Attached is another attempt that I have been sent as it was too large a file size to upload and I have printed and rescanned at lower resolution. I think it must have been witten on quite thin paper orginally as there is some bleed-through from the reverse which I haven't completely eliminated.
I am assuming that this was a timed attempt; only two sides is certainly rather too brief for 30 minutes but conversely it is excellently legible and pretty well laid out so a good standard to aim for in these regards.
Read these comments in conjunction with comments on earlier attempts
Part i)
Fairly reasonable re purpose but tidying up on terminology would have improved; should have given more on process - rather vague in talking about "discussions between people of different experience and backgrounds". Even qualitative risk assessment has a bit more structure than that wording implies!
2.5 out of 5 therefore the most I feel that it is worth
Part ii)
Not nearly enough content here for 15 marks.
I am guessing that 4 different types of Australian level crossings are named, with only the most salient feature of each type really mentioned.
Certainly not clear to me which have audible warnings, which are automatically initiated, which are interlocked with signals etc. Answer did describe circumstances of traffic speed / density in which may be applicable but I think should have considered the various hazards and risks more clearly.
Think should have been considering things like:
a) Chances that road user unaware of presence of train,
b) Chances that road user decides to attempt to beat the train,
c) Chances that road user although aware of approaching train and wanting to get out of the way is unable to do so,
d) Chances that if crossing is blocked that a message could be conveyed to the train driver to stop,
e) Chances that driver of train could stop prior to crossing upon learning it is obstucted,
I think that the question was expecting a list of items / functions that could be provided at a general level crossing:
[road signage, rail signage, road markings, road warning lights, warning audibles, types of motorised barriers, rising ramps, telephones, lighting, obstacle detection radar, cattle / trespass guards, live CCTV, video recording to provide evidence of road user abuse to permit legal prosecution, railway protecting signals, cab-to-shore radio, track circuit / axle counter / treadle initiation, inititialisation by driver, crossings closed nomaly to road traffic / normally to rail traffic, speed control of train on approach, in-cab displays etc etc] and then argue what particular risks each could address and then in the various scenarios whether the assessed safety benefit they would give was an effective use of safety money or whether that would be better deployed at that same level crossing but on some alternative measure or indeed would be better spent in addresssing some completely different safety risk on the railway.
With knowledge of one or more railways and the various types of crossing that exist on them that are effectively a mix-and-match of such measures, the answer could potentially be "reverse-engineered" from what you know a particular railway has settled upon as its assessment of the optimum balance of cost and residual risk.
Similarly some more thought along the lines of "I wonder why they are designed the way they are" should have provoked some more useful content; in the UK context at least (but probably similar elsewhere) if the barriers droop for any reason then both the boom lights and the normal flashing road lights become illuminated to offset the risk of a vehicle striking a barrier than is not correctly in the fully raised position; if the power fails at an automatic level crossing then the booms fall by gravity etc etc- this should provoke you into thinking of the risks that are being addressed by the design.
Hence although what was written appears good to me as far as it went, it didn't really tackle the real heart of the question. Knowledge of level crossings seems reasonable, knowledge of risk assessment seems reasonable but, although tantalising close at times, didn't seem to fully connect with the question.
Hence 8 out of 15 for this portion is as much as I'd award.
Part iii)
Missed the main rationale being the comparison of the financial costs of implementing a grade separation (typically very high initial cost but generally quite low on going cost) compared with that of a level crossing. The safety benefits and ALARP solution should have featured strongly and indeed to annual maintenance and circa 20 year renewal costs of the level crossing also make a significant contribution. The factors in the answer are certainly also important, particularly the costs of delays both to road and rail traffic and this leads to the answer that it is appropriate when:
a) it is the solution needed to eliminate intolerable risks,
b) it is the ALARP solution to mitigate tolerable risks
c) it can be financially justified by the additional economic benefits it brings to the country (which can take account of the safety benefit as just one of the elements that contribute to the overall most cost effective option)
Felt this portion therefore just under a pass and therefore 2 out of 5.
The answer offered was somewhat lacking in detail and certainly did not seek to explain the rationale; more stated as a matter of fact. It needed to be more closely aligned with the initial part of the question.
Overall therefore just about scrape a Pass I think. An extra half page addressing the middle part as indicated above would have made a significant improvement to the score. However it isn't just about quantity; there needed to be demonstration of understanding and the answer didn't convey. The separate facets of the question were generally addressed adequately if not particularly well, but the thing that seemed most lacking was the recognition of the direction of the question as an entity.
I am assuming that this was a timed attempt; only two sides is certainly rather too brief for 30 minutes but conversely it is excellently legible and pretty well laid out so a good standard to aim for in these regards.
Read these comments in conjunction with comments on earlier attempts
Part i)
Fairly reasonable re purpose but tidying up on terminology would have improved; should have given more on process - rather vague in talking about "discussions between people of different experience and backgrounds". Even qualitative risk assessment has a bit more structure than that wording implies!
2.5 out of 5 therefore the most I feel that it is worth
Part ii)
Not nearly enough content here for 15 marks.
I am guessing that 4 different types of Australian level crossings are named, with only the most salient feature of each type really mentioned.
Certainly not clear to me which have audible warnings, which are automatically initiated, which are interlocked with signals etc. Answer did describe circumstances of traffic speed / density in which may be applicable but I think should have considered the various hazards and risks more clearly.
Think should have been considering things like:
a) Chances that road user unaware of presence of train,
b) Chances that road user decides to attempt to beat the train,
c) Chances that road user although aware of approaching train and wanting to get out of the way is unable to do so,
d) Chances that if crossing is blocked that a message could be conveyed to the train driver to stop,
e) Chances that driver of train could stop prior to crossing upon learning it is obstucted,
I think that the question was expecting a list of items / functions that could be provided at a general level crossing:
[road signage, rail signage, road markings, road warning lights, warning audibles, types of motorised barriers, rising ramps, telephones, lighting, obstacle detection radar, cattle / trespass guards, live CCTV, video recording to provide evidence of road user abuse to permit legal prosecution, railway protecting signals, cab-to-shore radio, track circuit / axle counter / treadle initiation, inititialisation by driver, crossings closed nomaly to road traffic / normally to rail traffic, speed control of train on approach, in-cab displays etc etc] and then argue what particular risks each could address and then in the various scenarios whether the assessed safety benefit they would give was an effective use of safety money or whether that would be better deployed at that same level crossing but on some alternative measure or indeed would be better spent in addresssing some completely different safety risk on the railway.
With knowledge of one or more railways and the various types of crossing that exist on them that are effectively a mix-and-match of such measures, the answer could potentially be "reverse-engineered" from what you know a particular railway has settled upon as its assessment of the optimum balance of cost and residual risk.
Similarly some more thought along the lines of "I wonder why they are designed the way they are" should have provoked some more useful content; in the UK context at least (but probably similar elsewhere) if the barriers droop for any reason then both the boom lights and the normal flashing road lights become illuminated to offset the risk of a vehicle striking a barrier than is not correctly in the fully raised position; if the power fails at an automatic level crossing then the booms fall by gravity etc etc- this should provoke you into thinking of the risks that are being addressed by the design.
Hence although what was written appears good to me as far as it went, it didn't really tackle the real heart of the question. Knowledge of level crossings seems reasonable, knowledge of risk assessment seems reasonable but, although tantalising close at times, didn't seem to fully connect with the question.
Hence 8 out of 15 for this portion is as much as I'd award.
Part iii)
Missed the main rationale being the comparison of the financial costs of implementing a grade separation (typically very high initial cost but generally quite low on going cost) compared with that of a level crossing. The safety benefits and ALARP solution should have featured strongly and indeed to annual maintenance and circa 20 year renewal costs of the level crossing also make a significant contribution. The factors in the answer are certainly also important, particularly the costs of delays both to road and rail traffic and this leads to the answer that it is appropriate when:
a) it is the solution needed to eliminate intolerable risks,
b) it is the ALARP solution to mitigate tolerable risks
c) it can be financially justified by the additional economic benefits it brings to the country (which can take account of the safety benefit as just one of the elements that contribute to the overall most cost effective option)
Felt this portion therefore just under a pass and therefore 2 out of 5.
The answer offered was somewhat lacking in detail and certainly did not seek to explain the rationale; more stated as a matter of fact. It needed to be more closely aligned with the initial part of the question.
Overall therefore just about scrape a Pass I think. An extra half page addressing the middle part as indicated above would have made a significant improvement to the score. However it isn't just about quantity; there needed to be demonstration of understanding and the answer didn't convey. The separate facets of the question were generally addressed adequately if not particularly well, but the thing that seemed most lacking was the recognition of the direction of the question as an entity.
PJW