| [railML3] speed at level crossing [message #2547] |
Fri, 09 October 2020 13:24  |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 463
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
in the railML use case working group "ETCS" we recently discussed how to model the allowed speed for a level crossing that is in unprotected mode.
The idea is to reference a <speedSection> element from the <levelCrossing> with the attribute @linkedSpeedSection (see [1]).
The interesting question for you:
Is the speed at level crossings in unprotected mode direction dependent? If yes, we have to conclude that it should be possible to refer to more than one <speedSection> from the <levelCrossing>.
Any comment is highly appreciated...
[1] https://trac.railml.org/ticket/377
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] speed at level crossing [message #2550 is a reply to message #2547] |
Fri, 09 October 2020 15:44  |
Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 313
Registered: August 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Christian,
without being aware the full options in the r3 model, with a view from r2, I would say:
> Is the speed at level crossings in unprotected mode
> direction dependent?
Yes, it surely can be, practically. The modelling depends on whether a <speedSection> applies unconditionally or whether there can be more <speedSection>s at the same place where the lowest applies.
In general, there may be other reasons for direction-dependant speed limits at the very same place of the level crossing. So the resulting permitted speed may be different even in case the unprotected LC itself does not need a direction-dependence. So if there are several speed profiles allowed and the linked <speedSection> is not necessarily the ultimate, it could be enough to link only one.
However, even then I cannot imagine that the LC itself is surely direction-independent when unprotected in all cases and all countries. Local rules should apply then. Can railML foresee all local rules? The motorist must have a chance to see the train for a certain time before the train enters the LC. The visibility of the track from the street can easily be direction-dependent. I think it's on the safe side to allow more than one <speedSection>.
Best regards,
Dirk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [railML3] speed at level crossing [message #2610 is a reply to message #2594] |
Tue, 08 December 2020 10:47 |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 463
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Luca and Dirk,
thank you for your replies. I conclude that we need the possibility to reference more than one <speedSection> from a <levelCrossingIS> being in unprotected mode. Therefore, a (repeatable) child element is required. I adapted the Trac ticket #377 [1] accordingly.
[1] https://trac.railml.org/ticket/377
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
