1997 Layout CT for Routes from 112 and point 306)

[merlin89]

I have submitted the CT's for roues from 112 and points 306. Would somebody be able to critique them to see if I'm on the right line. Many thanks in advance.

[MarkN]

I have submitted the CT's for roues from 112 and points 306. Would somebody be able to critique them to see if I'm on the right line. Many thanks in advance.

Very quick look at the points.
There are 3 routes from 112 so 3 entries required.
306 is part of a swinging overlap from 107, 201, & 202.

A common trend on the routes you answered was to put routes in the locking that are conditioned out by the points. If the lie of the points you have requested for this route will preclude another route from coming into use, then there is no need to mention the other route in the route locking.
Better answer on monday

[MarkN]

I have marked on the plan the 3 routes that require an overlap at 111 signal and whose overlap can therefore possibly lie over 306 points.

For anyone else who is interested I used Inkscape, a free, open source diagramming tool to mark the plan. It can import pdf to edit over the top.

[Peter]

As MN had noted, watch out for what routes are conditioned out by the points. However, one word of warning here, be consistent with your decision as to whether shunt routes have an overlap. I've assumed you are looking at UK mainline from your bio entry.

Routes in the same direction to another destination are not going to be opposing routes - applies to all of the routes you have done (at least you were consistent). You have correcly picked up routes in the same direction to the same destination (ie the Call On against the Main).

112A(M) I would have expected to see AD for time in there so that 112 A(M) can be overset when the move up to the LOS has been used and its train is now going away, but still on AD.

112B(M) For the alternative overlaps, I would not expect to see the hinge points in the availability column. 301 are not hinge points as there is no overlap into the siding. 305 would probably be included to ensure that anything off the branch is trapped. 107A(M) and 107A(W) are not conflicting because of the point conditions for their overlaps. 202A(S) and 107A© should have a time off condition (as comment for 112A(M) above.) Also bear in mind that the comment below about where the train may stop for the time off. Take care with your brackets on the point conditions. (AC, AB or 302) means only AB is conditioned by 302. It would need to be [(AC, AB) or 302] for them both to be conditioned.

112B© Same comment about 107A(M) and A(W) applies. Where you have two tracks in the section where you are looking to time off the route, be careful that you include the combinations. They both need to be clear and for timing, you need to enable this to happen for either of them, hence the bracket befomes [...BG, BH ---- or ---- (BG or BH) for time]. For a call on, you normally prove the relevant TC occupied in the route requirements.

I'll have a look at the points later.

[merlin89]

Many thanks for your comments much appreciated and hopefullt they have sunk in. May I submit P301 for your perusal..many thanks.

[MarkN]

Many thanks for your comments much appreciated and hopefullt they have sunk in. May I submit P301 for your perusal..many thanks.

I would have missed 122. the route from 112 is 112B(M) not 112A(M), but you have the tracks right.
The routes exiting into 108 lock 301 points as part of the overlap. You should consider releasing the overlap point locking after BG occ for time. This would allow the route 108B(S) to be able to set.
I wonder if there is a (small) flank protection benefit for 202A(S) to call 301 normal? A spad at 107 can always get through the trailing point to 202A(S), but may help from a spad at 201?
Someone else might like to comment here. It looks good to me.

[merlin89]

'The routes exiting into 108 lock 301 points as part of the overlap. You should consider releasing the overlap point locking after BG occ for time.'

I thought I had this taken of by the 'Time of operation Locking'? Is that portion of my CT correct?

Cheers
Ian

[merlin89]

I have attached the CT for P303 but am really unsure abut how I have written the control for the swinging overlap.
Thanks in advance
Ian

[Peter]

I have attached the CT for P303 but am really unsure abut how I have written the control for the swinging overlap.
Thanks in advance
Ian

I have had a look at your table for 303 and I think you have done reasonably. In the Set by column, I think you missed 124 in the N>R (they would be called for flank protection) and similarly 122B(M) in the R>N (flank again). 107A(W) would call 303 R (not N as you have it) because the ROL is shown going round the corner. You put 112B(S) which should be 112B(M) (there is no shunt route).

I am on shaky ground as I cannot confess to be a natural on swinging overlaps, but you have got the essence right for the bit that you did (you missed the R>N entry). I think that maybe BK should also be in the TC clear for the release (but I'm open to persuasion on that) and remember that a train stopping in the platform could be on BG or BH, so TC OCC should have (BG or BH) for time. My stab at the R>N entry would be
- TC Clear ----------- TC Occ -Time-TC clr- Pts--- Route N
DJ DB (BR BF BG BH | BG OR BH | t ) | BK | 206N | 107A(M)

You also put 107A(M) as calling R>N. If we have just been discussing the swinging O/L for main routes up to 111 (ie 107A(M)) this would not call it one way or the other, unless the O/L was not available so I think you should have entries like N>R 107A(M) w 306R and R>N 107A(M) w 305R.

Any thoughts from others?

Peter

---

Many thanks for your comments much appreciated and hopefullt they have sunk in. May I submit P301 for your perusal..many thanks.

I would have missed 122. the route from 112 is 112B(M) not 112A(M), but you have the tracks right.
The routes exiting into 108 lock 301 points as part of the overlap. You should consider releasing the overlap point locking after BG occ for time. This would allow the route 108B(S) to be able to set.
I wonder if there is a (small) flank protection benefit for 202A(S) to call 301 normal? A spad at 107 can always get through the trailing point to 202A(S), but may help from a spad at 201?
Someone else might like to comment here. It looks good to me.

If 108 has an alternative overlap with 302N, the requirement to call 301 with routes up to 108 would, on the face of it, depend on the lie of 302. However, given the nature of 301 (ie from the siding) you would probably want them N whichever overlap was selected.

You would indeed need to time off the overlap via 302N on occupation of BH or BG to be able to route the train anywhere else meaningful in the up direction.

[merlin89]

May I submit my route control table (107AM and 107AS) it has mistakes which I'm very unsure on how to complete. How do you write tracks clear section for the full swinging overlap and also unsure about the comprehensive lookack how to add test for auto signals 105 and 103. Guess the more examples of filled in CT's I see and do the better I can become at filling them in.
Thanks in advance

---

I have had a go at 202BS as well. Many thanks for your comments too.

---

For signal 119 I'm unsure how to write CT table for a signal whose control is released by the Block at 'Line clear' I assuming as that to be what the 'B' on the schematic alonside 119 to mean. Is anyone able to give me a few pointers?