Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » More detailed 'speed change' definitions
Re: Obligational stop [message #525 is a reply to message #524] |
Fri, 15 March 2013 15:38 |
thomas.kauer
Messages: 15 Registered: January 2004
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dirk Bräuer wrote:
>
> Dear Susanne,
>
> Am 12.03.2013, 22:57 Uhr, schrieb Susanne Wunsch <coord(at)commonrailmlorg>:
>> We want to remove both attributes (mandatoryStop and mandatoryBraking)
>> from the "speedChange" element for the upcoming 2.2 version.
>
> Ah, I understand.
>
>> And indeed both scenarios
>> are some kind of operational-rule-driven.
>
> The "Betriebsbremsung" more than the "mandatory stop".
>
> So I agree to remove "Betriebsbremsung" to somewhere else, may be away
> from <infrastructure> to <rules> or such.
>
> I do not agree concerning "mandatory stops". Their reason is clearly
> infrastructure. In the case of level crossings (the case you always quote)
> the reason is "bad sight" from street to railway line due to an obstacle
> in the triangle between a car, a train, and the level crossing. This
> "obstacle" - possibly a house - is clearly infrastructure - somebody has
> built it there. May be it's not railway property, but rather
> infrastructure in general than rule.
>
> Other examples for "mandatory stops" are at least the same
> "infrastructure-like": RETB stop markers are a kind of starter signal, or
> H-Tafel or Trapeztafel in Germany.
>
> Of course all these also have a touch of rule: The reason for a starter
> signal is a rule (just one train in one section). Despite this, I guess
> you would treat starter signals, H-Tafel, and Trapeztafel as
> infrastructure, too. So you should do the same with mandatory stop marker
> boards.
>
> Another example would be Ra10 / Rangierhalttafel from Germany (limit of
> shunting marker board in English). Is it infrastructure or rule? Some of
> both, of course. There is no physical need to stop there, as there is no
> physical need to stop at any other main signal or marker board.
>
> However, following the rule Christian once said: At least if you can touch
> it, it is infrastructure. You can touch a main signal, a Ra10, as well as
> a "mandatory stop" marker or these "0 km/h" speed signals at German level
> crossings with "bad sight".
>
> Convinced?
>
>> The "mandatoryBraking" attribute, which is the topic of this thread, may
>> be modelled as an operational stop with a reference to its level
>> crossing. But this idea is also not fully checked and far from "ready to
>> implement".
>
> I guess there is a mistake in your writing: You do not mean
> "mandatoryBraking" but "mandatoryStop".
>
> The "mandatoryStop" has another character than an operational stop.
> Operational stops are by far not mandatory - on the contrary. They can be
> skipped (the train is allowed to run through) under certain conditions,
> which are pure of "timetabling" matter.
>
> Currently, you cannot create an operational stop in RailML referencing a
> level crossing - stops can only reference OCPs, and a level crossing is no
> OCP. It would be necessary to additionally create an OCP at the place of
> the level crossing to model the operational stop.
>
> Anyway, with this technology you cannot express that stops are regularly
> necessary forced by the infrastructure manager (or some other authority)
> at this place. I think it should be possible to create infrastructure-only
> RaiLML file (a RailML file with just infrastructure, no trains). If this
> is given to anybody who wants to create a timetable, it should tell him as
> much as he could see "in nature". It should spare him to go outside and
> look at each sign. If you agree with this, the "mandatory braking" marker
> boards should be infrastructure.
>
> If you do not want to put them as an attribute of <speedChange>, then
> please allow a cross-reference from/to <speedChange> to keep background
> information.
>
> Best regards,
> Dirk.
>
>
Dear Dirk
I agree that if there is a "mandatory braking marker" this should be part
of the infrastructure. So it should be treated as a marker (a kind of
signal). A lot of speed changes have their origins in a amrker or some
other kind of signal - a cross-reference would very well fit for that need.
If the "mandatory braking" has no marker but is only written somewhere in
operational rules you would have to make a difference between "general"
rules for all trains and "timetable specific" rules that may only be
applied by some railway companies running there.
But I don't think you need a <speedChange> for a "mandatory braking
marker" since the resulting speed is depending on the exact breaking rules
and train properties, so you normally won't be able to give any conrete
speeds at so a <speedChance>.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jul 24 06:20:28 CEST 2024
|