Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Module 3 Answers
#2
(04-05-2010, 09:10 AM)Andrew Lockyear Wrote: My answers for Module 3

Somewhat similar answer to the others received and included in the amalgam.

The question could be interpreted as:
a) the route has already been set and locked, now what needs to be proved in tthe aspect level prior to allowing the signal to clear,
or
b) what needs to be proved before a movement authority can be given and since setting the route is a pre-requisite also include these considerations.

I don't think it really matters how you answer; however a short introduction to let the examiner know that you are aware of the (probably deliberate- after all not all candidates would answer from a railway featuring route setting panels / VDUs) ambiguity would certainly have been very wise. Similarly you should have stated the railway whose practices you were going onto describe; in the absence of this I'll assume modern NR practice as a default.

Certainly if including both route level (at time of setting) and aspect level (effectively continuous proving) then you should have separated the two separate elements; however in your answer they seemed to be mixed indistinguishably.

2nd bullet in section i): whereas the exit signal is proved alight for Main and Warners, generally it is not for call-ons and shunts; the entrance signal isn't proved; route indicators are genreally proved, but again not always. Hence more detail would be required to explain more precisely.

3rd bullet- could also do with more explanation.

5th bullet- You fortunately defined what you meant by "logical problems" as that is a term with which I am unfamiliar. Be careful theough- I think you mean "from the same exit which do not conflict due to different point calling"- the Main / Warning / Call-on routes will actually utilise different exit butttons and anyway there could be a shunt route to an intermediate GPL that would also need to be similarly (but not 100% identically) locked.

6th bullet- this is also too glib- AWS is not proved, other than the AWS of the next signal being proved "not supressed by an opposite direction move"; it is the TPWS of the exit signal which is proved - and this only when the signal is supposed to be displaying red of course.

You didn't mention anything about proving points were actually detected in the correct position, Ground Frames locked, level crossings closed to the road user, conflicting releases not given etc. so I am sure you'd lose some marks for that (I wouldn't want to travel on your railway if that is not a practice!)

section ii):

I am not quite sure why you decided to treat oppposing routes differently in this section than previously; I suppose you were thinking that routes from opposite direction signals falling within one's route will be directly opposing rather than indirectly opposing, but indirectly opposing is possible from signals falling beyond one's route. However it wasn't very clear and you also confuse when state that locked by "aspect control", when surely it would also be at route level. The question really wasn't asking for an explanation of why indirectly opposing locking is needed- you dwelt too long on this; however it was good that you provided a diagram to demonstrate the need to look beyond one's overlap for opposing route locking.

At least you remembered to mention point detection within the overlap; I think that the examiner would be minded now to regard the omission in the previous section as a sily slip rather than a fundamental oversight.


section iii):
I think that a diagram here would have been beneficial to support your words; you could have used it to show how point flank protection is related to conditionally foul tracks and indeed the provision of flank track or overrun detection protection where the layout does not feature points which can be used to provide flank. Should also have mentioned trapping.

===================================================================
Now look again at the question set:

The proving of a route prior to issuing a movement authority (or proceed aspect) needs to consider items of infrastructure within, beyond and adjacent to the route.

List the items you would expect to be considered within the route with brief reasons. [7 marks]

Discuss what items of infrastructure could be included beyond the route and the reasons for inclusion or exclusion. [9 marks]

Discuss what items of infrastructure adjacent to the route may need to be proved, with reasons for consideration. [9 marks]


Did you give reasons for the things you included in section i)?
Did you give any arguments for inclusion / for exclusion for elements within section ii or section iii?

Generally not, but at least you tried in the odd instance. Hence you (and indeed the others who attempted what seemd to be a favourite question) really only tackled the half of it. The thrust of the question was surely that there is little debate regarding what controls ought to be applied from signal post to signal post [ok if you are from a railway without level crossings then your standards won't include them, similarly there are very few NR lines where the position of flood doors are relevant considerations]; however there can be much debate whether the extra complication and unreliablilty etc of adding layers of locking to address relatively low risks are actually worth it. That's what the examiners were trying to draw out; hence why there were more marks for the "beyond the signal" and the "adjacent to the route" sections than the "plain and simple post-to-post".

So perhaps 3.5 marks for section i), 3.5 for section ii), 4 for section iii) is the most I'd feel able to give. A shame because what was written was generally OK- BUT it was rare that it fully addressed the question.
this lesson is applicable to many attempts at questions in any of the modules....
PJW
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Module 3 Answers - by Andrew Lockyear - 04-05-2010, 09:10 AM
RE: Mod 3 Q2 Answer - by PJW - 31-05-2010, 01:02 PM
Module 3 Control Tables: Routes - by PJW - 03-06-2010, 08:21 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)