Concerning 18:00: If you have a look at "2.1_Hernandez-Malfait_ERTMS Specifications inside CCS TSI 2023-1695-2.pdf" (which is findable on search engines) you will see that it states that there is a System Version 2.1 that belongs to the Baseline 4 (at least for OBU), too.
I have had a comment on the reduced envelope - as I mentioned on the video, there are some areas I have yet to get my head around! I will be doing some reading and include more information on a later video. 😊
Since CR 1370 seems so special and #6 & #7 of this series cover the field: Could you include that in one of your pieces and compare it with #6 and/or #7?
CR1370 is one of those requests which I never really understood - the whole purpose of linking is to tell the onboard how far it has travelled from a known point (LRBG) when it reads another balise group allowing the onboard to improve its confidence regarding its new location. If you don't have linking information then how does the onboard know where it is when it reads a balise group and update any distance based information which was originated on a previous balise group? I think trying to interpret CR1370 and the resultant changes in Baseline 4 may require quite a bit of study! My next priority is a bit more of a look at ATO and then SM.
Remark on ATO and ETCS: ETCS safety envelope does not manage safe station stops for trains with passengers (e.g. no doors outside the platform) and in level 1 and 2 the train length data may be entered by driver, where e.g. the error rate and types of errors might be OK for ETCS but might not OK for ATO.
You are right that there are limitations on ATO and stations - I am just starting to prepare a talk (or possibly more) on ATO but need to find the time to study the final specifications since I worked on the drafts but have not studied the finals.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Concerning 18:00:
If you have a look at "2.1_Hernandez-Malfait_ERTMS Specifications inside CCS TSI 2023-1695-2.pdf" (which is findable on search engines) you will see that it states that there is a System Version 2.1 that belongs to the Baseline 4 (at least for OBU), too.
I have had a comment on the reduced envelope - as I mentioned on the video, there are some areas I have yet to get my head around! I will be doing some reading and include more information on a later video. 😊
Since CR 1370 seems so special and #6 & #7 of this series cover the field: Could you include that in one of your pieces and compare it with #6 and/or #7?
CR1370 is one of those requests which I never really understood - the whole purpose of linking is to tell the onboard how far it has travelled from a known point (LRBG) when it reads another balise group allowing the onboard to improve its confidence regarding its new location. If you don't have linking information then how does the onboard know where it is when it reads a balise group and update any distance based information which was originated on a previous balise group?
I think trying to interpret CR1370 and the resultant changes in Baseline 4 may require quite a bit of study!
My next priority is a bit more of a look at ATO and then SM.
Remark on ATO and ETCS: ETCS safety envelope does not manage safe station stops for trains with passengers (e.g. no doors outside the platform) and in level 1 and 2 the train length data may be entered by driver, where e.g. the error rate and types of errors might be OK for ETCS but might not OK for ATO.
You are right that there are limitations on ATO and stations - I am just starting to prepare a talk (or possibly more) on ATO but need to find the time to study the final specifications since I worked on the drafts but have not studied the finals.