As the title says, I now understand, that is to say how people who post here can be so upset over things like HST coaches all being given the same number, ballast colour being incorrect, fences not being placed where they belong and more. I had to stop watching after about 20 minutes because I was really getting ‘burned’ over what I was seeing. This is not a reflection on Matt who does not understand US operating rules, but on how DTG has ignored safety rules when they head outside the northeast where they have, to various degrees of success, implemented the safety systems. In UK and European routes, the safety systems are there and, if on, had better be followed. What I am on my soapbox about here is items like crossing whistle boards and less than favorable signals. If you pass an approach signal on the corridor, with safety systems on, they will tell you to reduce speed and if you don’t you get a penalty braking. So why is it that on other US routes an approach signal can be ignored when you should be reducing speed, if you are going faster then what that signal indication allows. DTG sure can set up the game to do this, even if its dynamic speed limits triggered by that signal. So on Antelope Valley, when a signal goes less than favorable, set the speed at it to be the speed allowed by that signal per the operating rules, so someone who decides to keep at track speed will get the same penalty as other speeding violations. Sure, I realize, the rules actually say reduce your speed when you pass the signal, but don’t know if that is something which can be done in the game. Whistle boards are another item. This suggestion could be implemented across all routes. When a train passes the board the driver can blow the horn/whistle between the sign and crossing to gain extra points. While not blowing does nothing. Does not even have to be keyed to doing the proper sequence, just use of the horn.
Proper US safety systems and trackside signalling has been ignored for years now. The UK and Germany always get cool and unique safety systems, when for the US we can't even get proper in-cab signalling. Even if they try to include it, it is broken and does not work as inteded, like on Sherman Hill. The case of physical trackside signage is even worse. There is always something missing. Whisle boards are non-existent on many routes. I always missed them on LIRR, even though in real life LIRR is full of whisle boards at crossings and bridges. Other US routes will miss or have incorrectly placed stopping points. Train functions themselves are also all over the place. Some US locos will have working horn sequencers, cruise control and accelerometer, others will not.
Really, without PTC, Metrolink doesn't have a modern safety system. Despite what was said about complexity, it really should be part of any mainline US railroad simulator these days.
It’s a very tough situation, because the complexity of US PTC makes it much harder to implement than PZB/LZD and AWS/TPWS, but without it, it feels like US routes are unfinished and inferior to their UK and German counterparts. I sincerely hope the DTG is actively working on finding the best possible solution to implement PTC on US routes someday. I understand it can’t be implement today, but if they are not actively working on it, then they are doing a disservice to all those who enjoy US routes outside of the NEC.
I feel one of the issues is how fragmented the US railways are. If you model LZB and PZB, you have a system that can be used on all German, and Austrian routes. If you model AWS/TPWS, you have a system usuable for all UK routes. This also allows DTG to improve these systems as they developed new tracks (the first german routes didn't had speed magnets, the first UK routes didn't have TPWS, or delayed green on diverging tracks). So a decision to model such complex PTC system as metrolink has (obviously more complex that anything we have ingame currently) is tough one. As it would be most likely only be usable for Metrolink routes. So I get why they didn't implement it. That said, simpler systems, like that on Sherman Hill, should be working, and should be fixed. The same for the NEC systems on Trenton. Especially if there were considerable effort to fix the system on Boston Route. And routes should have timetable adapted for prototypical running, where approach really means speed reduction. This is what I'm afraid of with Metrolink. That adherence to signal speeds basically means that I'll be running late.
As Winzarten notes, PTC is a very complicated system in that it displays a whole lot of information. Also, while PTC is mandated by the US government to be implemented on all major lines in the US, how each of those railroads do this is up to them. End result is the system UP has won't talk to what BNSF uses and onwards with the other US railroads. Now does this Metrolink line use the UP system, don't know? The end result here is, DTG would be hard pressed to do this on the US routes since it would have to build a separate system for each railroad. They have attempted to do the Amtrak system with mixed results and it is probably the least complicated of the lot.
Since all of these systems depend heavily on emplaced trackside installations, I'm pretty sure that the decision on what system to use is taken by the owner of the trackage- on Metrolink that would be UP. Not sure what the implications are for foreign power.
