Home » railML newsgroups » railml.rollingstock » formationType vs. compositionType
formationType vs. compositionType [message #1177] Fri, 26 August 2005 14:21
Joachim.Rubröder is currently offline  Joachim.Rubröder
Messages: 28
Registered: September 2004
Junior Member
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The formation branch in the rollingstock
schema is meant to describe the different engines and wagons forming a
train.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In rollingstock 1.0 a formation has
the type &quot;compositionType&quot;, this should be renamed to &quot;formationType&quot;!</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In the timetable schema exists a composition
element with the right &quot;compositionType&quot;. This element describes
more than a &nbsp;formation and has additional sub elements like service
and dynamic.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Best Regards,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Joachim</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp;</font>
Previous Topic: valueTableType
Next Topic: Rollingstock scheme V1.03 released
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Mar 29 11:16:50 CEST 2017