Please could I have comments on the attached attempt?
I don't think I have quite followed the format the examiners might have expected - is it acceptable and clear what I have done?
There are some things I thought of which I'm not sure about so haven't included - can anyone comment on whether Ax.Cs or TCs are a problem for track relaying, with tampers and so on?
I didn't include anything about the initial cost of installing AxCs/TCs - am I right to interpret that this is not included in the question?
Both tracks and ACs are a problem for relaying. Think about how they are attached to rails, the importance of their location, IRJs etc, and the competance for bringing them back into service. The railway is being made more tamper friendly generally. However, engineering management would ensure any works had suitably competent people available in the right numbers to recommission signalling equipment.
The point about rolling stock isn't totally correct. The conductivity of wheelsets is given (prescribed by standards). There are issues on rail head and wheel contamination which causes issues with tracks. This can be magnified by low axle loadings and/or environmental conditions.
The format was understandable. Remember, the point is to confirm to the examiner you understand the underlying principles. To a degree, style is moot.
I'll leave the technical responses to those more clever than I.
(25-03-2015, 07:20 PM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Both tracks and ACs are a problem for relaying. Think about how they are attached to rails, the importance of their location, IRJs etc, and the competance for bringing them back into service. The railway is being made more tamper friendly generally. However, engineering management would ensure any works had suitably competent people available in the right numbers to recommission signalling equipment.
The point about rolling stock isn't totally correct. The conductivity of wheelsets is given (prescribed by standards). There are issues on rail head and wheel contamination which causes issues with tracks. This can be magnified by low axle loadings and/or environmental conditions.
The format was understandable. Remember, the point is to confirm to the examiner you understand the underlying principles. To a degree, style is moot.
I'll leave the technical responses to those more clever than I.
Jerry
Thanks Jerry.
I am sure you'll have seen I'm not at all sure about train detection from these other points of view, although I know a fair amount from the signalling data design side. It's good to be learning more about the railway world outside the design office.
As an aside, for me, one of the hardest aspect of the exam is differing techniques between the modules. The key is to remember what the purpose of the module is. For example, engineering management isn't concerned about the technical depths of technology nor is that apt for a M1 response. Vice versa, M2 and 3 requires design oriented responses, not management or safety biased.
