| trainProtectionElement, ETCS and balises (was: trainProtection and equipmentUsage) [message #472 is a reply to message #412] |
Tue, 27 November 2012 14:44   |
Susanne Wunsch railML
Messages: 0
Registered: January 2020
|
|
|
|
Dear Christian, Andreas and others,
Christian Rahmig <coord(at)infrastructurerailmlorg> writes:
> For railML 2.2 the infrastructure element trainProtectionElement
> should be enhanced with a new parameter "trainProtectionSystem" with
> the values of type tNationalSystemsType. The string parameter "system"
> is then no longer needed and should be marked as DEPRECATED.
In the meantime the type 'tNationalSystemsType' was enhanced by the
value 'ETCS'. As stated by Thomas Kauer at the railML-conference in
Zurich the element 'trainProtectionElement' should be somehow harmonized
with respect to ETCS.
That may be a goal for the next major release (3.0), but nevertheless we
should clarify the current semantics.
<trainProtectionElement id="tp1" pos="10.0" trainProtectionSystem="PZB90" model="500Hz"/>
<trainProtectionElement id="tp2" pos="460.0" trainProtectionSystem="PZ80" model="2000Hz"/>
<trainProtectionElement id="tp3" post="455.0" trainProtectionSystem="ETCS"/>
* PZB90, PZ80 and INDUSI60 are different hardware/software releases at
the vehicle providing different functionality. The magnets next to the
rail are the same. de:[1]
Another type for the infrastructure view at the train protection
elements is needed.
* What to do, if the value 'ETCS' is used? What does it mean?
If it's a balise, the appropriate element 'balise' or 'baliseGroup'
should be used.
If it's a GSM-R zone, the new element 'trainRadio' should be used
(attention: currently not implemented).
If it's a border of an ETCS-equipped zone the 'trainProtectionChange'
element should be used.
What else?
Any comments appreciated.
Kind regards...
Susanne
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punktf%C3%B6rmige_Zugbeeinfluss ung
--
Susanne Wunsch
Schema Coordinator: railML.common
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
