IRSE Exam Forum

Attached are draft versions of the CT that the examiners have produced supplied to me by Mr A.

(04-07-2011 05:42 PM)Peter Wrote: [ -> ]Attached are draft versions of the CT that the examiners have produced supplied to me by Mr A.

Hi,

Thanks for posting the draft control tables. I realise that these are not the responsibility of anybody here but I'd like to make a couple of comments nonetheless:

* The use of 'track' to denote a track circuit strikes me as a bit unofficial. I know signal engineers frequently refer to track circuits as just 'tracks' but this terminology wouldn't usually find its way onto a control table would it?

* "Tracks Occ for t" also seems like an unnecessary abbreviation. You could argue that candidates should be expected to know what it means but since there is plenty of space in the box, I think writing it out in full would be more sensible.

* I think "Indication" should be "Route Indication", unless the intention is that this box be used for other types of indication, such as "CD", "RA" or even "OFF". All the standard NR control tables state "Route Indication" anyway.

* Typo: in the first approach locking column, the word 'Route' is split over two lines.

* The 'first/second condition' concept for approach locking release is a sensible one, but this is not the way it is presented on the standard NR RRI control tables. On the SSI ones, it is presented similar to this but the fact that track circuit conditions are expected is made explicit.

* Is it clear enough that "Entrance/Route" means the candidate has to make a choice between specifying the entrance signal or the route name? OK, the latter piece of information will contain the former but in that case why include "entrance"? That word doesn't appear anywhere on 'real' control tables.

* The points table refers to "Train Detection". I think this is a good term to use but the terminology should be consistent across the two tables. (Choose "track circuits" or "train detection" but don't mix.)

* On a more general note, why not use a control table that looks like a control table? As it stands, the points table contains a very generous amount of space to write in the necessary information, whereas the route/aspect table's column fomat is potentially very cramped. Most people will surely learn control tables using something that looks more like the standard format than the format given here.

Alan

As you recognise, we are not responsible for this CT layout but we will ensure that the examiners are aware of your comments.

I think you make a valid comment re the inconsistency re train detection. However use of just "track" (in the days when axle counters were very rare) is certainly what was used. In the days before computers and ready use of photocopiers etc everything had to be written / stencilled out each and every time so brevity was everything.

Remember that IRSE is international, so the fact that don't follow current NR conventions is only to be expected. Even on NR there are a huge range of (historic) presentations utilised; I guess that I must have utilised myself something like 50. Other railways may not use CTs at all.

There has been a demand for some years that IRSE come up with a standard format for people to use; they have done that. OK it may not be quite the one you'd have chosen, but take it as what it is; you have the choice either to use it or (and this has now been confirmed) draw up your own blank prior to the exam, take in to the exam all the photocopies you may need of it, get them all initialled by the invigilator and then use them. Your choice.

As far as improving the CT blank, then I think that may need to wait for next year- if candidates vote by using their own or alternatively find it very much a squash then no doubt the examiners will recognise the problems posed. Similarly we can open up a discussion at the Exam Review in January.

(05-07-2011 09:48 AM)Zaphod Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-07-2011 05:42 PM)Peter Wrote: [ -> ]Attached are draft versions of the CT that the examiners have produced supplied to me by Mr A.

Hi,

Thanks for posting the draft control tables. I realise that these are not the responsibility of anybody here but I'd like to make a couple of comments nonetheless:

* The use of 'track' to denote a track circuit strikes me as a bit unofficial. I know signal engineers frequently refer to track circuits as just 'tracks' but this terminology wouldn't usually find its way onto a control table would it?

* "Tracks Occ for t" also seems like an unnecessary abbreviation. You could argue that candidates should be expected to know what it means but since there is plenty of space in the box, I think writing it out in full would be more sensible.

* I think "Indication" should be "Route Indication", unless the intention is that this box be used for other types of indication, such as "CD", "RA" or even "OFF". All the standard NR control tables state "Route Indication" anyway.

* Typo: in the first approach locking column, the word 'Route' is split over two lines.

* The 'first/second condition' concept for approach locking release is a sensible one, but this is not the way it is presented on the standard NR RRI control tables. On the SSI ones, it is presented similar to this but the fact that track circuit conditions are expected is made explicit.

* Is it clear enough that "Entrance/Route" means the candidate has to make a choice between specifying the entrance signal or the route name? OK, the latter piece of information will contain the former but in that case why include "entrance"? That word doesn't appear anywhere on 'real' control tables.

* The points table refers to "Train Detection". I think this is a good term to use but the terminology should be consistent across the two tables. (Choose "track circuits" or "train detection" but don't mix.)

* On a more general note, why not use a control table that looks like a control table? As it stands, the points table contains a very generous amount of space to write in the necessary information, whereas the route/aspect table's column fomat is potentially very cramped. Most people will surely learn control tables using something that looks more like the standard format than the format given here.

Alan

(05-07-2011 07:07 PM)PJW Wrote: [ -> ]As you recognise, we are not responsible for this CT layout but we will ensure that the examiners are aware of your comments.

I think you make a valid comment re the inconsistency re train detection. However use of just "track" (in the days when axle counters were very rare) is certainly what was used. In the days before computers and ready use of photocopiers etc everything had to be written / stencilled out each and every time so brevity was everything.

Well, ok, but now we are in the days of computers and photocopiers is it a good idea to revert to what seems to be much older terminology?

Quote:Remember that IRSE is international, so the fact that don't follow current NR conventions is only to be expected. Even on NR there are a huge range of (historic) presentations utilised; I guess that I must have utilised myself something like 50. Other railways may not use CTs at all.

I didn't say that it should follow NR conventions. I was just suggesting that, as the approach locking columns look a bit like the NR SSI control table, it might be a good idea to go the whole hog and incorporate the train detection column headings from that format as well.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that presenting the approach locking conditions in this novel way is a bit strange unless it aligns with the actual practice from "somewhere"; whether that "somewhere" is NR or not is another matter!

Quote:There has been a demand for some years that IRSE come up with a standard format for people to use; they have done that. OK it may not be quite the one you'd have chosen, but take it as what it is; you have the choice either to use it or (and this has now been confirmed) draw up your own blank prior to the exam, take in to the exam all the photocopies you may need of it, get them all initialled by the invigilator and then use them. Your choice.

I am merely suggesting (what I believe to be) improvements. I don't agree with you that this is necessarily a 'take it or leave it' situation. Well I hope that's not the attitude the IRSE would take to feedback anyway.

Quote:As far as improving the CT blank, then I think that may need to wait for next year- if candidates vote by using their own or alternatively find it very much a squash then no doubt the examiners will recognise the problems posed. Similarly we can open up a discussion at the Exam Review in January.

Again, you seem to be saying that comments at this stage are not welcome by the IRSE and I'd be very disappointed if that's really the case.

(06-07-2011 11:18 AM)Zaphod Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you seem to be saying that comments at this stage are not welcome by the IRSE and I'd be very disappointed if that's really the case.

Seeing as officially the exam commitee is not supposed to speak to anyone about the exam now (since February I think), it is a bit late in the day to want changes to the form

I would agree with Peter - If you are not happy with it, create your own for the exam and raise it at the exam review

Thanks Alastair.

Zaphod
To be clear I think the IRSE would indeed welcome feedback; it is just that I am guessing that having determined a format that they probably wouldn't want to change for this year. Therefore I was suggesting that any candidate for 2011 would need to decide whether to make use of what is likely to be available (and I suppose could include some subtle alteration of the column headings but you'd need to do on each copy) or whether to go armed with a CT of your own design.

Sorry if I came across as negative; I was merely trying to give practical advice and this has been now been echoed by Alastair

(06-07-2011 05:12 PM)AlastairHayden Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-07-2011 11:18 AM)Zaphod Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you seem to be saying that comments at this stage are not welcome by the IRSE and I'd be very disappointed if that's really the case.

Seeing as officially the exam commitee is not supposed to speak to anyone about the exam now (since February I think), it is a bit late in the day to want changes to the form

I would agree with Peter - If you are not happy with it, create your own for the exam and raise it at the exam review

I do not think the template will ever be right for everyone (what proportion of the UK engineers ever liked CP9 tables?), but having something, or the ability to take your own template must be more helpful than before.

@Zaphod - the IRSE have produced 'a' control table and I am sure there will be much scrutiny to its format and content following this year's exam. In reality, the control table is merely a format to display information on and it is that information (plus its correctness of course) that matters above anything else.

One other comment I have is that if a candidate doesn't understand the abbreviations used in the context they are used in, should they really be taking the exam? The exam is supposed to show a detailled _vocational_ knowledge of signalling principles and their application to _a_ railway.

It would be worth sending your comments to the exam committee at the office and I am sure they would be most grateful.

Jerry

This is all coming across as a bit defensive to be honest. To be clear, I'm not even doing module 3, so to suggest for example that I'm "not happy" with the format is wide of the mark. I repeat, please take my comments as suggestions and nothing more.

Anyway, regardless of the merits of any of my other comments, I think it's disappointing that not even the typo of splitting a word across two lines will be fixed before October!

I'd remind you that I am not in a position either to commit to change nor otherwise.
It is indeed reallly nothing to do with me, so therefore I have nothing to defend. This website is not run by the IRSE and whilst I am a member and can express my views appropriately just like everyone else, I cannot speak for it. This website clearly states that it is independent from the IRSE and the Exam committee; we were just trying to be helpful to those mod 3 candidates who may be interested in what will confront them in October by using our best efforts to give that preview.

Any comments you may have would be best addressed to the IRSE using their email address hq@irse.org

However I have let the examiners know and they have responded:
yes we would like feedback and (as people guessed) it is a bit late for this year. We will however look at what people choose to use and see if we can improve for next year.

(07-07-2011 09:13 AM)Zaphod Wrote: [ -> ]This is all coming across as a bit defensive to be honest. To be clear, I'm not even doing module 3, so to suggest for example that I'm "not happy" with the format is wide of the mark. I repeat, please take my comments as suggestions and nothing more.

Anyway, regardless of the merits of any of my other comments, I think it's disappointing that not even the typo of splitting a word across two lines will be fixed before October!