Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2014 calcs
#1
[justify]Attempt at the 2014 calculations, please provide feedback.[/justify]
[justify]TF[/justify]


Attached Files
.pdf   Mod 2 2014 calcs page 4.pdf (Size: 559.36 KB / Downloads: 6)
.pdf   Mod 2 2014 calcs page 3.pdf (Size: 600.96 KB / Downloads: 6)
.pdf   Mod 2 2014 calcs page 2.pdf (Size: 497.44 KB / Downloads: 8)
.pdf   Mod 2 2014 calcs page1.pdf (Size: 523.21 KB / Downloads: 7)
Reply
#2
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?


Attached Files
.pdf   2014-Module 2-v20140728.pdf (Size: 64.9 KB / Downloads: 4)
Reply
#3
Thank you for the response, this is much appreciated. I think the table is good advice and will save me some precious time, probably easier to look at and extract information quickly as well.1b) I think I probably should have used the minimum braking distance, I could have then used the 30% increase for my actual signal spacing when doing the layout, if this wasn't sufficient, then I could have changed to a four aspect and added the reason for change on the layout for clarification.The calcs and layout exam conditions are planned for Thursday, then another two weeks Thursday, just before the exam. I will post these once done.TF Wrote:REMBrum
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?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)