Home » railML newsgroups » railml.infrastructure » Link a "doubleSwitchCrossing" to two switchesIL (Special Scenario for Treating a "dobleSwitchCrossing" differently in system landscape)
Link a "doubleSwitchCrossing" to two switchesIL [message #2855] Mon, 06 December 2021 19:55 Go to next message
Martin Zien is currently offline  Martin Zien
Messages: 2
Registered: December 2021
Junior Member
My colleagues and me are facing a scenario, where a so called "doubleSwitchCrossing" is in a leter step being linked two single switches inside the "interlocking" (in railML as well as inside the real-live-system).

The difficulty is, that certain individual "designator"-Elements and also the name would also have to be assigned in Infrastructure-node individually.
In the work group for the ETCS-Use case, we elaborated that this special scenario is not covered yet by the current possibilities of modeling inside raiML 3.x.

To comply as much as possible with the already defined approaches in railML 3.2, we think it might help to introduce further optional sub-elements for the case of a "doubelSwitchCrossing" under such conditions.
These would appear only if needed - similar to what is being done with the specific elements "straightBranch" and "turningBranch".

As working title these specific extra branches should be called "switchPartition". Any referencing - e.g. inside "switchesIL" would occur to these sub-nodes.

In this regards it should be discussed, if this approach should also be considered for a singleSwitchCrossing as well - but only with one occurence.

You can find a complete double switch crossing in the attahement.

<switchPartition id="swip_13cd" applicationDirection="normal">
<name name="11" language="NO"/>
<designator register="infrastructureRegister" entry="switch11entry"/>
<leftBranch netRelationRef="nr_10388E_0_103C17_1"/>
<rightBranch netRelationRef="nr_103C17_1_B543_0"/>
</switchPartition>
Re: Link a "doubleSwitchCrossing" to two switchesIL [message #2856 is a reply to message #2855] Tue, 07 December 2021 05:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joerg von Lingen is currently offline  Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 143
Registered: May 2011
Senior Member
Dear Martin,

thanks for your proposal. I have two thoughts for it:

1) When referencing from switchIL it might be confusing if the target can be a switchIS or a switchPartition.

2) The speciality of a doubleSwitchCrossing over a singleSwitchCrossing is not clear. In the interlocking domain they
will be modelled both as two linked switches.

P.S.: For everyone, who has no idea of what is already in railML3.x, please, have a look at
https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/IL:switchIL.

Dr.-Ing. Jörg von Lingen - Rollingstock scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 351 87759 40; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Re: Link a "doubleSwitchCrossing" to two switchesIL [message #2875 is a reply to message #2856] Fri, 14 January 2022 17:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Zien is currently offline  Martin Zien
Messages: 2
Registered: December 2021
Junior Member
After a discussion with other members in December 2022, I would like to propose a new approach:

It works with two new switchIS-Types ("doubleSwitchCrossingPartioned" - with one occurance, "partitionSwitch" - with two occurences) and the application of a parent-child-relation between both types.

Please refer to the attached example for details.
Re: Link a "doubleSwitchCrossing" to two switchesIL [message #2876 is a reply to message #2875] Mon, 17 January 2022 11:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 365
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Martin,

thank you very much for your new proposal. From infrastructure point of view, it looks good, as it does not introduce new elements, but only new types for the <switch> element. The new types "doubleSwitchCrossingPartitioned" and "partitionSwitch" can be used to define semantic rules on the appearance and multiplicity of <switch> child elements, e.g. branches.

In order to have a synchronized approach: is it also necessary to partition simple switch crossings? If yes: can we use your approach also for simple switch crossings (partitioned)? If no: is the approach described in [1] with only one <switch> element for a simple switch crossing sufficient for all your needs?

[1] https://cloud.railml.org/index.php/f/77969

Thank you very much and best regards
Christian


Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
Re: Link a "doubleSwitchCrossing" to two switchesIL [message #2887 is a reply to message #2876] Mon, 24 January 2022 17:03 Go to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 365
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear all,

following the latest discussions of the topic here in the forum and in the ETCS use case working group, I concluded the topic in a railML development issue [1].

[1] https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/484

Best regards
Christian


Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
Previous Topic: [railML 3.2] "isSpeedSignal": Suggestion to delete the value "midOfTrain" of element "trainRelation"
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jan 27 12:17:43 CET 2022