Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Railway accidents
#1
Here's another attempt at a question from 2015 paper-Q5- based on past railway accidents.
If you cannot decipher my scribbles, just ask and ill try and work out what I have written too.

Thanks

T


Attached Files
.pdf   2015-q5 pt1.pdf (Size: 956.8 KB / Downloads: 14)
.pdf   2015- q5 pt2.pdf (Size: 970.62 KB / Downloads: 9)
.pdf   2015- q5 pt3.pdf (Size: 977.91 KB / Downloads: 11)
.pdf   2015 - q 5 pt4.pdf (Size: 798.63 KB / Downloads: 5)
Reply
#2
(03-10-2017, 03:01 PM)tfly86 Wrote: Here's another attempt at a question from 2015 paper-Q5- based on past railway accidents.
If you cannot decipher my scribbles, just ask and ill try and work out what I have written too.

Thanks

T

Only had the briefest of read through as I have much else to do, but it is certainly legible.

I suggest that in the description the text should have been more broken up to make easier to read and also think down to the essential stuff.  You need to focus on the causes so whereas it may well be relevant that
  • the Down train was a Turbo (not fitted with ATP),
  • it had actually been routed on one of the other 6 bi-directional running lines than it was timetabled to use (as a result of ARS and its short term planning horizon "2 greens ahead of a train" rather than long term strategic conflict management)
  • the Up train was a HST (fitted with ATP which did actually apply brakes before driver could have seen aspect reversion) it really is not relevant to the causes of the accident where it had come from (affected the consequences in as far as what drivers/ passengers were killed and injured.
Often "less is more" because
  1. You need to conserve your time for another question or part thereof
  2. If you put a lot of irrelevant stuff down, then it looks like you are just regurgitating knowledge rather than using that knowledge to answer the question that was set
  3. It is hard for reader to assimilate and find amongst it the things that they must guess you are claiming as the causes.
Hence a numbered list would have been better presentation- less words, more separation, greater clarity.

Overall though it looks a reasonable attempt and I did think presentation for the later sections was quite a bit better.   Did think you needed to put rather more about
a) signal sighting, Minimum Reading Time assessment, Obscuration diagrams
b) rapid reversion of signal aspects in emergency- ESOC, SGRC, POP Groups
c) GSM-R and Emergency Stop facility from signaler and from cabs
d) Layout Risk Assessment- SORAT etc
e) Driver and signaler simulators

 I am sure that the examiners would be pleased to see that someone chose something different from Clapham.
PJW
Reply
#3
Picking recent (living memory) accidents is not always a good technique. Picking something more obscure forces focus.
Cyclisme24
Reply
#4
(04-10-2017, 04:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Picking recent (living memory) accidents is not always a good technique. Picking something more obscure forces focus.

Alternatively, pick something that is very recent that you know about but perhaps the examiner's don't.  If I were doing the exam this year I'd have picked the collision at Waterloo between the passenger train and the engineering train whilst the area was being relaid and the signaling amended.....

It often isn't the accidents with a large number of casualties that are best for learning lessons; those that by luck have much more minor consequences or are "incidents" rather than "accidents" happen far more frequently, get less publicity but are just as important since in other circumstances could have ended far differently.
PJW
Reply
#5
(04-10-2017, 12:21 PM)PJW Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 04:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Picking recent (living memory) accidents is not always a good technique. Picking something more obscure forces focus.

Alternatively, pick something that is very recent that you know about but perhaps the examiner's don't.  If I were doing the exam this year I'd have picked the collision at Waterloo between the passenger train and the engineering train whilst the area was being relaid and the signaling amended.....

It often isn't the accidents with a large number of casualties that are best for learning lessons; those that by luck have much more minor consequences or are "incidents" rather than "accidents" happen far more frequently, get less publicity but are just as important since in other circumstances could have ended far differently.

Personally, I think Waterloo would not be appropriate; as far as I am aware the investigation is ongoing and the therefore the circumstances unknown (although I'm sure they already are to those involved). Without a published report the examiners would therefore be unable to check on the veracity of any answer provided.
Admittedly, often the actual cause of the accident is only part of what a question is looking for but rather how it would be investigated and what measures could be taken to prevent a recurrence are often more pertinent in the exam.

Waterloo will definitely be good exam material but I think incidents for which published reports are available would be appropriate. 

Best regards,

Mike
Reply
#6
The theory is those who mark exams are generally well versed in the "modern" accidents. If the root causes are missed or the candidate does not illustrate the, often broad number. of issues well, they could be marked down. After all, we are trying to ensure our detailed understanding of principles is conveyed.

Totally agree, the well known accidents, tends to be those with a large casualty list, are not always the best to illustrate a point. So, examples are Hull Paragon, Lime Street, Lover's Walk... the list is long!
Cyclisme24
Reply
#7
(04-10-2017, 12:21 PM)PJW Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 04:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Picking recent (living memory) accidents is not always a good technique. Picking something more obscure forces focus.

Alternatively, pick something that is very recent that you know about but perhaps the examiner's don't.  If I were doing the exam this year I'd have picked the collision at Waterloo between the passenger train and the engineering train whilst the area was being relaid and the signaling amended.....

It often isn't the accidents with a large number of casualties that are best for learning lessons; those that by luck have much more minor consequences or are "incidents" rather than "accidents" happen far more frequently, get less publicity but are just as important since in other circumstances could have ended far differently.

I had tried to find information on this, but as it is quite recent the details were still not sufficient enough to warrant any kind of attempt to answe the question. Can anyone guide me as to where the best source of information on such incidents/accidents is , whether small or large, for future reference.

Thanks TF
Reply
#8
(06-10-2017, 11:35 AM)tfly86 Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 12:21 PM)PJW Wrote:
(04-10-2017, 04:37 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: Picking recent (living memory) accidents is not always a good technique. Picking something more obscure forces focus.

Alternatively, pick something that is very recent that you know about but perhaps the examiner's don't.  If I were doing the exam this year I'd have picked the collision at Waterloo between the passenger train and the engineering train whilst the area was being relaid and the signaling amended.....

It often isn't the accidents with a large number of casualties that are best for learning lessons; those that by luck have much more minor consequences or are "incidents" rather than "accidents" happen far more frequently, get less publicity but are just as important since in other circumstances could have ended far differently.

I had tried to find information on this, but as it is quite recent the details were still not sufficient enough to warrant any kind of attempt to answe the question. Can anyone guide me as to where the best source of information on such incidents/accidents is , whether small or large, for future reference.

Thanks TF
Almost any formal accident report that has been written for the UK since about 1840 is included on this fantastic website

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventlisting.php

Even if you don't know what you are looking for, just go in and browse.  You ought to find plenty that would be of interest.

For the major historic accidents up to about 1960's there is nothing that gets close to L.T.C. Rolt's "Red for Danger".  Amazing book that it can be such a good read amongst all the death and destruction.  Just this book would qualify him as a bit of a hero in my eyes, let alone that he was one of the real pioneers for whom we have to thank for the preserved railway movement and also the fact that the canal network exists......

For the most recent and emerging investigations then look at the RAIB website (part of *.gov.uk I think now, but Google will soon find).  There isn't that much released re Waterloo yet; I wouldn't put too much faith in the editorial of a certain recent railway magazine- whereas some of the facts may be broadly right, a lot of the interpretation put upon them is flawed.
PJW
Reply
#9
Waterloo would be a wonderful response to many exam questions. It was, after all, an operational irregularity whilst running an operational railway in parallel to "works". Until the whys and wherefores are understood, using it as an answer wrt an accident would be not ideal. Root causes and not fully understood, therefore subject to assumption and guesswork. It will certainly be interesting to understand what went wrong and why but it does emphasise the safeguards necessary for stage works especially with frequent hand-backs often when human factors (fatigue, dark) come into effect.

Rolt's work is certainly a definitive tome albeit just an overview of a few incidents and accidents. Reminds us of what affect we each have on others!
Cyclisme24
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)