| [railML3] Suggestion for sub-use cases of use case "ETCS Track Net" [message #3029] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 08:16  |
Karl-Friedemann Jerosch
Messages: 11
Registered: May 2020
|
Junior Member |
|
|
During the certification process, it became apparent that the use case "ETCS Track Net" is too general.
The different ways how infrastructure managers work can result in the following approach to introduce sub-use cases.
That's why we propose the railML sub-use cases within the "ETCS Track Net" use case:
- Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to signaling supplier for decentralized ETCS solution (without balise group locations): ETCS Level 1
- Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to signaling supplier for decentralized ETCS solution (with balise group locations): ETCS Level 1
- Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to the signaling supplier for central ETCS solution (without balise group locations): ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 1+2
- Data transfer from Infrastructure Manager (IM) to the signaling supplier for central ETCS solution (with balise group locations): ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 or Level 1+2
- Data transfer from Signaling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager only with infrastructure data (control data set)
- Data transfer from Signaling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager with infrastructure data including the railML subschema "interlocking" with ETCS data (based on sub-use case 2)
- Data transfer from Signaling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager with infrastructure data including the railML subschema "interlocking" with ETCS data (based on sub-use case 4)
Note:
The schema version railML 3.2 currently contains the generally required information for an ETCS trackside project.
In individual cases, required but not yet available information in railML 3.3 must be supplemented or transferred in a traditional way outside railML (applies in particular to sub-use cases 1 and 2).
We are looking forward to your opinions.
Thank you and best regards from Karl & Martin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] Suggestion for sub-use cases of use case "ETCS Track Net" [message #3040 is a reply to message #3033] |
Wed, 26 October 2022 09:23  |
Martin Zien
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2021
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
in the ETCS-Workgroup meeting on 2022-09-30, four major results were elaborated:
1. The establishment of the individual Sub-Use Cases makes sense and will be continued, since it reflects the conditions of the reality in ETCS-Projects better than a "monolithic" one-for-all-approach. For Certification, each sub-use case can be considered individually.
2. It is not considered as practical to introduce seperate use cases for "...from infrastructure manager to supplier with / without Balises"
3. the current XSD does not cover the full need of ETCS-Level 1-Applications. Therefore the related Sub-Use Cases should be postponed to railML V3.3. Since the currently known potential applications are subject to ETCS Level 2, the impact to real live projects is asumed as limited.
4. Considering the above mentioned, there will be three sub use cases implemented in railML 3.2:
A) data transfer from Infrastructure Manager to Signalling Supplier (input for the start of an ETCS Level 2 trackside project based on a centralized technical solution; Details Level 1 to follow with railML V3.3)
B) data transfer from Signalling Supplier to Infrastructure Manager (output as delivery data of an ETCS Level 2 trackside project based on a centralized technical solution; Details for Level 1 to follow with railML V3.3)
C) data transfer of topology data between Infrastructure Manager and Signalling Supplier(s) (input or control data set as basis for all
project members, independent of ETCS Level)
@ALL: Please feel free to comment on this conclusion, especially if you see there any obstacles in this aproach or in case you have any questions.
[Updated on: Wed, 26 October 2022 09:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] Suggestion for sub-use cases of use case "ETCS Track Net" [message #3041 is a reply to message #3040] |
Fri, 11 November 2022 09:21 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
I would like to remind you on Martin's request to comment on the suggested ETCS use case tailoring. So, if you have any questions or remarks or alternative suggestions on splitting the ETCS use case into sub-use cases, please share them with the railML community here in the forum.
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: [railML3] Suggestion for sub-use cases of use case "ETCS Track Net" [message #3043 is a reply to message #3041] |
Mon, 09 January 2023 18:50 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
as there has been no further requests on the ETCS use case tailoring
approach, I herewith confirm the approach with ETCS-a, ETCS-b and ETCS-c
as described in Martin's posting. The adaptation of related wiki pages
about ETCS use case will be done by mid January.
Best regards
Christian
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org e.V. (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany
Am 11.11.2022 um 09:21 schrieb Christian Rahmig:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to remind you on Martin's request to comment on
> the suggested ETCS use case tailoring. So, if you have any
> questions or remarks or alternative suggestions on splitting
> the ETCS use case into sub-use cases, please share them with
> the railML community here in the forum.
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
