[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - railway:signal:*:shape
Rolf Eike Beer
eike at sf-mail.de
Sat Apr 17 10:07:23 UTC 2021
> > What "classic" means would have to be determined per signal type. If it is
> > unclear a better name has to be found obviously. So a "classic" H/V light
> > signal would be something different then a "classic" Sr light signal.
> Is there any name in use distinguishing old H/V from currently typical H/V?
> Or is simply "classic" being used?
> It would be nice to avoid problem in say in 15 years
> when traffic signal shapes will change again.
> Ending with "classic" value being used for shape not used at all anymore
> and new "classic" shape being tagged somehow, but not as "classic" value
> is long enough :)
Luckily it's actually no problem for those signals as no new versions of them
are build anymore. New signal installations use the Ks system, and given the
push to ETCS and signalling in the cab there are even tracks completely
without track signals meanwhile, and expect their number to slowly increase.
Back to H/V: there are (to my knowledge) actually only these 2 versions of the
H/V distant signal, not counting special tunnel versions. Even those mounted
at platform roofs are at all places I know actually using exactly those
There are much more versions of the H/V main signals, this is an entirely
different story. While "compact" will be used in that list, too, there are
several older versions.
Railway people, do we have or need a different name for H/V distant signal
"classic" shape? Suggestions?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Tagging