Dev:Border between infrastructure managers and countries: Difference between revisions

From railML 2 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[checked revision][checked revision]
m (wording)
(wording)
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:2023-11-29 railML handoverPoint.jpg|thumb|Border between infrastructure managers {{wikipedia|Správa_železnic}} in the Czech Republic and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany ({{external|https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Falk2|By Falk2|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J35_445_Bf_Schöna,_Einfvsig_V1,_V3.jpg|Image source|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode|CC BY-SA 3.0|mode=silent}})]]
== Introduction ==
[[File:Grenzbrücke_Braunau_Simbach.jpg|thumb|Border between infrastructure managers {{wikipedia|ÖBB Infra}} in Austria and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany ({{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Renardo_la_vulpo|By Renardo la vulpo|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Braunau_a_I,_Eisenbahnbr%C3%BCcke_nach_Simbach,_2.jpeg|Image source|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/|CC0|mode=silent}})]]
 
The requirements for improved cooperation of infrastructure managers and ‘cross-border agreements’ enables seamless operations for train paths crossing borders, or ‘handover points’ (defined in the TAF TAP TSI<ref>{{external|http://taf-jsg.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230426-JGS-Handbook-3.3-with-XSD-3.3.0.0.pdf|TAP TSI and TAF TSI Sector Handbook for the Communication between Railway Undertakings and Infrastructure Managers (RU/IM Telematics Sector Handbook) Submitted on 20th October 2022}}</ref> as “the point where legal responsibility changes between the infrastructure managers”).
Border between infrastructure managers (handover point) is the point where legal responsibility changes between the infrastructure managers [TAF TAP TSI]<ref>{{external|http://taf-jsg.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230426-JGS-Handbook-3.3-with-XSD-3.3.0.0.pdf|TAP TSI and TAF TSI Sector Handbook for the Communication between Railway Undertakings and Infrastructure Managers (RU/IM Telematics Sector Handbook) Submitted on 20th October 2022}}</ref>.
 
These IM borders can be found between countries and within one e.g. in case there are private and national railway infrastructure managers in a country. Sometimes there two railway lines meet each other.
 
There are some approaches to represent border between infrastructure managers in railML2 e.g. with one or two tracks. This is due to the reasoning that every track should be considered a separate system with its own properties defined. Being syntactically and semantically valid, they just came from two different users of {{rml|2}}.
 
When choosing approach with two tracks be aware of semantic constraints e.g. IS:003 "If two <track>s are connected, the @absPos values of the connected {{tag|IS|trackBegin}} and {{tag|IS|trackEnd}} must be identical" <ref name="semCon">[[Dev:Semantic_Constraints]]</ref>.
 
== Example with two tracks ==
 
The photo shows an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Austria border.  In the source code, shown below, there are two tracks managed two IMs {{wikipedia|ÖBB Infra}} in Austria and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany. Ownership is represented by {{tag|IS|ownerChange}}  elements. Each of them have {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} positioned at the beginning of a track.
 
Further information about IMs is given in the {{tag|CO|infrastructureManager}} element and corresponding {{site|1=https://wiki2.railml.org/wiki/Dev:InfrastructureManagers|2=code list}}.  


The upper photo show an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Czech Republic border on {{wikipedia|Děčín–Dresden-Neustadt_railway}}. This line is operated by two different rail operating companies, {{wikipedia|Správa_železnic}} in the Czech Republic and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany, meaning there is a change in infrastructure managers.  
Here also two railway lines meet each other. Therefore restriction IS:003<ref name="semCon"></ref> cannot be fulfilled because tracks belong to different mileage systems. This is justified via two railway lines referring to tracks.


In the source code, shown below, there are two tracks belonging to two infrastructure managers. Ownership is represented by {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} elements. Further information is given in the {{tag|CO|infrastructureManager}} element and corresponding
[[File:Grenzbrücke_Braunau_Simbach.jpg|thumb|Border between infrastructure managers {{wikipedia|ÖBB Infra}} in Austria and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany ({{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Renardo_la_vulpo|By Renardo la vulpo|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Braunau_a_I,_Eisenbahnbr%C3%BCcke_nach_Simbach,_2.jpeg|Image source|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/|CC0|mode=silent}})]]
{{site|1=https://wiki2.railml.org/wiki/Dev:InfrastructureManagers|2=code list}}. Mileage of the border was obtained from <ref>{{external|1=https://via.bahnkonzept.de/index.php?srs=6240&dbi=1101&fti=11110000&vsi=010|2=Variabler Infrastruktur Aggregator|mode=silent}}</ref>.


<syntaxhighlight lang="xml">
<syntaxhighlight lang="xml">
Line 12: Line 23:
   <organizationalUnits>
   <organizationalUnits>
     <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/>
     <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/>
     <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="SZD"/>
     <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="ÖBB"/>
   </organizationalUnits>
   </organizationalUnits>
</metadata>
</metadata>
Line 19: Line 30:
   <trackTopology>
   <trackTopology>
     <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin>
     <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin>
     <trackEnd id="te01" pos="11859" absPos="11859">..</trackEnd>
     <trackEnd id="te01" pos="59" absPos="59">..</trackEnd>
   </trackTopology>
   </trackTopology>
   <trackElements>
   <trackElements>
Line 29: Line 40:
<track id="tr02">
<track id="tr02">
   <trackTopology>
   <trackTopology>
     <trackBegin id="tb02" pos="0" absPos="11859">..</trackBegin>
     <trackBegin id="tb02" pos="0" absPos="115">..</trackBegin>
     <trackEnd id="te02" pos="500" absPos="12359">..</trackEnd>
     <trackEnd id="te02" pos="30" absPos="85">..</trackEnd>
   </trackTopology>
   </trackTopology>
   <trackElements>
   <trackElements>
     ..
     ..
     <ownerChange id="och02" pos="0" absPos="11859" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnverw.grenze Bad Schandau Gr"/>
     <ownerChange id="och02" pos="0" absPos="115" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02"/>
     ..
     ..
   </trackElements>
   </trackElements>
</track>
</track>
<trackGroups>
  <line id="lin01" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01" name="Bahnstrecke München–Simbach">
    <trackRef ref="tr01"/>
  </line>
  <line id="lin02" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnstrecke Neumarkt-Kallham–Braunau">
    <trackRef ref="tr02"/>
  </line>
</trackGroups>
</syntaxhighlight>
</syntaxhighlight>


It is important to ensure the correct definition of the railway tracks. Every railway track should have an {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} at the beginning of the track positioned at a zero coordinate. Additional semantic constraints apply for the {{tag|IS|speedChange}} <ref>{{site|1=https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=905&start=0&|2=railML2 <speedChange> semantic constraints revision forum post}}</ref>.
== Example with one track ==


In the example code above there are two railway tracks. Each of them has {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} positioned at the beginning. This is due to the reasoning that every track should be considered a separate system with its own properties defined. But technically one track is also enough because there is no need for the second track to represent change. See example of one track representing a "Border between infrastructure managers" below. To answer a question which example to use when, this seems to be a preference of a user. Both examples are syntactically and semantically valid and actually came from two different users of {{rml|2}}.
Technically one track is also enough because there is no need for the second track to represent change. See example of one track representing a "Border between infrastructure managers" below.
 
The photo shows an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Czech Republic border on {{wikipedia|Děčín–Dresden-Neustadt_railway}}. This line is operated by two different rail operating companies, {{wikipedia|Správa_železnic}} in the Czech Republic and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany, meaning there is a change in infrastructure managers. Mileage of the border was obtained from <ref>{{external|1=https://via.bahnkonzept.de/index.php?srs=6240&dbi=1101&fti=11110000&vsi=010|2=Variabler Infrastruktur Aggregator|mode=silent}}</ref>.
 
[[File:2023-11-29 railML handoverPoint.jpg|thumb|Border between infrastructure managers {{wikipedia|Správa_železnic}} in the Czech Republic and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany ({{external|https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Falk2|By Falk2|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J35_445_Bf_Schöna,_Einfvsig_V1,_V3.jpg|Image source|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode|CC&nbsp;BY-SA&nbsp;3.0|mode=silent}})]]


<syntaxhighlight lang="xml">
<syntaxhighlight lang="xml">

Revision as of 16:21, 23 April 2024

Introduction

Border between infrastructure managers (handover point) is the point where legal responsibility changes between the infrastructure managers [TAF TAP TSI][1].

These IM borders can be found between countries and within one e.g. in case there are private and national railway infrastructure managers in a country. Sometimes there two railway lines meet each other.

There are some approaches to represent border between infrastructure managers in railML2 e.g. with one or two tracks. This is due to the reasoning that every track should be considered a separate system with its own properties defined. Being syntactically and semantically valid, they just came from two different users of railML® 2.

When choosing approach with two tracks be aware of semantic constraints e.g. IS:003 "If two <track>s are connected, the @absPos values of the connected <trackBegin> and <trackEnd> must be identical" [2].

Example with two tracks

The photo shows an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Austria border. In the source code, shown below, there are two tracks managed two IMs ÖBB Infra (Wiki banner.png) in Austria and DB InfraGO (Wiki banner.png 🇩🇪) in Germany. Ownership is represented by <ownerChange> elements. Each of them have <ownerChange> positioned at the beginning of a track.

Further information about IMs is given in the <infrastructureManager> element and corresponding code list (link to the railML® website).

Here also two railway lines meet each other. Therefore restriction IS:003[2] cannot be fulfilled because tracks belong to different mileage systems. This is justified via two railway lines referring to tracks.

Border between infrastructure managers ÖBB Infra (Wiki banner.png) in Austria and DB InfraGO (Wiki banner.png 🇩🇪) in Germany (By Renardo la vulpo/Image source/CC0)
<metadata>
  <organizationalUnits>
    <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/>
    <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="ÖBB"/>
  </organizationalUnits>
</metadata>
..
<track id="tr01">
  <trackTopology>
    <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin>
    <trackEnd id="te01" pos="59" absPos="59">..</trackEnd>
  </trackTopology>
  <trackElements>
    ..
    <ownerChange id="och01" pos="0" absPos="0" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01"/>
    ..
  </trackElements>
</track>
<track id="tr02">
  <trackTopology>
    <trackBegin id="tb02" pos="0" absPos="115">..</trackBegin>
    <trackEnd id="te02" pos="30" absPos="85">..</trackEnd>
  </trackTopology>
  <trackElements>
    ..
    <ownerChange id="och02" pos="0" absPos="115" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02"/>
    ..
  </trackElements>
</track>

<trackGroups>
  <line id="lin01" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01" name="Bahnstrecke München–Simbach">
    <trackRef ref="tr01"/>
  </line>
  <line id="lin02" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnstrecke Neumarkt-Kallham–Braunau">
    <trackRef ref="tr02"/>
  </line>
</trackGroups>

Example with one track

Technically one track is also enough because there is no need for the second track to represent change. See example of one track representing a "Border between infrastructure managers" below.

The photo shows an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Czech Republic border on Děčín–Dresden-Neustadt_railway (Wiki banner.png). This line is operated by two different rail operating companies, Správa_železnic (Wiki banner.png) in the Czech Republic and DB InfraGO (Wiki banner.png 🇩🇪) in Germany, meaning there is a change in infrastructure managers. Mileage of the border was obtained from [3].

Border between infrastructure managers Správa_železnic (Wiki banner.png) in the Czech Republic and DB InfraGO (Wiki banner.png 🇩🇪) in Germany (By Falk2/Image source/CC BY-SA 3.0)
<metadata>
  <organizationalUnits>
    <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/>
    <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="SZD"/>
  </organizationalUnits>
</metadata>
..
<track id="tr01">
  <trackTopology>
    <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin>
    <trackEnd id="te01" pos="50000" absPos="50000">..</trackEnd>
  </trackTopology>
  <trackElements>
    ..
    <ownerChange id="och01" pos="0" absPos="0" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01"/>
    <ownerChange id="och02" pos="11859" absPos="11859" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnverw.grenze Bad Schandau Gr"/>
    ..
  </trackElements>
</track>

References

  1. ↑ TAP TSI and TAF TSI Sector Handbook for the Communication between Railway Undertakings and Infrastructure Managers (RU/IM Telematics Sector Handbook) Submitted on 20th October 2022 (external link)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Dev:Semantic_Constraints
  3. ↑ Variabler Infrastruktur Aggregator
Retrieved from "https://wiki2.railml.org/index.php?title=Dev:Border_between_infrastructure_managers_and_countries&oldid=15538"