30-07-2012, 06:30 PM
Indeed that is how it traditionally worked on British Railways. If the interlocking didn't TORR, ARS would not be able to set other routes because of the previous route would still be locking points etc and therefore the availability checks would fail.
However where there is an existing Route Relay Interlocking without TORR which needs to be transferred to be operated from a VDU system with ARS, the functionality to "pull the entrance button" is incorporated into the control system's software, thus implementing TORR at the SIL2 level.
As far as I know it effectively performs the TORR type logic
However where there is an existing Route Relay Interlocking without TORR which needs to be transferred to be operated from a VDU system with ARS, the functionality to "pull the entrance button" is incorporated into the control system's software, thus implementing TORR at the SIL2 level.
As far as I know it effectively performs the TORR type logic
(30-07-2012, 03:53 PM)Jerry1237 Wrote: I had always presumed that TORR was entirely within the interlocking and that ARS et al only made calls to the locking when it has run some internal checks # that the route was free to be set (beyond just normal). It would be interesting to find out more about the RII/RRI interface and TORR functionality lies within control systems.
(# the checks run to avoid stressing the locking due to requesting unsettable routes.)
PJW