12:01 p.m.
Patrik Ekengren wrote:
Perhaps this list can be useful in order to determine what name to
use:
https://www.era.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/List%20of%20CCS%20Class%20...
According to that list, Sweden is using ATC-2 and ATC-R. While Bulgaria and
Portugal are using Ebicab 700:BU and Ebicab 700:PT. Norway is said to be
using ATC-2, which is compatible with the Swedish ATC-2. But in Norway,
there are some lines that are equipped with the full version, FATC (which I
think is the same as the normal implementation of ATC-2 in Sweden), and
some lines that only have a partial implementation, DATC. There seems to be
some similarities between the Swedish and the Norwegian systems ATC and the
Ebicab 700 systems in Portugal and Bulgaria. But I don't think these are
compatible.
Yes, that is a very good list. But the list also says the systems are formely known as
Ebicab 700.
The two systems are in theory compatible - how much they really are I don't know. In
addition, Norway has F-ATC and D-ATC for different levels of implementation. That should
be differentiated on the map, I think. Just like ETCS L1 and L2 are both ETCS, but
different levels of implementation.
The same with Denmark, which has full ATC on mainlines, but some branch lines have
ATC-Togstop which only stops a train after passing a red light (and no other protection
whatsoever unlike full ATC). That should also be mapped differently on the map (in my
opinion), as despite being the same hardware it is differentiated in all documentation.
The underlying issue here is that rendering the safety system as "ATC" on the
map is ambiguous for most people. ATC is not only the common name of the national system
in several countries, it could also be interpreted as an umbrella term for train
protection systems.
In my opinion the current rendering cannot stay. It should be changed to (my preference)
Ebicab 700, or alternatively ATC-2 Sweden or similar. This to avoid any confusion with
other systems with similar names.
- - -
Ross G. wrote (summary) "why not render all those systems as ATC despite different
technical names?" to which I'd like to respond that it would only add to the
confusion that several countries use ATC, but the systems are not at all compatible.
Especially seeing as Denmark and Sweden share a rail connection.