29-09-2014, 10:19 PM
Hello,
For facing points in the overlap we tend to have an alternative overlap selected by a forward route set rather than a swinging overlap. I am more used to SSI control tables using subroutes for the locking, but for the 212 points example, if you wanted to declare that the overlap over 212R was only used if 122AM was set before the route reading up to 122 was set, is this an acceptable way of representing it on the irse points control table format?
Any comments appreciated.
For facing points in the overlap we tend to have an alternative overlap selected by a forward route set rather than a swinging overlap. I am more used to SSI control tables using subroutes for the locking, but for the 212 points example, if you wanted to declare that the overlap over 212R was only used if 122AM was set before the route reading up to 122 was set, is this an acceptable way of representing it on the irse points control table format?
Any comments appreciated.