2005 route tables

[PJW]

I was a bit confused as to what the notes on the plan were trying to say re the call-on signals for running around.

Indeed- to me it was confusing and I wonder why they did it.

Re the A/L release statement, I wrote out the whole sequence as on the advice of someone else, even when the reduced sequence was written in the control tables, the circuits may still have implemented the whole sequence, so better to write out the full statement.

I agree in RRI that if one route requires comprehensive then the ALSR circuit would be wired for it and the same circuit would be used for all routes from the signal. However if you put such an entry on the Control Table for an approach released route, then it is not testable.

On the same basis that we do not show as opposing route locking all the locking that would actually be imposed by all the USRs that may exist in the circuitry in circumstances in which the route is actually locked by point locking, then this locking would not be shown.

Whereas in a sense it isn't wrong to show something that is superfluous like this, it really isn't very sensible either- it takes time to include and seems inconsistent to the user of the Control Tables and thus a bit misleading as it gives the wrong impression. An analogy would be someone saying that they "won't go shopping at lunchtime if it is raining" isn't actually lying if they had absolutely no intention of going shopping whatever the weather, but you'd consider it very misleading: the inference of such a statement is such that you might reasonably conclude that they probably would go if there is no rain, although admittedly perhaps dependent on other factors as well.

Hence whilst it isn't the most serious type of error, I think it would convey the message to the examiner that you might not understand, so personally I'd avoid. After all it is far quicker to write "when cleared" and in a set of Control Tables there is almost certain to be a route that warrants comprehensive.