Yes you have put trap points in where the trapping is actually provided by other points; often you have put them in facing the wrong way.
Also tend to put the GPL on the wrong side of the line to which it applies- whn the driver is looking at it should be to their left- since GPLs are often for "set-back" moves along a line then the driver is facing in the opposite direction to the normal traffic flow- hence generally between the Up and Down line- they can fit here (where you could not place a full running signal) because they are below 915mm of rail height and thus within structure gauge.
Where the divergence is at a significant speed, the form of route indicator should be PLJI, not SARI. In particular it simply must be a PLJI when you provide MAY-FA and flashing aspects on the approach.
Your calculations are ok for a) and b); they are very neat and clear, but could be better explained to prove to the examiner you really understand rather than just reproducing a process. You went well adrift in c); I really do not know what you were actually calculating but it definitely was not what you were asked to calculate. The last few years the examiners have moved away from the standard stopping following stopping" or the "how much head-start do you need to give a stopping train prior to sending a fast train" and you really do need to read and understand the question, rather than hope half-remembered previous year attempts will suffice.
Have a look at the attachments- this is something we went through at the Signet Event earlier this year and I always intended to upload them here.
However do not despair overall your layouts are pretty good - when I can get to an A3 size scanner, I'll place the commented versions on the site so that you can see my other comments.
Also tend to put the GPL on the wrong side of the line to which it applies- whn the driver is looking at it should be to their left- since GPLs are often for "set-back" moves along a line then the driver is facing in the opposite direction to the normal traffic flow- hence generally between the Up and Down line- they can fit here (where you could not place a full running signal) because they are below 915mm of rail height and thus within structure gauge.
Where the divergence is at a significant speed, the form of route indicator should be PLJI, not SARI. In particular it simply must be a PLJI when you provide MAY-FA and flashing aspects on the approach.
Your calculations are ok for a) and b); they are very neat and clear, but could be better explained to prove to the examiner you really understand rather than just reproducing a process. You went well adrift in c); I really do not know what you were actually calculating but it definitely was not what you were asked to calculate. The last few years the examiners have moved away from the standard stopping following stopping" or the "how much head-start do you need to give a stopping train prior to sending a fast train" and you really do need to read and understand the question, rather than hope half-remembered previous year attempts will suffice.
Have a look at the attachments- this is something we went through at the Signet Event earlier this year and I always intended to upload them here.
However do not despair overall your layouts are pretty good - when I can get to an A3 size scanner, I'll place the commented versions on the site so that you can see my other comments.
(03-07-2014, 12:18 PM)asrisaku Wrote: Thanks PJW. Could you please help point out serious mistakes? then I will not reproduce them in other attempts.
I just realize that I provided unnecessary point traps in sidings. That might be one of my a lot of mistakes there.
Appreciated!!
PJW