Answer to 2002 Part A Q2 - This One I Missed Out

[PJW]

answer for 2002 part A Q2 Points Question.

I have tried indicating certain assumptions.

You have stated that the joint DE/DC is foul (you'd be better refering to "moves over 212R" rather than naming CD).
I know it looks like it, being opposite the DE/CD joint. However I am sure that it isn't; based on the illogcality of providing DC as a separate track circuit if it really were foul. Either it would have all been the same track or the joint positioned so that it could be clear- it has no reason to exist if it does not prove clearance.

However although I say that your assumption is wrong, by putting it on then I fully understand why you put DC in the track locking etc so recording the assumption was 100% the correct thing to do.