Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2008 Module 2 Layout Calculation Attempt
#3
Quote:Dear Sir,
I have attempted 2004 mod-2 paper as per indian practice & to my knowledge. Kindly have a look at it & tell me what improvements can i make. I also tried to attach it at IRSEEXAM site but was unable to attach because of the attachment prompt does not open. Waiting for your reply.

Amit Kumar Srivastava

I think it was a high resolution scan and therefore over the 1 MB file size limit. I have printed, commented on it and rescanned and attach here as a pdf

It was extremely good presentation in many ways; however I am afraid that you didn't actually read the question carefully enough as it was a bit different in 2008 than in other years.

a) Determine minimum braking distances for the permissible speeds and braking characteristics of the traffic on offer.
b) Determine graphically, or by calculation, the headway at minimum signal spacing and the
given speed for:
i) A fast passenger train following another fast passenger train; AND
ii) A fast passenger train following a stopping passenger train.
All calculations and graphs must be shown [20 Marks]


For part a) you only calculated for one type of traffic- passenger on the mainline.
You reproduced extremely well an explanation of how to determine the best form of signalling for the layout- but they didn't actually ask for that!

In part b) ii) (that you did first rather confusingly) again you gave a very good presentation but this was for a STOPPING train following another STOPPING train- this was not that which was asked.

In part b) i) you calculated non stopping headway for 4 aspects spaced at 1100m. The question asked for the headway at minimum spacing which is surely the braking distance- there is no hint that you should have utilised 4 aspects. This comment also applies to b) i)

When I first looked at your answer it was without having read the question paper and I then thought it was extremely good. However then I looked at the question paper.
Although you would certainly pick up a lot of marks, you'd also lose a lot for having answered the questions you wanted to answer, not the ones that the exam had set.

As always READ THE QUESTION
DON'T ASSUME
PJW
Reply


Messages In This Thread
2008 calculations - by PJW - 11-09-2010, 03:36 PM
RE: 2008 calculations - by greensky52 - 16-09-2010, 09:26 AM
RE: 2008 calculations - by PJW - 16-09-2010, 06:01 PM
RE: 2008 calculations - by greensky52 - 19-09-2010, 08:11 AM
RE: 2008 calculations - by PJW - 19-09-2010, 08:24 AM
RE: 2008 calculations - by greensky52 - 20-09-2010, 04:06 AM
2008 CALCS - by Sid G - 08-05-2011, 07:02 AM
RE: 2008 CALCS - by Jerry1237 - 10-05-2011, 08:51 AM
RE: 2008 CALCS - by reuben - 10-05-2011, 12:01 PM
RE: 2008 CALCS - by dilip421 - 23-08-2011, 09:02 AM
RE: 2008 CALCS - by PJW - 23-08-2011, 01:32 PM
RE: 2008 CALCS - by PJW - 23-08-2011, 09:20 PM
2008 Module 2 calculations - by mahathiammu - 30-09-2013, 12:12 PM
RE: 2008 Module 2 calculations - by Peter - 30-09-2013, 02:51 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)