Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice - switch side protection problem

[kolyokcica]

I think, when switch 42 in straight position, it must be set switch 43 also to straight pos by side protection.
Only one situation is expect, when switch 41 and 42 locked to straight pos, then sw 43 may protect the second set route.

[uetam]

As for now side protection in domino panels is not implemented.

[Angelo]

I'll hijack this thread to ask a question on how Polish srk work: if two paths are set that require 41+ and 42+, in which position is 43 required to be?

[kolyokcica]

8 hours ago, Angelo said:

I'll hijack this thread to ask a question on how Polish srk work: if two paths are set that require 41+ and 42+, in which position is 43 required to be?

This is a flapping side protection situation. The switch give side protection always to the latest request. In Integra Domino 67 the operator usually lock the flapping switch (sw 43 in this situation), that solve the problem 🙂

[Angelo]

So that's how the Domino 67 works! I was confused by a lateral switch in Zurich Oerlikon that kept moving back and forth, since it was lateral for two tracks, both of which are really busy.

I'm familiar with the Italian ACEI, where lateral switches are usually treated like normal switches (except on the 0/17 and some modern variants of the 0/16 but that's a story for another time): they're not only automatically set, they're also locked (you can't move them, even with the individual lever) and the position control is required to set the signal to clear.

So, how come the Domino 67 can move a switch that is already requested as lateral by another route? Are they not locked? Is their position not required to keep the signal to clear? If I lock a switch in the reverse position and try to set a path that requires it as lateral in the normal position, will it work?

Thanks! 🙂