Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » Correspondence IL:trackIL und IS:track (Modeling IL:trackIL)
Re: Correspondence IL:trackIL und IS:track [message #3512 is a reply to message #3500] Sun, 16 March 2025 07:48 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Jörg von Lingen is currently offline  Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 115
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

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Track and switch locks (Befahrbarkeitssperren)
Next Topic: [railML 3.2] Speed dependent overlaps
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Sun Feb 15 02:22:59 CET 2026