https://irse.signalpost.org/ Wed, 22 Apr 2026 18:53:54 +0000 MyBB https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=967 Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:37:54 +0000 PJW]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=967
1. I didn't find it too bad but you do have to write quite small and I found almost every column not quite wide enough

2. I'd have welcomed 1cm more width for the route locking; I think this could have been gained from deducting 0.5cm from each of the Points free to go entries.

3. My preference for the Points Set (why did they put called?), Locked and Detected columns would to have not wasted the space on the NorR column in the centre. Even when there is a swinging overlap, it is often more trouble than its worth (see attached) and I'd prefer just one box and put as suffixes as: Pxxx N, Pxxy R - much more convenient for writing swinging O/L expressions and can annotate the "N or R or swinging" by a suitable #note. Also could have saved valuable column width by so doing, perhaps as much as 2cm.

4. I'd have used some of that width to have had a column for disengaging conditions (otherwise need to write in the stick each time in the comments column and cannot easily ditto). Otherwise would have to revert to the old Western Region methodology and put a suitable # ref against the relevant track in the track's clear column (but that doesn't really work to modern standards with disengaging done by berth and 1st TC simultaneously occupied).

5. Not really sure where expected to written the signal ahead proved alight. Don't think it can really be just the 2nd column, so i saw no alternative to putting above the aspect sequence info, (which means that there is nothing opposite it in the aspect column which looks a bit odd.

6. Not really sure what value the A/L when "signal cleared / route set" adds. This is only really needed for very special cases such as NR's Conditional Double Red, unlikely to be the thing useful in IRSE exam.
I'd have used the width for the signal disengagement control, mention od Auto Working etc.

7. The next column is ridiculously small- you'd be lucky to get 2 tracks in there! Certainly cannot get any form of expression conditioning out a track via a point lie unless spread over several lines and making it almost unreadable. Hence I'd increase it by the 2cm I wouldn't have wasted re the point detection columns.

8. It is also a pity that the Special Controls column isn't wider; could easily need a fair bit of space for flashing aspects etc. I would have thought that the right hand border to the page could have been made at least 1.5cm narrower without risk of losing anything during photocopying and this width used in the Special Controls column instead.

Anyway here is my attempt at 114DM/DW/DC.
Having scanned it I remember that I didn't actually define my # notes, so I must go back and scan the A4 sheet as well and add that here later.

Note that the layout is filed as an attachment on Answer to 2003 Part A Q2 thread ]]>
1. I didn't find it too bad but you do have to write quite small and I found almost every column not quite wide enough

2. I'd have welcomed 1cm more width for the route locking; I think this could have been gained from deducting 0.5cm from each of the Points free to go entries.

3. My preference for the Points Set (why did they put called?), Locked and Detected columns would to have not wasted the space on the NorR column in the centre. Even when there is a swinging overlap, it is often more trouble than its worth (see attached) and I'd prefer just one box and put as suffixes as: Pxxx N, Pxxy R - much more convenient for writing swinging O/L expressions and can annotate the "N or R or swinging" by a suitable #note. Also could have saved valuable column width by so doing, perhaps as much as 2cm.

4. I'd have used some of that width to have had a column for disengaging conditions (otherwise need to write in the stick each time in the comments column and cannot easily ditto). Otherwise would have to revert to the old Western Region methodology and put a suitable # ref against the relevant track in the track's clear column (but that doesn't really work to modern standards with disengaging done by berth and 1st TC simultaneously occupied).

5. Not really sure where expected to written the signal ahead proved alight. Don't think it can really be just the 2nd column, so i saw no alternative to putting above the aspect sequence info, (which means that there is nothing opposite it in the aspect column which looks a bit odd.

6. Not really sure what value the A/L when "signal cleared / route set" adds. This is only really needed for very special cases such as NR's Conditional Double Red, unlikely to be the thing useful in IRSE exam.
I'd have used the width for the signal disengagement control, mention od Auto Working etc.

7. The next column is ridiculously small- you'd be lucky to get 2 tracks in there! Certainly cannot get any form of expression conditioning out a track via a point lie unless spread over several lines and making it almost unreadable. Hence I'd increase it by the 2cm I wouldn't have wasted re the point detection columns.

8. It is also a pity that the Special Controls column isn't wider; could easily need a fair bit of space for flashing aspects etc. I would have thought that the right hand border to the page could have been made at least 1.5cm narrower without risk of losing anything during photocopying and this width used in the Special Controls column instead.

Anyway here is my attempt at 114DM/DW/DC.
Having scanned it I remember that I didn't actually define my # notes, so I must go back and scan the A4 sheet as well and add that here later.

Note that the layout is filed as an attachment on Answer to 2003 Part A Q2 thread ]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=635 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:51:10 +0000 greensky52]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=635
Following questions are related to your reply to the point CT

1."I would not have had EC locking 212 from R to N
I would have made the locking of 212 from N to R include (EC or 211N)"
Why? Could you give some reasons?

2."You included 134A(M/W/C) and 107E(M); I don't think I would. Ask yourself: if train routed up to 133, why shouldn't 305A(S) be set or alternatively 307A(S) be set?- so perhaps 212 should be left free."
Confused about this... any further explanation?

3?I have read your comments to Alex's work. http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=89

In Approach locking, he has the entry]]>
Following questions are related to your reply to the point CT

1."I would not have had EC locking 212 from R to N
I would have made the locking of 212 from N to R include (EC or 211N)"
Why? Could you give some reasons?

2."You included 134A(M/W/C) and 107E(M); I don't think I would. Ask yourself: if train routed up to 133, why shouldn't 305A(S) be set or alternatively 307A(S) be set?- so perhaps 212 should be left free."
Confused about this... any further explanation?

3?I have read your comments to Alex's work. http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=89

In Approach locking, he has the entry]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=591 Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:20:44 +0000 merlin89]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=591 https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=471 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 06:44:34 +0000 greensky52]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=471

Actually, I still have 2 things confused:
1 If the point is nominated only with letters, does it mean both ends of the point move separately? And if their names are XXA and XXB, they move simultaneously?
2 I still do not know which column to enter the swinging point...]]>

Actually, I still have 2 things confused:
1 If the point is nominated only with letters, does it mean both ends of the point move separately? And if their names are XXA and XXB, they move simultaneously?
2 I still do not know which column to enter the swinging point...]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=274 Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:18:14 +0000 PJW]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=274 They are certainly equal to any of those offered for the Signet event.

Demonstrate the effectiveness of a column format Control Table but also its limitations; there is insufficient space to have separate entries for tracks, points etc at route level and at aspect level. I suggest that somehow need to annotate to clarify the dual use of these entries. Perhaps some general notes; for example haven't listed the separate ends of the various points and I think wise to cover this by a general statement.

I have tried to draw attention to particular issues but overall these were to a very reasonable standard.]]> They are certainly equal to any of those offered for the Signet event.

Demonstrate the effectiveness of a column format Control Table but also its limitations; there is insufficient space to have separate entries for tracks, points etc at route level and at aspect level. I suggest that somehow need to annotate to clarify the dual use of these entries. Perhaps some general notes; for example haven't listed the separate ends of the various points and I think wise to cover this by a general statement.

I have tried to draw attention to particular issues but overall these were to a very reasonable standard.]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=93 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:39:45 +0000 alexgoei]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=93
Appended please find my answer to the 2003 Part A Q1. Can you please go through it and let me have your comments?

For this time round, I have also included a cover note basically to cover any assumptions that I have made for the answer. Still thinking about what to say for TPWS and AWS though. Any suggestions please?

For the benefit of others who may be reading this, the format of the 2003 paper is that the candidate only has to answer two questions - one on Signal Aspect and Route Control Tables and Point Control Tables instead of three questions for last years papers.

Thank you and Regards]]>
Appended please find my answer to the 2003 Part A Q1. Can you please go through it and let me have your comments?

For this time round, I have also included a cover note basically to cover any assumptions that I have made for the answer. Still thinking about what to say for TPWS and AWS though. Any suggestions please?

For the benefit of others who may be reading this, the format of the 2003 paper is that the candidate only has to answer two questions - one on Signal Aspect and Route Control Tables and Point Control Tables instead of three questions for last years papers.

Thank you and Regards]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=89 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:53:09 +0000 alexgoei]]> https://irse.signalpost.org/showthread.php?tid=89
Appended please find my answer for the Part A Q2 Point Control Table question. Appreciate it if you can go through it and let me have your comments.

I have been quite busy recently so have to catch up and regain momentum now that the exams are now less than 2 months away. Not going to be helped either as end-September is expected to be quite busy workwise.

I have also appended the 2003 layout as I think the track circuit boundary impacting Points 211 and 212 have been omitted (deliberately or not by the examiner) from the layout and therefore I have included to show where the boundary should be for the purposes of putting together an answer.

Thank you once again for your time and look forward to you comments

Regards


Alex]]>
Appended please find my answer for the Part A Q2 Point Control Table question. Appreciate it if you can go through it and let me have your comments.

I have been quite busy recently so have to catch up and regain momentum now that the exams are now less than 2 months away. Not going to be helped either as end-September is expected to be quite busy workwise.

I have also appended the 2003 layout as I think the track circuit boundary impacting Points 211 and 212 have been omitted (deliberately or not by the examiner) from the layout and therefore I have included to show where the boundary should be for the purposes of putting together an answer.

Thank you once again for your time and look forward to you comments

Regards


Alex]]>