Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » [railML3] Request for extension of the 'crossing' infrastructure element
[railML3] Request for extension of the 'crossing' infrastructure element [message #2440] Sun, 17 May 2020 15:18 Go to previous message
Heidrun Jost is currently offline  Heidrun Jost
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2006
Junior Member
Hello,

I am working on a Thales railway infrastructure project for Norway. An important topic is the mapping of the infrastructure by using railML v3.1. When modelling the railway network (on the Micro Layer), we have a problem with the crossing element of railML. In my view the element 'crossing' (xsd:type rail3:Crossing) should be expanded in its definition. I miss the possibility of referencing to 'netRelation' (rail3:NetRelation) from this element. What I mean can be shown well using the example of the definition of a double slip in railML v3.1. In contrast to a crossing, this very similar infrastructure element supports referencing to 'netRelation'.

Simplified example of a double slip by railML v3.1
<switchIS id="Dhk3FD1ZZsZZfKdMmH8xO7V9" type="doubleSwitchCrossing" >
     <name name="KAM 2" language="en" />
   <spotLocation id="spotlocationId"
         netElementRef="Z3GkdhHfEBn3Xvh6bZZpx2V9" intrinsicCoord="0"/>
   <straightBranch netRelationRef="VyATIZHrOBtcgXQ7DBI5Cfa"/>
   <straightBranch netRelationRef="Z3q46YPEowm4bZHzS4G2Ysl8"/>
   <turningBranch netRelationRef="Z0C40llZZSEq6eSXY9sakbU8"/>
   <turningBranch netRelationRef="iEkqg5X8LFb8Opwn0KNYmb"/>
</switchIS>
It would be very helpful for our project if two 'straightBranch' elements would be available, comparable to the 'switchIS' element.

Argumentation:

  1. A crossing can be considered topologically as a simplified switch crossing.

  2. From the safety perspective of interlockings, the branching, merging and crossing of tracks must be modelled in the form of a netRelation. Precisely these structures in the network are to be protected by interlocking measures. The 'natural' identification of such a structure occurs via the topology.

  3. From my perspective, railML v3.1 offers two levels of abstraction for mapping the railway network. Each layer has its own root element/ type.
    a. a 'graph layer' represented by the 'topology' element (rail3:Topology)
    b. an element oriented 'infrastructure layer' represented by
    'functionalInfrastructure' element (rail3:functionalInfrastructure)
The linking from the 'infrastructure' layer to the 'graph layer' must be supported when it comes to elementary properties, such as crossing of tracks.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards
--
Heidrun Jost
Data Manager
Transportation Systems
Thales Deutschland GmbH

Phone: +49 (0) 30 688306 423
Schützenstr. 25 10117 Berlin Germany

[Updated on: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:30] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Definition of track/stoppingPlace/platform infrastructure vs. timetable
Next Topic: [RailML3] Renaming Track into UsagePattern
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Apr 19 04:16:54 CEST 2024