Since the new scoring system will evaluate the use of safety systems, the EMD F125 is going to have a working I-ETMS PTC system, right?
Okay, sad. But thanks for the answer, I really appreciate it. (And maybe put it on the mid-term list, we need systems of that kind for so many US routes.. Can't have us knowingly violate the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 every time we play a route without access to ACSES.. )
Why not if you don't mind me asking? Safety systems play a very crucial role in the operations of railroads and the running of trains, so to not have it on the F125 will affect running the train in game. If it's due to a time constraint it could always be released later along with the suspension update. If it's a development constraint then that is more understandable.
Forgive my ignorance in how it works, but will there be any safety systems on this route, such as those we are now used to on the NEC routes, or will there not be anything? How will this be accounted for in the new scoring system? It seems like implementing those types of PTC systems would be standard in US routes moving forward if scoring is based on proper utilization of said systems.
HAs to be made standard on all US routes because of the Federal Law which requires them to have it after 2018 or 2021. Main cause for the PTC was the Metrolink Chatsworth Train Collision in 2008 and ACS-64 600 or 601 Philly Crash. DTG Needs the I-etms PTC because its standard equipment on all Trains running in the USA. There are quotes on this
It certainly is frustrating that every UK and German route comes with the full suite of safety systems, while the US routes are left behind. There is even implementation of the French systems on the LGV and SEHS routes. Maybe DTG Matt can shed some light on why US safety systems have been more or less ignored outside of the NEC?
In contrast to the slightly provocative nature of my question in the OP, I can totally see that implementing systems of that kind is not a small thing at all, since those systems are quite complex, rather new, proprietary, tend to differ from railroad carrier to railroad carrier and seem to be poorly documented as far as openly accessible material is concerned. Additionally, communication based train control systems (like most I-ETMS to my knowledge) have not been a thing in the game so far, so I guess the whole architecture for radio communication between the train and a control center/dispatcher needs to be implemented in the game first (would be interesting to know how the PTS stop feature in ACSES, that should rely primarily on radio communication, is simulated in the game so far, and if this can be used on a larger scale). But nevertheless this needs to be tackled to not leave American routes behind, since communication based PTC systems are a reality and essential requirement now, no less than AWS/TPWS, PZB/LZB or KVB/TVM etc. on European routes. For European routes we will need the architecture for radio communication between train and command center for routes that require the implementation of ETCS Level 2 and higher anyway. In general, ERTMS/ETCS implementations in their different versions will be more and more important for newer European routes (not the least in the UK), and there is not that much happening so far in the game. Rivet needs to be praised at this point for at least trying to implement some ETCS (not radio communication based) functionality on their Luzern Sursee route. With its flaws and weaknesses, this is not a small achievement. But in my humble opinion, it should not be left to the small third party developers to provide the complex safety systems of modern days railroading.
I completely see how American PTC is completely different from AWS in terms on complexity, but like you said, DTG needs to begin addressing how PTC will be implemented in US routes moving forward, especially if scoring will be based on proper utilization of such systems on the UK and German routes. It would be a shame to see the US content fall so far behind the rest because they don’t have the proper systems in place.
Could also be licensing - they have stated before that some operators have asked them to leave stuff out of the sim because its too realistic and they don't want it to teach people to hijack trains - but I agree - I'd love to see more PTC stuff in US content - however - I think its probably wise for them to get ATC/ACSES right first (they are getting there).
Here again, judging upon the little that I can see from the outside, we probably wouldn't have the quite elaborate pulse code cab signaling and ACSES implementation, especially on the NEC, had it not been for cActUsjUiCe 's more or less extra-mandatory fixes and improvements to the whole signaling system. While, presumably due to the lack of such extra-mandatory efforts, at the same time Sherman Hill SD70ACe's are running a very peculiar two-aspect cab signaling and speed control system that reminds faintly of the C&NW ATC system, but on the ACS/CCS side of the display unit and not really complying with wayside signals, and trains on Cajon Pass (or the Horseshoe Curve) are running no train control or cab signaling system at all. In my humble opinion, the proper implementation of US safety, train control and cab signaling systems – and therefore I-ETMS PTC on contemporary routes outside of ACSES territory – should be a core matter that should be handled on and pushed from top level.
It’s a great shame that US safety systems are not more of a priority. Such systems are essential features of a simulator to me. Yes, it’s a long and difficult process to implement safety systems. Rapid Transit showed how difficult it was to get PZB mostly right and LZB - while good - isn’t all the way there either. Still, they should be focussed on more intently.
We have done some investigation into PTC. It's several orders of magnitude more complex than what is available anywhere else, because it has detailed track plans, gradient profiles, driver guidance and all sorts of things that are highly complex. Some of the information/data being used is simply not available currently, some would potentially be achievable, but not enough to deliver the PTC that makes everyone go "ah yes". We've talked about doing "bits" of PTC that are achievable, such as skipping the diagrams etc, and focusing on the speed related indicators, but the general feeling was that it would leave everyone feeling it was all half baked and "couldn't be bothered" when even that would have been a fairly extensive job, so at this point, we haven't made any progress. PTC in this instance is entirely different to systems like ACSES, we're not talking about simply developing a variant of ACSES, just to be completely clear. I know it's not what you want to hear, but, it's the best i've got for you at the moment. I'm 100% as passionate about safety systems as you all are, but I also have to live in the constraints of what the sim can reasonably be made to do. Matt.
Happy to hear that! Thanks again for the reply. And I am confident you won't stop pushing the limits of what your sim can do further and further also in this respect.
PTC (and full ETCS) are vastly more complex systems than Indusi/PZB (which dates from the 1930s) and LZB (1960s).
... and this shouldn't stop you from fixing the "simple" historic cab signaling systems like the ACS/CCS on Sherman Hill.
This all makes a lot of sense and is more or less what I figured was going on in regards to the US PTC systems. Perhaps you can explain how scoring will work for the AVL if there are no safety systems? Will there still be platinum medals achievable or will it cap at gold and reflect the pre-TSW4 scoring model?
The platinum medal is for "90% of Available Score" so it should be possible if no safety systems exist.
I never thought of it like that, but you know what, I was on Metro North the other day and they had the cab open, and I felt that I could’ve driven that train if given the chance. The cab and display looked just like the one in TSW, despite being an M9 rather than an M7A.
Even though its not what I would like to hear, I'm glad that there is an explanation for why not. Hopefully some day in the future we will have PTC like the implemented, but I would imagine that would require the railroad your working with to willingly hand over all that stuff which probably won't happen easily.
Sherman Hill was what I was thinking about mostly. I suspected PTC is a complex beast even though I know next to nothing about it. But the cab signals are not as complicated or am I wrong about that?
Nah, they are, to quote Matt, 'several orders of magnitude' less complex than I-ETMS and even less complex than the pulse code cab signaling system used on the NEC. More or less all the ACS/CCS system does, ttbomk, is to translate four different pulse codes running on a 60 Hz carrier frequency into four different color light cab signal aspects, always agreeing with the last wayside signal passed (according to a correlation table in the special instructions). All the engineer needs to do, is to acknowledge within a few seconds in case the cab signal aspects degrade, to avoid a penalty brake application. Unlike other systems, the speed restrictions deriving from (cab) signal aspects are, ttbomk, NOT controlled and enforced by the system. I guess this is rather a matter of how much effort needs to be put into it versus only a handful of players will actually notice. And obviously the system got replaced by I-ETMS by the end of 2022. Would actually be interesting to know what information is actually not (easily) available and what effort it takes to make it available. Unlike in the real world, our train in the game is already "living" nowhere else but in a "detailed track plan" with "gradient profiles", so that part of the system would be not so much unlike what is going to be displayed on the new HUD element that is supposed to show the incoming speed restrictions. Would also be interesting to know if the dispatcher in the game is already using positive train control for the AI trains, i.e. issuing movement authority until a certain point in the track, as opposed to having all the AI trains run on autonomously until they receive a (negative) restricting command via the signalling system.
DTG Matt if you're 100% as passionate about the safety systems as we all are why are we coming up to TSW 4 and still have no training mission to show us how to use them? Or even in game links to videos to explain and show us each safety system.
Very true. That seems to make platinum a tad easy on American routes. You can find a lot of great videos explaining safety systems on the internet (for every taste and expectations, not only the lengthy ones provided by myself). So there is not really a need for that.
Keep in mind that PTC or Positive Train Control is not any one system, it's a regulatory standard. The government mandated some years back that by 2021 all passenger and mainline freight lines should be equipped with "positive train control,"* but left it up to the railroads to decide which system would meet that requirement. The ATC/ACSES system used on the NEC is one such approach. I-etms is another, as is ETCS (weirdly, LZB does not qualify, which I'm not sure I understand). * defined as Speed display and control unit on the locomotive A method to dynamically inform the speed control unit of changing track or signal conditions An on-board navigation system and track profile database to enforce fixed speed limits A bi-directional data link to inform signaling equipment of the train's presence Centralized systems to directly issue movement authorities to trains
I might be wrong here, so please correct me if I am, but I ttbomk LZB doesn't necessarily issue (positive) movement authorities, but in its basic operation mode "scans" the "visible" track ahead for (negative) restrictions, giving the train an unlimited "go ahead at line speed until further notice" if no restrictions are found. With positve train control, contrary to that, the system will always only issue a movement authority that automatically ends at a predifined point in the track (signal, milestone, etc), untill replaced by a new movement authority. This is probably why LZB is not considered PTC.
Not doing a safety system because it's "too complex", yet still calling the game a simulator, is a bit of joke to be honest. Safety systems are a core part of railroading and the inability to accurately recreate it should lead to the abandonment of the project.
Yeah, in this context pretty much! Here is an example (from the Webtech I-ETMS brochure) of an I-EMTS control screen displaying the movement authority (yellow outline):
A comprehensive description of what a train control system must be able to do to qualify as a PTC system required by US law is defined in 49 CFR § 236.1005. It IS a complex matter, no doubt about that...
Unless you wanted a half implemented safety system that doesn't work. It's still complex to understand and get reference for. If it was an easy thing to do, it would have been made already.
Fun fact, apparently Norfolk Southern had their PTC go down today and kind a made a mess of their system.... https://railfan.com/norfolk-southern-snarled-by-positive-train-control-outage/
Apparently the scoring system didn't feel that turning on the crew alerter (or whatever vigilance system the loco may have) really merits the upgrade from gold to platinum.. Well, seems like it will be forced to accept that now.
I don't know that that's actually unreasonable. Why should a player be awarded platinum for completing a route without meaningful safety systems to worry about? A German route with PZB off, or an NEC route with ATC/ACSES off, doesn't earn platinum, so why should LA get cheap platinums?
Almost like I asked this exact question a month ago. How did I know this would happen? Glad I haven’t preordered.
Because medals are based on “% of available score” not difficulty of the route. If medals were based off difficulty of the route you may have a point.
Contrary to this statement it totally is possible to get platinum medals on Antelope Valley Line, even with my blundering through it for the first time..
