14-09-2008, 11:50 AM
alexgoei Wrote:Hello Peter,
Gone through your review comments for this year's paper and have some questions.
Thank you and Regards
Yes I contend that 209A(S) would certainly be a non-permissive shunt. Given the distance of the move to modern standards I can't see that a PL aspect would be tolerable nowadays. It it were the only (S) move within the CTs asked to do then I'd probably note "I have signalled it to show shunt characteristics but in my experience it should have been provided as a main aspect and even if provided as a PL should probably operate as if a (M) class route". If I had already done a "real" (S) then I think I'd have given it (M) class controls and have annotated CTs to that effect as being appropriate to a running move of some 1500m!
PJW