Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2010 Q2 Rolling Stock length change
#3
Hi PJW,

Thanks for your comments. I agree could make a mention of signal sighting re cab sight lines, but I would think this statement would not be specifically addressing any part of the question - it could be a statement that affirms the examiner that I actually do understand the issue? In the exam scenario do you think any marks would be given for making such a statement?

For your convenience I attach the question here:

A railway operates an urban and inter-urban rail service utilising lineside signals at speeds up
to 100MPH (160km/h). It is proposed to replace the current 144m long trains with trains of
184m length.

Identify three issues of infrastructure compatibility which need to be considered. [3 marks]

At stations, the stopping positions are going to be closer to the existing signals. The
administration is considering moving the signals or extending the platforms in the rear.
Describe the advantages, disadvantages and commercial implications of the two options.
[10 marks]

At two locations it is not possible to relocate the signal or extend the platform, requiring the
train to stop approximately 1.5m from the signal. Describe two possible solutions to enable the
train driver to be fully aware of the signal aspect taking account of modern multiple unit design
features such as restricted visibility. (Novel, practical solutions will achieve extra credit).
[12 marks]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: 2010 Q2 Rolling Stock length change - by PJW - 01-09-2014, 10:19 PM
RE: 2010 Q2 Rolling Stock length change - by greatnessjason - 02-09-2014, 03:57 AM
RE: 2010 Q2 Rolling Stock length change - by PJW - 02-09-2014, 09:19 PM
RE: 2010 Q2 Rolling Stock length change - by PJW - 19-09-2017, 10:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)