To say that I am relieved to hear the timetable is being overhauled for NYT with a much more prototypical NJT services (player and AI) is a huge understatement. Don't get me wrong, I definitely appreciate the effort, but there is an underlying issue with this route that I feel is not addressed alone by beefing up the timetable. The signaling, both wayside and in the cab, is still far from perfect in terms of being conducive to running trains in a timely and realistic manner. I have mentioned this numerous times before, but please for the love of all things train related, if any devs are reading this, please consider updating (or more accurately, fixing) the signaling on this route in conjunction with the forthcoming timetable updates. What is wrong with the signaling right now? It appears that there is little to no coordination between how wayside signals display and how the cab signals are enforced. NORAC rules clearly state that cab signals must conform to wayside aspects (see rule 279) and Amtrak's route between NYP and Trenton is no exception. Some examples: If a distant signal is displaying Approach Limited, I should not get an Approach in the cab. If a home signal is displaying Limited Clear, I should not get a Restricting in the cab. If I pass an automatic signal displaying Approach Limited, my cab signal should change to Approach Medium 45, not stay at Clear. This is a problem for gameplay that manifests itself in two ways: All over the route, the cab signals tend to downgrade much sooner than they should in advance of more restrictive signals. For example, there is the famous downgrade from Clear to Approach Medium to Approach to Restricting when you approach NYP going eastbound in the north river tunnels. You should not be getting this downgrade sequence before you have even reached the halfway point in the tunnel. Right now, you have to crawl at 20 mph (instead of 60 mph) for more than a mile before you even reach A interlocking at NYP which is certainly unrealistic and frustrating. In other cases, the cab signals seem to downgrade to an aspect more restrictive than they should. For example, I ran the timetable service 3838 and I noticed that my cab signals went from Approach Medium to Approach to Restricting between Newark Liberty Airport Station and Newark Penn in spite of the fact that all the wayside signals that I passed were never more unfavorable than Limited Clear. The most restrictive cab signal I should have gotten that whole stretch should have been Approach Medium. So instead of being limited to 45 mph at worst, my cab signals downgraded me all the way down to 30 mph and eventually 20 mph the whole stretch between Newark Penn and the Harrison station. This makes no sense and it certainly delayed my service for the arrival into Secaucus. Cactusjuice and I have already pointed out specific examples in this thread: https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/trenton-list-of-issues-cab-signaling-included.65352/ I am fully aware that updating the signals to be equivalent to the prototypically realistic setup on the Boston to Providence route would not be a trivial task (given the painstaking and sometimes manual effort needed on Cactusjuice's part), but I feel that there should be incremental ways to improve how the current setup works. To be completely honest, if the editor was publicly available, I would be happy to take the time and effort to implement a Cactusjuice-esque overhaul of the signals on NYT myself, but unfortunately that does not seem feasible. In any case, I am happy to provide feedback and advice if the devs are open to looking into ways to improve the route's signals.
I third this! The first post very eloquently describes the lingering issues, mainly cab signals downgrading too soon and/or too restrictively. I've been slowed to Restricting on westbound approach to Rea (Harrison) in advance of a medium clear, slowed to Approach Limited on westbound approach to Lane when leaving Newark Airport on Track 5 (I believe the switch back onto Track 4 is rated for 80 mph, so the cab signal lineside signal that displays is correct), and Restricting after leaving Rahway on Track B westbound despite a 45 mph switch back onto Track 4. Eastbound the signals downgrade too soon (around Hunter) for any diverging movements approaching Newark Penn. There are still weird drops to Cab Speed 60 in both directions between Portal and Swift, and a bogus drop to Cab Speed 60 westbound when exiting the tunnel and approaching Bergen. The super-early (and usually phantom) drop to Approach Limited when traveling east through New Brunswick, which I believe was marked as resolved in one of the patches, still happens with regularity--and with Amtrak services on Track 2, the drop happens regardless of whether my service is scheduled to diverge at Menlo for the station stop at Metropark. And here's the kicker...most of these happen MOST of the time, but sometimes in these spots the cab signals stay at Clear despite lineside signals showing the correct progressions in advance of a diverging move. So weird! I did notice that when playing one of the scenarios, the one in which you're running an eastbound but routed onto the "wrong" Hudson tube, the cab signals didn't drop through to Restricting anywhere near as early as they do when traveling normally in the westbound tube. So...it can be done! If the cab signaling can get ironed out and the new timetable corrects some of the pathing (notably, trains always using the island platform at Secaucus but staying on the outer tracks until the last crossover, which is rare in prototype practice), boy do we have a phenomenal product at the end of the day. I'll echo what NB642 said above--if there's any way to help with the process, I'm happy to talk to whoever I can! Fingers crossed!
This is probably ever more important now that we’re adding a boatload of traffic to the route. The optimist in me says that they’re going to make some tweaks (because they have to, right?) but I wouldn’t bet my chicken nuggets on it.
Exactly! This is pretty much what I have experienced as well in my test runs of the timetable too. These scenarios demonstrate the exact behavior we should not be seeing for cab signal conformity. I have not tried put that scenario, but it is ironic that it would be working better in the tube for eastbound traffic. Thanks for the support! I think the more attention we draw to this issue, the better the chances will be that someone from DTG at least acknowledges the problems. As for fixing it, we can only hope...
The signals were already somewhat flaky with the release timetable. Random cab drops in areas where they shouldn't be, super aggressive cab signal progressions, etc. The new timetable hasn't gotten rid of these, but has exacerbated them and revealed even more flaws. Luckily the signals in their current state did not prevent the successful compilation of this new timetable. They work well enough so that the new timetable runs decently. I'm hoping we can see these signals get some well-deserved love and attention sometime in the future.
Never say never, but definitely not anytime soon. I'm currently on another contract that's going to take me through the summer. That's all I can say about that, though. It's pretty fascinating that doing good work leads to more work, haha!
Good to hear you are still seeing/testing the backside of these developments! A NYT with your style of signal implementation might make this route (with timetable improvements) worth its price. If it was possible to help, I’d give my assistance too in any way I could.
For me its simple, currently I have 3 routes and a Loco DLC which I cant satisfactorily run with safety systems turned on. Until all of these are rectified I won't be buying a 4th US passenger route.
On NYT, the one that drives me the most crazy is the aggressive speed reduction 5 miles ahead of Metropark. This is for NY bound Amtrak services moving to the outer track for a stop at Metropark.
The point I was trying to make is that the signals aren't broken enough that the revised timetable Joe created couldn't compile at all. At least it was able to compile and can run. Whether it runs to our collective satisfaction is another story entirely.
Hopefully they can hired you if they do a future NEW LIRR with 2023 timetable with grand Central Madison station. That would be something. Imagine doing both LIRR TSW and TSC signals and safety systems................
Fair comment, thanks for clarifying and apologies for miss understanding. Personally for me the signalling should have been the priority over the timetable, as I'd rather have been able to run 300 services satisfactorily than 600 (or whatever the number is) unsatisfactorily.
I agree 100%, but they're done by two completely separate entities. The success of the timetable partially depends on how good the signals are. If the signal system is flawless, then sky's the limit as far as the timetable is concerned.
I don’t think you’re wrong, I mean I guess it’s all personal preference… but for me the signally is maybe a 4.5/10 (better than LIRR, worse than Boston and Harlem) but the timetable was a 0.0/10 So at this point I guess I’ll take an 8/10 timetable with 4.5/10 signaling. I’m also from Jersey so I pretty much have to have the route, and I’ll take what I can get.
That seems to have been the consensus here and on Steam: complaints about signaling, screams of outrage about the timetable.
I think the ultimate goal would be to have a DLC with a complete timetable,proper signaling ,and safety systems that are accurate. Hopefully Something to learn for future US routes that required this type of signaling/safety system.I know it took cActUsjUiCe a long time on Boston DLC.
Seconded; and that applies to freight routes as well. ALL modern Class 1s have PTC installed, and it's absurd that routes like Sherman Hill and Cajon Pass don't have it (SPG is older than that).
And don't forget Joe's extensive work to bring the timetable to properly represent the NEC. Which I think it was being worked for a long time.
I want to say After Playing a two hour service Despite the random signal Changes We're fairly enjoyable. I love seeing the traffic throughout the Route & Not just three trains Like Long Island Railroad Or Boston sprinter. I'm definitely Looking Forward to the new timetable As I'm hoping to complete the full Timetable. I only had three errors Running the route Cautiously The Second Time Around Being only five minutes late per station. The signal change points Are pretty Predictable and happens mostly Around Curves of the track& Just before Heading into a stations.I'm a New York native ,that now lives in New Jersey Respectively & Truly understand the frustration of many As it touches Close to Home myself. I would hope and Love to Signaling fixed at some point This year as Has the highest potential Of being the best North American route Ever Made In Train Sim World Hands down, And would be a shame to lose that accolade over Signaling Let alone The people who purchased This route Expecting a complete Product. I literally started playing This route 3 days ago Just to get a feel for it Myself and am enjoying it Like I mentioned Earlier , But because I knew of the signaling problem before release is The reason why I avoided the route And decided to Play UK And German content More faithfully.
It would make sense.... Matt said it best back in the festival of rail..."Another Route for the Acela, when you got an Acela what you need is more Acela"
Definitely a good hint for what we may get as the US route. From that, there are 3 possible options I can think of if we get more track to run the Acela on. 1. Washington to Philadelphia 2. New York to New Haven 3. New Haven to Boston
Not worth doing without licenses from MARC and SEPTA. Also, 3 major terminus stations is more than DTG would ever put in one route.
How hard would it be to add the distant Manhattan skyline at Secaucus and Sunnyside? That would go a great way in improving the quality of the route. We don't need super close-up detail, just something so it looks like we're not in the country.
