[quote='PJW' pid='2251' dateline='1286123323']
During the time that the website was disabled whilst the exam was being undertaken at locations around the world, I received the following:
[quote]
Near Station D was a depot with two sidings, a train wash track, headshunt and reception track. I suppose the way to treat the depot was to treat it like a Freight depot.
[/quote]
Yes I think so- apart from there will be no need for run-round given the use of multiple unit stock I assume.
[quote]
As I had expected, the layout had a level crossing.
[/quote]
Well predicted. Indeed it hs been some years since a depot so that was also overdue a comeback. However there has not been a significant terminal layout I thinksince 1997 and therefore a couple of years ago I was predicting that, and have been proved wrong year after year so can't place too much faith in such predictions......
[quote]
For non stopping which was for trains every 10 minutes, two aspect with distant signals was OK but the determinant was really the stopping.
No contingency for headway required - so even with stopping three aspect will do the job although as usual four aspect would be more suitable given the numerous junctions there. Headway required was 3.5 mins.
[/quote]
I'd like to see the question paper before comment too much on this. Certainly it seems as if the non stop headway was not at all onerous and this may have been what caused the consternation in Hyderabad; you seem to have recognised that the signalling also needs to deliver the stopping headway and therefore provided 3 aspects accordingly. Whether 4 aspects would actually be appropriate or whether it may have been better to have provided a few underbraked 3 aspects, with imposition of suitable approach release (modified aspect sequence) I cannot say at present.
[quote]
I made... the mistake of using the distance for the headway of 120 km/h (1115 metres) instead of the permitted of 140 km/h (of 1515 metres) but discovered it in time before I started putting down the signals.
[/quote]
Classic mistake. At least you noticed and corrected, but of course the wasted time is itself extremely valuable.
[quote]
Most of my effort was concentrated around Station D......
Would have liked to do and add in more but time did not permit.
But having said that I must still say that I enjoyed the layout and must say that in this attempt I was able to put in so much more than I have done so in the past.
It may however be still not good enough so we shall see.
[/quote]
Indeed, no value in worrying about it now; I suggest you give yourself a bit of a break. At least you enjoyed the experiece and felt you had made progress so even if you find that you need to re-sit next year it will be from a better base level.
[quote]
Over the next few weeks may still submit for your comment an attempt on the 2004 layout, a comparison of ABCL, AOCL, AHBC distilled from RSPG 2E and GN 0642 (?) as well as reduced overlap/ROL distances extracted from one of the standards for posting on the Forum.
[/quote]
That's fine; I imagine it will be quite quiet for a bit. However I have some things that I must now get on with having been on the back burner for a while but send them in and I'll look at when I can.
During the time that the website was disabled whilst the exam was being undertaken at locations around the world, I received the following:
[quote]
Near Station D was a depot with two sidings, a train wash track, headshunt and reception track. I suppose the way to treat the depot was to treat it like a Freight depot.
[/quote]
Yes I think so- apart from there will be no need for run-round given the use of multiple unit stock I assume.
[quote]
As I had expected, the layout had a level crossing.
[/quote]
Well predicted. Indeed it hs been some years since a depot so that was also overdue a comeback. However there has not been a significant terminal layout I thinksince 1997 and therefore a couple of years ago I was predicting that, and have been proved wrong year after year so can't place too much faith in such predictions......
[quote]
For non stopping which was for trains every 10 minutes, two aspect with distant signals was OK but the determinant was really the stopping.
No contingency for headway required - so even with stopping three aspect will do the job although as usual four aspect would be more suitable given the numerous junctions there. Headway required was 3.5 mins.
[/quote]
I'd like to see the question paper before comment too much on this. Certainly it seems as if the non stop headway was not at all onerous and this may have been what caused the consternation in Hyderabad; you seem to have recognised that the signalling also needs to deliver the stopping headway and therefore provided 3 aspects accordingly. Whether 4 aspects would actually be appropriate or whether it may have been better to have provided a few underbraked 3 aspects, with imposition of suitable approach release (modified aspect sequence) I cannot say at present.
[quote]
I made... the mistake of using the distance for the headway of 120 km/h (1115 metres) instead of the permitted of 140 km/h (of 1515 metres) but discovered it in time before I started putting down the signals.
[/quote]
Classic mistake. At least you noticed and corrected, but of course the wasted time is itself extremely valuable.
[quote]
Most of my effort was concentrated around Station D......
Would have liked to do and add in more but time did not permit.
But having said that I must still say that I enjoyed the layout and must say that in this attempt I was able to put in so much more than I have done so in the past.
It may however be still not good enough so we shall see.
[/quote]
Indeed, no value in worrying about it now; I suggest you give yourself a bit of a break. At least you enjoyed the experiece and felt you had made progress so even if you find that you need to re-sit next year it will be from a better base level.
[quote]
Over the next few weeks may still submit for your comment an attempt on the 2004 layout, a comparison of ABCL, AOCL, AHBC distilled from RSPG 2E and GN 0642 (?) as well as reduced overlap/ROL distances extracted from one of the standards for posting on the Forum.
[/quote]
That's fine; I imagine it will be quite quiet for a bit. However I have some things that I must now get on with having been on the back burner for a while but send them in and I'll look at when I can.
PJW