I have had my first attempt to use the IRSE's format introduced for the 2011 examination and apparently to be retained for future years for those who wish to use it.
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
PJW
