Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » Re: railML 2.3 infrastructure extension proposal operational properties of an OCP
Re: railML 2.3 infrastructure extension proposal operational properties of an OCP [message #1560 is a reply to message #1468] Sun, 07 May 2017 18:54 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Claus Feyling is currently offline  Claus Feyling
Messages: 4
Registered: April 2016
Junior Member
Hello Torben, Christian & other listeners,
Me too, I would support "NO:remoteControlled" being a boolean value for Norwegian purposes. The source for setting train routes is either station-controlled (using the signalman's panel or a computer system at or near the station) or remote controlled (comprising a more flexible CTC system with pretesting of route setting, train describer functions, maybe automatic route setting functions, maybe SPAD alarm functions etc etc.Wink. The two forms of control are mutually exclusive in the Norwegian case, so a boolean seems fine.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: railML 2.3 infrastructure extension proposal - controller
Next Topic: Overlap definition
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Wed Apr 24 09:34:15 CEST 2024