Interlocking Table File Problem.

Use this forum to report your experience of, or to ask questions about using SigScribe4 version 1.

Moderator: RedFred

Post Reply
bcheese
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:13 am

Interlocking Table File Problem.

Post by bcheese »

Hi All,

I have been working on a yard diagram which has a main frame and a number of ground frames which are unlocked by a key from the main frame. This layout in total will be a 60 lever design with 14 unused levers to space out the ground frames.

Now, I appreciate that SigScribe4 is not capable through the UI of doing the interlocking I need yet, so I thought that this is a situation for using an ITF file. When I try to load the ITF it complains about my second "white" lever being locked in the normal position and stops the processing of my interlocking rules. I tried a few changes to the ITF before stopping and starting a very basic test diagram of what I am trying to do.

The test diagram diagram has a single set of points which have an enabled FPL on them to simulate my larger more complex design. I am working with a 6 lever frame with the levers configured as follows:

1 - White / Unused.
2 - Blue / Simulating the key release in the signal box, not connected to anything on the diagram.
3 - White / Unused.
4 - Blue / FPL connected to the points.
5 - Black / Connected to the points.
6 - White / Unused.

This in my mind is simple. If lever 2 is pulled (ie, I have pulled the lever and taken a key from the locks on it) I am able to release my ground frame by using the key obtained from the signal box (lever 2) and pulling lever 4, which allows me to manipulate the points as controlled by lever 5.

(for clarity, pulled means the lever is in the reverse position also referred to as the position closest to the signaler)

The contents of the ITF for my test frame is:

6
2R:4N,5N
4N:2R
5N:4R
5R:4R

Now, when I load up the ITF into my test diagram, it produces an error stating that Lever 3 is locked in the normal position and again stops processing the rules.

I am sure it is some silly little thing I have wrong but I cannot see it. Any insight or suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Brian.
User avatar
modadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:41 am
Location: Australia

Post by modadmin »

Brian,

The lever that is locked is in fact the lever with index 3 (counting from 0) which is lever number 4. (I know - it's an intended change!)

To specify both ways locking (as for FPLs), you use B rather than trying to define an R and N condition separately.

This ITF does what you require:

6
2R:4N,5N
4R:5B
All the best from "modadmin"
Forum Administration
MODRATEC
bcheese
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:13 am

Post by bcheese »

Thanks ModAdmin,

That makes a little more sense now knowing that it is zero based indexing on the error message and not 1 based.

The new ITF works correctly for my test case allowing me to now go and build the ITF for the real diagram.

Cheers,
Brian.
Post Reply