Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2004 Point CT
#5
Another very good attempt. You have grasped probably the most important part of this one - the tie up with 212 points.

I'm not sure on this one - should (BR or 212N) be in both the N>R and R>N TC clear. I thought it should be because whichever way 211 are set, if 212 are R, and there is something on BR, would we want 211 to move?

The only thing that I think you missed is that you identified 137A(S) and 144A(S) as calling the points N>R but you then did not enter them as routes required to be normal in the R>N (and hence missed the sectional release conditions).

Otherwise, what you out was what I would, so assuming I am not completely out of it, you should be pretty confident.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
2004 Point CT - by apparao_medapati - 17-09-2009, 10:33 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by Peter - 17-09-2009, 09:37 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by apparao_medapati - 18-09-2009, 07:34 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by Peter - 18-09-2009, 05:22 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by Peter - 18-09-2009, 09:19 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by PJW - 22-09-2009, 05:39 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by apparao_medapati - 19-09-2009, 10:15 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by apparao_medapati - 22-09-2009, 07:05 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by greensky52 - 09-06-2010, 07:38 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by PJW - 09-06-2010, 11:33 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by greensky52 - 10-06-2010, 08:43 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by PJW - 12-06-2010, 10:36 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by greensky52 - 14-06-2010, 05:57 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by PJW - 14-06-2010, 10:47 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by PJW - 22-06-2010, 10:54 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by greensky52 - 02-07-2010, 11:05 AM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by PJW - 02-07-2010, 05:29 PM
RE: 2004 Point CT - by greensky52 - 03-07-2010, 03:16 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)