(08-06-2010, 11:33 AM)jbrownhill Wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I do agree I need to start expanding on the points I make a lot more. With regards to the signal in question 6, it does look to me that the signal is noticeably within the length of the platform when compared to the starters at the other end. I took this as a hint that this is where some of the marks were to be awarded. Otherwise, why not just draw it after the end of the platform?
Personally I think they have effectively done this, leaving enough space to prevent the diagram being too cluttered, although I agrree that they could have shown sightly better and I'd have been tempted to put the signal more clearly at platform end, even if that meant showing the points a little further away
My interpretation of the diagram is that it depicts points 5 positioned as close to the platform end as possible. The points certainly have to be beyond the platform as else it would be foul of trains routed into the siding. My assumption would be that, to maximise usable platform length (it looks very much the same length as the turnback siding and, by implication, the fixed formation train I am assuming is used), the signal would be as close as practicable - say 2m from switch tips to block joint and another 3m to the signal, certainly I don't see this total length to be as much as 10m. However such a portion of platform beyond this signal is pretty much useless, as do need to be able to get a whole length of train in when it is at danger- therefore I believe that it could only be as a nice-to-have in order to position the train more conveniently for passenger exit, it has little benefit operationally.
I am not saying your interpretation is definitely wrong; only that I judge differently, as per rationale above. Provided that you state your assumption and it is reasonable, then I am sure examiner wuld mark answer on the basis of that assumption.
PJW