(17-01-2011, 09:42 PM)interesting_signal Wrote: Thanks for the comments. Yes, I messed up the approach release on 111 because of where I had shown the R aspect. I'll take on board the suggestion to put the R at the bottom and less restrictive aspects at the top for future attempts. (I had put the red on top, in keeping with the notes in the study pack).
There are different standards all of which are acceptable; I have mentioned my personal preferences where I believe that I have a rational reason for adopting them in order to try to be helpful. It is perfectly possible to put the red on top and show the approach release downwards, or as I have done to do the minimum alteration to your diagram, to put aspects in the order R/G/Y- but you can see that this is a little bit illogical and therefore perhaps more prone to human error- I prefer to keep things simple where I can!
Quote:I had deliberately not shown the call-on route, but will add a note next time to clarify. However, referring to the 2010 exam paper, question 10, it says 'Draw an aspect sequence chart for all signals, routes, and classes of routes shown'. In this case, I would expect to have to show the PL aspects. Do you agree?
Definitely given that wording then I would certainly say that you should show ALL signals including GPLs and EVERY route from EACH signal including call-ons and shunts. To me, the examiners intended this instruction to be unambiguous, although it is indeed unexpected given their comments in previous years re the regular aspect sequence chart question. I expect that they were deliberately testing who was actually reading the specific question asked and trying to get away from the "painting by numbers" that is often evident.
We should of course get definitive answer regarding the examiners' expectations on Thursday.
PJW