Metro simulator forums

While I do agree with both thirdrailifying the M4 and putting signals on the M6, as mentioned in the 81-717 topic ZUB comes closer to the actual russian train protection system, at least the newer version of it, since it can display speed changes beforehand. You will however not be able to use a MG2 cab with that without altering more stuff then though.


Greets, Mika

Personally, I prefer M4 stay as it is (with overhead wires) but I prefer it with ATB only.
That's because having both ATB and ZUB causes some problems with the HSM trains, which are very suitable for this line (and I use them a lot).

As most reactions are in favor of replacing overhead wires by 3rd rail on line M4, one of the Rijndam Infra worktrains has started the work;



@Jim2016; yes that's true; once you have switched to ZUB, changing direction with the HSM doesn't work anymore. So if you want to use it on this line, I will have to replace the ZUB the ATB completely, so no mixed operation with both systems.

For those of you who prefer ZUB and overhead wires on this line; I am not changing it in Rijndam 2018 or 2006

Usually, 3rd rail results into grade separation at intersections. But places like Norway and Chicago, USA, proves otherwise.
Is grade separation going to take effect during this conversation from overhead wires to 3rd rail?

LosAngelesMetro56 wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018, 19:43 Usually, 3rd rail results into grade separation at intersections. But plays like Norway and Chicago, USA, proves otherwise.
Is grade separation going to take effect during this conversation from overhead wires to 3rd rail?

I have just taken out the pedestrian/bike level crossings next to station 's Gravendijk (and build a footbridge as replacement). I have not decided yet on the two main road crossings.
Yes, there are many examples of level crossings on 3rd rail electrified lines. The largest example I could find; most of the main railways in southern England use 750V DC 3rd rail. Just 2 minutes on Google maps and I found one: https://goo.gl/maps/BTxxzHm9UKs
But I still might decide to build one or two underpasses for the roads instead

At Denia in 2006, can you install 'couple-buffers' as way to recharge the batteries overnight?

Also, can you put platform definitions on the sidings at Centraal Station heavy rail please? (I want them for my activities)

Rijndam 2020 is getting too wacky to be real...

(Off topic)
I wonder what happened to Briel

MattH wrote: ↑18 Jan 2018, 05:15 Rijndam 2020 is getting too wacky to be real...

Not really; I am just replacing overhead wires by 3rd rail and ZUB by ATB on M4, in order to give you more options to use rolling stock with no pantographs (like the Russian metro, and the MG2 and MG2/1 (should it be released)). It hit me that you are really limited when almost all lines need rolling stock that can both run on 3rd rail and overhead wires. So M4 just goes a little further in the proces from railway to metro line.

On the element of RET ATB instead of ZUB: At the Rotterdam network, the 'Hoekselijn' railway (Schiedam Centrum - Hoek van Holland) which is now transformed from railway to metro line, they are not installing ZUB, but the RET ATB system, so the SG2/1 will also be able to run there.

On the element of (possibly) keeping some level crossings while I am installing 3rd rail: there is also a level crossing with 3rd rail in Rotterdam; the Kleiweg crossing (https://goo.gl/maps/p8AiTgmb1EU2). The overhead wires for the line to The Hague are starting at the crossing, but the trains keep using the 3rd rail until they stop at Melanchtonweg, where they switch over. When you look on Google Maps, you can see the 3rd rail on both sides of the crossing (about 15-20 meters away).

On the element of light signals added to line M6: There are also light signals present at the Amsterdam network, although they are being phased out there due to the installation of a new system. But due to this;

MetroSimGermany wrote: ↑17 Jan 2018, 14:46 While I do agree with both thirdrailifying the M4 and putting signals on the M6, as mentioned in the 81-717 topic ZUB comes closer to the actual russian train protection system, at least the newer version of it, since it can display speed changes beforehand.

I might make M6 entirely ZUB. That will also make it more realistic.

Why not kept the overhead wires on line M4, mixing with 3rd rail system? This could be a possibility to run all the rolling stock from Metro Simulator... Bursa trains only run through overhead wires.

Alfacinha315 wrote: ↑18 Jan 2018, 10:56 Why not kept the overhead wires on line M4, mixing with 3rd rail system? This could be a possibility to run all the rolling stock from Metro Simulator... Bursa trains only run through overhead wires.

Bursa trains can not be used on M4 anyway; they can not drive into Noorderpoort, and there are no switches at 's Gavendijk, so no short service either. The bursa trains can still run at the Sneltram sections of M2 and M3.

As you might have guessed by now; for every decision I make in Metrosimulator, I tend to end up with things that are not unrealistic; I need to find real world examples before I do something, or at least a reasoning of something that might actually happen.
Installing 3rd rails but keeping overhead wires is not realistic in this case; it would double the maintenance costs, and have no real added value.