| Re: Line category according to EN 15528 [message #1251 is a reply to message #1250] |
Fri, 24 July 2015 18:02   |
Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Christian,
> Any comments on this approach ... are welcome.
Well, then pleas welcome my comments:
During earlier discussions on this "approach" we came to the conclusion
better to handle "physical" values behind these rather "political"
classes in railML. This means: Rather use "maxAxleLoad" and
"maxMeterLoad" or "maxSpecificLoad".
The reasons were:
There are more local (country-specific) line classes than in EN15528
which means that the enumeration from EN will not fulfil many practical
demands. How should we classify a German line of CE or CM2..4 when only
the EN15528 are allowed? And from the other way 'round: If we allow
country-specific classes as CE, how should one compare or convert it
with the other values? This would only be possible by "understanding"
the physical background (axleload, meterload a.s.o.), therefore we
should always name this background.
There are also many examples where the classes do not fit the actual
physical values (you could say, from a technical point of view, the line
is wrongly classified - but the classification is political... For
instance, the German line 6686/6709 is classified D4 but has apparently
a load spread of less then 6 tons per meter.). So you cannot decide
whether a certain vehicle or train can use the line if you only know the
classification but not the actual physical values.
---
I personally think that this earlier conclusion is still reasonable and
therefore would still prefer the physical values such as "maxAxleLoad"
and "maxMeterLoad" or "maxSpecificLoad".
Best regards,
Dirk.
---
Am 01.06.2015 um 11:38 schrieb Christian Rahmig:
> Dear railML community,
>
> with railML 2.3 we also want to implement line categories as defined in
> EN 15528. Therefore we set up the Trac ticket [1] including the following:
>
> The European standard EN 15528 defines line categories depending on the
> maximum allowed meter load and axle load. The following entries are
> possible:
> * A
> * B1
> * B2
> * C2
> * C3
> * C4
> * D2
> * D3
> * D4
> * D4xL
> * E4
> * E5
>
> Any comments on this approach, which has been initially implemented with
> revision 621 (see [2]), are welcome.
>
> [1] https://trac.railml.org/ticket/259
> [2] https://trac.railml.org/changeset/621/railML
>
> Best regards
> Christian
>
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
