Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2009 Module 2 solved Mainline calcs
#1
Shy 
Dear Sir,

As per my knowledge I have solved the 2009 Module 2 paper for mainline layout. Please go through the attachment give me your suggestions & feed back for further improvement.

Tell me I am following proper method or i have change the method for calculation part in exam . Please Suggest me.

Regards,
Ambika


Attached Files
.docx   Module 2 2009 Calculations.docx (Size: 19.97 KB / Downloads: 155)
Reply
#2
Ambika,

It seems a very comprehensive attempt. However, you need to be aware of the time you can take in the exam. I would suggest there is too much effort to produce the amount of text and calculations.

Therefore, I would suggest that practicing exam technique would be of real benefit. A simple rule is note the marks that can be allocated. For headway calculation it is relavitely small compared to the overall total. Therefore, exam technique says spend your time where you can gain the most marks.

However, if you can deliver speed, quality and quantity, kudos.

Jerry

Edit: spelling error
Le coureur
Reply
#3
(25-08-2011, 10:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Ambika,

It seems a very comprehensive attempt. However, you need to be aware of the time you can take in the exam. I would suggest there is too much effort to produce the amount of text and calculations.

Therefore, I would suggest that practicing exam technique would be of real benefit. A simple rule is note the marks that can be allocated. For headway calculation it is relavitely small compared to the overall total. Therefore, exam technique says spend your time where you can gain the most marks.

However, if you can deliver speed, quality and quatity, kudos.

Jerry

Thank for valuable feedback. In examination, time allocation for each questions is very important i will practice according it.
Please look into the answer paper (calculations wise) is the proper way what I followed according to question asked. If any correction is required please correct it & suggest me accordingly.
Reply
#4
I think you have copied from a good original document intended to explain to a student the calculations.

I agree with Jerry that you cannot go into as much detail as this in the examination; you do need to explain enough to show the examiner your process, you do not need to go to the level that you do when trying to explain to a student who is not already familiar.

Also it is clear that although you changed the numbers appropriately, you were following the same step by step process, but didn't recognise that what you were asked in this question was not precisely the same as the example on which you based your answer. Hence some of what you did was unnecessary and other bits not 100% right.

Your answer does not convey to me that you actually understand 'the big picture" of what you are attempting to achieve from these calculations; the fact that you calculate that 4 aspect signalling would achieve the requirement when you have already calculated that 3 aspect signalling does, certainly suggest that you don't comprehend.

See attached document with amendments and comments, HOWEVER
I do recommend that you read the explanation of braking and headway in the Mod 2 Study Pack on the DVD. You must achieve a base level of understanding because this is what the exam is about, not primarily the ability to plug numbers into quoted formulae and methodologies learned by rote and then reproduced in the exam- I am afraid that your answer gives me that impression.


You will of course get some marks for what you have done, but the examiners know what they are looking for, and so you cannot "pull wool over their eyes" and hope to get through without really fully understanding what you are doing. It was a worthwhile exercise that has no doubt progressed your learning but you now need to go and read the theory and make sure you know how these calculations relate to it. Then have a go at another question and hopefully improve by so doing.


I hope the above and the comments in the paper don't not seem too harsh; the written word can sometimes seem to be. When in face-to-face communication it is easier to judge how it comes across. Certainly do not want to be discouraging, but you specifically asked for a judgement and advice and I have attempted to do so in plain language. I have given a reaction that I believe would accord with that of the examiners; better you have the opinion now so that you can learn from it rather than not know and be disappointed in exam result and not understand. Well done for being brave enough to put your attempt up for scrutiny, hopefully to assist both you and others


(25-08-2011, 10:56 AM)ambikadevaraju Wrote:
(25-08-2011, 10:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Ambika,

It seems a very comprehensive attempt. However, you need to be aware of the time you can take in the exam. I would suggest there is too much effort to produce the amount of text and calculations.

Therefore, I would suggest that practicing exam technique would be of real benefit. A simple rule is note the marks that can be allocated. For headway calculation it is relavitely small compared to the overall total. Therefore, exam technique says spend your time where you can gain the most marks.

However, if you can deliver speed, quality and quatity, kudos.

Jerry

Thank for valuable feedback. In examination, time allocation for each questions is very important i will practice according it.
Please look into the answer paper (calculations wise) is the proper way what I followed according to question asked. If any correction is required please correct it & suggest me accordingly.



Attached Files
.doc   Module 2 2009 Calculations PJW.doc (Size: 60 KB / Downloads: 133)
PJW
Reply
#5
hi,
Thank you very much for your suggesion & feedback on my paper.
Ya correct we have to understand the concept whilst when doing the calculations. While anwering to this paper i was not thinking that i have to anwer only for question asked in the paper but i want to know the method what i have followed is proper or not. In forum i have seen so many people solved in different methods i do know which is the correct method? but it is not copied from anywhere else according to my understanding i solved the paper so i have requested you to correct the paper.
Very much thanks

Regards,
Ambika
Reply
#6
OK I now understand you are interested in generic as well as that particular question; on that basis then yes most of it is fine.

If you could have a go at amending it specifically for this question by taking on board the feedback given, that would demonstrate to me that you understand or if there is anything on which you need more clarity.


(26-08-2011, 06:40 AM)ambikadevaraju Wrote:
(25-08-2011, 08:26 PM)PJW Wrote: I think you have copied from a good original document intended to explain to a student the calculations.

I agree with Jerry that you cannot go into as much detail as this in the examination; you do need to explain enough to show the examiner your process, you do not need to go to the level that you do when trying to explain to a student who is not already familiar.

Also it is clear that although you changed the numbers appropriately, you were following the same step by step process, but didn't recognise that what you were asked in this question was not precisely the same as the example on which you based your answer. Hence some of what you did was unnecessary and other bits not 100% right.

Your answer does not convey to me that you actually understand 'the big picture" of what you are attempting to achieve from these calculations; the fact that you calculate that 4 aspect signalling would achieve the requirement when you have already calculated that 3 aspect signalling does, certainly suggest that you don't comprehend.

See attached document with amendments and comments, HOWEVER
I do recommend that you read the explanation of braking and headway in the Mod 2 Study Pack on the DVD. You must achieve a base level of understanding because this is what the exam is about, not primarily the ability to plug numbers into quoted formulae and methodologies learned by rote and then reproduced in the exam- I am afraid that your answer gives me that impression.


You will of course get some marks for what you have done, but the examiners know what they are looking for, and so you cannot "pull wool over their eyes" and hope to get through without really fully understanding what you are doing. It was a worthwhile exercise that has no doubt progressed your learning but you now need to go and read the theory and make sure you know how these calculations relate to it. Then have a go at another question and hopefully improve by so doing.


I hope the above and the comments in the paper don't not seem too harsh; the written word can sometimes seem to be. When in face-to-face communication it is easier to judge how it comes across. Certainly do not want to be discouraging, but you specifically asked for a judgement and advice and I have attempted to do so in plain language. I have given a reaction that I believe would accord with that of the examiners; better you have the opinion now so that you can learn from it rather than not know and be disappointed in exam result and not understand. Well done for being brave enough to put your attempt up for scrutiny, hopefully to assist both you and others


(25-08-2011, 10:56 AM)ambikadevaraju Wrote:
(25-08-2011, 10:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Ambika,

It seems a very comprehensive attempt. However, you need to be aware of the time you can take in the exam. I would suggest there is too much effort to produce the amount of text and calculations.

Therefore, I would suggest that practicing exam technique would be of real benefit. A simple rule is note the marks that can be allocated. For headway calculation it is relavitely small compared to the overall total. Therefore, exam technique says spend your time where you can gain the most marks.

However, if you can deliver speed, quality and quatity, kudos.

Jerry

Thank for valuable feedback. In examination, time allocation for each questions is very important i will practice according it.
Please look into the answer paper (calculations wise) is the proper way what I followed according to question asked. If any correction is required please correct it & suggest me accordingly.

hi,
Thank you very much for your suggesion & feedback on my paper.
Ya correct we have to understand the concept whilst when doing the calculations. While anwering to this paper i was not thinking that i have to anwer only for question asked in the paper but i want to know the method what i have followed is proper or not. In forum i have seen so many people solved in different methods i do know which is the correct method? but it is not copied from anywhere else according to my understanding i solved the paper so i have requested you to correct the paper.
Very much thanks

Regards,
Ambika

PJW
Reply
#7
please comment on the calculations for 2009 layout for me to improve..


Attached Files
.pdf   first page_2009.pdf (Size: 139.33 KB / Downloads: 104)
.pdf   second page_2009.pdf (Size: 124.13 KB / Downloads: 74)
Reply
#8
(21-09-2011, 10:52 AM)yuvaraj.narasimmalu Wrote: please comment on the calculations for 2009 layout for me to improve..


It was quite concise and clear which is good; suggest you read my comments in conjunction with those made earlier in this thread relating to other people's attempts.

Item 3. You state "required headway distance". Actually it is the maximum distance at which two trains moving at the timetabled speed are sufficiently close together that just achieves the specified headway time.

You will not get many marks by quorting the ratio DGR/BD.
The examiners have made it clear that they do not favour this methodology and particularly, as in your case, when the student fails to explain where the formulae comes from and just quote "magic numbers" from thin air. You definitely need a diagram and explain the physical significance of the ratio and why certain values imply the choice of a certain form of signalling.

The good thing was though that having deciided 3 aspect signalling is suficient then you didn't go on to waste time re 4 aspect signalling, like so many do.

Item 4.
Should have made clear this is headway time for 3 aspects at the closest spacing.

Item5.
Should explain why the limit re degree of over-braking; i.e what the risk is.

Also remember that you do not only need to respect this when determining the maximum, but also the maximum spacing that still achieve the headway. You never showed that signals spaced at 2153m would achieve the 2.5 mins.

Your diagram has no axes to make clear what it is representing. In that respect my comments would be very similar to other recent attempts. Basically ok but you need to take more effort into explaining that you are comparing the time taken for a stopping train compared with a non-stop train and then demonstrating that this is less than the "headroom" that the signalling provides fot the through traffic.

Also there is a disconnect between this and the range of possible signal spacings 1511-2153m that you quoted earlier. You should see whether the need to achieve the stopping train headway imposes any smaller maximum spacing for the signalling.


Next section headed "Non-stopping" but surely relates to stopping


PJW
Reply
#9
I don't understand where '1/2 Deceleration time' or '1/2 Acceleration time' equates to 33.3 m/s?

By adding the above time to non stopping headway we get stopping headway.

3 aspect stopping headway = 3 aspect non stopping headway + ½ Deceleration time + Station dwell time + ½ Acceleration time

3 aspect stopping headway = 112+33.33+30+33.33


Can anyone clarify, as I was working it out to be: 112+66.6+30+66.6
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)