2009 CTs, to IRSE CT format

[Peter]

PJW Sir,
Please check the draft route control table as per latest format
with regards
sarvesh

These are headed 2009, so I assume that they are from that layout rather than 2010 indicated by where there are posted.

I have not marked each individual item because there are several common errors. I have given an example of each of them rather than highlight each occurrence.

Class column: As I commented on your point control table, the route boxes for the shunt routes on the layout do not state that they are shunt and you have consistently referred to the class of route as by the route indication. eg in the line for 371D, you have given the class as B whereas it should be S.

Points N or R column. This is for route setting when there is a swinging overlap. You have used it to to quote points that are in the overlap of the main route but that do not need to be called for the call on or warner route.

Tracks section - sub column occupied for T - this column is for the aspect level controls and would typically include the berth track when a signal is approach released. eg in the line for 365A, you have put AJ track which is one of the platform tracks which would be used to time off the opposing route locking, whereas the release condition for the aspect should be CB

The aspect sequence column - this is to state what aspect the signal will show for the corresponding aspect in the signal ahead. For example for 416B, what you have shown is 416 will show R when 403 is at R, and 416 Y when 403 is Y etc. It should be more like

Y -> R
YY-> Y
G -> YY or G

Also in the aspect column for the call on or shunt routes you have stated that the aspect is Y whereas it should be PL (position light)

For the shunt route - 371D, in the track clear column you have included CF, DS, DR, DP and ED. For shunt routes, you need to appreciate what it is used for. A shunt route may be a move to join things up and hence the part of the route may be occupied. Practices vary from place to place, but a normal approach is to include track that would obviously need to be clear but omit those which could be legitimately occupied for the operational use of the route. In this case, I would expect ED to be omitted.

As I commented on the point control tables, when you are timing off route locking, particularly where there are two tracks in the platform, you need to understand that the release condition can be with both clear or either track occupied. Also, the overlap tracks must be in the CLEAR section and not in the brackets. eg 416B should be
CD, CE, CF, DS, DR, BT, BP, BN, BL [BS, BR .... BR or BR for t]

Some of your opposing route locking includes routes in the same direction which (with one exception shown below) is never the case. eg in 317D(S), you have included 365B(M) and 365B(C ).

The one exception to the "same direction" issue above is for different classes of route from a signal to the same destination. eg in 365A(M), in routes normal there should be 365A(W) and 365A(C ) (there are not track release conditions)

In 371D(S) you have included 416B(M) and (C ) and 417B(M) and (C ). The call on routes do not go as far as an area of conflict and the main routes require 234 N and therefore the route locking as the point lie resolves this.

371D(S) you have omitted 237 being called reverse for flank protection

In your route locking release for 365A after 416C(C ), you have taken the route via DF, DH then BL indicating that you would have the train take a divergance via 248 which are switch diamonds and cannot be used in this way.

You have shown that all routes here are "Approach locked when cleared". While this cannot be said to be wholly incorrect (if your remit is to avoid comprehensive approach locking). However, in the exam, you are looking to show appropriate and correct application of different principles. Understanding which routes would have comprehensive approach locking is one thing and then showing that you know how to represent this is another.

Overall, you have got several basic features correct, but have misunderstood the meaning of some of the columns and have not fared well with or completely omitted some of the more complex items. I doubt this would have attained sufficient marks even for a basic pass.