![]() |
|
2014 Q9 Junction Signal on main line - Printable Version +- IRSE Exam Forum (https://irse.signalpost.org) +-- Forum: MODULES (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Module 3 (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6) +---- Forum: Attempted "written questions" (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=72) +----- Forum: Past Paper Attempts (https://irse.signalpost.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=124) +----- Thread: 2014 Q9 Junction Signal on main line (/showthread.php?tid=2229) |
2014 Q9 Junction Signal on main line - PJW - 04-10-2017 Another I have been sent recently; not sure if I am going to find time to review in remaining time so posting here in case anyone else gets the chance. However by chance I have responded by email to someone else who asked for help on part c of the question, so I am copying the email that I sent in response: Controls:
Talk about utilisation of splitting banner, but in particular PRI Good example might be District line (surface stock) being routed onto the Piccadilly line that initially is just a 4-track overground section until Earl’s Court and then disappears underground into a tube tunnel of less diameter than the District line train. OK certainly not the sort of railway one would expect a splitting distant(!) but it gives a dramatic illustration of the idea. For this, the original mitigation was that before the tunnel an out of gauge train would have broken a glass tube which contained mercury and was in use to complete an electrical circuit; this was then used to disconnect traction power. Nowadays technology allows height to be checked in a manner that does not involve contaminating the environment with a hazardous substance. Could also talk about through-reading controls, one signal requiring the next signal off and the consequential need to extend the A/L lookback further from the junction signal Special case could be "Conditional Double Red" which makes the junction safer by using the TPWS OSS of the outer protecting signal, but that does confuse signallers regarding the extent of aspect reversion if they should cancel a route and therefore the secondary risks from driver’s reaction, emergency braking, disruption after what was a “safe SPAD” etc. Worth bearing in mind and working into your answer somehow is the trueism that unless a signal is at Red then a SPAD is impossible, so therefore more a signal is at red the greater the chances must be that one of the “train approaches a red signal” scenario will actually result in a SPAD; therefore whereas we think that putting a signal to red must reduce risk, this is not always true…. Above is not a direct answer to the question portion, but should have plenty of material to enable you to answer it fully. RE: 2014 Q9 Junction Signal on main line - sowmya.ael@gmail.com - 05-10-2017 Please find the review of the attempted answer by PJW which was to sent me through Email. Even though he couldn't give very detailed comments due to time constraint, this will surely be useful to gather some additional points/correct the mistakes made. Thank You PJW for your time and efforts put in to guide us. |