This actually seemed to be a pretty easy one.
Basically sound but soem errors you'll probably kick yourself for-
a) 118 is only a 3 aspect signal. It would display G up to 108 at Y,YY or G; because of the speed in the Goods Loop is low then 108 at Y would be ok to give warning to stop at 104 at R. Question is why is 108 not also shown to be a 3-aspect signal; I can't answer that one! Certainly there is the "consistency" argument, but that would equally apply to 118, which is in effect what you depicted. However if you are challenging the IRSE's exam then do so openly with a rationale; as things are, the examiner will assume you didn't look carefully enough or deliberately avoided a problem you didn't know how to solve and mark accordingly!
b) 144 and 146 should show route indication "B" into the bay Platform.
c) You have drawn 144 / 146 showing G + SI "U" up to 114 at Y but have not suggested that it shows any aspect up to 114 at YY or G. Yu should have bi-furcated that diagonal line so that it had one leg trailing into the line from 132 at G as well as the one that is shown trailing into the one from 132 at YY. See my annotations on Alex's example earlier in this thread.
d) You have drawn a vertical dotted line (as if approach released) where the line from 146 Y + SI "X" otherwise appears to read up to 118 at R, Y, YY or G. Did you intend to specify an A/R (there is no route box as the signal only has one route) on the basis that the 146 route box defines the best aspect as Y for this route ?
Basically sound but soem errors you'll probably kick yourself for-
a) 118 is only a 3 aspect signal. It would display G up to 108 at Y,YY or G; because of the speed in the Goods Loop is low then 108 at Y would be ok to give warning to stop at 104 at R. Question is why is 108 not also shown to be a 3-aspect signal; I can't answer that one! Certainly there is the "consistency" argument, but that would equally apply to 118, which is in effect what you depicted. However if you are challenging the IRSE's exam then do so openly with a rationale; as things are, the examiner will assume you didn't look carefully enough or deliberately avoided a problem you didn't know how to solve and mark accordingly!
b) 144 and 146 should show route indication "B" into the bay Platform.
c) You have drawn 144 / 146 showing G + SI "U" up to 114 at Y but have not suggested that it shows any aspect up to 114 at YY or G. Yu should have bi-furcated that diagonal line so that it had one leg trailing into the line from 132 at G as well as the one that is shown trailing into the one from 132 at YY. See my annotations on Alex's example earlier in this thread.
d) You have drawn a vertical dotted line (as if approach released) where the line from 146 Y + SI "X" otherwise appears to read up to 118 at R, Y, YY or G. Did you intend to specify an A/R (there is no route box as the signal only has one route) on the basis that the 146 route box defines the best aspect as Y for this route ?
(01-09-2013, 01:33 PM)dorothy.pipet Wrote: Another attempt for comments please?
PJW