2002, 2006 Point Control Table

[Peter]

Please review 2002, 2006 point control table and suggest the areas to be improved.

-Sugavanam

I have not got the 2002 layout handy so have only had a look at 2006.

2006 225 points

Not a bad effort as far as I can see. We agreed on just about all of the relevant routes except that you chose to have quite a lot of swinging overlaps meaning that you had opposing route entries for 173A(M) W 228R; 171A(M) W 228R; 122 A(M) w 222R. You appear to have got the entries right, but the relevant signals do not explicitly have swinging O/L. Others may differ in their opinion on this, but stating which ones obviously do and chosing which ones don't where there is not explicit evidence of it would save you some time.

You do seem to have got confused where the lase entry in N>R for "set by" is concerned - you have 122A(M) w 223R, but 223 are nothing to do with 122A(M) and in the corresponding entry for "requires" for R>N you have [122A(M) or 222N] but that combination would want 225N so would not lock them form going N

Releases for 122C(S) adn 124A(S) do not go as far as the overlap (CL) and you have used the track beyond the signal (CN) for the time off instead of the berth track (CP) and have CN in there twice.

On a similar subject, there are several places where there are two tracks in the on the approach to the signals which have the points in their overlap and you have only used one of them for the timed release eg for 122A(M) you have AB clear and [AC clear or occ for time] - the platform is 350m and the train is 200m and so is likely to occupy both tracks when it approaches 134 and with your controls, the overlap will never time off.

234 points

Look at the tracks you have included for timing off the overlaps from 138 and 134 signals again (same comment as above).

You have included several other point conditions in the deadlocking tracks, but you are explicitly given some of the clearance points. Have a look at the discussion by PJW in relation to 2004 CT on this matter

In general, you have also not consistently either included or excluded the dead locking track from the route locking release. I have heard arguments both ways on this one, so would welcome some comments from people cleverer than me on this topic - should deadlocking tracks be shown to be required clear in the route locking release?

Peter