Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » NetElements vs. Tracks vs. TrainDetectionElements vs. TvdSections (Doubts about the correct linking between netElements, trainDetectionElements, tracks and TvdSections)
NetElements vs. Tracks vs. TrainDetectionElements vs. TvdSections [message #1998] Thu, 25 October 2018 17:08 Go to next message
Fabiana Diotallevi is currently offline  Fabiana Diotallevi
Messages: 21
Registered: October 2018
Junior Member
Hello everybody,
since I'm new to RailML community I'll briefly introduce myself: I'm Fabiana Diotallevi from NEAT (www.neat.it), an Italian design and development company, with solid experience in creating HW&SW solutions for mission and safety critical applications.
At the moment we are developing a tool for drawing and visualizing fully equipped railway track plans, and for easily editing, checking and importing and/or exporting the relative objects properties in different formats (among which, of course, railML).

I have read the documentation regarding the Infrastructure and the Interlocking Scheme, and I have some doubts on how to link the trackCircuit xml representation between the Infrastructure and Interlocking Scheme.

Consider for example the situation depicted in the attached figure: my goal is to find the correct representation of the netElements, the tracks, the trainDetectionElements (Infrastructure Scheme) and the TvDSection (Interlocking Scheme) of this very unrealistic case study.


index.php?t=getfile&id=35&private=0

In the figure there are 6 trackcircuits, delimited by 5 joints. The trackcircuits (in the real world) are composed by the the following segments:

• TC01 = a
• TC02 = b+c+e
• TC03 = d
• TC04= f+h+i
• TC05 = g
• TC06 = l

According to what I understood reading the railML documentation, the 6 trackcircuits correspond the 6 TvdSections in the Interlocking Scheme, is this correct?

Another point I would like you to confirm me, is that, if I have only one operational point, in the Infrastructure scheme the netElement representation corresponds to the Track representation.

In particular, I would say that the netElements and tracks representation of this case study should be the following:

• trc01 = ne_01 = a+b
• trc02 = ne_02 = c+d
• trc03 = ne_03 = e+f
• trc04 = ne_04 = g+h
• trc05 = ne_05 = i+l

For what concerns the limiting joints , they should be represented in the following way as trainDetectionElements:

• J1 = tde01 => netElementRef="ne_a01"
• J2 = tde02 => netElementRef="ne_a02"
• J3 = tde03 => netElementRef="ne_a03"
• J4 = tde04 => netElementRef="ne_a04"
• J5 = tde05 => netElementRef="ne_a05"

Finally, for the TvdSection we should have:

• Tvd01 = TC01 -> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j1"
• Tvd02 = TC02-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j1", "j2", "j3"
• Tvd03 = TC03-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j2"
• Tvd04= TC04-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j3","j4","j5"
• Tvd05 = TC05-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j4"
• Tvd06 = TC06-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j5"

Is all of this correct?

Thanks in advance for your feedback,

Fabiana
Re: NetElements vs. Tracks vs. TrainDetectionElements vs. TvdSections [message #2002 is a reply to message #1998] Fri, 02 November 2018 16:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 447
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Fabiana,

Am 25.10.2018 um 17:08 schrieb Fabiana Diotallevi:
> Hello everybody,
> since I'm new to RailML community I'll briefly introduce
> myself: I'm Fabiana Diotallevi from NEAT (www.neat.it), an
> Italian design and development company, with solid
> experience in creating HW&SW solutions for mission and
> safety critical applications.
> At the moment we are developing a tool for drawing and
> visualizing fully equipped railway track plans, and for
> easily editing, checking and importing and/or exporting the
> relative objects properties in different formats (among
> which, of course, railML).

Welcome to the railML forum! I am looking forward to learn more about
your visualization application, because it relates to one of our first
railML 3 use cases: Schematic Track Plan (see [1]). So, if you are going
to attend the upcoming railML conference (14.11.2018) [2] and railML 3.1
Dissemination workshop (13.11.2018) [3] in Praha, we may discuss in detail.

> I have read the documentation regarding the Infrastructure
> and the Interlocking Scheme, and I have some doubts on how
> to link the trackCircuit xml representation between the
> Infrastructure and Interlocking Scheme.
> Consider for example the situation depicted in the attached
> figure: my goal is to find the correct representation of the
> netElements, the tracks, the trainDetectionElements
> (Infrastructure Scheme) and the TvDSection (Interlocking
> Scheme) of this very unrealistic case study.
>
> In the figure there are 6 trackcircuits, delimited by 5
> joints. The trackcircuits (in the real world) are composed
> by the the following segments:
>
> •    TC01 = a
> •    TC02 = b+c+e
> •    TC03 = d
> •    TC04= f+h+i
> •    TC05 = g
> •    TC06 = l
>
> According to what I understood reading the railML
> documentation, the 6 trackcircuits correspond the 6
> TvdSections in the Interlocking Scheme, is this correct?

That is correct.

> Another point I would like you to confirm me, is that, if I
> have only one operational point, in the Infrastructure
> scheme the netElement representation corresponds to the
> Track representation.

NetElements are topology elements and thus independent from "railway
typical" tracks and lines. The <line> as well as the <track> is located
as NetEntity on the underlaying topology (NetElement).

> In particular, I would say that the netElements and tracks
> representation of this case study should be the following:
>
> •    trc01 = ne_01 = a+b
> •    trc02 = ne_02 = c+d
> •    trc03 = ne_03 = e+f
> •    trc04 = ne_04 = g+h
> •    trc05 = ne_05 = i+l

Yes, this approach is possible. In this specific microscopic model, the
location of the <track> corresponds with the <netElement>.

> For what concerns the limiting joints , they should be
> represented in the following way as trainDetectionElements:
>
> •    J1 = tde01 => netElementRef="ne_a01"
> •    J2 = tde02 => netElementRef="ne_a02"
> •    J3 = tde03 => netElementRef="ne_a03"
> •    J4 = tde04 => netElementRef="ne_a04"
> •    J5 = tde05 => netElementRef="ne_a05"

You mean "ne_01" instead of "ne_a01", don't you?

> Finally, for the TvdSection we should have:
>
> •    Tvd01 = TC01 -> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j1"
> •    Tvd02 = TC02-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j1", "j2",
> "j3"
> •    Tvd03 = TC03-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j2"
> •    Tvd04=  TC04-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j3","j4","j5"
> •    Tvd05 = TC05-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j4"
> •    Tvd06 = TC06-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j5"
>
> Is all of this correct?

Yes, this is correct :-)
I am not sure whether the buffer points have to be added as demarcating
points of TvdSections, too, but I am sure the interlocking coordinator
can answer this remaining question quite fast...

[1] https://wiki.railml.org/index.php?title=UC:IS:Schematic_Trac k_Plan
[2] https://www.railml.org/en/event-reader/34th-railml-conferenc e.html
[3]
https://www.railml.org/en/event-reader/3rd-railml-3-beta-fee dback-workshop.html

Best regards
Christian

--
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


Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
Re: NetElements vs. Tracks vs. TrainDetectionElements vs. TvdSections [message #2004 is a reply to message #2002] Mon, 05 November 2018 15:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joerg von Lingen is currently offline  Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011
Senior Member
Dear Fabiana,

Christian Rahmig wrote on 02.11.2018 16:31:
> Dear Fabiana,
>
> Am 25.10.2018 um 17:08 schrieb Fabiana Diotallevi:
>> Hello everybody,
>> since I'm new to RailML community I'll briefly introduce
>> myself: I'm Fabiana Diotallevi from NEAT (www.neat.it), an
>> Italian design and development company, with solid
>> experience in creating HW&SW solutions for mission and
>> safety critical applications.
>> At the moment we are developing a tool for drawing and
>> visualizing fully equipped railway track plans, and for
>> easily editing, checking and importing and/or exporting the
>> relative objects properties in different formats (among
>> which, of course, railML).
>
> Welcome to the railML forum! I am looking forward to learn more about
> your visualization application, because it relates to one of our first
> railML 3 use cases: Schematic Track Plan (see [1]). So, if you are going
> to attend the upcoming railML conference (14.11.2018) [2] and railML 3.1
> Dissemination workshop (13.11.2018) [3] in Praha, we may discuss in detail.
>
>> I have read the documentation regarding the Infrastructure
>> and the Interlocking Scheme, and I have some doubts on how
>> to link the trackCircuit xml representation between the
>> Infrastructure and Interlocking Scheme.
>> Consider for example the situation depicted in the attached
>> figure: my goal is to find the correct representation of the
>> netElements, the tracks, the trainDetectionElements
>> (Infrastructure Scheme) and the TvDSection (Interlocking
>> Scheme) of this very unrealistic case study.
>>
>> In the figure there are 6 trackcircuits, delimited by 5
>> joints. The trackcircuits (in the real world) are composed
>> by the the following segments:
>>
>> •    TC01 = a
>> •    TC02 = b+c+e
>> •    TC03 = d
>> •    TC04= f+h+i
>> •    TC05 = g
>> •    TC06 = l
>>
>> According to what I understood reading the railML
>> documentation, the 6 trackcircuits correspond the 6
>> TvdSections in the Interlocking Scheme, is this correct?
>
> That is correct.
>
>> Another point I would like you to confirm me, is that, if I
>> have only one operational point, in the Infrastructure
>> scheme the netElement representation corresponds to the
>> Track representation.
>
> NetElements are topology elements and thus independent from "railway
> typical" tracks and lines. The <line> as well as the <track> is located
> as NetEntity on the underlaying topology (NetElement).
>
>> In particular, I would say that the netElements and tracks
>> representation of this case study should be the following:
>>
>> •    trc01 = ne_01 = a+b
>> •    trc02 = ne_02 = c+d
>> •    trc03 = ne_03 = e+f
>> •    trc04 = ne_04 = g+h
>> •    trc05 = ne_05 = i+l
>
> Yes, this approach is possible. In this specific microscopic model, the
> location of the <track> corresponds with the <netElement>.
>
>> For what concerns the limiting joints , they should be
>> represented in the following way as trainDetectionElements:
>>
>> •    J1 = tde01 => netElementRef="ne_a01"
>> •    J2 = tde02 => netElementRef="ne_a02"
>> •    J3 = tde03 => netElementRef="ne_a03"
>> •    J4 = tde04 => netElementRef="ne_a04"
>> •    J5 = tde05 => netElementRef="ne_a05"
>
> You mean "ne_01" instead of "ne_a01", don't you?
>
>> Finally, for the TvdSection we should have:
>>
>> •    Tvd01 = TC01 -> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j1"
>> •    Tvd02 = TC02-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j1", "j2",
>> "j3"
>> •    Tvd03 = TC03-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j2"
>> •    Tvd04=  TC04-> DemarcatingTraindetector ="j3","j4","j5"
>> •    Tvd05 = TC05-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j4"
>> •    Tvd06 = TC06-> DemarcatingTraindetector  ="j5"
>>
>> Is all of this correct?

Yes, the TVD sections are correct w.r.t. rail joints. In addition the sections Tvd01, Tvd03, Tvd05, Tvd06 shall have
DemarcatingBufferstop as each section has at least two ends.

Regards,
Jörg von Lingen - Interlocking scheme coordinator
Re: NetElements vs. Tracks vs. TrainDetectionElements vs. TvdSections [message #2005 is a reply to message #2002] Mon, 05 November 2018 15:16 Go to previous message
Fabiana Diotallevi is currently offline  Fabiana Diotallevi
Messages: 21
Registered: October 2018
Junior Member
Dear Christian,
thanks a lot for your reply.
I'll be in Prague the evening of the 13rd, the 14th and the 15th, so we will surely have the chance to discuss in more detail.

Best regards,
Fabiana

[Updated on: Mon, 05 November 2018 15:17]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Platform element location: is it really necessary?
Next Topic: Suggestion for more precise definition of <propService> attributes
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jul 22 16:37:51 CEST 2024