal switching route, I modified his route into a tram line with diesel powered freights, I expanded the terrain and ran some lines out to Eastern Point, and sent a line out to West Gloucester. This expands the mainline to slightly under 8 miles end to end. Given the slowish speeds on the line and all the stops, this run takes about 20 minutes to go from end to end, which in real life takes about the same when driving through the horrid traffic in that area.

Being a tram line, I run my tracks on their own ROW but parallel to the roads in some locations. When heading out and away from the busy Inner Harbor, Rocky Point areas and out to Eastern Point, the landscape opens up to farms and small hamlets such as Southeast Harbor. At no point in time did this area have any trolley or tram lines. This area in fact wouldn't have allowed it in the first place since it's all upper crud and super rich. At Eastern Point, I have a turn around for the trams and a small branch running down to the water front where there was once a Coast Guard station. There's some fishing industries down there and a small boat manufacturer. Servicing this area requires running a diesel under the wires until it reaches the branch then running down to the small interchange where the small switcher picks up the boxcar or two and delivers that to the fishing industries. The other boxcars are then sent back to the main yard up in Gloucester proper.

Gloucester and Rockport in real life were once dotted with various granite quarries. Some were mere holes in the ground while others were quite extensive and even had their own disconnected railroads with one being a narrow gauge up in Rockport. On this route, I represent this by a quarry up on a hill that requires a small train to gingerly descend the grade and drop of flats of granite blocks. I have a shed down there with a gantry and do some shunting down there. The granite is cut into sheets for the building industry and sent of in boxcars to wherever. This too requires a road freight to bring this over the electrified portion very briefly then on to the freight-only line where it's interchanged in Gloucester yard.

The most difficult part of building this wasn't planning the route and laying the tracks. The problem is the catenary. Yes, all those connections and spline points gave me a headache from the constant bright spinning circles. Now to add insult to injury, we have shadows. I requested this before. It would be nice if we could turn off shadows on the fly. Attempting to line up splines on assets that don't connect can be a nightmare because the shadows make the alignment impossible at times.

This is all fictional, but when immersed, the details become convincing and real enough that one would think its all plausible. The thing is even modeling these smaller portions and modifying someone else's work took me about a decade off and on. Yes, I started this back in 2010 or thereabouts in TS2010 and moved the route along through to TRS19 today with some updates and changes along the way such as moving the tram line to a tunnel under the Gloucester freight yard instead of running along the edge.
 
Compact routes that recapture a model RR are fine and can be little jewels. Wish there was also a quick way to identify them.

The convention most of us who build model railways in Trainz use is to have 'MR' in the layout title. I have '0' for 0 gauge in the title as well and some of the other MR builders on the forum also use scale markers in their layout titles, - '00', 'H0', 'TT', 'N' & etc.

Building a historically accurate route can just about break your heart and drive you mad. I'm slowly working on a 1880s Cornwall Broad Gauge route and the amount of research involved is an exercise in frustration due to so much being unknown or else inaccessible. Perhaps you can understand why I build three rail '0' gauge layouts as a way to escape into the freedom of laying tracks on the floor and playing trains like I did when I was small. I always knew that growing up was a mistake.
 
Having built many hundreds of Km's of real scale routes based in NSW I can agree it can drive you mad, so mad its just taken me almost 12 months to build another 200Km which is due for release soon..
In the early days of Trainz it was a matter of limiting the size of routes, mainly baseboards, as the computer and grapics of the day struggled to cope. As PC power increased and got cheaper and later versions ot Trainz changes file specifications this is now not so much of an issue. Although I dont see much point building basebaords that cannot be seen from the Cab view in Driver. Also lots of high detail close in also gets lost in Driver mode. Its a compromise between Virtual and Actual reality.

PG
 
If your aim to to build historically accurate layouts for others to use, then make sure that you have a thick skin, a lot of patience (and time) and a calm demeanor. If you are building them for your own enjoyment (despite the "endless pain and frustration" cited in the posts above) then you only need to please yourself. Anyone who expects a route to be "highly accurate" has never attempted to build a route, real or fictional.

All my historically "accurate" routes have been created for my own enjoyment (that's weird I know). I release them onto the DLS for others to use as they wish. It helps if you build routes that have long since been closed and abandoned so critics are less likely to complain about some minor detail or another. So far the only "criticism" I have ever received was from a user who wanted to join one of my routes to an extension he was creating himself - he was "disappointed" to discover that I had created the layout at the correct altitude while he had started his at 0 metres.

Compromise, as PG mentions above, is very much the reality. The more you compromise the easier, faster and less stressful the task becomes.
 
Back
Top