Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
| Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss [message #857 is a reply to message #841] |
Thu, 08 November 2012 22:05   |
Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
>> Andreas Tanner wrote:
>>>> Trainparts would be somewhat more precise than trains, and they have a
>>>> validity. Maybe a connection holds only on certain dates.
Joachim Rubröder wrote:
> Ok, I'm convinced.
I also agree. At least the difference may lay in the case two train parts,
scheduled to run coupled together, must run separate under operational
conditions. If you have a trainpart-relating connection then, it is clear
which separate train need to wait for the connection and which may "run
away". Having train-related connections, always all train parts would have
to wait, whether it was it makes sense or not.
Susanne Wunsch wrote:
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to refer to a certain 'trainPart' and an
> 'ocp'? A 'trainPart' may traverse a certain 'ocp' only once. If it
> changes its direction this should be defined as a distinct 'trainPart'..
Unfortunately this is nowadays wrong. A train(part) may "traverse" an OCP
more than once. I could mention plenty examples from practice, not only
from Germany. For short, only one example which you can easily find at
HAFAS: The CANTUS trains from Bebra to Göttingen and v. v., stopping two
times at Niederhone whith the same train number (24090, 24096 ff.). If you
like more examples: Don't hesitate to ask... ;-)
In former times, the local signalman and his books were the reasons why it
was forbidden that one train number happens more than once a day at one
station. There even was a special rule for that in the German rule book
(which by far wasn't able to avoid that it happened even in earlier times,
e. g. some trains from Leipzig to Görlitz, reversing at Dresden Hbf,
stopping two times in Dresden Neustadt).
Nowadays, it is very common in practice throughout many countries. It may
have to do that because of there are less local signalman, less books to
write or not enough train numbers or less knowledge about the rules...
Anyway, we have to handle it in RailML.
Best regards,
Dirk.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
|
|
Re: RFE for connection, DE:Anschluss
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 23:59:08 CEST 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
