Home » railML newsgroups » railml.rollingstock » [railML2] Do we need a solution to declare the states of rolling stock? (<states>)
[railML2] Do we need a solution to declare the states of rolling stock? [message #2582] Wed, 11 November 2020 10:57 Go to previous message
Torben Brand is currently offline  Torben Brand
Messages: 130
Registered: March 2016
Senior Member
Dear railML-community,

We have had a previous mishap where the wrong vehicle (and formation that is built on the vehicle) was used for runtime calculations. This as the same vehicle was in several versions in the same database/railML exchange file. The different versions were due to different states of the vehicle. In an early stage the vehicle was conceptual with "glossy marketing paper" values from the vendor. At a later stage the vehicle was planned and the values dropped/got more realistic. Finally, when the vehicle was in operation the values where investigated and found to be even lower.

To mitigate this source of potential error and to transmit more information in railML should we consider adding a construct like <states> under infrastructure (example: https://wiki2.railml.org/wiki/IS:state) in rolling stock?
Or do you suggest it's enough to demand from the user to transmit information outside railML of which correct vehicle to be used, to describe the vehicle further in the human-readable @description attribute or to purge the dataset transmitted on the desired state of vehicles (for instance only operational vehicles in data set)?

What does the community think? Any feedback is highly appreciated.

Kind regards

Torben Brand
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Distinguish between physical and operational
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Mon Sep 20 21:24:03 CEST 2021