Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Train integrity 2013
#1

.pdf   module 5 2013 Q1.4.pdf (Size: 466.8 KB / Downloads: 3)
.pdf   module 5 2013 Q1.3.pdf (Size: 514.38 KB / Downloads: 3)
.pdf   module 5 2013 Q1.2.pdf (Size: 514.72 KB / Downloads: 2)
.pdf   module 5 2013 Q1.1.pdf (Size: 430.93 KB / Downloads: 3)

Please review and comment.

Wasn't sure about considerations bit of a stab in the dark.
Wasn't sure whether to use Absolute block signalling for tail lamp, my example seemed shorter to explain plus can't see what suitable uses Absolute would have now.
Reply
#2
Not sure a driver does check lamp at arrival station. It does permit other drivers, signalers, platform staff etc., to visually check the train is complete during its journey. Assuming lamp has fallen off should read train incomplete. With multiple units it is easy to check, with long freight, less easy.

Re TCs; the question is asking about train integrity. The non-guaranteed benefit of TCs is if a train splits, the uncontrolled part should remain indicated and prohibit other trains being routed into the same section. Procedures to proceed slowly and inspect then should identify the errant train part.

Third part; an alarm isn't usually raised in the control centre if the braking system detects a split/failure being it air or electrical - if you are referring to a specific technology/practice/infrastructure, then say what it is.

I have assumed main line practice, integrity means all the vehicles remain as one rather than specific rolling stock failures.

The second part of the question seems to have not been answered.

Some good points raised but need to ensure the answer is relevant to the question being asked.
Le coureur
Reply
#3
Thanks Jerry appreciated. 

Not sure a driver does check lamp at arrival station. It does permit other drivers, signalers, platform staff etc., to visually check the train is complete during its journey. Assuming lamp has fallen off should read train incomplete. With multiple units it is easy to check, with long freight, less easy.
I could swap driver for platform staff + signallers etc and include freight. In my head i had remote, single RETB line, terminal station so only driver available to check lamp. I used risk from the Camden road tunnel incident as a generality.
Maybe i could've explained the operation in slightly more detail? It did ask for basic operation though so i was trying to keep it simple.


Re TCs; the question is asking about train integrity. The non-guaranteed benefit of TCs is if a train splits, the uncontrolled part should remain indicated and prohibit other trains being routed into the same section. Procedures to proceed slowly and inspect then should identify the errant train part.
Again i was trying to give a basic explanation of how a T.C  proves train integrity to the signaller.
=If the whole train leaves, section shows clear to the signaller therefore train integrity is proved.
If train leaves and a portion is left, section still shows as occupied therefore train integrity failure shown to signaller.
I was trying to focus on the T.C + integrity only without starting to explain signals and train stops etc.
I then used wrong side failure as an example of risk when using T.C's as this explains how train integrity could fail to be detected by track circuits and therefore risk management would be robust materials and good maintenance.

Third part; an alarm isn't usually raised in the control centre if the braking system detects a split/failure being it air or electrical - if you are referring to a specific technology/practice/infrastructure, then say what it is.

I have assumed main line practice, integrity means all the vehicles remain as one rather than specific rolling stock failures. 

On-board:- Good point. I should have inluded the practice but again was trying to keep it to basic operation rather than explain functionality. DLR, integrity failure = VOBC halts, train brakes applied, fault code and alarm in control centre (controller's screen).

The second part of the question seems to have not been answered.
Some good points raised but need to ensure the answer is relevant to the question being asked.

I thought my "consideration" examples were all relevant to transition and train integrity. I'm at a total lose then. Could you give some of examples of what considerations need to be given for train integrity/transition to see what direction i need to be looking.

Thanks for your comments and time Jerry. Interesting to see your interpretations. How would the content of the answer rate in the pass/fail scale?
Reply
#4
Questions in the exam tend to feed the next part. Possibly, they are after about bits of the train getting "lost" during the transition, integrity failing during or after the transition too. In the DLR case, it seems simple. Transitioning from TCs to ACs, there is an "overlap" to minimise the risk. Someone else may be able to better explain this from a Mod5 point of view.

First thing to do when answering any question is to state your assumptions and leave room to add more.

WSFs are exceptional. Hazards are train parts disappearing from the operator, to the Interlocking or showing but it being interpreted as a fault. There are several collisions where trains have failed to stop short of an obstruction or an obstruction has not been identified by the signaling "system". Those are becoming less likely but not impossible.

Only other real comment is state facts/principles. If not 100% sure, explain that or leave it out.
Le coureur
Reply
#5
Cheers Jerry thanks
Reply
#6
When answering a question such as the tail lamp, about risk, would it make any difference if I directly refer to an incident such as the Camden road tunnel incident. Then use the recommendations from the RAIB?

There have been a good few times answering various questions where i could have directly refered to an incident and recommendations from the RAIB in my answer, I'm thinking would the extra writing have any degree of marks/time trade off?  

I understand the answer to this could be quite fluid but just in general?

Cheers
Reply
#7
Only thing about using accidents is you have to explain the background etc., to give context as the examiner may not know anything about it. The examiners will not go and research a point if it is unclear.
Le coureur
Reply
#8
Ok cheers
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)