Re: signalling - renewing an old thread re GCOR rules

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <19990514105839.24413.00000444@ng-fw1.aol.com> markbau1@aol.comQQQQyuk (MarkBau1) writes:
>From: markbau1@aol.comQQQQyuk (MarkBau1)
>Subject: Re: signalling - renewing an old thread re GCOR rules
>Date: 14 May 1999 14:58:39 GMT

><<<<> The NE SG is a bit of a mess,in that the arrivals are ambiguous

>How so Maurie>>>>>

>I think the word "ambiguous" perfectly decribes the home arrivals on the NE SG.
>But then again, ambiguity is common in any signal system that is not route
>signalling.

>Mark



In relation to the home arrivals on the Ne SG , you get a R/R/Y for a number 
of differant reasons of which some dont make sense.
For a train arriving in the No 1 road but having a departure set to R/R it 
should be a Y/R on the home arrival , not a R/R/Y.

R/R/Y normally means proceed at low speed as the next section may be occupied 
,which in 99% of the cases on the NE SG isnt the case.
An argument may be advanced as to why a R/R/Y is suitable for a train arriving 
into the No 2 road if the turnout speed is 20km/h or less but if we accept 
this argument then the departure aspect from the same road should also be 
R/R/Y which it isnt.

I dont know of anywhere else in VIC that you will get a R/R/Y to enter the 
thru road of any crossing loop if the loop section itself isnt occupied.

This thread has been done to death though so lets leave it for now.

MD