Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » Steckenunterbruch/line blocking
Re: Steckenunterbruch/line blocking [message #501 is a reply to message #500] Wed, 05 December 2012 20:55 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
> for getting a connection to another forum, it is better to use the
> followup-tag.

I don't know what a follow-up tag is.

> Your idea limits the blocking to tracks

That was my intention. The original question was on blocking of lines
only. I do not want to solve problems we don't have now.

Some days ago, somebody wrote
> we will focus on the main aspects only.

> However, since the "disabled" sub-element will be available for all
> relevant tracks, there is no need to define a length of the blocking
> section in form of a "from-to" attribute group.

But then there would be no possibility do "block a part of an <element>"
such as part of a track (sub-section of a track). In the world of
timetabling, we do normally not always know the exact elements which are
disabled or which are the reasons for a blocking.

A typical problem (to solve here) is "line/track is blocked from ... to
...." with from/to being mileages or stations. Since trains can operate
between stations only, the only relevant aspect for timetabling is between
which stations a track is closed.

Anyway, I think we have two very different views of the problem with each
one being entitled. So I do not want to say that a possibility to declare
any infrastructure element as disabled wouldn't be useful. But currently,
the problem was something else on the much less detailed level of
timetabling.

> Here, I suggest to just implement a reference from the <disabled>
> element to an operating period.

Such a reference would - as far as I know - the first time we would create
such a "forward-reference". Forward in the meaning of "from infrastructure
to timetable". We already have many references from timetable to
infrastructure which are "natural" since one _first_ needs infrastructure
_before_ one can operate a train.

To have both directions, I would think is like "circular references" which
sometimes can become problematic in informatics. In my opinion, a software
first has to import <infrastructure> before it can import <timetable>. So
it wouldn't be able to dissolve the references from infrastructure to
timetable when importing.

But this is my opinion only.

Dirk.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Haltetafel / stop post
Next Topic: new attribute on the vehicle element
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue May 14 02:24:27 CEST 2024