Sorry for the lengthy time it has taken me to respond; life has been very busy!
I think your additions to the format for the swinging overlap are good.
However as Reuben remarked you overlooked that the overlap over 139R may in fact not be available; for example there is a chance that there is simultaneously a route in progress from 327B(M) which has overlap beyond 349 over 133R and thus conflicting for the length of FZ. You could show this on your Control Table by the use of brackets to link the expression logically together as one combined statement that ANDs the need for the controls you have stated with
the absence of route locking after {327B(M): [GE, FK, FZ (CF, DA, FG - - - or FG - - - -occ for 30)] - - - or - - - 133N}, showing this in the relevant columns underneath your existing entry.
As you say Time of Op would be needed if 139 close to the BP/BS joint; in this layout it might be reasonable to make the assumption that there is sufficient length (>50m) that it is just not needed. however to show it I think it is a good idea to create a specific row between the N to R and R to N ones to make it clear that it applies BOTH WAYS and your headings should emphasise that the locking is not imposed by the route locking but only by the occupation of the berth track in the presence of that route locking, and that occupation for time (say 30sec) releases it.
I think your additions to the format for the swinging overlap are good.
However as Reuben remarked you overlooked that the overlap over 139R may in fact not be available; for example there is a chance that there is simultaneously a route in progress from 327B(M) which has overlap beyond 349 over 133R and thus conflicting for the length of FZ. You could show this on your Control Table by the use of brackets to link the expression logically together as one combined statement that ANDs the need for the controls you have stated with
the absence of route locking after {327B(M): [GE, FK, FZ (CF, DA, FG - - - or FG - - - -occ for 30)] - - - or - - - 133N}, showing this in the relevant columns underneath your existing entry.
As you say Time of Op would be needed if 139 close to the BP/BS joint; in this layout it might be reasonable to make the assumption that there is sufficient length (>50m) that it is just not needed. however to show it I think it is a good idea to create a specific row between the N to R and R to N ones to make it clear that it applies BOTH WAYS and your headings should emphasise that the locking is not imposed by the route locking but only by the occupation of the berth track in the presence of that route locking, and that occupation for time (say 30sec) releases it.
(06-09-2012, 11:56 AM)Peter Wrote: You are free to add whatever extra columns or lines you wish to the sheet issued. You are also free to draw up your own in the exam or bring your own version of a template to use (they will be checked by the invigilator to confirm there is no illicit help information on them).
Peter
PJW