4 ms·
It did fail safe though? Interference led to the network stopping, not trains just racing towards each other due to bogus line authorities. That is, by definit
by NamTaf 3mo ago
It did fail safe though?
Interference led to the network stopping, not trains just racing towards each other due to bogus line authorities. That is, by definition, fail-safe
- wrs 3mo agoThat seems like a fail-safe interpretation of communication: if there is no communication, stop the train. But that's a special case. GSM-R is much more than line authorities. >GSM-R is a secure platform for voice and data communication between railway operational staff, including drivers, dispatchers, shunting team members, train engineers, and station controllers. Designing the communication network itself in such a way that the entire thing can apparently fail, doesn't sound "fail-safe" to me. (Though its failure may trigger fail-safes in higher-level systems.) In particular, some functions may require communications to be "safe"; e.g., emergency personnel not being able to communicate is not "safe". But perhaps this is being overstated in the vague reporting, and it's only a regional failure.