(19-05-2010, 06:42 PM)KonduriRaghavakumar Wrote: I had attempted this question with respect to the railway rules that I am presently working. please check it and give suggestions.
I think you should start with a sentence explaining which railway's practice you are assuming in your answer. Perhaps extend this to two sentences if need to explain something pertinent to the context of your answer.
Without this the examiner thinks: "Doesn't seem as if candidate answering the question asked. It said colour light signalling with secure radio system; answer seems far more like small mechanical signalboxes without any form of radio system."
Now obviously can have small signalboxes (VDUs, panels or levers) with colour light signals and there are a reasonable number of them in the UK but isn't particularly typical and therefore seems an odd way of answering question- if however the candidate is from elsewhere then advisable to explain this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were asked for 3 different methods; you appear to have given 4 which would be a waste of your valuable time. There would be 5 marks for each description so expect to take 5 minutes on each and in that time you need to cover (presumably pretty evenly):
a) description of method
b) manner control received by driver
c) effectiveness of the control,
d) impact on operation of unaffected part of railway
So perhaps the marking scheme is 1 mark for each and another mark which is available to be added to the most appropriate section depending on what was actually selected as some options may have more to say in one bit than others.
Looking at your methods
i) replacing signal is the obvious one but good that you considered not only the direct visual observation but also any automatic effect on the train via ATP etc. You therefore covered a) ok though briefly, b) partially, but c) and d) not at all.
ii) operating detonators at minimum braking distance. I think you need to explain how this is achieved- it sounds like having motorised detonator placers in conjunction with operation of caution aspect of distant signal. This would be possible but not a practice I am familiar with, but I could understand that it might be on another railway. Not quite clear why you mention adequate time- this sounds rather more like a signaller having to go trackside a long way from their signalbox to place detonators by hand- doesn't seem to be what you'd do if having a secure radio system. So I am left wanting more re a) but this time you did cover b) and c), though still omitted d).
iii) Examiner by now knows you are not talking re UK railways for sure, but yes a perfectly reasonable way to attempt t stop a train in some contexts no doubt. Again wonder if really appropriate with colour lights and radio system. So you gave info re a) and hinted at b) and said something about c) but not d) at all.
iv) Certainly a possible method but the sad thing is that examiner has no mark allocation left to give. The best you can hope for is that you'll be given credit for the 3 best of your 4 answers.
So you didn't write enough and certainly didn't answer all that you were asked, so your marks would be mediocre. There are some good ideas here about stopping trains in emergency but a feeling that it really wasn't quite the type of railway that the question was envisaging. The fact that you never mentioned radio at all, reinforced the feeling that not really addressing question asked. You do need to make sure that you make clear to the examiner that you are; if you feel that your railway's environment doesn't allow you to answer the question then you have a choice to make:
1. If very fundamental to the question then need to choose a different one
2. If not critical, then tackle the issue head on and in your introduction state that your railway doesn't have the benefit of such a radio system, describe two methods of stopping train in emergency and then say that if it did have the luxury of such a system then this would obviously be another good method in certain contexts- you are showing your broader awareness and that you are attempting to answer the question given your experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You now have 5 minutes to tackle the second part. I don't think that you said enough for the first sentence- you need to expand on what you said on procedures re how guidance is given to get the signaller to attempt in a certain priority order or what key factors would be relevant in choosing one method over another in certain circumstances. You did rather better on the second sentence of this bit of the question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you had 5 minutes for the last portion and you only wrote 4 lines which isn't nearly enough I am afraid.
The question was also about the signaller stopping trains in emergency and you were implying the driver contacting the signaller. You could certainly have made use of this by explaining that if the driver had an emergency (e.g. had discovered brakes ineffective) they could contact signaller who might then be able to set appropriate routes for the train or contact others to attempt to get them to stop instead. Also your understanding of a secure radio system seems to differ from mine; you i think mean that only railway have access to that frequency but it is a common channel, whereas in my context it means that the communication van be restricted between just one driver and one signaller at a time and so each knows precisely with whom they are communicating
============================================
SUMMARY
Overall it was on the right lines but too short; I think it needs to be at least twice the length.
It was however very clearly laid out so I knew which bit of the question you were attempting to answer at all times.
You need to address each little bit of the question consistently; where there are several elements within each portion then you really do need to do them all- they are not there as alternatives to do one or the other as seems appropriate.
Your railway context is rather different to what I am familiar with, but this need not be a disadvantage particularly if you explain a little more.
Indeed you could have made more re the fusee by saying that it can be quite effective in a relatively rural area with good long range visibility but not appropriate in city areas etc where there are many more obstructions/ distractions or where a station is approached around a sharp bend or through a tunnel. I think that the fusee must be some form of fixed signal at the signalbox (although I at first wondered if it was a form of rocket firework) but I am intrigued by the flame being ABOUT 101.6mm dia"! Presumably it applies to all lines and all directions and any driver should stop just as soon as they can having seen it (but you did not state) and thus there would be something for you to say re d) as it would therefore affect every train within visual range. You say it lasts for up to 7 hours but not that the signaller can easily extinguish it more quickly once the potential emergency has passed. You did mention the lessened effectiveness in bright sunlight but you did not say anything about the distance over which it might be visible compared with the train braking distance and never indicated the speed of traffic either. Remember this is a "Signalling Principles" paper and therefore concentrate on that; an effective warning in an emergency is surely one capable of stopping a train before an accident occurs at all, failing that a means to lessen the severity of an accident by having achieved a significant reduction in collision energy is the next best thing.
So I think you can see that I have lots of unanswered questions arising from just that little bit of your answer; had your answer addressed some more of these I'd have felt that your description was adequate and awarded more marks- because I am left wondering, I am left unsatisfied and therefore you'd get less marks.
So well done for having a go; it is only by practice that you can improve. This wouldn't have been a pass but it wasn't a disaster either. Hopefully you can now see some areas where you could have made an improvement by actually writing down what you knew anyway and perhaps understand a bit more about really reading very little bit of the question and working out here the marks are allocated within it- as that is part of the secret in passing the exam.
PJW