07-06-2010, 07:46 PM
(02-06-2010, 11:08 AM)alexgoei Wrote: Hello PJW,
Thanks. I understand your point about the contingency in deriving the technical headway being dependent on what the exam requires. Appreciate it.
I would also like to submit my calculations for the 2005 Layout which I hope you and other participants to this forum may wish to comment.
Thank you again and look forward to your reply.
Your presentation of the non-stopping headway is very concise and quite clearly presented.
For stopping, you have made an assumption that will not always be valid - ie that there is a starter signal near the end of the platform. In so doing, you have "saved" yourself some of the time that is wasted when the train is accelerating. If this was not the case and the train had to travel sufficiently far that it gets back to line speed, this part would be longer and the time at line speed slightly less, so you would find you are a bit nearer the mark (I think in this case you would be OK, but you have not proved this). Check that the numbers work if the station and the acceleration come just after the signal.
Your table presentation is good, but some of your headings are misleading. You have called section b "distance between signals" when in reality it is "distance between signals minus the distance it takes to decelerate".
Other than that, you seem to have done it well.
Peter