2011 CT Attempts

[asrisaku]

Hi again

Could you please kindly review my attempt to avoid any mistake?

It took me 45 minutes to complete

Note: Based on UK mainline practice

Regards, Arnut

[reuben]

Hi Arnut

A good set of control tables which should do well.

Overall, most of the conditions have been well handled.

best wishes

Reuben

Some quick comments:

Route 216A(M)

opposing route locking applied by route 327A(M) should also require FZ sectional overlap locking free

timing to a stand on FH / GF tracks is a little long. My "rule of thumb" is track length (metres) / 10 + 10s, giving approx 20s in this case.

(BT or 137R) also needed in track circuits, as it is foul of the overlap via 139R

The FY aspect is not permitted to 212 with JI position 1 - see route tables.

references to 212 should also specify Left and Right aspects of 212 Banner repeater.

222 is not a controlled signal, so cannot be said to be ARAFOAL

348C(M)

does not require137N - does not provide flank protection

323A(M) does not exist - not a stop signal.

should instead require single line release 321 N

Also requires route 343A(M) Normal (directly opposing overlap)

FP should also be in the lookback tracks

Approach locking timer could reduce to 60s

349D©

should also require 135N (flank)?

your track clear conditions are for a main class route

buffer stop lights are not controlled or lamp proved, so cannot be referred to as a "signal ahead aspect"

133 points

N-R should require (FJ or 132R) - foul track

R-N should not require FJ clear - in the N alignment FJ is "in line" not foul

should be set N by 347B(M) - flank protection

It looks like you have interpreted route 346C(M) to be routed via 146R, 133R - this is an odd choice given that there is a straighter option via 146N , 133N - the table of routes indicates no alternative routes so I would expect this would be the one and only option.

[asrisaku]

Route 216A(M)

opposing route locking applied by route 327A(M) should also require FZ sectional overlap locking free

I am not sure what you meant. But in my CT I have written FZ in the route. However, this would be what you expect, right?
327A(M) (CF,FZ, FK, FJ,(FH---or--FH 20)

timing to a stand on FH / GF tracks is a little long. My "rule of thumb" is track length (metres) / 10 + 10s, giving approx 20s in this case.

This is so nice for me. I was confused before and I always called 45s based on your CT model answer 2009.

(BT or 137R) also needed in track circuits, as it is foul of the overlap via 139R

Then [(BT or 137R),FZ or 139N] Am I right?

The FY aspect is not permitted to 212 with JI position 1 - see route tables.

I agree and I forgot to see the route box.

references to 212 should also specify Left and Right aspects of 212 Banner repeater.

Then Y----BR Left and Right ON ------R for example, right?

222 is not a controlled signal, so cannot be said to be ARAFOAL

My fault again. Thanks

348C(M)

does not require137N - does not provide flank protection

Could you please provide the reason behind? Is it because it is so far away line of route?

323A(M) does not exist - not a stop signal.

should instead require single line release 321 N

Agree

Also requires route 343A(M) Normal (directly opposing overlap)

This is unclear because 131 wrong direction conflicts with the line of route direction. Then I did not put down. However, I guess there may be a case for overrun. So we should include this route, right?

FP should also be in the lookback tracks

Approach locking timer could reduce to 60s

Could you please explain more?
This is the principle that I understand
Main route App lock 120 or 180s
Warning route 60s
Call on route 60s
Shunt route 30s

349D©

should also require 135N (flank)?

Thanks 135N is called

your track clear conditions are for a main class route

[GB,GA-----(GB or GA)]

buffer stop lights are not controlled or lamp proved, so cannot be referred to as a "signal ahead aspect"

I will put '-' instead.

133 points

N-R should require (FJ or 132R) - foul track

R-N should not require FJ clear - in the N alignment FJ is "in line" not foul

Agree

should be set N by 347B(M) - flank protection

It looks like you have interpreted route 346C(M) to be routed via 146R, 133R - this is an odd choice given that there is a straighter option via 146N , 133N - the table of routes indicates no alternative routes so I would expect this would be the one and only option.

Thanks so much for your time. Those kind of things for mistakes are helpful.