Vote yes, to the return of (SLI) Scenic Sub Route

[eric]

Lets get something straight.. the file library isn't a Democracy. Nor is what TSN or others decide to make available as a commercial offering.

Our library includes stuff that may as well be written in Olde English -- it might be difficult to read (looking at you, Beowolf) but still has historical significance to some.

The resistance by some not to take the steps to create replacement consists is boggling. There's plenty of suitable equipment to swap out, and we have great tools to make that simple, or you can hand edit a CON file in minutes.

[lvlender]

It's not the *,con files that is a problem.
it is the actiivity itself. There are many 'loose consists' buried within the a given activity file. Reworking the activity file 'loose consists' is a bugger. The TSRES utility does not modify/rewrite the 'loose consists' as well as individual *.con files.

[oper190]

It's old, but works well for that is ConBuilder found in the library. Edit: https://www.trainsim.com/forums/file...leid?fid=84680

Has some limits with static consist size ( 60 cars ) and won't display pure OR equipment like NAVS.

[R. Steele]

It's not the *,con files that is a problem.
it is the actiivity itself. There are many 'loose consists' buried within the a given activity file. Reworking the activity file 'loose consists' is a bugger. The TSRES utility does not modify/rewrite the 'loose consists' as well as individual *.con files.

I beg to differ, I spend much of my time upgrading old activities to OR standards, including replacing older stock with more modern offerings, or just substituting for pieces I don't have. TSRE will edit "loose consist" quite easily --- in my experience. You can also substitute equipment in activities & consist by using any Search & Replace program...Search and Replace for windows is an excellent program for just this purpose >>>> https://www.funduc.com/search_replace.htm

You will have to develop a work flow routine that suits your abilities and inclinations....once that is accomplished refurbishing old MSTS activities for OR is quite easy.

This is part of the hobby that people have to do for themselves....finding older activities that interest them, involving routes they are interested in, finding replacement equipment, etc.

[crstagg]

I beg to differ, I spend much of my time upgrading old activities to OR standards, including replacing older stock with more modern offerings, or just substituting for pieces I don't have. TSRE will edit "loose consist" quite easily --- in my experience. ............

You will have to develop a work flow routine that suits your abilities and inclinations....once that is accomplished refurbishing old MSTS activities for OR is quite easy.

This is part of the hobby that people have to do for themselves....finding older activities that interest them, involving routes they are interested in, finding replacement equipment, etc.

Gerry is correct. TSRE-CE does edit Loose Consists quite easily and much easier than ConBuilder. BUT TSRE calls them "Activity Consists".

What you may have overlooked is the Pull-down arrow the box Labeled "Show" When TSRE-CE opens the "Show" box has "Consists v" (the "v" is the pulldown arrow). Click the arrow and the choices are Consists or Activity Consists. I won't bore you with further comments as it is intuitive from there.

[OSRFan]

I'm not inclined to vote. Simply because this is a matter for the vender to decide. Go shopping say for a shirt and find a brand and style you like. Go back to the store six months later and you can't find them anymore, replaced by some other style and/or brand. That's just business.

I agree with the above in that bringing back that Scenic Sub is a decision for Trainsimulations to make. It's not really something we should vote on.

I own a copy of the Scenic Sub. It is not installed on my computer, although the rolling stock still is. I don't run the stock any more because TS makes much better models now than they did back in the day. I replaced Scenic Sub with Mullan Pass. No regrets, as Mullan Pass is superior in every way. It just doesn't make sense to bring back the old route.

JWM

[Whatever2006]

I can’t vote at this time but I would say that they should make a whole new version of the scenic sub and have it extended all the way to Seattle and set it in the timeframe of the Mullan Pass (late 2010’s-present) and i do agree that we do need upgraded versions of the rolling stock that was made for the Scenic Sub such as the B40-8, SD70’s and SD75’s, ES44DC in H2 scheme, and Amtrak Equipment in the starter route could also use an upgrade to Shasta Coast Starlight/Auto Train Set standards

I'm certain that the B40-8 and SD70MAC are included in the SLI Scenic Sub V1, along with the some other locomotives included at the time, but for the SD75, I don't think it was part of Scenic and it was from Seligman, random chance that I might have goofed up with what I said...

[Orbita]

I'm certain that the B40-8 and SD70MAC are included in the SLI Scenic Sub V1, along with the some other locomotives included at the time, but for the SD75, I don't think it was part of Scenic and it was from Seligman, random chance that I might have goofed up with what I said...

The SD75's were in the original Seligman V2 (before the Open Rails upgrade). As for the B40-8 and SD70MAC, those have since been part of the Danny Beck donation packs if my memory serves me right.

[Whatever2006]

Yep and you're correct on that.

Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk