This is one of a set of three answers undertaken in mock exam conditions; eventually I have found the time amongst other priorities to respond- sorry for the time it has taken! (Just getting you accustomed to waiting for IRSE exam Results......)
a)
Good coverage.
I think I would have explicitly stated putting in some protective signalling disconnections (if practicable to do so in a manner that unlikely to destroy evidence).
In this scenario don't forget the equipment onboard the train- most OCs now have forward facing CCTV and all must have On Train Data Recorders.
May also have been worth up front stating some assumptions about the signalling (panel / VDU, any TD, any ARS?; Interlocking: RRI / CBI; type of colour light signal, type of train detection, level of train protection provided etc.) as that would have given context to your whole answer as influences immediate action / evidence preservation / possible causes.
b)
Not really enough for 10 marks here. Items 4 and 5 were meaty enough to stake a claim for 2 marks each, but think the first three a little thin. I would have tried to make them more different and added a bit more detail-
1 re-worded more to suggest that the driver knew he had SPADed having encountered the Red unexpectedly having missed the distant or having been distracted and was actually knowingly lying about the aspect to try to cover up
2. I'd have made more obviously that the driver honestly thought they had received a proceed aspect but had made a mistake at looking at the wrong signal due to reading across or reading through etc.
3. Phantom aspect so driver did really see what they took to be a proceed aspect even though all the signaling equipment evidence apparently refuting that. Consider route indicators as well as the main aspect.
However I might have wrapped all these up in one major bullet, having each as sub bullets.
Having made a meaty first cause under the broad heading of "driver error", I would ten have had another of "signaller error" with by far the most likely for this alleged incident being the inappropriate reset of an axle counter.
Your item 4 covers "maintainer error" but I'd have added a second sub bullet about not detecting deterioration (such as cable insulation) to supplement the one you included about an active error creating the fault.
Your item 5 covers both "new works application design & test" errors and equipment faults and I think I'd have separated as being different causes; the comment re train detection wrongside failure was worthy of being more than an after thought. Of course nowadays even certain axle counter products are regarded as being able to give false clearance of a section for a significant time period.......
c)
Your last section started well enough, but since you ran out of time it is not clear whether it was really developing into the requested procedure though.
There was probably a bit too much overlap with the first part of the question re the initial acquisition of evidence, rather than describing what one does to "manage the investigation" and the techniques to try to sort the relevant from the irrelevant, the reliable from the unreliable, piecing together the various sources to obtain a holistic picture in order to convert data into knowledge an extract learning from the incident.
Didn't really get on to the two scenarios in the last sentence to a meaningful extent.
A bit unfortunate that you also used numbers for the paras in the last section as it took me a re-read to realise that those quoted in them actually referred to the causes in the first section rather than to each other in this part!
Hence overall I think you might have got
Worth looking back at the earlier attempts in this thread and indeed the IRSE's sample answers that are referenced higher up; interesting the candidate's answer that they commented on also had a relatively weak last section and they suspect that shortage of time may have been the issue for them as well.......
a)
Good coverage.
I think I would have explicitly stated putting in some protective signalling disconnections (if practicable to do so in a manner that unlikely to destroy evidence).
In this scenario don't forget the equipment onboard the train- most OCs now have forward facing CCTV and all must have On Train Data Recorders.
May also have been worth up front stating some assumptions about the signalling (panel / VDU, any TD, any ARS?; Interlocking: RRI / CBI; type of colour light signal, type of train detection, level of train protection provided etc.) as that would have given context to your whole answer as influences immediate action / evidence preservation / possible causes.
b)
Not really enough for 10 marks here. Items 4 and 5 were meaty enough to stake a claim for 2 marks each, but think the first three a little thin. I would have tried to make them more different and added a bit more detail-
1 re-worded more to suggest that the driver knew he had SPADed having encountered the Red unexpectedly having missed the distant or having been distracted and was actually knowingly lying about the aspect to try to cover up
2. I'd have made more obviously that the driver honestly thought they had received a proceed aspect but had made a mistake at looking at the wrong signal due to reading across or reading through etc.
3. Phantom aspect so driver did really see what they took to be a proceed aspect even though all the signaling equipment evidence apparently refuting that. Consider route indicators as well as the main aspect.
However I might have wrapped all these up in one major bullet, having each as sub bullets.
Having made a meaty first cause under the broad heading of "driver error", I would ten have had another of "signaller error" with by far the most likely for this alleged incident being the inappropriate reset of an axle counter.
Your item 4 covers "maintainer error" but I'd have added a second sub bullet about not detecting deterioration (such as cable insulation) to supplement the one you included about an active error creating the fault.
Your item 5 covers both "new works application design & test" errors and equipment faults and I think I'd have separated as being different causes; the comment re train detection wrongside failure was worthy of being more than an after thought. Of course nowadays even certain axle counter products are regarded as being able to give false clearance of a section for a significant time period.......
c)
Your last section started well enough, but since you ran out of time it is not clear whether it was really developing into the requested procedure though.
There was probably a bit too much overlap with the first part of the question re the initial acquisition of evidence, rather than describing what one does to "manage the investigation" and the techniques to try to sort the relevant from the irrelevant, the reliable from the unreliable, piecing together the various sources to obtain a holistic picture in order to convert data into knowledge an extract learning from the incident.
Didn't really get on to the two scenarios in the last sentence to a meaningful extent.
A bit unfortunate that you also used numbers for the paras in the last section as it took me a re-read to realise that those quoted in them actually referred to the causes in the first section rather than to each other in this part!
Hence overall I think you might have got
- 4 marks for the first section,
- 6 marks for the second, and
- 4 marks for the last.
Worth looking back at the earlier attempts in this thread and indeed the IRSE's sample answers that are referenced higher up; interesting the candidate's answer that they commented on also had a relatively weak last section and they suspect that shortage of time may have been the issue for them as well.......
PJW