| Correspondence IL:trackIL und IS:track [message #3500] |
Fri, 07 March 2025 14:49  |
Stéphane Kaloustian
Messages: 1
Registered: September 2024
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear railML Interlocking community,
In an interlocking / MMI view at SBB there exists three types of track:
- A centralized track Element (with tvdSection) => example: track 5
- A track Element whithout tvdSection (non centralized track) => example: track 46
- A virtual track Element (for train routing) => example: track 64
IL:trackIL - railML 3 Wiki states: "trackIL has a 1:1-relation to a track element in functional infrastructure" and then "refersTo (1..1)" which have 2 different meanings:
- One IL:trackIL corresponds to exactly one IS:track, and one IS:track shall not correspond to more than one IL:trackIL (in which case the drawing below is wrong)
- Problem: in this case IS:track must be interrupted at every Signal, where the tvdSection has its boundaries. For this, an element of type "border" must be placed, because a trackBegin / trackEnd can only be located at switches / bufferStops / borders / crossings
- An IL:trackIL must have one reference to an IS:track (in which case the drawing below is conform)
Please consider the images in the attached PDF file.
Questions:
- Must there be a corresponding and identical "IS:track" element for each "trackIL" element?
- If yes, how to model a virtual track element for which no physical track exists?
- If yes, how is trackIS interrupted at tvdSection-boundaries? => border@type="track"?
- Does it make sense to interrupt the "IS:track" element, even though this is only necessary from the point of view of the interlocking / control system?
Looking forward to your inputs and discussion,
Stéphane Kaloustian and Silvan Gruber
SBB Swiss Railways
|
|
|
|
| Re: Correspondence IL:trackIL und IS:track [message #3512 is a reply to message #3500] |
Sun, 16 March 2025 07:48  |
Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 100
Registered: March 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Stéphane,
thanks for the detailed description of the issue.
Here we have to improve the documentation for the use of these elements and
their relations.
1) The childs trackBegin / trackEnd of IS:track are not mandatory. Thus it is
conceivable to have an IS:track not beginning or ending at switches /
bufferStops / borders / crossings.
You might think of ending an IS:track at the station limits in order to allow
for macro and mesa view onto the infrastructure.
2) The relation between IS:track and trackIL is meant that one trackIL shall not
refer to more than one IS:track. However, one IS:track might have several
trackIL referring to. Thus, the phrase "1:1" is misleading.
3) The trackIL is seen in its functional / operational sense. Thus one trackIL
might not be congruent to one IS:track in its extent, i.e. one trackIL is a
subset of an IS:track.
For example some infrastructure managers split platform tracks for the
operational purpose of joining or splitting trains.
4) Virtual tracks as trackIL might have a reference to one IS:track but not
necessarily.
5) Not centralized Tracks without tvdSection are also possible, i.e. trackIL
refers to IS:track but does not have a child hasTvdSection.
6) A tvdSection might be related to several trackIL and vice versa.
Best regards,
Joerg v. Lingen - Interlocking Coordinator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
