2017 Mod 3 Control Table Question

[maxbowerman]

Hi all

Some feedback on the attached attempt at 719B (M) route from 2017 mod 3 paper would be greatly appreciated.

This is a first effort, and first time using the IRSE format of control tables - I had to use this format as it wouldn't fit into the format I am used to!

Thanks

[Peter]

Hi all

Some feedback on the attached attempt at 719B (M) route from 2017 mod 3 paper would be greatly appreciated.

This is a first effort, and first time using the IRSE format of control tables - I had to use this format as it wouldn't fit into the format I am used to!

Thanks

Apologies that this is not a full reply, but I thought at least some comments may be more use to you.

Points:
You have asked for 207 to be N or free to go N, even though they are not in the route. Doing so does not tie anything up that could be needed and may be a good idea since it removes possible conflict from an overrun at 717.). You have then said that you only want them in that position at time of clearing. What is the hazard that is only there at time of clearing that then does not require them to be locked in this position for the use of the route. You have however, not included 217 in the first columns for the same but have required its detection at time of clearing. You may want to treat it the same as you decide to treat 207. Same for 219.
Why have you put in 216. Anything that gets to 216 cannot be a risk to this route.
You have not required 208N for this route – true is it not in the route and routes over it N and R would both conflict with it, but since there is never going to be any route over the other (N or R) while either of them is R, if you required 208N then 715B can never arise as an opposing route since our route cannot be set until the other move is clear.

Opposing routes:
715A and 719B are routes in the same direction (once 715A is clear of AH) – it is not normal for routes in the same direction to be considered to be opposing (with the one exception of difference classes from the same signal which you correctly noted for 719B M / C). Same comment for 717B
732E and 734E – These are into the other platform so require 215R (for the route) and 209N (for the overlap) so should not feature in conflicting routes. Similarly 736B.
You have over-complicated 736A. you spotted that there is an alternative overlap. However, if the overlap is set with 209N, there is no opposing route locking to apply since 209N means that we cannot call 719B.
Aspect:
You have put a Sub aspect where I think you mean a reference to the route indicator.
719 would show Y or G, but what are the aspects that 733 has to show for the respective colours to be shown in 719? You would normally put the aspect and the route indication together (Y+ SI ‘S’ or G + SI ‘S’)

Peter

[maxbowerman]

Hi all

Some feedback on the attached attempt at 719B (M) route from 2017 mod 3 paper would be greatly appreciated.

This is a first effort, and first time using the IRSE format of control tables - I had to use this format as it wouldn't fit into the format I am used to!

Thanks

Apologies that this is not a full reply, but I thought at least some comments may be more use to you.

Points:
You have asked for 207 to be N or free to go N, even though they are not in the route. Doing so does not tie anything up that could be needed and may be a good idea since it removes possible conflict from an overrun at 717.). You have then said that you only want them in that position at time of clearing. What is the hazard that is only there at time of clearing that then does not require them to be locked in this position for the use of the route. You have however, not included 217 in the first columns for the same but have required its detection at time of clearing. You may want to treat it the same as you decide to treat 207. Same for 219.
Why have you put in 216. Anything that gets to 216 cannot be a risk to this route.
You have not required 208N for this route – true is it not in the route and routes over it N and R would both conflict with it, but since there is never going to be any route over the other (N or R) while either of them is R, if you required 208N then 715B can never arise as an opposing route since our route cannot be set until the other move is clear.

Opposing routes:
715A and 719B are routes in the same direction (once 715A is clear of AH) – it is not normal for routes in the same direction to be considered to be opposing (with the one exception of difference classes from the same signal which you correctly noted for 719B M / C). Same comment for 717B
732E and 734E – These are into the other platform so require 215R (for the route) and 209N (for the overlap) so should not feature in conflicting routes. Similarly 736B.
You have over-complicated 736A. you spotted that there is an alternative overlap. However, if the overlap is set with 209N, there is no opposing route locking to apply since 209N means that we cannot call 719B.
Aspect:
You have put a Sub aspect where I think you mean a reference to the route indicator.
719 would show Y or G, but what are the aspects that 733 has to show for the respective colours to be shown in 719? You would normally put the aspect and the route indication together (Y+ SI ‘S’ or G + SI ‘S’)

Peter

Hi Peter

Thanks for the reply. Would you say this is a good attempt i.e. do you think this would be a pass?

I need to decide whether I am going to attempt the control table question!

Max