+- IRSE Exam Forum (https://irse.signalpost.org)
+-- Forum: MODULES (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Module 3 (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: Control Tables- general (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=69)
+---- Thread: Control Table Format for exam (/showthread.php?tid=52)
Control Table Format for exam - PJW - 08-05-2008
Many students seem unduly concerned about the type of Control Table presentation to utilise. The advice from the examiners over the years has always been:
1. there is no prescribed format,
2. use whatever you are familiar and comfortable with,
3. don't waste valuable exam time in using overcomplicated ones,
4. a style based on columns right down the page which can be used for several different routes / points can be quicker than a "sheet per route type" using rows and columns.
There are pros and cons.
Formats based on NR's "CP9" or more modern "11202" have a rational pattern about their design- so it helps recreate from memory, makes it unlikely you'd overlook a cell and then acts as a good aide memoire when filling in for every route. However this does mean lots of boxes that are not often used at all (wastes time) or only carry information which in exam terms is trivial (i.e. very few if any marks for example regarding |TPWS, AWS, technician's route bars etc).
Conversely if you go for column approach, then it would be easy to completely overlook a column within the blank. When you come to fill up for a particular case they tend to be extremely squashed as the maximum width available forces narrow columns- whose width often owes more to the heading used than the anticipated contents (writing headings sideways may help). This constraint also leads to some simplification and amalgamation; not wrong in itself but if you just have a single column for all the "odds and sods" rather than a dedicated box each, then much more likely to forget in a particular instance as you have lost that mental prompt when assessing each route (e.g. few routes require track occupied at route level but if you don't provide a specific box, would you remember in the case of the call-on into the platform?). Similarly if you simplify too much just for the real basics, where are you going to show all the more complicated locking that is relatively rarely needed but probably will come up for just one of the routes set in the exam? Further if you use a sheet for several routes, miss something out and need to go back later to add,it can easily become a complete mess and examiner may not even be able to tell to which route an entry was intended to be applied.
Students need to make their own decision based on what type they use for "their day job", the locking that is applicable for their railway's principles / technology, and above all PRACTICE from having attempted previous papers.
To give a possible example of each I have given two attachments. The Word document is my suggestion of a simplified "one route CT per sheet" type derived from "11202" but with simpler, briefer, wording and the more inessential boxes eliminated and the presentation also slightly redesigned. In the past I have recommended the general approach because I felt the advantages outweigh disadvantages, particularly for someone already familiar with the general form. Given that there seem to be few marks for AWS / TPWS then it might be wise to eliminate these for the exam itself, though I have found students do get confused so are useful in the learning phase.
The scan of the handwritten one is an idea for the column format approach, but with a few of the columns (for example the Approach Locking release) actually being used for several entries - otherwise if you give a whole column for each subsection then it wastes much of the paper width with one entry in many columns yet other columns are therefore made so narrow that there is insufficient space within them.
These are just two typical but quite different possible presentations. Work out what suits you best then learn it by heart and keep practicing until the time to reproduce is acceptably low (I understand that a blank for the tabular approach for the route and an equivalent for the point can be produced in just about 12 mins which is OK- in the exam you can prepare the point CT, ask invigilator to make several photocopies for you whilst you are doing the route one that takes some 70% of the time; by the time this is complete the Point CTs should be waiting for you to complete- even if they are not then you simply do the "written question from Part B" first). You'll probably refine things slightly as you get more practice utilising the blank when attempting various year past papers.
Obviously whatever you use is likely to be derived from that used by your particular railway, but for the exam do not feel that you need to follow exactly- feel free to do your own thing if it suits.
It may be worth recalling the feedback at last year's review. I got the impression that the marks do seem to be allocated per route, so exam mark wise it seems best to do all the basic locking for every route & point rather than waste time "on frills". This differs from my own previous assumption that having shown that you could do all the "easy stuff" for several routes that there would be more marks in demonstrating that you could do all the "clever stuff" well for the most complicated route and point, even at the expense of not having time to do one route at all. It is not how I'd arrange the marking if I was determining it, but if those are the rules, then that is the game for a candidate to play. Hence does tend to influence the blank CT format design toward greater simplification and not worry too much about how to show the more involved locking as you'd probably be better off ignoring it anyway so that you have the time to do all the core essentials for each and every CT.
The marks seem to be primarily for the route locking (points in route / overlap / flank; opposing route v route / route v overlap / overlap v overlap), flank point calling, foul tracks / conditionally foul tracks, approach release, knowing difference between Main / Warning / Call-on / Shunt in NR context (equivalent for other railways).
PJW
RE: Control Table Format for exam - PJW - 11-08-2008
Here is a typical relatively old fashioned format for Control Tables using a column approach that some feel is the type they prefer for the IRSE exam.
PJW