Posts: 16
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Well I went for a mostly 3 aspect design.
I did consider OTW on the single track branch but thought that with the mixed bi-di traffic and levels of use, and more importantly the 1.5 hours exam time, I would stretch 3 aspects out along there too. It did seem to fit in quite well with the stations and junctions, though may be a bit pricey for some peoples taste.
Any advance on that...? 4 aspect, ERTMS solutions...
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
4 aspect signalling seemed to me a natural choice for main lines due to high speed and short headway. However, if you wanted to apply 20% contingency onto required headway then you would end up with... 4 aspect being not sufficient to deliver the headway... WOW! Where to go from there???
The easiest way was to reduce the contingency which appeared to be not ideal but the only way out. Was there anything ealse you could do?
Artur
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
permitted speed on main lines 160km/h
Non-stoppting headway 2min at 140km/h
Stopping headway 4min (Fast following stopping) at 140km/h
What do you suggest Peter?
Posts: 14
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
I agree with Artur. I had to reduce my contingency to get a decent margin for signal spacing.
Posts: 16
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Perhaps I should mention that I didn't gegt very far with the stopping headway calcs, and just cracked on with the layout, I was going to get back to the calcs but ran out of time. I get the feeling I might have to resit!
Posts: 354
Threads: 40
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
6
Job Role: Safety Assurance
Can I ask a naive question. Why do we take de-acceleration of a train to be 0.5m/s/s?
Le coureur