| Re: railML 3.2 railway signal modeling [message #3070 is a reply to message #3066] |
Wed, 05 April 2023 17:57   |
Milan Wölke
Messages: 141
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
If I understood you correctly, you're saying that railML 3 doesn't allow for a clear distinction between a main signal and a distant signal, and that it's intended to be that way. I disagree with this viewpoint. The infrastructure schema should accurately describe the railway infrastructure, without including the logic of interlocking. Since a main signal and a distant signal are visibly different, their physical differences should be modeled in the infrastructure schema. The meaning of these differences can then be described in the interlocking schema. Do you agree with this approach of separating infrastructure and interlocking schemas?
Best regards,
Milan
Milan Wölke – Timetable scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
