2007 Main line layout attempt

[abhayverma_2007]

Dear all,

Here with i have attached the 2007 attempted layout. This I have tried to finish within time. Calculation part I have not attached.

Please give your valuable comments as soon as possible.

Thanks

[reuben]

Hi

Here are some quick comments.

It looks like you have made a good attempt, addressing the requirements of the spec / question across the whole layout.

There's no statement of which railway's practice you are using (presumably UK Main Line)

4 aspect signalling along the main line A-H is not wrong, but possibly rather over-signalled for the traffic levels shown.
Similarly, the branch to B should only require 2 aspect signalling, and the branch to F could suffice with a form of one train working. However, you should not lose much credit for over-provision.

The intention of the "unscaled" areas (shown by a break in the tracks) at each extremity A, B, H, is that you show "one extra signal" in this area, with a post-to-post dimensions to the neighbouring signal in the "to scale" area of the plan. this shows that you know how to space out signals for cheapness where there are no layout constraints.

Good provision of tables of routes - a sample for complex signals only.

119 signal: note that the permissive routes A and B should by definition be call-on class, not shunt.

119/123 signals - would be more appropriate to use standard indicator for main class routes to fixed red or bay platform destinations.

Good comment on non-parallel signals 426/428

Clearance point points P9(?) on track circuit 6 looks rather tight, and if this is the case, the track circuit boundary has been placed in a foul position

Train detection: It's preferred practice today to use letters as track circuit names. Numbers may clash with signal numbers.
There seem to be a lot of extra joints which break up an area for no apparent reason - eg 1/2, 4/5 7/8, 80/79 etc. Otherwise provision is good and appropriate.

Good choice/ provision of AHBC crossing. I think the strike-in point at F has been placed based upon a full-speed approach (which will never happen!). It would be more appropriate to reposition this to a place outside station F (eg2400m point) , and state "exact strike-in point to be determined based upon "best case" acceleration of a train from rest at F"

If the spec is correct, you need to provide an extra route from 416 to 428, to take advantage of the specified standage at 428. However, this would be a strange route, going right to get left.
Personally, I would state an extra assumption here - UP direction standage for freights on UP valley branch also.

426 signal: ROL is inappropriate without accompanying full overlap. in this case you can make this reasonably a reduced overlap (NOT Restricted overlap ROL), mitigated by low approach speed of all trains (40kmh through points P4)

No standage has been provided at 424 signal

LOS on Down main should be numbered as a signal, also to have a track circuit joint and designated overlap.

the UP direction signalling on the down main between D and C does not need to be 4 aspect (3 would suffice with reduced permitted speed) - but does need to be parallel to signals on Up line as you have shown.

101 positioned inappropriately with points within the overlap area (also not marked)

However, enough criticism. there are very few critical errors, and the requirements of the question have all been addressed. If you can do this in the 90 minutes, also including a headway calculation, you should succesfully acheive a Pass.

Hope this helps- good luck with your studies

Reuben

[abhayverma_2007]

Thanks Reuben,
I realize a lot of mistakes and will try best to improve and avoid them.