2005 Layout - Part 1

[PJW]

Hello, PJW,

I have also practiced on this year's paper in one and half hour, simulating the real exam. I contrasted my work with Alex's, looking like similar.

He did much better than me, I just draw out the basic layout.

What do you suggest me to read in this week as not too much time left? .

Pity we didn't manage to get a selection of layouts to compare with each other and learn from until the last few days before the exam when everything is too rushed to be able to be able to learn from so doing; perhaps another year!

I doubt whether Alex was really doing his examples in anything like 1.5 hours; they are far too neat and measured. Also his calculations are obviously via an Excel spreadsheet which cannot be used in the exam. Therefore it isn't a good comparison to make in this regard- you are not comparing like with like.

Actually I think that your layout showed a very good level of completion in the time available and that is at least 50% of the battle, so stop worrying too much.


So a very rapid look at the things to avoid and learn from.
Comments are of course based on Network Rail practice- it may be things I comment upon in this list are actually right for other railways so follow whatever practice you are familiar with, but probably best not to mix-and-match.

Don't forget to make it clear what practice you are using; I think nowadays there is sepcific place on the plan to declare this and still candidates fail to do so.

Similarly don't forget your candidate number.


1. Don't split platforms into two track circuits and don't provide PL moves into the platforms unless something in the description requires you to do so. Plain line stations like B and E certainly not; it is only at the major station as C that just perhaps might need.

2. At the end of sidings, bay platform draw the bufferstop lights as a circle as Alex has done; not a LOS as you have done (although I see the logic, so it is not a rediculous mistake).

3. Draw the trap points better. Make sure that the TCI is shown clearly to be on the throw-off portion that a train would travel on if it SPADed the siding signal; show a gap between it and the (generally curved diagonal) portion of the points which is traversed when a train leaving the siding to run on the mainline. Draw the point otherwise like a usual point- don't make the switch excessively curved as it is then confusing which is the trap and which the running end.
Same principle applies at the wide to gauge traps.
See attachment and also wide to gauge traps

4. Place the track joints in the scissors crossoverat the same "horzontal height" in the two separate crossovers; you placed at the same "longitudinal position". This gives two insulation between the parallel tracks at one end but none at the other!

5. Best to put the point numbers adjacent to the switch toes rather than between the stock rail and the switch rail

6. Route boxes- suggest that you could omit the "Aspect" column- it may save valuable seconds which add up and could be spent elsewhere more usefully.

7. When you have been told specifically to provide standage, then worth annotating the plan in the area to demonstrate that you have done so deliberately.
Where possible allow a little more (say 50m if you can, otherwise whatever is possible) than the requirement to allow for defensive driving and train rolling backwards. Standage at 211 for example was just achieved but very tight, yet the layout did permit a bit more latitude.

This is not everything and some of the detailed comments given to Alex may also apply, but the good news is that nothing else "jumped off the page" at me.
Most importantly
a) it looked like a Signalling Plan,
b)the route boxes seemed to tie in with the signal symbols (which Alex didn't always achieve) and
c) you had obviously read the plan notes and designed for the operational moves. You provided the turn around in the Up Slow that was requested whereas Alex did not.

OK you didn't give junction signalling to take advantage of the crossovers that are higher speed but your signalling is still safe; better this than Alex signalling for a higher speed than some points actually are by providing too many MAY-FA.

Therefore don't worry.
I am a firm believer at this time of "if it ain't broken, don't attempt to fix it". This is not the time for anything significant- just tighten up on the items listed above and leave it at that; there isn't much you can do now anyway!

One year I got a text at 23:30 on the Friday night before exam from one UK student asking for advise re what to swot up for in Module 1. I thought she was surely having a joke with me; actually don't think she was but in a blind panic. I texted back GO TO BED. Later I discovered that she had completely gone to pieces in the exam and not only failed Module 1 but also Module 3 that she definitely ought to have passed. Don't make that mistake.

So what to read:
a) Exam attendance information / candidate number etc
b) Timetables etc for getting you there in plenty of time
c) A good book nothing to do with railway signallling

Good luck

[greensky52]

Thanks PJW. Grateful to see your reply and suggestions.

All noted except for item 7. I will check the related materials first. If there is still confusion, I will post on later.

I know it is not a wise choice to do too much just prior to eaxm, but I am really lack of confidence as I practiced some past papers while no one around can give me comments. Because I also do not work in Railway, but in metro rail, and not Europe, so not the same principle as NR. So what I can do to find the errors in my practices is to compare with others' work and your comments to them. I am not sure it is good study method. Myabe you can give your view on my method. I think it will be good suggestions to others new students.

Anyway, Thank you~

Pity we didn't manage to get a selection of layouts to compare with each other and learn from until the last few days before the exam when everything is too rushed to be able to be able to learn from so doing; perhaps another year!


So a very rapid look at the things to avoid and learn from.
Comments are of course based on Network Rail practice- it may be things I comment upon in this list are actually right for other railways so follow whatever practice you are familiar with, but probably best not to mix-and-match.

---

I've found your state about the "STANDAGE". http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php...36#pid2136
Understand now. Thanks.

Actually, I did not find "standage " in dictionary, so confused about its real meaning for a long time.

Thanks PJW. Grateful to see your reply and suggestions.

[PJW]

---

I've found your state about the "STANDAGE". http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php...36#pid2136
Understand now. Thanks.

Actually, I did not find "standage " in dictionary, so confused about its real meaning for a long time.

[quote='greensky52' pid='2200' dateline='1285728981']
Thanks PJW. Grateful to see your reply and suggestions.

Standage is rather a specialised term rather than standard English.
Thanks for putting in the link now that you have found a cross reference to standage; really it only means "a sufficiently long stretch of railway line that a train can temporarily wait without causing problems by blocking other critical parts of the layout".

It is certainly not ideal that people like yourself and indeed Alex feel that they need to learn NR signallling in orderto be able to do the exam; you are both "Metro / Rapid Transit" people and very far from the UK.

What it needs is that once you have passed the exam, then you two should then try to come up with what would be the equivalent for undertaking the exam using the practices and technology with which you are familiar, presumably using the Metro question paper.

We could then have some worked examples and supplement this by accumulating some training material to help others from similar backgrounds to yourselves. If there are features re the question paper itself that would need to change to accomodate, then again we could attempt to influence.

It will take committment from others outside the UK to get such changes; I think you'll find that the IRSE would be willing to make changes but we in the UK cannot be the impetus for these as we don't know enough about your environment. The only reason why it is possible for you to learn enough about the UK practice that you can sensibly attempt the exam is because people have taken the time to assemble suitable material.

The Module 2 Study Pack has certainly been designed to be able to have different Appendices for giving specific details of other environments- so perhaps your task next year is to write one. Alex did a massive amount of proof reading / commenting on the main text of the document when it was written several years ago and perhaps we should revise that as well. It is just a question of having the time and I certainly can't do both that and be as active on this Forum.

We desperately need more Metro material with wider availability; even in the UK we find that the metro people feel it is easier to learn NR than following their own practices and whereas the wider learning is undoubtedly useful in itself, I do not think this is good in principle. This year there has been an active Metro Study Group in London so I hope that this may be the beginning of such a change; we shall have to wait and see.

[alexgoei]

Hello PJW,

Thanks for your comments and further clarification.

Hello greensky52,

I will be the first to admit that my layout was not completed under exam conditions so please do not be discouraged. I may be in the same boat or worse in a slower, perhaps sinking boat compared to you. So at best may be a fellow traveller.

On a more serious note, I have come to the conclusion that it is quite hard to complete the layout to the level of detail that I may have posted. But I think for preparation for the exams I did it more to ensure I understood the Study Pack and this forum has been excellent in giving me that opportunity to test my understanding.

And to PJW, Peter Martell who manages this forum and all who have contributed, thank you very much!

If I may share my strategy for the exams, it will be to demonstrate that I can work out the:

1. non-stopping headway
2. Stopping headway
3. Signal the busy station/junction (there is always one) and complete signal route boxes that show Main, Warners, Call-Ons and Shunts, show junction signalling and possibly transition form 3 aspect to 4 aspect signals and vice versa.
4. Show how freight standage and especially the turning of engines can be done.
5. Single line signalling (always)
6. Level crossing if there is one. Incidentally level crossing has not be examined for some years now and not forgetting
7. Trapping
8. Track circuit boundaries

So rather than put in all the signals and track circuits I will have to be selective in view of time constraints to demonstrate that I desreve the marks.

Best wishes to all for the exams!

Alex

[PJW]

If I may share my strategy for the exams, it will be to demonstrate that I can work out the:

1. non-stopping headway
2. Stopping headway
3. Signal the busy station/junction (there is always one) and complete signal route boxes that show Main, Warners, Call-Ons and Shunts, show junction signalling and possibly transition form 3 aspect to 4 aspect signals and vice versa.
4. Show how freight standage and especially the turning of engines can be done.
5. Single line signalling (always)
6. Level crossing if there is one. Incidentally level crossing has not be examined for some years now and not forgetting
7. Trapping
8. Track circuit boundaries

So rather than put in all the signals and track circuits I will have to be selective in view of time constraints to demonstrate that I deserve the marks.

Best wishes to all for the exams!

Alex

Yes you are correct; time management is VERY IMPORTANT in the exam, It is good in prior learning to really think the layout through, but the strtaegy for the exam itself has to be differnt.
Decide before the day how long to spend on each bit and KEEP MOVING ON TO NEXT BIT even if not finished.

You have a good strategy- just make sure that you actually implement in reality. Don't worry about getting everything good, just avoid the stupid mistakes and demonstrate at least a bit of everything (suggest you at least do all the point lie / traps / numbering / showing block joints within them as these are easy marks) and you should get through ok.

[greensky52]

Thanks, friends. Suggestions in last time are all useful. Thanks again.
I have been reading Mod 5 and reviewing Mod 3 as a relexing these two days.

Anyway, result is not the most important, More important is I learnt much here.

I will write down my gain later, after exam, hoping it helpful to other people.

In the following days, I will keep on discussing in this forum no matter the result of exam, and I will share what I know to other news. Hope we can maintain a good discussion and learning environment here.

Good luck to all the candidates tomorrow.

If I may share my strategy for the exams, it will be to demonstrate that I can work out the:

1. non-stopping headway
2. Stopping headway
3. Signal the busy station/junction (there is always one) and complete signal route boxes that show Main, Warners, Call-Ons and Shunts, show junction signalling and possibly transition form 3 aspect to 4 aspect signals and vice versa.
4. Show how freight standage and especially the turning of engines can be done.
5. Single line signalling (always)
6. Level crossing if there is one. Incidentally level crossing has not be examined for some years now and not forgetting
7. Trapping
8. Track circuit boundaries

So rather than put in all the signals and track circuits I will have to be selective in view of time constraints to demonstrate that I deserve the marks.

Best wishes to all for the exams!

Alex

Yes you are correct; time management is VERY IMPORTANT in the exam, It is good in prior learning to really think the layout through, but the strtaegy for the exam itself has to be differnt.
Decide before the day how long to spend on each bit and KEEP MOVING ON TO NEXT BIT even if not finished.

You have a good strategy- just make sure that you actually implement in reality. Don't worry about getting everything good, just avoid the stupid mistakes and demonstrate at least a bit of everything (suggest you at least do all the point lie / traps / numbering / showing block joints within them as these are easy marks) and you should get through ok.

[PJW]

Re the 2005 layout- I am looking at the one posted by Alex.

The reason for the 4 aspects is because there is a need for signals to protect junctions etc that are spaced closer together than braking distance.
Simply has to be a signal to protect junction D- hence 129.
Similarly must be signal to protect the turnback siding, hence 121.
Definitely needs to be a signal to protect the station throat- I'd probably have wanted to place 117/119 at least a little further back so that their overlaps wouldn't conflict with those of the other direction platform starters, but broadly do need to be around here.

In the opposite direction
it is clear that 128 is in a sensible position and that 120 simply has to go more or less exactly where it is. 1
24 isn't absolutely essential perhaps, but given that there does need to be a signal on the Up Slow somewhere around 126 (actually I would want to put it rather closer to the pointwork and maximise the standage for a train waiting at it clear of junction D) then certainly 124 is sensible.

Do remember as well that when the speed is nominally high through a station where trains stop, then those trains are travelling at a small percentage of full speed as they approach and depart, so having those block sections short is very beneficial as it keeps the time taken to traverse them more compatible with the longer sections far away that are covered at full speed and capacity is limited by the longest (in terms of time) section.

Hence considerations of protecting the layout junctions means that we will want signals in such positions and these seem to average around 700m apart in this vicinit; since this is less than the calculated braking distance there are only 3 options-

1. 4 aspect signalling for this portion of line (even though not needed when solely thinking about capacity for headway);

2. Make 3 aspect signal approach released if the following signal is at red- only really an option for a single underbraked signal section and has the disadvantage of crippling capacity;

3. Reduce the speed of the line through the affected area- you perhaps could have argued this as a solution if all trains stopped at C (but of course you'd have needed to ensure that the desired capacity could still be achieved)

Therefore just on the basis of looking at the layout without worrying about the calcs, the decision to have 4 aspects in the central area is looking eminently sensible. Less convinced that there should be 4 aspects at 133, 134. Conversely the transition from 3 aspect from the left seems sensible- note how it is the second of the "4 aspects" which has no red- since there isn't a signal braking distance in rear of it. My gut feeling is that 130 signal should have been provided as a non-red signal and then that end would have worked sensibly as well; could even be forgiven that the layout had actually been designed by the examiner with signals in such positions.......

So on the face of it the calculations were corect, the need (despite these) is for there to be some 4 aspect signals; their mistake was not to add onto the end of their calculations an EXPLANATION.

Actually if you look at the Study Pack you'll see I recommend starting the paper by looking at all the points, put the relevant track jointa in and pencilling some possibilities for signals around the key junction areas and thereby get a feel for the whole layout BEFORE sitting down to churn the numbers in the calcs- this means you can immediately INTERPRET them rather than follow slavishly.

Don't forget that the examiners will not be wanting you to put loads of the same form of sigalling on a layout; if there isn't a long lightly used branch, a rolling-stock depot, a freight terminal etc., then "a pound to a penny" that there will be a need for at least one aspect sequence transition in what otherwise looks to be homogeneous railway.

You would not have suffered purely BECAUSE you didn't put in 4 aspects,
BUT unless you had signalled the layout in a way which was
1. safe,
2. met the capacity and other specified operational requirements, and
3. as efficient and economical manner as the other constraints permit,

then YES your marks would have suffered.

You need to recognise that MAS signals are placed in positions detemined by
a) where it is sensible to have a red aspect [protecting conflicts, giving standage etc], and
b) where it is sensible to provide the caution aspect(s) [enough braking distance to the red but not very excessive distance]
c) where there is need for a green to be given for the 2nd train not to have to start to brake because of the presence of the traib ahead [satisy the headway requirement]

Your solution needs to balance all these constraints and you need to know what are good practice constraints which may occasionally have to be enfringed for the greater good of the whole when compromises need to be made, and which of them must simply always be satisfied.

There's no "quick win" but if you plough through the study pack and look at the examples and comments on this website (as you clearly have) then you'll actually pick up the information in a concentrated form that would have taken very many years of design experience to acquire. At least one Distinction has been gained by someone who has never been employed in a signalling design office, so it is perfectly possible, but I didn't say it was easy.

I am studying for Mod 2- to date it is going well, although I am finding the stopping headway difficult to interpret. I have started applying the logic to the layout and it is coming along slowly, I have one query which leads to a number of questions concerning the 2005 layout produced oby two candidates, both have worked out the stopping and non-stopping headway and recommend 3 aspect signalling, yet when they have signalled the layout they have installed four aspect signalling around the main station area.
How have they arrived at this conclusion?
What is their calculated distances for signal spacing?

In my case I would have struggled to interpret this- would I suffer from this decision?

Is there any quick calculation or guidance that could lead me to a similar decision, given my lack of design experience?

Thanks, friends. Suggestions in last time are all useful. Thanks again.
I have been reading Mod 5 and reviewing Mod 3 as a relexing these two days.

Anyway, result is not the most important, More important is I learnt much here.

[alexgoei]

Hello PJW,

Happy to know that my attempted layout is still useful on the forum. Happier still to do a bit of self-critique.

As you mentioned, main reason for 4 aspect signalling at Station C and Junction D is to protect the point work and the need to turn trains while still enabling the headway requirements to be met.

With respect to standage for freight train on the Up Slow and Down Slow, the concept requires the freight train to stand at the platform track at Station C, for the engine then to draw forward into the Turnback Siding. Signal 121's position should be located another 50 metres further as the last pair of wheels will stand over Points 205 & 206 locking up both platforms.

There should be another signal on the Up Slow platform track at Station C for this purpose and a Limit of Shunt on the Up Slow before Point 210.

Looking at the track circuits re signal 118 I think is excessive. Since it is only a platform starter for a train that has changed end, a minimum overlap of 45 metres should be sufficient.

This much for tonight.

Cheers

[dorothy.pipet]

Herewith an attempt at the 2005 layout for comments please?
Apologies for the many separate pages, not in the office at the moment so have to make do.

[asrisaku]

Hi Guys

May I have any review or comments please?

My attempt is based on UK Mainline practice

Best regards
Arnut