I had this thought while playing NEC, and I realized the only routes where continuous safety systems are implemented and work well are LGV, SEHS, HMA and SKA (TVM430 and LZB) - BTW with "continuous" I mean they constantly monitor your train (TVM, ATC, ACSES, PTC, LZB, ERTMS, etc...), unlike PZB where the only thing that matters is your state when you pass over a magnet - The fact is that the dispatcher in order to work in some situations needs to have those "Go Via" markers acting as a don't dispatch further from here, and it's fine with the British Systems, where the only result is only having to acknowledge one more AWS warning, and with clever placement can be fine with PZB as well, if it's placed further along enough from the distant signal of the affected main. The fact is that, with continuous safety systems you will get slowed down for every red light much earlier, so you wouldn't be able to get away with putting artificial red lights near busy junctions, would this limit what routes are possible, especially all the routes with various forms of PTC in the US, or busy LZB/ERTMS routes, or am I just spitting nonsense? Did this have an impact in the possibility of the ICE trains overtaking the Talents in SKA, or is it just confirmation bias?
It doesn‘t really limit what‘s possible, but Boston Sprinter clearly shows the limitations of the current dispatcher. The continuous safety systems make the shortcomings more obvious. Though I believe there are some still unresolved non-dispatcher related signaling issues as well. If I recall correctly, Matt confirmed that the ICEs stay behind the Talents in the real world as well.
Exactly, it was really obvious in NEC... and I wonder if they'll think twice about doing a similar route now that it's obvious that these safety systems and the "go via" system don't go well togheter. Thanks for the information about the ICE, I missed that.
I agree with the general sentiment that this is partially an issue with how the dispatcher works. It simply does not make sense to have an Amtrak regional train slow all the way to a stop (station stop or not) just because it’s a junction. While real world dispatchers do act dynamically to train delays and disruptions (by not giving trains green lights until they are nearby), a certain system of priority exists where a train like the Amtrak regional should have the signals cleared further in advance so that you can actually maintain a timetable, especially when the regional is on time. Just to make things clear from a technology perspective on the NEC, ATC is certainly a continuous form of train monitoring, while I’d say ACSES is somewhere between intermittent and continuous. With ATC the cab constantly monitors the rails for coded signals (or lack thereof) and its primary job would be to achieve proper train separation. ACSES on the other hand relies on detection of signals from transponders placed between the rails that help provide for enforcement of civil speed limits (curves, etc.). Similar PZB, the system only works by intermittent communication with said transponders. However, at interlockings (and control points) where junctions/switches need to be protected, ACSES does use radio signals to communicate pertinent info to trains so that is the “continuous” side of ACSES - though this only happens as you approach the interlocking. Not all signals have radio antennas installed that enforce what is called a “positive stop”. Theoretically, you could roll by an intermediate/auto block/distant signal at 20 mph (ATC would give you a restricting cab signal) regardless of whether that signal was red. This is another thing that is inaccurate in TSW’s Boston route since you have to request to pass every red signal as opposed to only at junctions/interlockings/control points where positive stop would actually be enforced.
Sorry to revive this thread but I really don't want to make another one on this subject. NB642 thanks for the informations you added above, it makes sense at the end ACSES (if I understood correctly) normally (so outside of interlocking) only "cares" about the max track speed, so there is no need to continuously monitor the speed limit. As I am having a bit more free time I was looking at learning more about ATC and ACSES (especially now that the ACSES equipped MTA Harlem line is in the roadmap), and in one of the first videos I found online about ACSES It's clear that when there is an ACSES intervention the speed limit gradually drops, visualising the correct braking curve, not sure if there is a "time to brake" like there was on the old TSW2020 NEC, as that display might not be visible from that angle. So does the AMTRAK system work in the same way? If it does, wouldn't the current version of the TSW2 ACSES be almost entirely wrong? I know MTA apparently uses ACSES II, but I'm struggling to find more detailed informations on the matter apart from the attached power point. Would anyone have any recommendation on where to find some ACSES-related documentation? Just one last thing, but shouldn't the "Suppression" brake setting be somewhat similar for each train to adhere to the ACSES expected braking curve? How come that the F40PH consists seem to brake much more harshly compared to the ACS-64 ones?
