LEVEL CROSSING UPGRADE- RISKS

[PJW]

A minor railway has a number of level crossings with public roads. Historically these were unguarded but in response to the change in nature of the surrounding environment had previously been given road light protection. Increasing road user abuse culminating in deaths had led to the railway committing a significant proportion of its meagre resources in a level crossing upgrade programme including the provision of barriers.
The work at one of the higher risk sites had been much delayed due to land acquisition issues which for a year prevented the installation of the control equipment; this was eventually suddenly resolved and the installation rapidly made ready for commissioning. Unfortunately the government department responsible for issuing the necessary legal order to upgrade the crossing however was unable to act so quickly due to reorgainsation and sickness.
The question is: do you delay the commissioning that had been arranged or authorise it to go ahead regardless of the official authorisation?

Discuss the various risks that you would need to consider. [18 Marks]

What factors might influence your decision? [7 Marks]

[JPM]

This is an interesting question. I'm working on an answer. I wonder what would happen if NR went ahead without authority.

[PJW]

This is an interesting question. I'm working on an answer. I wonder what would happen if NR went ahead without authority.

or alternatively didn't go ahead and then there was an accident that potentially could have been avoided....... this is indeed what this question is about. Thinking about the "what if" for those two options should aid you in producing an answer.

Is the question really any different having been worded to apply to a minor railway than if it had been NR?- if you think it is then this may also suggest something to incorporate into your answer. For the IRSE exam you do need to answer the question asked but it is always worth wondering why the examiners have included a specific detail and hence "read between the lines". For example if you felt that there was either some constraint or some opportunity available in the minor railway context but not in NR (or vice versa) then you could explain this in your answer thus showing the examiner you recognised the scenario was slighlty different. Not likely to change "black" to "white" but could be significant in determining the "shade of grey"....

[JPM]

I've had a go. Hopefully I've answered the question asked.

[PJW]

I've had a go. Hopefully I've answered the question asked.

It is certainly the best attempt that has been offered so far (!) but I don't feel that it really got to grips with the question. Remember that when the word "risk" comes up in module 1 then you should answer if in terms of "likelihood x severity". Some parts of your answer seemed like you used the word risk more colloquially to mean "chance".......
What risk is involved with the public phoning the railway? What risk is involved if equipment is installed but not commissioned?
You were correct to bring in the public perception, but rather too much woofle. Also bear in mind that the question clearly stated the causes of previous incidents as "road user abuse", so whilst the railway was operating a legally compliant crossing it was at least on the moral high-ground whereas if it made changes, albeit well intentioned, to an arrngement that was not in accordance with the legislation the lawyers would have a field day.....

Also your answer did not reflect domain knowledge of such a railway; you probably should have stated some assumptions about what you envisaging..... Even a moderate fine would probably be the death knell of the organisation. Why wouldn't the person who had installed the crossing ensure that adequate maintenance undertaken to preserve their own work in good condition just as much before as after commissioning? What split between "train operator" and "infrustructure manager"? Would it make any difference to anything is the people involved were paid employees of the organisation or volunteers?

Certainly one page of notes is insufficient to answer such a question adequately; the "risks" should certainly have been more than twice that of the "factors" given the mark allocation. The answer also seemed pretty hastily put together and not particularly well structured. Hence it is a useful input for creating a full answer but to my mind falls quite a way short; has anyone else got further ideas to add to these or can expand some of those in JPM's answer to give a fuller answer?

[bigcheese]

BTW it has now been successfully commissioned with the right paperwork from the government department....