Home » RailTopoModel newsgroup » RailTopoModel » Modelling of gaps and overlaps in mileage
Modelling of gaps and overlaps in mileage [message #1930] Mon, 27 August 2018 16:12 Go to next message
Martin Karlsson is currently offline  Martin Karlsson
Messages: 12
Registered: October 2016
Junior Member
RTM states that a linear positioning system represents a position along a railway line as "a single number". This single number is implemented in the model as an attribute "measure" in class LinearCoordinate.

However, the assumption of a single number is inconsistent with real life mileage values in many countries. The problem is that a kilometer on the railway is not always 1000 meters long.

Of course, when the kilometer posts were planted, say in the late 19th century, there was 1000 meters between them. But things have changed over the years. When a track is straightened, it becomes shorter. When a curve radius is expanded, the track becomes longer. In some countries, e.g. France and Belgium, this is solved by still reporting the fraction of the actual "kilometer" length as the position, rather than moving every km post from Paris to Marseille for every such change.

In other countries, e.g. Germany and Sweden, mile post equations are introduced for the same reason. Such an equation could say that km 52 ends after e.g. 972 m, or that km 53 extends to 1054 m. In railML 2 syntax, these anomalies are defined as "mileage changes" of type "missing" and "overlapping" respectively.

Obviously, this makes a single number insufficient to represent a position. If we, in my example above, have passed km post 53 by 1020 m, how can we represent that? In Sweden, and in other examples I have seen, it is shown as 53+1020. This format is of course used consistently, so a position 100 m earlier would be shown as 53+920, not as a decimal number. But there could be decimals on the meter count, e.g. 53+1020.5.

I have already asked about this problem in a previous forum post ( https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=471& start=0&). This time, I would like to propose a solution.

I suggest that the "measure" attribute of LinearCoordinate is replaced by two attributes, measureBase (an integer) and measureFraction (a double). Same for all the other measures, like startMeasure and endMeasure of LinearPositioningSystem. Alternatively, there could be a LinearMeasure class to use in all these cases, containing the attributes "base" and "fraction". Probably, the attribute "units" in LinearPositioningSystem should also be replaced by baseUnits and fractionUnits, for clarity.

Although this change is suggested for the "German" use case, it would work also for the "French" case, although the fraction part would then always be less than 1.


-------------------------
Martin Karlsson
Bombardier Transportation
Rail Control Solutions
EAPD/ECC
S-405 02 Göteborg, Sweden
Visiting address: Polhemsplatsen 5
Tel.: +46 70 6667615
martinkarlsson(at)railbombardiercom
Re: Modelling of gaps and overlaps in mileage [message #1975 is a reply to message #1930] Mon, 24 September 2018 14:55 Go to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 173
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Martin,

Am 27.08.2018 um 16:12 schrieb Martin Karlsson:
> [...]
>
> I have already asked about this problem in a previous forum
> post
> ( https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=471& start=0&).
> This time, I would like to propose a solution.
>
> I suggest that the "measure" attribute of LinearCoordinate
> is replaced by two attributes, measureBase (an integer) and
> measureFraction (a double). Same for all the other measures,
> like startMeasure and endMeasure of LinearPositioningSystem.
> Alternatively, there could be a LinearMeasure class to use
> in all these cases, containing the attributes "base" and
> "fraction". Probably, the attribute "units" in
> LinearPositioningSystem should also be replaced by baseUnits
> and fractionUnits, for clarity.

This proposal sounds valid to me, and indeed, it could solve existing
problems of ambiguity related to railway line coordinates. Having a
"base measure" and a "fraction measure" instead of a single "measure"
therefore seems to be a very straight-forward solution.

The questions about mileages and their various specialities has already
been raised earlier [1] and is still waiting for a profound answer by
the RTM Expert Group. In particular, it has to be clarified how class
LinearAnchorPoint shall be used and which role it can play for defining
mileage gaps and overlaps.

[1] https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=577& start=0&

Best regards
Christian Rahmig

--
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Previous Topic: Proposal for incorporating length information in RTM NetElement
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Oct 17 15:36:44 CEST 2018