Re: Signalling in Victoria

[markbau1@aol.comQQQQyuk (MarkBau1)]

<<<<<Then how do you consider all the American roads which do have the purest
speed signalling, e.g. who do not even mention "diverging" in their
aspects?>>>>>>

The overwhelming majority of US signalling is 100% route signalling. GCOR
9.1.8, (which describes what in Australia is called a bottom light)  describes
a r/g as a "Diverging clear"  The indication is,  and I quote from the current
UP system timetable: "Proceed on diverging route not exceeding proscribed spped
through turnout"

Note, 2 references to the word "diverging.

The current GCOR lists:
Approach diverging,
Diverging clear,
Diverging Advance approach,
Diverging approach,

These signals are used on the entire UP and BNSF systems as well as many others
so I'm not sure what you mean by "e.g. who do not even mention "diverging" in
their
aspects?"

In the most of the US a bottom light means you are diverging, not "maybe"

<<<<<<<What if there was more than one diverging route?>>>>>

You got a bottom arm/light for ALL diverging routes I don;'t think that
contingency was actually spelt out in the rules.

Yes, we may be squabbling over definitions but the fact remains that without a
route indicator a bottom light now simply means to not exceed 40KPH, as opposed
to when 3 pos was introduced, when a bottom light meant that you were diverging
and that the speed was not to exceed 25MPH.

Mark.




Visit my train pic website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~markbau/