Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Specimen answers?
#1
Are any specimen answers available for the 2012 Control Tables question yet?
Reply
#2
(08-03-2013, 11:46 AM)dorothy.pipet Wrote: Are any specimen answers available for the 2012 Control Tables question yet?

The IRSE are not likely to be producing; they produce answers only rarely rather than as a matter of course.

The London Study Group are not doing mod 3 this year, so unlikely to get one from that source. However there are no doubt quite a few individuals around the world who may be thinking of offering Control Tables within the 2013 exam, so it would certainly be a good idea to add towards the completeness of the answer attempts available on this site.
Hence let's get some offerings from students- I lay down the challenge to do by 1st April. .
Those on the base of the suggested IRSE format Control tables particularly welcome as we could do with more examples of the use of this template.
Ideally we will get some to a variety of different railway's practices to be able to compare and contrast.
PJW
Reply
#3
The study group I attend had alook at some route tables yesterday although not the three specified in the exam paper. There was one which overlapped so here is our answer for R615A(M).

I will add the others if anyone shows interest.


Attached Files
.pdf   Route615A(M).pdf (Size: 128.42 KB / Downloads: 152)
Reply
#4
(13-03-2013, 09:34 AM)dorothy.pipet Wrote: The study group I attend had alook at some route tables yesterday although not the three specified in the exam paper. There was one which overlapped so here is our answer for R615A(M).

I will add the others if anyone shows interest.

May not have time to look at prior to the weekend, but if you add the others by then I'll lookk at them together
PJW
Reply
#5
Added.


Attached Files
.pdf   Route615A(M).pdf (Size: 128.42 KB / Downloads: 177)
.pdf   Route686C(M).pdf (Size: 134.17 KB / Downloads: 150)
.pdf   Route615A(C).pdf (Size: 133.38 KB / Downloads: 133)
Reply
#6
Dorothy,
Sorry took longer than I expected to find time for looking at your work.

Generally it was very good; clearly you know what you are doing and it was legible with good use made of the columns and kept to the essential information. Also you stated practices, defined $ notes and therefore (baring admin like candidate number and sheet number) it gives a good first impression. I'd actually recommend putting the more genral notes on a separate piece of lined A4 paper, so that you only have to do so once, just adding to it the first time you require when attempting a new route. Notes specific to a route are definitrely best kept on its own sheet.

You did however get tripped up on a few things which I think are really pressure of time and perhaps not being alert to exam pitfalls rather than any lack of understanding. Vey little that I noticed though.


615AM.

In the opposing route locking, you fell for the classic Charles Weightman “upside down routebox” as you listed 682A rather than 682F; a one-off error as you seemed to tumble to it from then.

Another trap was that you didn’t read the route box for 688E and therefore took the more obvious route via 147N rather than as stated 147R.

You presumably did see the note re the fact that no overlaps were to be provided at signals on non-passenger lines (which obviously is not to current NR practice); I think that I would have missed that as I saw the SOL and full O/L and it was only when I thought you had surprisingly missed it entirely that I re-checked and found it myself. I’d definitely be tempted to call 131N, releasing that lock if an appropriate forward route set from 645 or alternatively make 131 auto-normalise; obviously other routes would be calling 131N to give themselves trapping and flank, but I would certainly “soft call” and I think set & lock but not detect.

I don’t see why the route box specifies that 615 is only to display Y rather than G up to 645 at Y, but you certainly followed this ok. However I don’t feel that this is good practice and hidden prescriptive notes like this which are really quite anachronistic are one of the things that annoys me about this paper. In SSI it basically costs nothing to give a full sequence whereas historically with RRI then there would be a cost so giving an incentive for not providing. I agree that in reality it would not change the speed profile (unusually no signal dimensions are given on the 2012 plan) but since there is a route directly to a platform then in real life then I’d have provided the better aspect. This is an example where I have a difficulty with the IRSE’s statement of “follow your practices” yet giving a layout and prescriptive details that basically mean that you can’t! The layout is a peculiar mixture with quite a few old practices but then shunt overlaps.

It’s picky (and you may be best dealing with via a general note) but you haven’t specified all the separate ends to be included when detecting points. I guess you should also have listed some brief assumptions on a general notes sheet renot including TPWS, the spacing of signals etc.

Similarly I think that you should have referred to 615’s aspect proving 619 is off before itself clearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

686C

Another route that you did well. The only real quibbles are
a) in the list of tracks in the overlap over 127 reverse you seem to have written CK rather than DK,
b) for a terminal platform I think the A/L could have been 60seconds
c) it seems odd to me (but rather out of date on this nowadays) for shunt routes to main aspects have longer overlaps beyond them than the ROL when one is provided for the Warner- I guess that this is to standards but seems nonsense. Ditto when a route presets the exit signal, doesn’t seem valuable to worry about overlap route locking, but nothing wrong with what you have shown.

Well done for noting the potential for non-preferred routes and covering by a note; also for getting the swinging overlap correct- but perhaps a general note re “or swinging” would have been sensible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to have printed out two copies of the same route and omitted one; its getting late so I'll catch up with the outstanding when I can in the next couple of days. I had a few unanticipated distractions this weekend to deal with- sorry.

Overall you did well; it will just be a matter of making sure you can do it in the time. Its quite a time since I have dealt with Control Tables and coming back to them and thinking about them now only being one question in the module 3, frankly I'd opt for the written questions, but if you can be quick and reasonably thorough then at least you know in outline what you are going to have to do for that bit of the paper. Searching the plan for all those hidden notes though has become all the more of an overhead, given that it is now only 1/3rd of the paper so still need a fair bit of the 10 minutes reading tme to select your other questions.

PJW












(15-03-2013, 11:34 AM)dorothy.pipet Wrote: Added.
PJW
Reply
#7
Firstly apologies; I overlooked this in the “to do” pile; it was a busy week with after work activities every evening!

615AC
Generally as per 615AM and pretty good, but with similar comments re routing of 688E etc.

Given that it is a Goods Line, I do wonder whether the GK/RT0044 locking against all the routes forward from 645 is really needed; also seems partially to defeat advantage of not providing the main route with an overlap- for following trains it seems that would more quickly be able to get an aspect on 615AM than could even set the route for 615AC. Of course as a candidate there is always the fear that examiners would be looking for that locking, but I think that stating assumption that not needed would have been better (and also quicker).

I would however have stated the route would be selected by virtue of having utilised separate exit button.

Biggest defects concern specific features relating to “call-on”

a) Approach release just shown as BCQ in the “occ for t” column. I’d have written
“BC Q op. w BC” as it would surely also prove the track itself as necessary but insufficient condition to avoid release purely due to treadle depression. I would also added a note in remarks column regarding the need to prove the Approach Release condition not pre-existing for the clearance of signals reading to 615.

b) The expression in the TC clear column is the biggest error; you have written [AB,AC or (AB or AC)] which actually means the same as [AB,AC or AB or AC]. Engage brain- this logical expression is ALWAYS SATISFIED and thus meaningless. I note that in the route level you have correctly specified (AB or AC)occ so why is the aspect level different? If you had not specified the GK/RT0044 locking then I agree that there could have been the chance that the tracks had subsequently been vacated by the first train and thus, having previously set the call-on route, there would have been a need to clear the aspect in that scenario. Even so it would have looked very odd and I’d have written [AB,ACclr ------or----- (AB or AC) occ for 30] which seems reasonable and at least does not look a logical nonsense. Or perhaps combine the AB,AC clr condition with lamp proving of 645 (so effectively reproducing the main route aspect conditions in regard to this area) but exclude from the (AB or AC occ) path. Otherwise you simply have to omit all reference to these tracks and that too looks wrong and so, if showing like that in exam, should add explanatory note why.

c) The opposing route locking specified on yout CT does list or (AC or AB) on the “tracks occ for time” column. Perhaps you felt this implied a non-zero time but as written it similarly looks a bit of a nonsense in the combined expression with previous column. You could have avoided this impression by writing “t” but actually far better to have nominated a time. Given lack of scale factors except as vaguely implied by the line speed etc, then this could have been a purely nominal 30s


(17-03-2013, 11:06 PM)PJW Wrote: Dorothy,
Sorry took longer than I expected to find time for looking at your work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to have printed out two copies of the same route and omitted one; its getting late so I'll catch up with the outstanding when I can in the next couple of days. I had a few unanticipated distractions this weekend to deal with- sorry.

PJW












(15-03-2013, 11:34 AM)dorothy.pipet Wrote: Added.
PJW
Reply
#8
Hi, Peter

With regards to the call-on class route of 615A( C ), I am wondering should the entry of Opposing Route locking TC clear column be written as below, take opposing route 668C for instance,
Route Normal: 668C
Tracks Clear: CH, (BM---
Occ for t: 30s).

I don't understand why tracks AC and AB are involved in the opposing route column. Tracks AC and AB are mentioned in the attempt done by dorothy.

Could you kindly advise?
Reply
#9
(22-09-2013, 11:21 AM)taxcel Wrote: Hi, Peter

With regards to the call-on class route of 615A( C ), I am wondering should the entry of Opposing Route locking TC clear column be written as below, take opposing route 668C for instance,
Route Normal: 668C
Tracks Clear: CH, (BM---
Occ for t: 30s).

I don't understand why tracks AC and AB are involved in the opposing route column. Tracks AC and AB are mentioned in the attempt done by dorothy.

Could you kindly advise?

The route for 668C goes up to 642 signal and 615A( C ) goes up to 645. In order to be able to set 615A( C ), we must either make sure there is no route set over any or all of its route, or that where this had occurred, that route has been used (ie there is not a train moving along that route). This would be either by proving that all the tracks are clear or that the train has come to a stand at a legitimate point in the route for the opposing route to be set. In this case, the train stopping and standing somewhere on the Down Goods (AB or AC track) would be such a place.

Hence the entry would be tracks clear CH, BM, AD, BG*, [AC, AB ..... AC occ or AB occ for Time]

* BG is the shunt overlap and its inclusion would depend on the principles you are applying.


Your entry of BM for time implies that you would expect the train to come to a stand over the points.

Peter (not PJW)
Reply
#10
Hi, Peter, thanks very much. That's very clear
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)