(06-02-2010, 08:44 PM)nicklawford Wrote: Q6 : Discuss how legislation, standards and good practice contribute to the safety of the railway system. [25 marks]
Immediately I think ''how long is a piece of string ?'' .
I would not attempt that. IMHO way way too wide to deal with in 30 mins under exam pressure. I have no idea what the examiner might be after, and there are far too many avenues of digression to go up and waste a lot of time on one aspect, and lose marks.
I decided that right away - as soon as I read the question - nay nay and thrice nay for me.
Is this a good sign - eliminate right away what not to start on ??
Or am I being too hasty there - have past exams shown that is a good one to attempt by the very fact that it *is* wide and a chance to lay down generic knowledge without detailed background in any discipline ?
Nick
Some like the short questions: they take less time to read- particularly if English not your first language this can be important as less daunting). The more detailed a question, inevitably the more country / railway specific it tends to be. Also it gives you the widest scope to interpret as you wish; one person's freedom is the other person's agoraphobia.
You are right that a candidate might think that it gives them "carte blanche" t write anything pertinent to legislation and railways and if their answer is just detail of one thing that they know about they may think they have done well but actually they would score very badly. Perhaps it is easier with more detailed questions that tend to "guide the answer" to be sure that you are not "straying from the path"; however provided you treat these questions sensibly id does give you the freedom "to go where you will"; the examiner can scarcely say you are "off limits" when the question is so open- if it is a reasonable interpretation then the examiner will award the marks even if you have gone in some unexpected direction.
However you must be sure, as ever, to really answer the question asked- make sure you give some detail where appropriate but above all concentrate on breadth of answer.
If a candidate quoted long list of items of legislation by title / year then few marks would be given. Conversely if lots of gory detail is given on quoting clauses from say "The Railway Safety Regulations 1999" then again this will gain few marks.
An answer however that is considering UK Mainline might be expected to make mention of this legislation and give examples of the primary changes which it introduced which I regard as a) effectively mandating the Train Protection and Warning System as the minimum mitigation to control the risk of overrun following a Signal passed At Danger, requiring (with a few exceptions) central door locking for passenger trains and the phasing out of old fashioned rolling stock consisting fundamentally of a lightweight body on a heavy chassis to get the much greater crash resistance afforded by tubular constructions where the strength is in the body shell.
An answer which looked in this level of detail at the wide range of legislation which applies to railways would I am sure do well and it would be easy enough in such an answer for a candidate to gloss over a particular area of ignorance- if you give the detail for many but then just the title of another then you
PJW