2008 questions SPAD

[PJW]

hi all,
I have attempted some questions from the 2008 paper. Any comments would be welcome.

hopefully someone else will comment upon your second answer but otherwise I'll attempt to return to it in a few days.

See the attachment on the original post for the attemped answer

Q6:
I think the answer started well, though perhaps it may have been better to have started by doing immediatel what was actually asked to DESCRIBE A METHODOLOGY- you did but only later on- and to have worked this into your answer a bit later.

Indeed I did feel that you almost answered the question backwards throughout; for example the reduction in the likelihood of SPAD would be more logically discussed before attempting to limit the consequences- not only is this the chronological order in any event but from a risk perspective efforts should initially be directed at reducing the incidence of hazard. If a SPAD occurs, even if it is safely contained within the overlap then the operation of the railway is disrupted, there are delays, other trains encounter more red signals thus increasing the chance of these being SPADed etc.

Your description of the methodology was reasonable; it gave a good overview of a multi-stage process but I would have wanted more in the way of detail of the various stages. Perhaps you knew but didn't explain; perhaps you are a little vague- in which case see attachments for examples.

I don't think you gave enough either on the opportunities which exist in scheme design to reduce the risk. What you wrote was fine but needed a greater range of items particularly for reduction in likelihood. I'd also recommend explaining WHY; it is easy to say provide flank protection but to demonstrate you really understand a quick explanation of how a risk reduction is achieved in a specific example is really needed- an extract diagram can be useful. You made no reference to reversible working or single lead junctions; in fact it wasn't very obvious that you knew you were talking about where the P'Way's junctions are placed just as much (or indeed even more than) where the signals are placed on the layout.

I thought that the last section was the weakest part as it wasn't really cncentrating of the steps that realistically could be taken to reduce the risks on one specific signal within an existing layout. Obviously useful to explain that it is important to try to understand what are the likely causes and exacerbating features leading to the SPADs before knowing which items from "the toolkit" might be effective, but the answer should have concentrated on the possible actions.
I might have done a table basically listing a range of actions (some concentrating on driver awareness/ training, some perhaps relating to the signal(s) in rear of that SPADed, some considering on the immediate approach to the signal, some pertinent to the form and location of the signal, some relating to interlocking controls either to reduce likelihood of the signal being approached at danger or others perhaps locking a greater overlap ect to reduce the consequences); in the second column I could then have given some hints relating to the kind of SPAD for which that mitigation might have been useful.

Overall it wasn't a bad answer but it didn't really convince me that you really had much of an understanding of the wide variety of factors which influence the risks of SPADs. Either
a) you do have that understanding- in which case you need to learn how to construct an answer that displays your knowledge more clearly by working more specific examples into it and get used to pointing out the relevance, or
b) you don't yet have that level of understanding- in which case suggest you need to study more subject material to build up that knowledge.
Hopefully you will know which more applies in your case; feel free to ask for more assistance as required.