Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » SpeedChange : Protection system reference
Re: SpeedChange : Protection system reference [message #410 is a reply to message #404] Sat, 27 October 2012 11:57 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Dear Carsten and other railML users,

>> Moreover there should be more than one such a reference to different
>> <trainProtectionElement>s. The Germans use up to three magnets for one
>> speed aspect. [1]
>>
>> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwindigkeitspr%C3%BCfabsch nitt
>
> I think you are looking for the wrong case. "Geschwindigkeitsprüfabschnitte"
> (GPA) can also be caused by sepcial situations inside of a station (e.g.
> missing overlap). It is also possible to have several GPA for one speed
> aspect if you need to check speed several times (e.g. S-Bahn-Tunnel in
> Stuttgart from University station to "Schwabstraße"). This might be cases
> you need more than one link between a speedChange and a train protection
> element. So in case of an GPA which "Magnet" should be linked? Or if you do
> it with balises or some thing else which might exist as a balise group and
> only a single balise? In such a case you need another structure for train
> protection elements. Otherwise the reading program has to guess whether the
> three magnets you linked are single magnets or a GPA. There should be a
> grouping element (= balise group, GPA, ...) which is linked from a speed
> aspect and some train protection elements which are linked to the grouping
> element.

thank you very much for your remark about grouping the elements of a
train protection facility. Indeed, for the case of
"Geschwindigkeitsprüfabschnitte" (GPA) it is very useful to define a
grouping element, which then refers to the single magnets. Currently,
the <trainProtectionElement> resembles quite a macroscopic view and I
would consider a GPA exactly as such a macroscopic train protection
element. If not urgently needed, I would skip the more detailed
modelling of train protection elements (magnets in particular) regarding
railML 2.2.

Any comments appreciated...

Regards

--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Alternative Stationsnamen (ocp, additionalName)
Next Topic: Tools zum Erstellen der Topologie / Tools for creating the topology
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri May 17 18:35:58 CEST 2024