01-09-2011, 12:58 PM
[The overlap for 484 goes beyond the crossing between 148A and 148B, so by the same logic that you have included the routes from 484, you also need to include the route from 494 up to 484 which requires the overlap.]
When an overlap extends through a set of points like 148 do you have to include these extra tracks as part of the route release for 494 signal i.e. EL track circuit?
So ignoring the swinging overlap
Route-----Tc's clear-------------Occ---t
494A(M) - EK, EL, (EG, EH, EJ..... EJ....20s)
Any secondly if we encounter a swinging O/L do we have to condition this into the release (something like)
Route-----Tc's clear-------------------------------------Occ---t
494A(M) - EK, {(EL or 146R),(CJ or 146N)}, (EG, EH, EJ..... EJ....20s)
Doesn't look right (as it probably isn't) but there doesn't seem to be any real benefit in including TC's (EL or CJ) passed the dead locking tracks. Could we not just release all point locking associated with 494 once EL becomes clear after having been occupied (which would presumably only happen after a SPAD?)
Think I've lost the plot on this a bit.
Cheers
When an overlap extends through a set of points like 148 do you have to include these extra tracks as part of the route release for 494 signal i.e. EL track circuit?
So ignoring the swinging overlap
Route-----Tc's clear-------------Occ---t
494A(M) - EK, EL, (EG, EH, EJ..... EJ....20s)
Any secondly if we encounter a swinging O/L do we have to condition this into the release (something like)
Route-----Tc's clear-------------------------------------Occ---t
494A(M) - EK, {(EL or 146R),(CJ or 146N)}, (EG, EH, EJ..... EJ....20s)
Doesn't look right (as it probably isn't) but there doesn't seem to be any real benefit in including TC's (EL or CJ) passed the dead locking tracks. Could we not just release all point locking associated with 494 once EL becomes clear after having been occupied (which would presumably only happen after a SPAD?)
Think I've lost the plot on this a bit.
Cheers