Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2018 Q3 & 4 attempt
#1
Hi all, another attempt which I'd welcome comments on.
25 min per question, Q4 is very new ground for me but I thought I'd give it a try.


Attached Files
.pdf   mod 1 2018 Q3 & 4 attempts.pdf (Size: 955.1 KB / Downloads: 10)
.pdf   2018 mod 1 paper.pdf (Size: 221.26 KB / Downloads: 8)
Reply
#2
Hi PJD,

Part a- you've correctly identified some methods but I would be more specific on how the principles work. For example I) you could state driver stopped at signal, speaks to signaller and is given authority to proceed at caution to next signal with reduced overlap. You could mention specific warning class routes for II)- signage might be a bit of a pitfall here as the question asks for equipment (implying technology). What about TPWS systems? You could discuss the cab based HMI for III). Additional information here without going overboard would more likely get you the full 6 marks for this element of the question.

Part b- I'd focus on the safety implications of the chosen options and any degraded mode operation conditions. It won't hurt to mention cost for part c.

Part c- I think the question is pointing you here to establish the risk assessment and option selection methodology for the chosen option. So if a UK mainline project were to embark on such an exercise I think its reasonable to expect a hazard identification workshop, HAZOP, signal sighting exercise, layout/ principles review would be reasonable means of determining the best option (based on establishing the suitable hazards have been identified and mitigated). The factors may then be the things that contribute to these processes, such as product acceptance requirements, driveability, stakeholder consultation with TOCs and FOCs, signal sighting constraints, layout constraints, frequency of use of the reduced overlap (based on train pattern/timetabling/perturbation. Speed, braking and SPAD history is well identified You could also look at cost here for extra marks. The mitigation may be the one that reduces risks to ALARP level, but in reality we have to consider cost, stakeholder & RAM requirements.

Some good stuff in there and keep the questions coming.
Reply
#3
(03-07-2019, 03:13 PM)REMBrum Wrote: Hi PJD,

Part a- you've correctly identified some methods but I would be more specific on how the principles work. For example I) you could state driver stopped at signal, speaks to signaller and is given authority to proceed at caution to next signal with reduced overlap. You could mention specific warning class routes for II)- signage might be a bit of a pitfall here as the question asks for equipment (implying technology). PJD Reply: Is this the general rule? I would interpret 'equipment' as anything which performs a function, not necessarily something technological. Can anyone offer a second opinion on this?

What about TPWS systems? You could discuss the cab based HMI for III). Additional information here without going overboard would more likely get you the full 6 marks for this element of the question.

Part b- I'd focus on the safety implications of the chosen options and any degraded mode operation conditions. It won't hurt to mention cost for part c.

Part c- I think the question is pointing you here to establish the risk assessment and option selection methodology for the chosen option. So if a UK mainline project were to embark on such an exercise I think its reasonable to expect a hazard identification workshop, HAZOP, signal sighting exercise, layout/ principles review would be reasonable means of determining the best option (based on establishing the suitable hazards have been identified and mitigated). The factors may then be the things that contribute to these processes, such as product acceptance requirements, driveability, stakeholder consultation with TOCs and FOCs, signal sighting constraints, layout constraints, frequency of use of the reduced overlap (based on train pattern/timetabling/perturbation. Speed, braking and SPAD history is well identified You could also look at cost here for extra marks. The mitigation may be the one that reduces risks to ALARP level, but in reality we have to consider cost, stakeholder & RAM requirements.

Some good stuff in there and keep the questions coming.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)