| Re: Semantic of @type in <track> and mapping to national usage? [message #1630 is a reply to message #1596] |
Mon, 21 August 2017 16:07   |
Christoph Klaus
Messages: 1
Registered: September 2016
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Vasco,
the regulations for train operations (Ril 408.0101A01) give the
following definitions:
Durchgehendes Hauptgleis: Main tracks of the line and their continuation
in the station.
Hauptgleis: Tracks which are driven by trains regularly.
Nebengleis: Tracks which are not driven by trains regularly.
So the current explanation of secondaryTrack in the railML wiki ("This
is a track not frequently used.") should be expanded for describing
"nicht-durchgehendes Hauptgleis".
The same counts for sidingTrack in the meaning of "Nebengleis".
I hope this feedback is helpful for you.
Best regards,
Christoph Klaus
DB Netz AG
Zentrale / Technik- und Anlagenmanagement STE
Caroline-Michaelis-Straße 5-11, 10115 Berlin
Am 06.06.2017 um 15:41 schrieb Vasco Paul Kolmorgen:
> === German usage / Deutsche Anwendung ===
>
> The usage in Germany is currently AFAIK:
> * Durchgehendes Hauptgleis; pro Betriebsstelle immer Eines bei je
> Eingleisiger und Zwei je zweigleisiger Strecken, mit Zugstraße
> * Hauptgleis; alle anderen Gleise mit mindestens einer Zugstraße
> * Nebengleis; alle anderen Gleise ohne Zugstraßen, nur Rangierfahrten
> * Gleisverbindung; Gleise ohne eigenen Verkehrswert, in
> Weichenverbindungen, Überleitungen
>
> The mapping for mainTrack to Deutschland:durchgehendes Hauptgleis is
> nearby, but what's with the others:
> * secondaryTrack: This is a track not frequently used (e. g. for
> overtaking only).
> * connectingTrack: This is a transfer track from one to another track
> e. g. in branches, points or cross overs.
> * sidingTrack: This is a siding.
> * stationTrack: This is a track in a station, possibly with plattforms.
> * other:anything Any value that does not fit any value from the
> previous enumeration list, fulfilling the constraint: at minimum two
> characters, whitespace is not allowed.
>
> Any opinions for railML® 2.x and for a refactoring in railML® 3.x?
>
> Best regards,
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
