Home » railML newsgroups » railml.timetable » UIC train transport id
Re: UIC train transport id [message #771 is a reply to message #769] Tue, 27 March 2012 16:46 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 311
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
I'm sorry, there has been again a crossing at the double-track Internet....
(It seams that an old "Reichsbahner" like me is not familiar with too much
double-track.)

I've seen that Andreas has already answered so of the open questions.

I hat a look into the source which Andreas sent. It seams to be an
'approach' to the problem of train numbers but only from the view of one
Infrastructure Company and also more for freight traffic than for
passenger traffic.

Some of the problems are well-known. So for instance they write:

"Uniqueness of the code"
"It is the responsibility of the company that creates the code to ensure
its uniqueness. Because a code
is prefixed with the type and company codes a company only needs to ensure
the “core element” is
unique in each timetable period."

It deals a little bit with the problem of more than one Operator being
involved in one train by defining a 'lead operator' (lead RU). Even this
is - from my opinion - a little bit blauäugig because in most cases one
Train Operating Company (TOC) does not 'subordinate' under another. At
least it is my experience.

But what it does not deal with it the problem of one train crossing over
the infrastructure of more than one Infrastructure Company - and that is
by far not an academic problem! There is no "leading infrastructure
company" and it would also be unrealistic. So that means, there may be a
'train' (in general) München - Zürich which has a different "UIC train
transport id" at DB Netz tracks than it has at SBB tracks. The same
applies to a train Hagenow Land - Neustrelitz which crosses three
Infrastructure Companies, one double. So this train then has three "UIC
train transport ids"? Or four because DB Netz cannot use one double?

Anyway, we should be very careful here.

- It is now-days hard to imagine that a 'company' like DB Netz follows
the rules of this document. At least it will take a 'few' years until the
"big" Infrastructure Companies of our world recognise this "UIC train
transport ids" and again a 'few' years until they implement it in their
software...

- If we must implement it now in RailML, it seams to be better to put it
to the train part because I guess (I'm afraid) that each Infrastructure
Company uses its own "UIC train transport id".

- It is the philosophy of RailML to put everything which can change into
a train part and let the train do only the grouping of train parts. We
should not break this principle.

I would prefer to wait with this "UIC train transport id" and to handle it
in a wider topic like "compatibility to Pathfinder" where we could assign
a Diplomarbeit or so.
But this is only my opinion.

Best regards,
Dirk.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: TrainPart:tProcessStatus semantic
Next Topic: Hi! / Timing links
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 21:47:13 CET 2024