2000 Headway Calcs and Layout

[PJW]

The question I have though is:
how do you envisage that the freight that runs from A to B is to operate?

I'm still digesting some of the comments, but I'll answer the last question first.

For the freight train my intention was that the train from A comes onto the Down Main and leaves the wagons here, behind signal 123 (at night so ok to leave on the main line/saves the energy wasted in having to haul them all the way to the station only to come back again). The loco continues to station D, and then up to 1003 LOS, reverses and continues on the main line via 134 all the way up to 120 so that it's behind 1001. From 1001 shunts up to the wagons/behind 122. Then from 122 goes back onto the Up main and continues to B.

Excellent solution; I agree that it saves energy, time and signalling.
However do you see how easy for the examiner to fail to see that, because you gave no hint of your intention?
Agreed the signalling to do that was there, but there were also a few hints that seemed to contradict. Positioning of LOS seemed to allow a whole freight train to be propelled behind 134, not just to accomodate a light loco or a multiple unit; whereas it might certainly be useful to have the ability to do this in extremis (e.g. taking a defective wagon out of the centre of the train and setting back into the siding for rectification later), because you didn't explain it seemed to suggest that this was the route the freight would nomally take and hence influences the examiners' assumption of your intentions. Then taking into account the facts that
a) you provided some (S) class routes on the layout that were not needed / inappropriate (see Route Tables) adds to the general feelling that you were rather hazy in this area.
b) The signalling of the junction E with a signal missing and 132 without a distant makes it possible that 122 is in same category.
Hence rightly or wrongly the various other defects of your layout are taken into consideration when trying to establish what might have been going through your mind in this instance.....

So I judged you unfairly and would have marked you down incorrectly. The examiners do not have this opportunity for dialogue to probe your understanding and can only judge on what is actually presented. A brief note on the plan re the operation would have made all the difference (to be fair I can see a note near 123, but on my print out at least I can't quite read so the penny didn't drop. It does include the word standage so perhaps this is it and I apologise).

Actually overall the plan was really very good for a first real attempt I can see that you have considered the various trains listed in contracted paths (even though again I have difficulty (resolution of scan, faint, print size and my eyesight) exactly what you have written. You didn't really address the "Methods of Working" sufficiently though-
you show the OTW-NS on the Branch but could have put a sentence of explanation,
didn't declare TCB on the rest of the layout
should have added a few words re assumption whether permissive wotking in the station needed, any assumption re the move to the LOS / use of the Up siding and the operation of the night freight would have rounded things off and potentially saved being misinterpreted.