Yes quote the standard to which you are answering; would examiners know- probably not but it is their responsibility to find out. I reckon that they would actually have an initial pretty good guess that unlikely to have swinging overlaps and therefore when recognising that your CTs don't feature would probably "take it as read".
However I think you should think about what to do with a layout that features. Many railways do not have SWINGING overlaps but do allow the ALTERNATIVE overlaps as featured on the plan. This means that the signaller may have to choose at time of route setting or indeed already to have keyed the points to define a lie prior. Some would always set a particular overlap but if a route already set from the forward signal exists then take that as the overlap. However one the route requiring overlap has been set then the points in that overlap are locked until it has been cancelled and the train timed to a stand at forward signal- the overlap is thus selectable reflecting the layout but not then alterable. My belief that examiners would be expecting something along those lines.
If however you are claiming that your practice would completely disallow an overlap that is shown on the layout, then I do think you need to identify this. My suggestion is that you actually annotate the layout with those things that have no existence in your practice (and indeed sketch on anything relevant additional that you would have), put candidate number, question number on it and number within your answer paper sequence and hand it in so that it comprises part of your work. This would be a quick effective means of demonstrating how you have had to modify the actual question set in order to be able to answer according to your practice- it shows how your railway would believe the objective of signalling the traffic flows within the track layout given- would be good to explain briefly within your general notes.
Finally I do think that some brief mention of technology is relevant for any candidate; CTs do differ in detail from RRI to SSI practice for example and having a VDU control system is also of some significance- recently I was involved on a job that need to do axle counter reset-restoration to modern standards on a new panel rather than the more usual VDU based system and this presented some challenges.
However I think you should think about what to do with a layout that features. Many railways do not have SWINGING overlaps but do allow the ALTERNATIVE overlaps as featured on the plan. This means that the signaller may have to choose at time of route setting or indeed already to have keyed the points to define a lie prior. Some would always set a particular overlap but if a route already set from the forward signal exists then take that as the overlap. However one the route requiring overlap has been set then the points in that overlap are locked until it has been cancelled and the train timed to a stand at forward signal- the overlap is thus selectable reflecting the layout but not then alterable. My belief that examiners would be expecting something along those lines.
If however you are claiming that your practice would completely disallow an overlap that is shown on the layout, then I do think you need to identify this. My suggestion is that you actually annotate the layout with those things that have no existence in your practice (and indeed sketch on anything relevant additional that you would have), put candidate number, question number on it and number within your answer paper sequence and hand it in so that it comprises part of your work. This would be a quick effective means of demonstrating how you have had to modify the actual question set in order to be able to answer according to your practice- it shows how your railway would believe the objective of signalling the traffic flows within the track layout given- would be good to explain briefly within your general notes.
Finally I do think that some brief mention of technology is relevant for any candidate; CTs do differ in detail from RRI to SSI practice for example and having a VDU control system is also of some significance- recently I was involved on a job that need to do axle counter reset-restoration to modern standards on a new panel rather than the more usual VDU based system and this presented some challenges.
(04-08-2014, 09:07 PM)StrongLifts5x5 Wrote: Thanks Peter for your advice, I'm from a maintenance/install background but I do finds control tables interesting probably in a sadistic way!
If I stated in my assumptions that I am answering to the railway standard I am familiar with- Northern Ireland Railways- would the examiner be aware that I don't have experience with complex swinging overlaps or should I state that I don't?? My experiences would be NX panels, TDM over PCM transmission and RRI.
PJW