Hello Peter,
Sorry for taking so long to make the necessary changes and resubmit an amended answer to the calculations for the 2004 Layout calculations as you had suggested. So here it is.
In this revised answer, I believe I have addressed most if not all the points you raised about my previous answer with respect to explaining why a contingency is necessary; explaining why I think 3 aspect signalling is suitable for the layout for non-stopping and stopping instead of just using the ratio of DGR to SBD.
I have also started putting in possible locations for signal posts on the layout. Given the junctions and crossings especially at Station D, I am increasingly inclined to put 4 aspect signalling at D.
Look forward to your comments while I will in the meantime attempt to complete the other requirements for the answer.
Thank you & Regards
Hello Peter,
Here is the appended work sheet
Regards
Sorry for taking so long to make the necessary changes and resubmit an amended answer to the calculations for the 2004 Layout calculations as you had suggested. So here it is.
In this revised answer, I believe I have addressed most if not all the points you raised about my previous answer with respect to explaining why a contingency is necessary; explaining why I think 3 aspect signalling is suitable for the layout for non-stopping and stopping instead of just using the ratio of DGR to SBD.
I have also started putting in possible locations for signal posts on the layout. Given the junctions and crossings especially at Station D, I am increasingly inclined to put 4 aspect signalling at D.
Look forward to your comments while I will in the meantime attempt to complete the other requirements for the answer.
Thank you & Regards
Hello Peter,
Here is the appended work sheet
Regards