But I'm almost at the point of pulling my hair.
To reduce the number of levers in my frame, most signals on my layout have more than one valid route with no route indication being given - typical of Victoria, Aus, practice.
Code: Select all
1 31N:28R,32N
2 31N:(27N)19N,21R,23R,24N
3 31N:(27R)14R
4 31N:(27N,22N,20N)17N
5 31N:(27N,22R)16N,17N,18R
Lever 32 is a shunt/aux signal on the same post.
Every facing point on the diagram has an FPL on it (except points 24).
Elsewhere I've defined in the .itf that each FPL locks it's respective set of points bothways (ie: 28N:27B, where 27 is the points, 28 the FPL) - this works fine.
In the code above:
Levers 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 27 are points.
Lever 14 is FPL for points 13, 18 is FPL for points 17, 21 is FPL for both points 19 and 20, 23 is FPL for points 16 and 22, and 28 is FPL for points 27.
Line 4 is the only one which doesn't work correctly when applied to my diagram.
Points 17 are NOT being locked when I pull 31 with 27, 22 and 20 normal, yet are when 27 is normal and 22 reverse as per line 5.
Points 17 are required to be normal only when EITHER:
a) 20, 22 and 27 are all normal; OR
b) 27 is normal, 22 is reversed.
No valid route from signal 31 requires points 17 reverse.
With 22 and 27 normal but 20 reverse, a valid route from another signal requires 17 reverse, so I can't remove line 4 by adding '17N' to line 2.
I am able to upload both the ss4 and itf files to the web (or email them to the Help mailbox) - line numbers have been added to the code above to make references within this post easier and are NOT in the itf.
At the core, is there a limit to the number of IF elements that can be placed on one line, or have I got something else wrong?