11-04-2014, 08:08 AM
I've looked at the Routes only so far - whenever I sit down the baby suddenly needs feeding so it can be a slow process.
Generally it looks good but there are a few inconsistencies
You've used $32 but not defined it;
You've not used a $ note for points conditions under "Tracks" - you should show the examiner you know whether the points are set/detected/set and detected/etc.
416B M/C
Opposing locking of 371B is in the (M) route table but not the ©, inconsistent
Opposing Locking of 353B(S) omits the overlap tracks whereas 373A(S) includes them, inconsistent
Flank calls on the overlap: for me 249N is alright, but nothing is gained by calling 246N
365A(M/W/C)
You need to think about how you show complex swinging overlaps in the "points called, locked and detected" and "Tracks" columns. What you have written doesn't reflect what you think so (245R, 242N) or (AN clr, AN clr) is not correct.
I think calling 235R as flank protection is unnecessarily restrictive because it prevents a parallel move on the up main.
The flank protection of your 2nd/3rd overlaps seems inconsistent to me.
Again the Opposing Route locking is inconsistent (w.r.t. 414 and 371A(S))
Also I'm not sure why you've put tracks AC, AD, AE, BX, BV in?
You could do with a note about Warner step-up to main (usually provided in UK mainline signalling)
371D(S)
382A(S) is not an opposing route, do you see why?
Needs a note "Preset by..."
Tracks clear, while not necessarily incorrect, I would have assumed this shunt rout might be permissive because there are call-on routes to the same destination, and thus omitted ED.
Generally it looks good but there are a few inconsistencies
You've used $32 but not defined it;
You've not used a $ note for points conditions under "Tracks" - you should show the examiner you know whether the points are set/detected/set and detected/etc.
416B M/C
Opposing locking of 371B is in the (M) route table but not the ©, inconsistent
Opposing Locking of 353B(S) omits the overlap tracks whereas 373A(S) includes them, inconsistent
Flank calls on the overlap: for me 249N is alright, but nothing is gained by calling 246N
365A(M/W/C)
You need to think about how you show complex swinging overlaps in the "points called, locked and detected" and "Tracks" columns. What you have written doesn't reflect what you think so (245R, 242N) or (AN clr, AN clr) is not correct.
I think calling 235R as flank protection is unnecessarily restrictive because it prevents a parallel move on the up main.
The flank protection of your 2nd/3rd overlaps seems inconsistent to me.
Again the Opposing Route locking is inconsistent (w.r.t. 414 and 371A(S))
Also I'm not sure why you've put tracks AC, AD, AE, BX, BV in?
You could do with a note about Warner step-up to main (usually provided in UK mainline signalling)
371D(S)
382A(S) is not an opposing route, do you see why?
Needs a note "Preset by..."
Tracks clear, while not necessarily incorrect, I would have assumed this shunt rout might be permissive because there are call-on routes to the same destination, and thus omitted ED.