The inconsistencty of 3rd party ETCS simulation

[SummerADDE 0]

I own a copy of Christrains NS Traxx loco with ETCS simulation and along with it came a pack of ETCS balises you can place out on a route that will trigger the loco´s various functionalities.

I also own a copy of K-trains Vectron loco (since a different user is working on Swedish repaints for the loco and it is more realistic compared to RSSLO's Vectron) and it also has an excellent ETCS simulation, as well as trigger points to activate it's various modes or switch over to a different safety system, such as the ATP used in the Netherlands.

I've placed both locos on a route with parallel tracks and junctions and also both balises. then I pick a train and choose a route.

As expected, both trains activate the ETCS L2 simulation when they run over their own balise, but they do not when they pass over the other one.

This inconsistency between the two (teams?) of developers causes the problem that a Vectron made by K-trains cannot run on a route that uses Christrain's eurobalises (which, by the way, can be downloaded for free) for ETCS signaling, and vice versa, creating a compatibility problem.

As a player I would wish that developers should be more open with various commands and how they should trigger various modes in different trains made by different users. A fine example of this is that all trains made for Train Simulator that runs in the UK or in Germany makes sure they have a working AWS, PZB or LZB simulation that are compatible with the official DLCs. Another example is the swiss routes made by Rivet games have a proper ZUB121 simulation and Trainworxx who previously had an "in cab only" ZUB simulation for his locos made sure to update them for a proper simulation that works on Rivet Games routes, with their help of course. But since we currently have no official routes with ETCS signalling in Train Simulation, I guess there will be loads of 3rd party routes and trainveicles with incompatible ETCS simulation and I don't want it that way...

Christrains and the team of K-trains, please work this mess out?

//ADDE

[Alola 283]

I think it has something to do with the way Christrains and K-trains use their scripts. Christrains builds trains that are easy to use. K-Trains is more of the advanced creators. He creates realistic rolling stock. Besides, the ECTS used by Christrains and K-trains are emulations not simulations. The systems can be used on all routes, but only the Christrains rolling stock is compatible with the ECTS balises.

[SummerADDE 0]

12 hours ago, Alola said:

The systems can be used on all routes, but only the Christrains rolling stock is compatible with the ECTS balises.

And that is the problem I am pointing out! Using a K-trains loco on a route that uses Christrains eurobalises will not make the K-trains loco to do a level or safety systems change if that is ever occuring.

[Michael1234 274]

Yes, this incompatibility is quite annoying. There are even 3 different ETCS implementations at this moment (Christrains, K-Trains and SK-Trains), none are compatible

 

I implemented both ChrisTrains and K-Trains ETCS in the HSL-Zuid route, both implementations are very different in terms of starting location. K-Trains is much more advanced, requiring a 'level change' announcement at least 30 seconds before entering ETCS from the national system. While ChrisTrains ETCS will 'just' switch to ETCS L2 (in the ICNG after aknowledging the level change).

For K-trains I simulate the change from ATB -> ETCS L1 -> ETCS L2, while ChrisTrains only supports ETCS L2. 

 

It's probably not impossible to make the systems listen tot the same balises, but the differences in complexity might make it more difficult.

Sadly it is not like PZB/LZB, which DTG first started using, creating a standard for it.

The K-trains system is also very poorly documented, so route builders might not bother implementing it.