25-09-2010, 04:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-09-2010, 04:47 AM by greensky52.)
1 In opposing route locking of 164B(M):
I think 166B(S)&162B(S) are both necessary, because a train starts from 166, after it clears point 257A, it will appears on CH--it may be a rear-end collision, right or wrong? I feel I am a little confused about route locking.........
2 If we use NR standard, it needs not consider OL for shunt route. But if there is OL for shunt route in layout diagram, do we need to state in advance"prove all TC clear in the route itself but not in the overlap but still lock the OL "?
Or could we state that we do not consider the OL althogh there is OL in the layout for shunt route because it is simplefor written?
I think 166B(S)&162B(S) are both necessary, because a train starts from 166, after it clears point 257A, it will appears on CH--it may be a rear-end collision, right or wrong? I feel I am a little confused about route locking.........
2 If we use NR standard, it needs not consider OL for shunt route. But if there is OL for shunt route in layout diagram, do we need to state in advance"prove all TC clear in the route itself but not in the overlap but still lock the OL "?
Or could we state that we do not consider the OL althogh there is OL in the layout for shunt route because it is simplefor written?