17-09-2019, 03:31 PM
Afternoon,
Your response to 1a looks good, you've calculated all the linespeeds required and the calculations look sound. One of your biggest issues in the exam will be time and therefore a table may help to speed up your calcs and prevent you having to keep demonstrating the same mathematical principles.
Your response to 1b looks to use the correct calculations and you've included diagrams, which is good practice. You've used a multiple of 1.3 for your braking- I can understand the theory behind this and it shows the examiner you understand that braking distances can be variable in real life signalling scenarios. What I'm not sure about is how this would translate to actually signalling the layout in the exam- it might be quite difficult trying to actually fit the resultant extended braking distances into the exam layout. I haven't seen this approach used too much in practice exams. Others may know better than me, but I would suggest using the maximum PSR braking distance without the 1.3 variant in your calculations. You could always state as a supplementary note that you assume optimised braking without poor weather conditions, slow driver reactions, etc, to show the examiner what you know.
Your response to 1c also looks good from the basis of the calculations.
Well done, keep up the efforts- have you tried the calcs and the layout in exam conditions as of yet?
Your response to 1a looks good, you've calculated all the linespeeds required and the calculations look sound. One of your biggest issues in the exam will be time and therefore a table may help to speed up your calcs and prevent you having to keep demonstrating the same mathematical principles.
Your response to 1b looks to use the correct calculations and you've included diagrams, which is good practice. You've used a multiple of 1.3 for your braking- I can understand the theory behind this and it shows the examiner you understand that braking distances can be variable in real life signalling scenarios. What I'm not sure about is how this would translate to actually signalling the layout in the exam- it might be quite difficult trying to actually fit the resultant extended braking distances into the exam layout. I haven't seen this approach used too much in practice exams. Others may know better than me, but I would suggest using the maximum PSR braking distance without the 1.3 variant in your calculations. You could always state as a supplementary note that you assume optimised braking without poor weather conditions, slow driver reactions, etc, to show the examiner what you know.
Your response to 1c also looks good from the basis of the calculations.
Well done, keep up the efforts- have you tried the calcs and the layout in exam conditions as of yet?