2005 route tables

[interesting_signal]

Here's my attempt at 107A(M) & (W) routes.

I've had a break from doing the controls table for a while so I'm a bit rusty, but trying to get back into the swing of it now.

I'd appreciate any comments. I haven't looked at the comments on other attempts submitted to the forum, but will do once I've finished attempting them myself.

146A(M) & © added now too.

[PJW]

Here's my attempt at 107A(M) & (W) routes.

I've had a break from doing the controls table for a while so I'm a bit rusty, but trying to get back into the swing of it now.

I'd appreciate any comments. I haven't looked at the comments on other attempts submitted to the forum, but will do once I've finished attempting them myself.

146A(M) & (C ) added now too.

Here are comments on the first couple only so far.

Generally OK but a few things that need some attention.

As you are aware, one issue is
Comprehensive Approach Locking:
Should condition out the tracks behind a signal whose aspect does not change
i.e. EF, ED [(EC, EB, EA) or 105ARAFOAL]
a driver of a train on EA cannot ever have been given the information that 107 had been previously showing a proceed aspect if 105 had always been showing red; the aspect sequence from 107 never caused a change in 105 or 103

[PJW]

Here's my attempt at 107A(M) & (W) routes.

146A(M) & (C ) added now too.

Very little to comment upon re 146.

Main:
It is a nonsence to put any comprehensive A/L where the signal is approach released as by definition if the signal is approach locked then there must be a train that could have seen it.

Call-on:
You treated as a normal call-on which is probably what I'd have done. However the plan notes describing its use rather imply that it is a shunt rather than a call-on, just to allow a loco to intrude to be able to runaround rather than a passenger permissive. This I feel is a confusion when judged against NR rules (that would also have provided a MARI for the PL); I think that I'd have added a note and explained either
a) I had treated this as a shunt (to match the description), or
b) I had signalled as the call-on (as defined by the route box) but therefore needed to amend slightly to suit my adopted principles!

Otherwise fine;
I don't see any great advantage / disadvantage re calling 214 so regard these as optional.
If declaring RRI standards (as indeed you have adopted for A/L timing) then to be consistent the two track A/L release would just actually be written "BD clear after BD, BC occ" (since that is what the TASR achieves), but this is really being very picky.

[interesting_signal]

Thanks for the feedback. All points noted.

I was a bit confused as to what the notes on the plan were trying to say re the call-on signals for running around. I can see stating my assumption would help in this situation.

Re the A/L release statement, I wrote out the whole sequence as on the advice of someone else, even when the reduced sequence was written in the control tables, the circuits may still have implemented the whole sequence, so better to write out the full statement. I'll have a look at some circuits to see a real example, but I'm hoping the examiners wouldn't deduct marks for this?!

Here's the last 2 routes.

[PJW]

Thanks for the feedback. All points noted.

I was a bit confused as to what the notes on the plan were trying to say re the call-on signals for running around. I can see stating my assumption would help in this situation.

Re the A/L release statement, I wrote out the whole sequence as on the advice of someone else, even when the reduced sequence was written in the control tables, the circuits may still have implemented the whole sequence, so better to write out the full statement. I'll have a look at some circuits to see a real example, but I'm hoping the examiners wouldn't deduct marks for this?!

Here's the last 2 routes.

[PJW]

I was a bit confused as to what the notes on the plan were trying to say re the call-on signals for running around.

Indeed- to me it was confusing and I wonder why they did it.

Re the A/L release statement, I wrote out the whole sequence as on the advice of someone else, even when the reduced sequence was written in the control tables, the circuits may still have implemented the whole sequence, so better to write out the full statement.

I agree in RRI that if one route requires comprehensive then the ALSR circuit would be wired for it and the same circuit would be used for all routes from the signal. However if you put such an entry on the Control Table for an approach released route, then it is not testable.

On the same basis that we do not show as opposing route locking all the locking that would actually be imposed by all the USRs that may exist in the circuitry in circumstances in which the route is actually locked by point locking, then this locking would not be shown.

Whereas in a sense it isn't wrong to show something that is superfluous like this, it really isn't very sensible either- it takes time to include and seems inconsistent to the user of the Control Tables and thus a bit misleading as it gives the wrong impression. An analogy would be someone saying that they "won't go shopping at lunchtime if it is raining" isn't actually lying if they had absolutely no intention of going shopping whatever the weather, but you'd consider it very misleading: the inference of such a statement is such that you might reasonably conclude that they probably would go if there is no rain, although admittedly perhaps dependent on other factors as well.

Hence whilst it isn't the most serious type of error, I think it would convey the message to the examiner that you might not understand, so personally I'd avoid. After all it is far quicker to write "when cleared" and in a set of Control Tables there is almost certain to be a route that warrants comprehensive.

[interesting_signal]

I think I may not have made myself clear on the last post.

I was referring to the 'BD clear after BD, BC occ' statement as oppose to the comprehensive A/L.

[PJW]

I think I may not have made myself clear on the last post.

I was referring to the 'BD clear after BD, BC occ' statement as oppose to the comprehensive A/L.

You did say sequence; I misread.
Strictly in conventional RRI, the TASR picks when BC and BD are simultaneously occupied and sticks around BC whilst BD is continuously proved occupied. A contact of the TASR is used in series with BC clear and so I agree that to get the approach locking release then BC must be clear with BD occupied so it is ccertainly not wrong to write this- traditionally however we haven't.
If you want to write it like this anyway then I'm sure that is fine.