Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » Special fire-risk object (How to indicate a special fire-risk object?)
Special fire-risk object [message #4021] Tue, 26 May 2026 14:46 Go to next message
Georg Boasson is currently offline  Georg Boasson
Messages: 24
Registered: October 2020
Junior Member
An object may be indicated as a special fire-risk object (in Norwegian: "Særskilt brann objekt"). A tunnel may be indicated as a special fire-risk object and this is an important information.

The information about special fire-risk object may be added as a simple boolean value (Yes/No).

A tunnel is defined as an <overCrossing> element in railML and a simple implementation may to use the attribute @verbalConstraint to write in some text about special fire-risk for this object. A better soulution may be to add a new attribute about special fire-risk object that can be used for both undeCrossings, overCrossings and perhaps also others elements.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4023 is a reply to message #4021] Fri, 29 May 2026 12:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 580
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Georg,

thank you for bringing up this topic related to safety and security.
Although you suggest to simply add a boolean attribute, I would like to know more about the definition: What does "special fire-risk object" mean? How is it defined? And what are consequences for these objects?

And the question to the whole community: Do you have similar object classifications in your railways?
Any kind of feedback is highly appreciated...

Best regards
Christian

Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4056 is a reply to message #4023] Fri, 19 June 2026 09:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Georg Boasson is currently offline  Georg Boasson
Messages: 24
Registered: October 2020
Junior Member
A "special fire-risk object" is defined in the Norwegian fire and explosion protection act as any infrastructure (e.g., tunnels, buildings etc.) where a fire could cause loss of many lives or significant damage to health, environment, or assets etc. These objects are identifies by the municipalities, which are also the responsible for carrying out inspections and ensure that the objects are adequately protected against fire.

For Bane NOR this means that certain infrastructure objects such as tunnels can be classified as a "special fire-risk object". Note that Bane NOR uses the term collectively for:
• Tunnels over 1000 m
• Municipally defined special fire-risk objects
• Other high-risk facilities (e.g., Alnabru terminal)

Generally, the following emergency equipment commands may be available at a tunnel:
1. Start emergency activities
2. Start ventilation/ fans
3. Turn on emergency lighting
4. Release and/or Open escape doors
5. Activate water installation/fire hydrant
6. More

Status for objects in such a tunnel is more varied
1. Normal operation
2. Emergency activities started
3. Ventilation in direction X started, level 1 level 5 (depends on tunnel)
4. Emergency lighting on
5. Escape door released
6. Escape door open
7. Last escape door open
8. Water installation/fire hydrant pressurized
9. More

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4074 is a reply to message #4056] Fri, 03 July 2026 11:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 580
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Georg,

thank you very much for the more detailed information about fire risk objects.
Dear all, do you have similar object classifications in your data or the need for it?
We are interested in any kind of further feedback...

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4112 is a reply to message #4074] Mon, 24 August 2026 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Martin Zien is currently offline  Martin Zien
Messages: 16
Registered: December 2021
Junior Member
Hello all,

I can confirm that having such information avaialble, should help to automize Workflows in Engineering of TMS and related (Sub-)systems.

I would not limit it to the scope of Risk of Fire. First thing that comes to my mind are Flood-related risks (an surely many more exist). Maybe a more generalized approach would make sense. So, an element like "riskCategory" is a better apporach. Of Course, such must be further elaborated during work of working groups.

Best regards
Martin Zien
Siemens Mobility Braunschweig

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4126 is a reply to message #4112] Thu, 27 August 2026 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mathias Vanden Auweele is currently offline  Mathias Vanden Auweele
Messages: 167
Registered: February 2025
Location: Brussels
Senior Member
I agree with Georg that the railML schema needs an indication of a fire classification. I also agree with Martin that we can define this in a more general approach.

I would also like to push for at least a minimum implementation in railML 3.4. Considering the timeline, it's better to start with a minimum implementation that is extended through working groups for railML 3.5.

ERA RINF requires the http://data.europa.eu/949/rollingStockFireCategory parameter on tunnels. This parameter sets requirements on the rolling stock that use the tunnel. Rollingstock with firecategory A may not be used in a tunnel that requires category B.

I propose a <riskClassification> element that can be added to an <overCrossing> and <underCrossing> with the following attributes:

<overCrossing
    id="oc_tunnel_001"
    constructionType="tunnel">

    <name
        name="Example Tunnel"
        language="en"/>

    <riskClassification
        id="risk_001"
        riskType="fire"
        rollingStockFireCategory="http://data.europa.eu/949/concepts/rolling-stock-fire/10">

        <name
            name="Special fire-risk object designated by the competent municipality"
            language="en"/>

        <typeDesignator
            register="DIM"
            entry="https://data.banenor.no/data/RiskClassification_SpecialFireRiskObject"/>

        <isValid
            from="2026-01-01"/>

    </riskClassification>

</overCrossing>


Note: the riskClassification should have a minCount=0 and maxCount=unbounded

@riskType
fire
flood
landslide
avalanche
explosion
hazardousMaterials
other:...

By using the typeDesignator system, we have a minimum implementation that is very versatile. I believe validity ranges (or elementStates if you prefer) could also be used since these classification can change over time. But they can be marked as optional.

@rollingStockFireCategory is optional of course

Mathias Vanden Auweele
Railway data freelancer
https://matdata.eu
Brussels, Belgium

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4132 is a reply to message #4126] Fri, 28 August 2026 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
heidrun.jost@thalesgroup. is currently offline  heidrun.jost@thalesgroup.
Messages: 6
Registered: December 2022
Junior Member
Hello all,

Hitachi is also interested in the tunnel equipement defined in railML.

For some lines we already defined a lot of tunnel equipement.
We need the elements with their status and for some equipement in addition the commands.

Best regards,
Sunniva Berg and Heidrun Jost
HITACHI

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4136 is a reply to message #4132] Mon, 31 August 2026 13:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 580
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear all,

thank you very much for your feedback and specific ideas on model implementation. I created a Gitlab work item [1] for realizing your requirements within upcoming railML 3.4.

I still have some questions hoping for your input:
1) Which infrastructure objects should be "equipped" with risk information? Tunnels, bridges, ... anything else?
2) Is "risk" the right thing to model or is it some kind of "safety measure" reacting on a specific risk?

Regarding the implementation ideas of Mathias, I suggest to model the different types of risks into child elements, so that we can add specific attributes for different types of risks. Any further ideas for a first base implementation?

Thank you very much and best regards
Christian

[1] https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=1156& ;goto=4021&#msg_4021

Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org

Report message to a moderator

Re: Special fire-risk object [message #4137 is a reply to message #4136] Mon, 31 August 2026 22:03 Go to previous message
Mathias Vanden Auweele is currently offline  Mathias Vanden Auweele
Messages: 167
Registered: February 2025
Location: Brussels
Senior Member
Hello Christian,

Thank you for creating the gitlab ticket.

1) I've been going through the list and I think that under/over crossings are the only candidate elements that I can think of, where this information is applicable. At least for a minimum implementation, this is a good starting point.

2) Both elements (risk and measure) are relevant. But I think for most stakeholders in this thread, it is the risk aspect that comes first and defines eventual mitigation measures that have to be applied. For a minimum implementation, I would say that the risk aspect is the more important aspect for now.

Quote:
Regarding the implementation ideas of Mathias, I suggest to model the different types of risks into child elements, so that we can add specific attributes for different types of risks. Any further ideas for a first base implementation?
Something like this then?

<overCrossing
    id="oc_tunnel_001"
    constructionType="tunnel">

    <name
        name="Example Tunnel"
        language="en"/>

    <riskClassifications>
      <fireRisk>
        id="fireRisk_001"
        rollingStockFireCategory="http://data.europa.eu/949/concepts/rolling-stock-fire/10">

        <name
            name="Special fire-risk object designated by the competent municipality"
            language="en"/>

        <typeDesignator
            register="DIM"
            entry="https://data.banenor.no/data/RiskClassification_SpecialFireRiskObject"/>

        <isValid
            from="2026-01-01"/>
      </fireRisk>
      <floodRisk>...</floodRisk>
    </riskClassifications>

</overCrossing>

I don't have any objections to this approach

Mathias Vanden Auweele
Railway data freelancer
https://matdata.eu
Brussels, Belgium

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: [railML3.3] xs:choice between linearCoordinate and geometricCoordinate
Next Topic: [railML3] Operating rules / mode of operation
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Sep 11 12:32:08 CEST 2026