Hi inciduntveniam,Your arithmetic is actually perfect. In
2 hours Train A really does travel only
30 × 2 = 60 miles, and yes, that's short of the
90 miles from the first meeting point to Baltimore. So your numbers are right - the issue is what you expect the
second meeting to look like.
The hidden assumption to drop: you're picturing the second meeting as A having to push all the way to Baltimore. It doesn't.
Train A never reaches Baltimore by the second meeting - and it doesn't need to.
Here's what actually happens. Train B is the fast one (
90 mph):
- By
t = 4/3 hr, B has covered its full
120 miles and arrives at Washington D.C.
- B turns around there and races back toward Baltimore.
- Meanwhile A is crawling forward, only
40 miles from D.C. at that moment.
- B then
catches up to A from behind and overtakes it.
That catch-up
is the second meeting. It's not a head-on meeting like the first one - it's the faster train lapping back and reaching the slower train.
Check the positions at t = 2 hr (measuring from D.C.):- Train A:
60 miles from D.C. (
30 × 2).
- Train B: traveled
180 miles total (
90 × 2) - that's
120 miles to D.C., then
60 miles back - so it's also at
60 miles from D.C.
Same spot,
60 miles from D.C. ✓
That's why the "combined
240 miles" shortcut works:
together they've covered the route twice, but A only owes
60 of those miles and B owes the other
180. The distance between the two meeting points is
60 − 30 = 30 miles - answer
B.
Answer: Binciduntveniam
The first meeting point was 30 miles from DC and and if in the next 2 hours they travel 240 miles then A's distance travelled is 2*30= 60 miles but isn't the difference from the first meeting point to baltimore 120- 30 = 90 miles so in 2 hours A wouldn't even have reached baltimore because he travelled only 60 miles?