It has been rather quiet for question attempts so far this year and the exam is less than 16 weeks away.
Therefore in an attempt to kick things off I attach an answer which we came up with in the London Study Group last week.
To be honest I have difficulty with the second sentence of the question. The wording implies that it is just emphasising something which should be included within the initial question, but to me "the physical design of the railway" isn't something that I felt particularly relevant to what I assumed the first sentence was on about. For that reason I may well have avoided the question entirely within the exam, as I am not confident that I am "in tune" with it.
However I decided here to answer it almost as if it was a part b) of the whole question, which it certainly isn't, seeing as it is but a statement clarifying the first sentence. I have attempted to tie it in sufficiently with the earlier part that it does acknowledge the linkage, rather than just making it a separate question to be answered which I am sure was not the examiners wanted- it would be so easy to go well "off topic" by discussing "how the physical design influences the safety of the railway" and that certainly wasn't what was asked as I read it.
I'd welcome views of others regarding how they interpret and what they think the examiners were after.
Therefore in an attempt to kick things off I attach an answer which we came up with in the London Study Group last week.
To be honest I have difficulty with the second sentence of the question. The wording implies that it is just emphasising something which should be included within the initial question, but to me "the physical design of the railway" isn't something that I felt particularly relevant to what I assumed the first sentence was on about. For that reason I may well have avoided the question entirely within the exam, as I am not confident that I am "in tune" with it.
However I decided here to answer it almost as if it was a part b) of the whole question, which it certainly isn't, seeing as it is but a statement clarifying the first sentence. I have attempted to tie it in sufficiently with the earlier part that it does acknowledge the linkage, rather than just making it a separate question to be answered which I am sure was not the examiners wanted- it would be so easy to go well "off topic" by discussing "how the physical design influences the safety of the railway" and that certainly wasn't what was asked as I read it.
I'd welcome views of others regarding how they interpret and what they think the examiners were after.
PJW